Pickup artists, classy fellows that they are, are using Elliot Rodger’s killing rampage as a marketing ploy. In the comments to one of Rodger’s videos on YouTube, a company called Strategic Dating Coach offered their solution to prevent similar shootings in the future: send disturbed young men who can’t get dates to one of their coaching sessions!
While this response to Rodger’s mass killing is uniquely crass, the argument that “Game saves lives” is hardly new. To PUAs like Heartiste and Roosh Valizadeh it’s practically an article of faith.
In the wake of George Sodini’s murderous shooting spree in a Pennsylvania gym in 2009, Heartiste (then known as Roissy) wrote
If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.
The fact that Sodini had in fact imbibed in the alleged wisdom of pickup artistry, going so far as attending a pricey seminar from old-school pickup guru R. Don Steele, a self-proclaimed expert on dating young women, didn’t lead any in the pickup community to reconsider this position.
Nor has it this time. It is clear that Elliot Rodger was steeped in “red pill” thinking about women. And while he wasn’t himself a PUA, he was certainly aware of the basics of “Game.” Indeed, he subscribed to a number of PUA channels on YouTube and was a regular commenter on PUAhate, a sleazy forum devoted to criticizing “game,” not because it is manipulative and misogynistic but because it doesn’t work.
On the Roosh V forum earlier today, Roosh acknowledged that Rodger knew at least a little about “red pill” ideology – noting that Rodger referred to himself as an”alpha” – but still went ahead and argued that Game was the solution to massacres like this:
He is self-delusional and massively entitled, but exposing him to game may have saved lives.
In a followup comment, Roosh expressed his concerns for the real victims of this tragedy – Pickup artists:
I’m trying to think of ways our enemies will come after us because of this, but if anything, we’re the solution to this sort of murder rampage. This is the society that progressives wanted, where women are fully able to choose the top 10% of alpha males while shaming masculinity, leaving beta males with modest resources in the dust. Of course they will simply push a ban on guns, but this wholly neglects the cause. Seven people died because this guy couldn’t get laid … .
Other commenters were quick to agree. According to someone known as Moma,
Roosh has a very valid point. This will continue to replay over and over again. As human beings, our wiring is very basic yet primal. …
When have you last heard of a porn star shooting up a place? How many have emptied their balls in a hot lizard and then felt the urge to go and smoke 50 strangers?
According to Samseau, the problem wasn’t that Rodger hadn’t heard the Game Gospel; the problem was that he had rejected his salvation:
He knew about Game. If he had an account on PUAHATE then he knew about game. He was just a denialist. There was no helping this dude.
Roosh seconded this bit of wisdom, seeing it as clear evidence that “game denialism kills.”
Michelin, for his part, hoped that PUAs would be able to use the massacre as a publicity bonanza and a great “told you so” to all the haters.
One should write a mainstream article about this case. The argument that game could have saved lives can be an eye-opener and a smash in the face to haters of game.
Tuthmosis, the man best known for a Return of Kings post on the “5 Reasons to Date a Girl With An Eating Disorder,” reported his joy that PUAhate was getting bad press:
Seeing your enemies fall is a delicious treat you only get to taste a few times in your life. I’m savoring this delicacy with a cup of freshly brewed coffee. It’s a shame real people had to lose their lives, but I can’t help but think this will discredit a horrible website, PUAHate–and a way of thinking–that could have harmed even more men and innocent people. Beta losers will never go away, but this will wake up a few men and, more importantly, scare others.
Zelcorpion blamed “girls” and MGTOWers for giving Rodgers bad dating advice:
I bet a few girls told him that he only needs to be himself, be nice, be a gentleman, have a nice car, looks etc. – only to realize that it mattered shit. Instead of learning from the PUA-community he chose to listen to PUAhaters and some of the anti-female comments of the MGTOWs who themselves are often refusing to accept Game or even basic concepts like Alpha/Beta. I think that problem will become way worse, since hypergamy and promiscuity will only increase and most men will be left in the sexual wasteland.
But it took a relative newcomer to the forum by the handle of thedavidgt to raise the obvious logical objection to the Game-for-everybody solution to incel rage:
If every sexless beta in the world took it upon himself to learn game, approach girls, lift, dress well etc, would it not simply feed women’s egos and entitlement? So instead of occasionally getting awkwardly hit on by skinny fat, poor-dressed chumps, the average 7 would then be approached several times a day by extremely high value men. We’ll have a society of men working to improve themselves for women who will get lazier and lazier while at the same time demanding more and more.
In fact, the “Game saves lives” mantra is dead wrong, but not for this reason. First of all, there is no clear evidence that “game,” per se, works, except insofar as it encourages men to pursue large numbers of women and numb them to the pain of rejection. It’s possible that a few of the conversational ploys invented by various PUAs may work better than having no conversational ploys at all. But there are no magic cheat codes to “getting with women.”
There is one more disturbing way in which “game” may increase “success” with women for unscrupulous men: many of the standard techniques of “game”– invading a woman’s personal space, touching her repeatedly, trying to “isolate” her from her friends – may serve as “tests” to find women who are less likely to resist violations of their boundaries. In this way, “game” may serve as a quite effective enabler of date rape. Indeed Roosh himself has admitted to raping a date too drunk to consent.
So how much of a solution is training a guy who is already filled with a toxic mixture of entitlement and self-loathing (yes, these strange bedfellows do often go together) in some techniques that might help him to tamp down his insecurities enough to manipulate some willing or not-so-willing women into bed?
You might have simply turned a mass killer into a serial rapist, or possibly a serial killer. Ted Bundy was quite the charmer. Somehow this didn’t make him a decent human being.
Even if “game” were the beneficient form of “self-improvement” that some of its proponents like to claim it is, teaching Rodger how to be a better dater would not make him a better person. Would having a girlfriend solve all his problems? Hardly. Relationships require patience and compromise and mutual respect, and Rodger seems to have had none of these qualities. Instead of directing his narcissistic rage at “girls” at large, he would likely have ended up abusing a string of girlfriends.
The problem wasn’t Rodger’s lack of “Game.” It was his lack of humanity.
@racnad
Piffle! There have been self-help books and groups, social clubs, and such for a good long time, that didn’t involve “negging” other people, isolating them, or any of that other PUA crap.
“How to Make Friends and Influence People” was a famous book for a long time. I’m pretty sure it didn’t tell people they should treat women like objects to be used, or enemies to be conquered.
Instead of learning “Game,” learn how to be a good person, a valuable member of your community, and be interested in other people. If you then manage to achieve a successful romantic partnership, then that’s wonderful! If you don’t, you’ll still find happiness in being a good person and valuable member of your community, with lots of interesting friends.
Ken L: I am arguing nothing. I am simple saying that Occam’s Razor’s does not work in this case and that it is not just misogyny that cause these guys to kill. There is something that make these specific misogynists more violent then the rest. I honestly don’t know what it but it must be something.
So… by this metric no one who kills is really at fault. Because for everyone who does kill, there are thousands, even millions, of people in similar circumstances/posessed of similar beliefs, etc., who don’t.
Sorry. Not helpful. The opposite, in fact. What stops those other people? They don’t have as much hate.
That’s pretty much it. They are somewhat more thoughtful (the only murderer I personally know didn’t intend to kill anyone, which doesn’t mean it wasn’t murder, just that he let his passions get the better of his judgement in a gang fight), or somewhat less hateful.
Killing other people is not something that is a given to our nature.
Not proven. I’ve got a lot of history which implies quite the reverse, and some of it is pretty recent (Rwanda, the Former Yugoslavia, the European expansion into the Americas).
Because killing, qua killing, isn’t that strange a thing for people to do.
So the question isn’t how, but why. For Rodger the why is, “I hate women more than I think killing them is wrong”.
I’m going to tell you something which isn’t a secret. I got paid for being willing to kill people. I, actually, still get paid for having been willing to kill people.
I will get paid for that until the day I die.
I know, personally, a few thousand people who did the same (though not all get a pension from it). There are millions of such people (men and women) in the US right now. Some of the people I know who did this aren’t USians, but Brits, Canadians, Ukrainians, Germans, Nederlanders, Swiss, Greeks, Poles, Albanians, Russians, Romanians, Kazakhs, Swedes, Bulgarians, Georgians, and hailing from I forget where all else.
Being willing to kill isn’t all that alien.
Even if that was their sole mission (and it isn’t), the material they churn out is undeniably supportive of abuse and oppression.
Feeling ignored by women is not in fact that greatest crisis of our times. How about we try to solve poverty first, then communicable diseases (did you know polio is coming backing? fucking anti-vaxx idiots), then if we have some energy left over we can work on racism, sexism, and so on. Unpetted penises – not actually a top global priority.
It’s always, always about the MENZ and their neeeeeeeeed for sex, and how awful it is that the women (ie the hot babes, not those awful ugly other women) aren’t giving it to them. Not even “giving on demand” but “reading their minds and offering without the men having to bother talking or any of that hard stuff”.
It’s never, never about women, cis or trans. Or non-binary people. Or anyone other than cis het dudes, preferably white for the usual racist icing on the cake. No, they’re the only ones who have this neeeeeeed that overrides anyone else’s rights or needs or desires.
There’s a toxic creep on Pharyngula arguing for the “right” to sexual contact at the moment. He shifts goals like mad when it’s pointed out that his “right” inevitably means removing someone else’s bodily autonomy and right NOT to have sex with him.
In The Gift of Fear, Gavin DeBecker states that people will commit violence if they feel it’s justified and if they perceive no alternatives. Rodgers certainly felt violence was justified, and didn’t seem to perceive any alternatives. Occam’s Razor really actually does work here.
I just had an image of petting a penis like one would a cat or dog.
It was kind of appealing, at least in the subset of “penis being attached to the right person”, which cancels out all the MRA/PUA/incel bonerwhiners.
Suuuure you don’t want to defend them. Then why are you?
If I have to suffer painful intrusion into my flesh from an unpleasant, insensitive knob, I’ll step on a Lego instead, thanks.
Throwing beverages at women who you haven’t even informed that you expect to sex you does seem like a significant step up in the idiotic male sexual entitlement stakes. If the asshole hadn’t gone and killed people afterwards I’d probably have laughed, because really, how fucking ridiculous is that? Wah, you didn’t notice me sitting there, waiting for you to sex me. I throw my overpriced latte at you like a baby having a tantrum.
cassandra: What is it about this blog in particular that people who get their asses handed to them verbally, or just aren’t very well liked, just can’t bring themselves to leave?
I think it’s because we really hand them their asses. I’ve seen it in a few other sites where there is real debate on disputes. At a guess it wounds thier pride because they can’t just brush it off as, “clowns are stupid”. They know they came off second best.
Where the fail is at seeing they came off second best because they were wrong. They are certain they are smart, and so they can “show us” and we will have to respect them.
Or (as in one notable case) the urge is to prove it by getting away with socking. Most aren’t clever enough to manage that, and so they end up with a greater need to prove themselves.
titianblue: So Racnad, is your nym a portmanteau of “racist” and “gonad” or is that just a coincidence?
It is an anagram for canard.
Comment of the day. XD
I like Racist Gonad better.
Absolutely. I was just reading a thread on Jezebel that is now hours old. It started as women discussing misogyny and entitlement with a focus on being harassed at clubs and bars. Lo and behold, it was only a matter of time before the thread was flooded with Nice Guys whining about women being afraid of them and insinuating that it’s our fault we get harassed because being an asshole works and gets men laid.
It’s fucking disgusting. These assholes can’t even let women talk about frightening experiences with misogyny in the wake of a misogynistic killing spree. The important thing is sad penis. There is literally no topic that can’t be turned into “what about teh menz!?” It was a whole thread full of Rancids. I’m surprised they haven’t found their way here yet.
I’m really getting tired of hearing about men not getting dates. I just really don’t care.
@Ally S – Oh, my goodness! That is awful!
In my experience, if a child is scared and upset about something, especially to the point of being pro-active about looking things up and warning others, that is a major red flag that something is wrong, and something has already happened.
Even if something hadn’t already happened, the way to handle it is most certainly not to trigger more fears, but to work with the child to analyze the fear, and see how best to handle it.
See “The Gift of Fear,” and “Protecting the Gift.” Your instinct was telling you something. Your elders should have helped you figure out what it was telling you, and helped you to act on it. Taking pro-active steps often helps to soothe fear, because you know you’re safer than you were before.
There’s always fear of the unavoidable, yet you can take steps to avoid the avoidable, and ease that fear.
Example: In the musical “Kismet,” a man’s servants are telling him not to go to Baghdad, because he is a wanted man.
“If it is my kismet to die in Baghdad, how can I avoid it?”
“By not going to Baghdad!”
I think your idea of looking up the registered offenders and warning the other kids was a great idea. It should have been encouraged, and not ridiculed. I mean, we have those registries for a reason, right? If you’re more at risk on Street A than on Street B, and they’ll both take you to your destination, then by all means, take Street B. If Street A is your only option, then at least you go in alert and aware, right?
Sometimes, it’s unavoidable, and the victim is NOT to blame. In fact, if it’s avoidable, the victim is still not to blame. The perpetrator is to blame. Full stop. Repeat: THE PERPETRATOR IS TO BLAME.
That said, it does feel better to take some pro-active steps to tip the scales in your favor.
The fact that your loved ones would tease you about this just makes me so confused, and I hurt for the poor, frightened, comfortless child you were then.
Well, that’s Jezebel alright. They like to link posts that make promising trollbait on Kotaku, Deadspin and so on, because Gawker Media is about as respectable an organization as TMZ.
@Kim – regarding more realistic TV and movies – I quite agree.
Entitled people are already expecting too much. These unrealistic depictions make even un-entitled people surprised when they are face-to-face with the reality of life.
“What? Nobody told me it would be like this!”
@Nick Kavenaugh
Welcome! Have a welcome package: http://artistryforfeminismandkittens.wordpress.com/the-official-man-boobz-complimentary-welcome-package/
Same here. I don’t give a shit. Even aside from all the entitlement and whining and violence, the whole obsession with “a date” and “a girlfriend” pisses me off because it’s never about an individual someone likes. It’s still about women as a shop full of Barbie dolls, things there to be taken, not alive, not much difference between them, just trophies. It’s never about “I like X because she’s smart and says these things and is interesting and all that makes her really attractive to me”. It’s just “a date,” “a girlfriend,” generic. It’s the other side of the bullshit whining about what “type” of guy women allegedly like. They’re either too fucking stupid or too egotistical to acknowledge that an individual woman likes an individual man, and that the reason women they’ve tried to hit on don’t like them is because they are not attractive individuals. I don’t even mean that notion of instantly physically attractive; I mean they have repellent personalities.
Fuck ’em all.
::cuddles up to husband::
And then they’re all, why do women find being regarded as interchangeable validation-and-sex-dispensing-units so offensive? Truly, sir, it is a mystery for the ages.
@pecunium
Yep. That’s it.
Yeah, why don’t you ladies just give it up? It’s not like you feel anything, why don’t you just open your legs and make men feel good? What’s the big deal about whether you let someone inside your body or not?
::hurl::
@kittehserf
Yeah. I read their screeds, and frankly, I’m glad I don’t fit their target range. I mean, I’m ooooooollllld (42), dried up (Maybe, maybe not. My fertility has not been tested, but for various health reasons, I’ve been told NOT to have children), fat, and “ugly” (in THEIR opinion. I have plenty of pretty features, and there are plenty of chubby chasers in the world who would actively desire someone just like me, because beauty is subjective and there is no timeless, universal standard of beauty). I have short hair that is brown and greying, and I don’t really give a hoot about fashion.
Plus, I haven’t shaved my legs in a year. I’m going to before I hit the pool this summer, but that’s it.
Gee, I feel so safe! (snark)
Seriously, though, at least I don’t have to worry about these MRA/PUAs trying their pick-up acts on me. Anyone who does approach me has already passed that basic hurdle. Young, tall, thin, blonde white girls have to sort it all out based on each individual man who approaches them. That’s a lot of work for them to do, and they’ll likely be hurt a lot in the process.
Yeah, looking back on the days of my youth, when the jerks tried to pick me up, and then were shocked, SHOCKED that I wasn’t an easy lay… I’m glad that’s over.
@pecunium
That is answer I understand and never thought of before. Most likely because I find the idea that more hate is all it takes scary and strange, I always thought hate was the top of the mountain in that emotional realm. Being willing to kill and it being nature are two different things. I think of it in terms of man eating lions. Loins are not prone to kill man naturally but once they learn how easy it is they take to it fast. I think it the same way for people.