Roosh Valizadeh — alleged pickup artist, ironic rape legalization advocate and big league Trump fan — has a request for our failed president: Protect men from naggy women, who are basically a bunch of terrorists, if you think about it.
In an “Open Letter” to the current inhabitant of the White House, Roosh begs for some help combating “the problems … that [have] resulted from a society that has normalized hatred of men and masculinity.”
Foremost amongst them: nagging.
Sadly, the average man today is looked upon with contempt and the source of all problems that women complain about (both real and imagined), even though they are the most privileged class of female that exists in the world today.
Yes, that’s right: women are “the most privileged class of female that exists in the world today.” Also, presuming that Roosh is talking about human females and not, say, lady giraffes, women are also the least privileged class of (human) female that exists in the world today, given that they are the only class of (human) female that exists in the world today.
So how did these simultaneously most and least privileged females put men in such a terrible place? With the NAGGING.
As you already know, once a woman successfully nags you into correcting what she perceives as a problem, she immediately begins work on correcting another, and then another, until you wake up to find yourself completely submissive to a woman whose behavior now matches that of a radical Islamic terrorist.
Be careful, fellas, lest your wife or girlfriend slip an improvised explosive device into your underwear drawer!
Thanks to the leftist pet causes of feminism and social justice, which were enabled by the globalists who sought to defeat you, the matriarchal reign of terror has culminated with all men presumed to be rapists and oppressors, and who need to be “taught” how not to abuse women, as if it’s a natural-born instinct of ours like eating or sleeping.
Being told that it’s a bad thing to abuse women is apparently equivalent to being run down by a terrorist in a truck at an outdoor market.
As a result of all this terroristic nagging, people may begin to believe that men are paid more than women just because economic data shows this to be an actual fact!
Once the culture has accepted the lie that all living men are active oppressors, it was easy to push other lies that men are unfairly stealing money from women by earning more than them for the same labor.
Next thing you know, incompetent women will take over the workplace and fire men with opinions about things!
The next step in correcting this “wrong” is for women who are less skilled than men to get hired and promoted over men. Relentless propaganda in the media and academia has so infected the workforce and female-dominated Human Resources departments that a productive man is one bogus accusation away from destitution. If his workplace has at least one woman, he can no longer share his opinions without fear of causing offense and getting fired.
It’s true! As a result, no men in America feel free to express their opinions about any subject whatsoever and have to be coaxed gently into saying anything at all.
The situation is even worse outside of work. Unless a man is prepared to wear a bodycam 24 hours a day, he is at risk for false accusations of harassment or rape.
This is why pretty much every man in America today refuses to venture outside without first putting on a full camera rig.
But alas, this is not enough! Because “women are highly eager to lie for personal or financial gain,” hapless American men are forced to give up on
relationships, work, and even educating themselves in university, simply because they realize how badly the system is rigged against them. Men have become second class citizens, expected to bow down to women simply because they lack a vagina. While women shriek of their safe spaces, stocked with coloring books and crayons, men are subject to attack from any space they enter, because of laws and institutional rules that have been changed to their detriment.
But, hey, he’s not complaining! Men, as is well-known, simply hate complaining about anything, especially about women.
The men who follow me rather take it on the chin and solve their problems than complain about their plight, but we still can’t ignore the reality that relations between men and women are the worst it’s ever been thank to a multi-decade push by globalists to invert the natural order and lift women above men.
It’s so weird that women don’t even want to accept that their proper place is beneath men like Roosh.
We now live in a culture where women want to replace the role of men in employment, positions of power, and even within relationships as they gleefully brag about the “end of men” and how the world would just be better if we didn’t exist.
Roosh is so right here! I mean, look how men are struggling to cling on what little shreds of power they have left in politics, as these pictures of recent White House signing ceremonies suggest.
I mean, just look what happens! You let a couple of women in the room and — BAM! — the next thing you know everyone’s a woman wearing some kind of weird woman uniform and Trump has been replaced by Hillary Clinton!
But happily Roosh has a solution to the tyranny that female nagging has wrought. All Trump needs to do is to starve the “feminist pigs so that nature can reassert itself” — by cutting off all federal funding for lady things!
“[S]top the government from acting as a daddy and husband to women,” Roosh begs Trump.
Halt any program that performs a function that a father or husband could perform. This means no free money, no welfare, and no “reproductive health services.” Private charities can pick up the slack for widows and women who weren’t pleasing enough to land a husband. I also urge you to stop any program that attempts to turn women into men, such as university sports funding or scholarship programs that push unqualified women into science. As a masculine man yourself, do you see any point in having programs that encourage a woman to leech off of free help instead of falling into the arms of a man she must open her heart to in order to receive material benefits?
That’s right: women must learn to submit to men if they want to have any “material benefits” at all! It’s only fair!
If you thought Hillary Clinton was a nasty woman, I wish you could see the attitude of a basic run-of-the-mill middle class American girl who knows that there will be no consequences for her actions because she will be saved by a culture that thinks she’s a victim and a government that actively competes with men to be her husband. It’s become so bad that there are now male movements which dedicate themselves to not interacting with women at all.
And what a tragedy it is that these brave Men Going Their Own Way have been fired by quit the women of the world!
But Roosh doesn’t want to seem ungrateful to the mighty Trump, and ends his little letter on an up note.
Thankfully, even if you do nothing that I kindly suggest, your existence alone is a great help to men, who will now feel that it’s okay to proudly display their masculinity without feeling shame for having the natural urges to compete, achieve, conquer, and grow.
Trump truly is an inspiration to all men who want to achieve positions of power without having any discernible qualifications for their jobs.
Roosh even gives props to Trump’s lovely wife, despite the disconcerting fact that she’s a woman.
Even the presence of your European wife may inspire women to rediscover their feminine instincts, of standing by their man as he climbs the ladder of success.
Even if she stands by him from hundreds of miles away because she apparently doesn’t want to even live in the same city as he does, for perfectly understandable reasons.
I mean, hey, if she’s not in the same city, how can she even nag him? By evidently driving his wife away from him with his completely terrible personality, Trump is already winning the war on nagging, without even lifting a finger!
@Jack
Yeah, all of that. Very well said.
@EJ(MJW)
Still in planning phase, but if Paulie wants to send me money I guarantee that we’ll both benefit more than sending it to Roosh would achieve.
Of
cucking* fucking course I’m indignating in a righteous way, mostly by saying “fuck” and insulting people. I’m happy in an open relationship with Paradoxical. I shan’t disclose more than that as I’m not sure how much they wanna talk about it (I don’t give two shits what they talk about) but I will say we talked about it in length, and I made it extremely clear on my end she has free reign to do whatever she wants and I am 100% comfortable with it. She needn’t tell me anything.This is because, on my end, I trust her because she’s an adult with her own needs I may or may not be able to satisfy, which I definitely stress because we’re currently in a long-distance relationship, and I’m not gonna hold her back if she wants to do something that I’m not around to do with them, not that would change if we were living closer or together. Do whatever, I love her reguardless.
(We, in fact, been together for over a year now. Please applaud and congratulate, especially her; she puts up with my rants about video games and cartoon shows yet still loves me.)
Anyway, communication about feelings is even more important in an open relationship because there’s more people involved and more situations that need to be maneuvered.
But in the event that you wanna close a relationship? Well, I have to say, you can’t be afraid to lose someone. If they are refusing to close the relationship even when you’re uncomfortable with it, it’s time to let go. If they don’t care about your feelings, they don’t care about you.
Imma address this specifically @Viscaria. What may help is discussing with your NF what she wanted out of a polyamorous relationship. If she only agreed to one because she wanted to keep her boyfriend, that’s bad and a terrible reason to do so.
HOWEVER, they are in an open, polyamorous relationship, so you may want to remind her that she’s likely allowed to date whoever she wants and still be in a relationship with OF. It might be good to try and encourage her to date other people if she is really willing to stay in a polyamorous relationship. She can have her cake and eat it too. Hell, for all we know, she might even find a dude and marry them and still have OF there as a boyfriend. That’s the beauty of polyamorous relationships, lot’s of love and commitment–if it’s an actual healthy relationship and not just some fuckhead excuse to sleep around.
Of course, if your asshole OF is suddenly uncomfortable with that? Well, fuck, man, you’re either stay or go, but you’re being a massive hypocrite asshole who I hope has something terrible and ironic happen to them. I won’t specify what, but whatever it may be, they deserved it.
Everyone gotta be on the same page in any sort of relationship.
*I think that may have been a Freudian slip. XD
*writing in a notebook* Punctuate…more…arguments…with…the word…fuck…”very well…said…”
(BTW, I know that isn’t the points that people are agreeing with but funny.)
Yeah, it turns out that if you hassle hundreds of women and don’t mind raping a few if they aren’t actually into the sex part, you can get laid. “Game” is 90% a numbers game, and 10% rape, which might be why Roosh is an admitted rapist, and if that’s your thing then you’re a shitty person. So congratulations on that I guess.
Definitely my bad for phrasing it that way.
Fun fact! ~6 years ago, before he had ever met NF, I was talking to OF about establishing with my then-new partner what would and wouldn’t constitute cheating within our relationship, and he said that he was lucky that he didn’t need to do that ever again, because he was poly and couldn’t cheat. And I was like… No? Like, explicitly laying out what is and isn’t cheating (as opposed to just assuming the other person agrees to the exact same unwritten rules that you do) is something that we learned from the polyamorous community, and of course poly people can cheat? I was informed that I Just Didn’t Understand because I do what society tells me to do. Okee doke.
I had thought that he’d learned a thing since, as he and NF have rules and stuff about informing one another about who they’re dating and etc., but maybe not so much.
Again, that’s cool. And if I’ve lost folks’ respect because of my shitty taste in friends, that’s also cool.
:-(. She’s been on one date in the 3 years or so that they’ve been together. It was with another woman, which I don’t think was just happenstance, and for reasons that have not been well-explained to me, OF was there the entire time.
Sorry, edit window. I don’t mean to imply that OF is restricting her from dating other people; in fact, he actively encourages it. She is just, like, 100% not into it. And his presence on her date wasn’t at his creepy insistence, but at her request. I think he should have said no, though, tbh.
Sorry if I’m posting too much. I’ve been sitting with all this shit for months and I’ve been worried that if I let it out people would tell me that I’m infantilizing NF and moralizing about relationship structures less accepted than my own, so having folks agree that it’s unacceptable is helping me feel my many many feelings.
@Viscaria
I haven’t read a single “moralistic” thing of yours in this entire thread. Unless “moralistic” means “caring to act when people are in pain” in which case call me moralistic.
…OF is a dickbag. To be perfectly frank, OF is coming across as trying to push NF around to fulfill whatever weird sexual fantasies he has. There is no reason he should have been present on this date whatsoever. And when you combine the bullshit of his you’ve already talked about here with what looks like NF going on a date she had no interest in with the oversight of OF, it really starts to look squicky.
Well here’s your problem. If we look at it another way “I don’t need to discuss boundaries because I’m policy and can’t cheat” becomes “I am poly because it’s a convenient excuse for my consistent choice to cheat on my partners”.
He hasn’t changed his shit, Viscaria. He’s just relabeled it and kept cheating on his partners. And the only reason I can think of for him to keep reminding NF that he is shtupping other people is if he enjoys seeing her in pain, and that’s just fucking fucked the fuck up.
Seriously. The way OF is treating NF is wrong. You can argue about whether he means wrong or not, but I think if he’s allowed to weasel out of responsibility for his choices here, he’ll just keep doing it.
OF kind of reminds me of my first (ex-)girlfriend in a way. She decided to declare herself to be bi, that way she was allowed to have both a boyfriend and a girlfriend. If she had heard of polyamory I know exactly how that would have gone.
I really hope NF gets herself out of that situation and finds someone who respects her.
@Jack
Couldn’t “being poly” refer to someone being primarily interested in poly relationships? While being attracted to people other than your partner seems quite universal, not everyone has the urge to actually pursue romantic or sexual relationships with several people at a time, right?
I think Roosh misses one serious thing here: Women don’t want a world without men, they just want a world without him.
And so do I… but darn those morals
@Paulie G
He has literally described rape in at least one of his books. His whole “game” is manipulating women to sleep with him, which is in any case only a small step over the line from rape. If you are a follower of his methods, then you are an UTTER SHIT, and should spend significant percentage of your time looking over your shoulder for the police.
Oh ho, someone’s a fucking dick.
If she doesn’t want to date other people and she doesn’t seem to like him dating other people, it’s time to close the relationship. Everyone needs to be happy and she isn’t.
She needs to realize that she’s not gonna feel any better about the relationship if it continues nor is he going to change, especially when she’s not discussing this with him or if he’s not listening to her. She’s gonna stay miserable with him not matter what.
Also, she can do way the fuck better than someone who uses poly as an excuse to cheat, I’m just saying. If she thinks otherwise, something is really wrong.
There’s a difference between advertising that you’re interested in poly or are in a poly relationship and using it as a label to describe yourself. It’s entirely situational and not inherent to a person because everyone involved needs to be active in it, ya dig? You can be poly for as long as your partner(s) are comfortable with it.
Regarding Paulie G, I think there was a different between PUA as a way to get consensual dates and PUA as a way to get laid no matter what. There definitely was a different between 5-10 years back in the internet PUA community when there was actual good information about how to pick up or date people (like treating people like actual human beings for one) but I don’t believe even back then, Roosh was a good source.
I think this is a fair video about PUA back then and modern PUA now. (The short of it, dude believes PUA has become really shitty lately and should be avoided.)
https://youtu.be/CFKBE0lBuzg
I disagree. I’ve skimmed for some of the earlier PUA information, as well as having (limited) confrontation with a self styled pickup guru – and it was just as rapey then. Take for example the concept of “pushing through” or “breaking down” “last minute resistance”. That concept has been there from early times, as has negging. It was always about manipulation – or very quickly morphed into that.
Regardless, Paulie G is pushing Roosh as a positive game role model. That is about as rapey as it gets.
@Jack
I’m not really getting this, tbh. If “being poly” means that you are primarily interested in a poly relationship, then you can continue being poly even if your partner doesn’t want your relationship to be poly. You can break up with them, for example. Another option would be accepting that you’re not gonna have other partners while this specific relationship is going on, even though you know that you would normally be more interested in a poly setup, it’s just that you really like this specific person and you agree to the requirements for being in this relationship.
Similarly, if I’m bi and primarily attracted to women, I could still happen to be in a relationship with a really great man. The fact that I’m not at the moment engaging in what’s normally my primary romantic/sexual interest, doesn’t mean my identity has changed.
Disclaimer: I’m speaking as a noob here. From my noob perspective I don’t really see any categorical difference between the two concepts. Having said that, I don’t know what poly-minded people feel, and I also don’t really know what bi people feel. Maybe there are even variations within the groups.
@IP
There is definitely a split among poly folks regarding whether polyamory is a relationship style, as Jack is arguing, or a personal characteristic, like orientation.
(Pretty much all bi-identified folks agree that one is still bi regardless of who one may currently be dating)
@Dali
Makes sense, but I don’t see why it can’t be both?
I’m single right now, but every serious relationship I’ve ever had has been poly, so that’s what I call myself. If you have to redefine me by your own standards, I don’t understand why, but fine, read it as “I only have experience with poly relationships” or whatever.
… Though this has nothing to do with Viscaria’s douchefriend, since I think we can all agree he’d call himself a friggin’ chicken nugget if it’d give him an excuse to screw around and abuse his girlfriend. Douches gonna douche.
I never liked chicken nuggets. 🙁
Yeah, that analogy sucks. The thing is is that you can also be bi and not date anyone. Woooooo! Interesting concept, right? It’s almost as if you, personally, can still have a sexuality and not have anyone else involved or something. Unlike polyamory. Polyamory is a choice, a choice everyone in that relationship has to be in agreement in, just like a monogamous relationship.
Just like you can’t go up to someone and declare they’re now your S.O. because you’re “monogamous”, you can’t go cheat on someone and say it’s okay because you’re “polyamorous”. You make a choice to date that person or persons and they must agree to it. You do not chose to be attracted to other or same genders nor do you need permission to be attracted to same or other genders. Two wildly different things.
I guess I’m also arguing from the point that it’s a relationship dynamic because there’s so many forms of polyamory and open relationships and it’s just weird to write them all off if you think you’re only interested in one form of one type of relationship that’s sexual and/or romantic?
And, like, having “poly” be a label–like, fuck, dude, what the hell predispositions you to not be opened to polyamorous relationships like being bi or whatever? Do certain people have better scheduling? Certain people less jealous? Do polyamory people need more than one person to satisfy them romantically or sexually or whatever? Can non-polyamorous people only handle so many people in their life at once? Are polyamorous people just less picky? Do people think it’s not as romantic to be poly? Are poly people selfish? Are monogamous people?
Like, why do you think you can only be monogamous or why do you think you can only be polyamorous? It doesn’t make sense to me. Is it because I’m fine with both polyamory and monogamy? Is it because I don’t think sexual and romantic relationship are as big of a deal as it seems to be in society?
I don’t understand. What makes a poly person poly and a monogamous person monogamous if it’s something people can or can’t do?
I guess I’m, personally, also lumping in how to talk to people you like and dating information in with that sort of PUA stuff because it’s similar to a certain degree.
@Jack
You haven’t provided any argument as for why the same reasoning won’t apply to the label poly. If you think the analogy sucks, then maybe you should, ya know, actually explain why.
Not trying to be too confrontational here but, what the fuck do you care what my predispositions are? Why do I need to prove to you that I don’t share your sexual preferences? Jebus.
Again, you could replace any mention of poly and mono in your comment with bi/straight/gay and it would make exactly as much sense. Being that the analogy apparently sucks, it sure seems to work quite well.
@Jack
Also, fuck right off with this condescending crap. Seriously.
…
Jack, why the hell have you been such a raging holier-than-thou arsehole to us these past couple of weeks? We’re your friends and you’ve been treating us like trolls.
(Sorry, Paradoxy, but Jack’s behaviour is really starting to hurt.)
I also am not very happy about being called “dude”, but I’m working with baby steps here…
Apart from the weirdly snark- and insult riddled comments, the line of reasoning just makes no damn sense at all. Like, what even is this:
Yeah, you don’t choose to be attracted to several people either. And you don’t need anyone’s permission to feel attraction. I’m lost for words. This is bizarre.
@Jack
I’m aroace (after a fashion). In my case, I’m less mono as nullo. Just 1 partner is 1 too many. Which I happily deal with, but limits are meant to be bent not broken. The same issues I have with dating a single person multiplied is not summat I want. Thus monogamy. Less that I refuse to date multiple people, so much as I don’t think I could without debilitating stress
Maybe not the answer you were looking for, but that’s perhaps the point. I don’t view being poly or mono as an orientation exactly. But I also don’t think anyone can just up and choose to be either or. Similarly, I don’t see it being useful to question why some people are one or the other. My actual orientation is just 1 reason I’m not poly, and that’s of the reasons I’ve actively been able to suss out. Maybe there’s more, or maybe, at the bottom of the well, it’s just how I’m wired. And, if so, it’s seems a perfectly good explanation to me