WTF is a MGTOW? A Glossary

On this blog, MRA does not stand for Magnetic Resonance Angiography

NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.

For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.

First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:

MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.

Ok, so what do those terms mean?

MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether.  I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.

Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:

Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).

Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.

Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.

The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.

PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”

Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2.8K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jumbofish
8 years ago

Obviously the context in which the word mangina is most often used doesn’t register with you. The word “enabler” doesn’t have enough sting, so we use “mangina” because frankly, we’re tired of PC doublespeak.

Oh please spare me from your male shaming crap, you care so much about men’s right but you could give less of a damn about men who don’t fit your standard of masculinity. Thats what you are doing here, trying to shame a guy by being too “feminine”. fuck you

male shaped creatures like you

male shaped? Again with you male shaming crap. I can call you a man despite not agreeing with you. Is that you you rationalize you hate? You aren’t a man therefore I can try to shame you! Its really convenient for you isn’t it?

not one MRA has posted anything even as remotely hateful as the SCUM Manifesto,

-the mra that wanted to cut out the voiceboxes of little girls
-dmk who wanted to force all women into brothels
-mras who suggest breivik’s shooting was justified

jumbofish
8 years ago

repostinggg

Obviously the context in which the word mangina is most often used doesn’t register with you. The word “enabler” doesn’t have enough sting, so we use “mangina” because frankly, we’re tired of PC doublespeak.

Oh please spare me from your male shaming crap, you care so much about men’s right but you could give less of a damn about men who don’t fit your standard of masculinity. Thats what you are doing here, trying to shame a guy by being too “feminine”. fuck you

male shaped creatures like you

male shaped? Again with you male shaming crap. I can call you a man despite not agreeing with you. Is that you you rationalize you hate? You aren’t a man therefore I can try to shame you! Its really convenient for you isn’t it?

not one MRA has posted anything even as remotely hateful as the SCUM Manifesto,

-the mra that wanted to cut out the voiceboxes of little girls
-dmk who wanted to force all women into brothels
-mras who suggest breivik’s shooting was justified

just a few examples

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

Heh, I actually did look up Briffault’s Law, and this site came up. So basically, all women only associate with a man if a man is providing something for her right now, and keep no promises once that benefit stops, eh? Wow, women must all be sociopaths.

On the plus side, the blogger on the site comes to the conclusion that all women are whores, so he and Tom Martin would probably be best friends.

Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
8 years ago

-the mra that wanted to cut out the voiceboxes of little girls
-dmk who wanted to force all women into brothels
-mras who suggest breivik’s shooting was justified

– the 100+ MRAs on The Spreadhead who thought women shouldn’t vote
– the FEMALE MRA who said that if a woman wore a skimpy outfit, it meant her body was public property
– The MRA subreddit moderator who wrote that a false rape accuser should have her house burned down and her throat slit
– The Reddit MRAs who believed that women innately have a lesser sense of justice than men
– the MRA who wrote that lots of women are conniving bitches “begging” to be raped
– The MRA who wrote that he would do ansolutely nothing to help a woman being raped
and the other MRA who seconded this
– The MRA who admitted he was a violent person, then said that if MRAs’ demands weren’t met, widespread violence would occur and he would do nothing to stop it
– The MRA who talked at length about detonating bombs in malls in order to kill feminists and manginas
– The 45 MRAS who upvoted that comment and the many more who saw the post but didn’t bother to condemn it whatsoever
– The MRA who said that women are like stupid children

And many, many more!

I can’t resist taking the troll bait sometimes.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

“Besides, what’s it to you? A men’s forum is a MEN’S forum. You’d learn a thing or two about (actually being feminine) if you looked at it with less hatred.”

Why would women would want to learn about “actually being feminine” from a group of men whose defining characteristic (according to themselves) is that they’ve been repeatedly rejected by women? If that’s the case, clearly most women don’t care very much about what those particular guys think about how women ought to perform femininity (since they already rejected them), so what possible benefit to them would reading MGTOW forums offer?

Shaenon
8 years ago

Besides, what’s it to you? A misogyny-mocking forum is a MISOGYNY-mocking forum. You’d learn a thing or two about (not being mockable) if you looked at it with less hatred.

Garrett
8 years ago

Mocking MR? I think I can do that 😉

http://www.reddit.com/r/Mens_Rights/new/

vklaatu
vklaatu
8 years ago

Definition of WHORE
1
: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2
: a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3
: a venal or unscrupulous person

vklaatu
vklaatu
8 years ago

I subscribe to Robert Heinlein’s take on humanity:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

That, comrades, is a definition of Man, by a man, and I’ve never heard any woman anywhere at anytime aspire to do all that. I’ve personally done many of those things myself, some much better than others. So as far as I’m concerned, unless you’re a MGHOW of some stripe, and bear in mind that I personally participated in the Men’s Movement back in the 90’s, to me and even many women, you’re basically just a male shaped creature. Note that I’m not attaching any serious moral stigma to that, you are what you are, and that’s all you are unless you wish to sets your sights a bit higher.

Male shaped creatures often enable female shaped creatures bad behavior. Grow a spine. Women are getting closer and closer to getting away with murder, literally, based soely on the vagina mystique alone, i.e. “oh you poor creature, it’s so hard to be a woman, we’ll let you off for killing your children.” Male and female shaped lawyers and judges allow these atrocities all the time, yet men routinely get exocuted for less. Double standards abound. Radical feminists are are actually praised as warrior women for spouting hate speech far more venal than anything on that site or youtube.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

It would seem Heinlein needs to add reading comprehension to his list to hekp your ass understand better.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

I’ve personally done many of those things myself, some much better than others.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

dude April Fools day ends at 12 pm.

princessbonbon
8 years ago

I know I have not aspired to do all of that because I have a life outside of doing a huge list of random things.

I did once write a sonnet that I used the same day for another assignment.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

That, comrades, is a definition of Man, by a man, and I’ve never heard any woman anywhere at anytime aspire to do all that.

I can already do most of the things on that list without substantial attempts to have super diverse knowledge, and I have skills Heinlein totally forgot about, like “Write my way out of a paper bag” and “cook”. It doesn’t change that he was stupid as hell to write it, though; specialization is an increasing fact of life, and it ain’t going to be any easier to avoid just because a writer stamped his feet against the future that week (He wasn’t exactly consistent). It does make his incredibly inplausible scifi less defensible though.

. So as far as I’m concerned, unless you’re a MGHOW of some stripe, and bear in mind that I personally participated in the Men’s Movement back in the 90′s, to me and even many women, you’re basically just a male shaped creature.

So you’re an asshole with a paper thin excuse. Got it.

Women are getting closer and closer to getting away with murder,

Statement assumes facts not in evidence.

Radical feminists are are actually praised


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

And dude, I look at Radfemhub from time to time., because of this very claim (that they’re worse or as bad as the Spearhead). NOPE. The worst you generally see there isn’t horrible to men, it’s horrible to trans people or the poor. They certainly don’t demand the death, rape, or enslavement of men on anywhere near as regular a basis as The Spearhead does, if it does so at all.

Polliwog
Polliwog
8 years ago

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.

That, comrades, is a definition of Man, by a man, and I’ve never heard any woman anywhere at anytime aspire to do all that. I’ve personally done many of those things myself, some much better than others.

So far, having not aspired to or cared about this list, and as a fairly ordinary and not especially accomplished twentysomething, I’ve unambiguously done at least 13/22, and have arguably done 17/22, if you count invasions in games, buildings made of Lego and the like, and building things that are not walls (I don’t have any particular reason to build a wall, but I’ve built things like bookshelves), and feel that the fights I had with my brother as a kid were “efficient.” (I sometimes “won” despite being half his size, insofar as I got him to stop and leave me alone, so I guess that was efficient of me?) I haven’t set any bones because that’s something I tend to think should be left to people with medical degrees, haven’t butchered any hogs because on top of not being a butcher, I gave up pork a long time ago, haven’t pitched manure because manure is stinky and I see no reason to seek out unnecessary quality time with it, haven’t conned a ship because I live in Missouri, which is not an area known for its abundance of seafaring vessels, and haven’t died because I’m not a zombie or a vampire. I’d love to hear how you’re ahead of me in this particular list, Mr. Manly Man. :-p

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

That, comrades, is a definition of Man, by a man, and I’ve never heard any woman anywhere at anytime aspire to do all that. I’ve personally done many of those things myself, some much better than others. So as far as I’m concerned, unless you’re a MGHOW of some stripe, and bear in mind that I personally participated in the Men’s Movement back in the 90′s, to me and even many women, you’re basically just a male shaped creature. Note that I’m not attaching any serious moral stigma to that, you are what you are, and that’s all you are unless you wish to sets your sights a bit higher.

Oh my sweet Jesus.

1: That wasn’t Heinlein’s definition, it was the definition he ascribed to Lazarus Long.

2: Having spent time with Heinlein, and with those who were closer friends of his I can tell you his opinion of MGTOW’s; you wouldn’t like it. For all the problems in his books, and the relics of his time, age, and upbringing, he would look at your “movement” and laugh, mock, and lambaste.

Because he’d think your premises were shit, your goals loathsome, and your rhetoric puerile.

3: Insofar as you want to take quotations of Lazarus Long to the worth of Holy Writ you need to take the work as a whole and consider as well:

Men are more sentimental than women. It blurs their thinking.

So, about that rationality you are trying to claim…

If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.

Got figure to back that assertion about no women wanting/being able to do those things?

What a wonderful world it is that has girls in it!

Why are you going your own way?

A woman is not property, and husbands who think otherwise are living in a dreamworld.

Substitute “partner” and you are close to Heinlein’s thinking, esp. if he had lived to the present day.

What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”–what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

Got those numbers yet? Or are you still peddling opinion as “truth”?

And… the one you will choke on…

Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up on the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster.

SO you ought to be pleased as punch that women are asking for equality. You also need to either retract the bullshit you were peddling, or admit that women who get special privileges are merely, per your touchstone’s words, getting what they ought to be entitled to.

No matter how you slice it, Heinlein’s words mean you need to sit down, shut up, and let the grown ups run the conversation.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

I can’t believe people troll the GLOSSARY here.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
8 years ago

^ Some people have no lives, or are desperately trying to avoid writing a rationale for their poetry. Bad CWS. Bad!

MollyRen (@MollyRen)
8 years ago

Wait, Pecunium: WHEN DID YOU SPEND TIME WITH ROBERT HEINLEIN? O.O

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

Molly: It was a longish time ago. I joined fandom in the ’70s, in LA. Heinlein had moved to Santa Cruz by then (Laurel Canyon no longer being strange/hippy enough to his taste), but he still came to town every so often. We belonged to the same club, so he’d be in town from time to time.

When I was about 13 there was a non-SF based con, about the time Reagan had his famous “Science Fiction Writers Can Help Us Save the World (Western European/US Edition), and I got to sit down with him for about half an hour, just the two of us.

We had friends (Niven being the only one you’d be likely to know) in common. He was very aware of babies, and children. When my mother was pregnant with my little sister he recalled the general time frame of her due date and called to see how things were going, about two days after she was born. That, or he asked Larry to let him know, and so was able to be timely.

There are photos of him dandling her on his knee, shortly before he died.

He was a nice guy, prickly in some ways, and very much a liberal; for someone born in rural Missouri in 1907, and then the Naval Acadamy, etc. He was, mostly, a live and let live libertarian, with a moderate streak of taxes ought to be “for something”. He had some strange (to me/us) ideas about what women were like/wanted, but he would never have ascribed to the idea that they are fundamentally inferior, or grasping/conniving/evil/need to be kept in their place.

And his books aren’t him. There are chunks of him, but even those aren’t prescriptive. That quotation is, in some ways, the closest to “the genuine article”, but it’s not a checklist, it’s a philosophy. I’ve done (or tried) to do all the things on it (save, perhaps, “die gallantly). I don’t know that I’ve, “planned an invasion”, but I’ve planned my part of one. I’m not so great at programming computers/solving equations, but the rest? I’ve done them to some degree.

Which doesn’t make me better than anyone else, and wouldn’t make me, “a human being” in Heinlein’s eyes (and what is it that makes a, “man” writing it so definitive, our little MGTOW friend is a bit blinkered, but we knew that).

To be a human being is, per Heinlein, to be willing to try to do what needs doing (see that list) and to respect other beings, male, female, alien.

Which vlklaatu (is he planning to die gallantly, thus saving the world when the robot brings him back to life?) has failed completely to figure out.

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: vlklaatu

Oh, oh! I’ve shoveled manure in my day! I’ve done more than half those things without trying! (Does building the wall of my tree fort as a kid count? Is free verse necessarily inferior to sonnets?) Also, I’m cool with being a male-shaped creature, if being a man means I HAVE to die valiantly. What if I get a sudden heart attack? Or get hit by a drunk driver?

RE: Pecunium

Is there nothing you haven’t done (besides die gallantly)?

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

I can do it too!

A human being should have their dearest, most heartfelt beliefs completely unraveled at least once in their life, and come out the better for it. And… well, no. That’s about all I got.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

LBT: There is lot’s I’ve not done. It’s just that some of it is trite/obvious (I’ve not shot myself).

Some of it is that the broad strokes of things (what Heinlien was talking about), is the sort of thing I’ve done. So I am not a world class athlete, but I’ve engaged in serious competition (e.g. I tried out for the US Olympic Air Rifle Team, in 1984. I didn’t have more than the slightest chance of making the cut, but I had the chance to try out; and the slightest chance of having a career day, so I took a swing for the fences).

I read a lot. I try things. I’ve not got the discipline/intensity, to make one thing the focus of my being, so I get decent at a lot of things, and pretty good at some others.

What I’ve managed to master is learning things.

That, and making very accurate holes in things, sometimes at great distance.

crella
crella
8 years ago

A mangina is a man who ingratiates himself with women by spouting feminist beliefs, or a man who puts women on a pedestal, deserved or not, not someone who simply disagrees with MRAs.
Careful Boobz….look what happened to Hugo Schwyzer, and he was involved with the feminists a lot longer than you, and actually teaching ‘gender studies’, and he was considered attractive to a lot of them…he had all those advantages and they still tore him apart. What could they do to you?

Women eventually reject sad ingratiating ass-kissers. Your time will come.

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

Actually, use of the term “mangina” is rather pathetic attempt to shame and bully men out of supporting feminism. It’s juvenile and sad.

And come on, now. Using Hugo fucking Schwyer to drive a wedge between the commenters here? You really don’t know your audience.

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

*Schwyzer

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Nah, women reject attempted murderers. Can’t think why that put so many people off Hugo – I guess we’re just picky that way

Pecunium
8 years ago

Oh Crella, can’t you read what you write?

What is it that defines, “ingratiates”? I don’t hold feminist beliefs to ingratiate myself with women. I have them because I believe them?

What is it to, “put women on a pedestal”?

Schwyzer was (is) castigated because he confessed to abusing women. He was (IMO) tolerated far longer than he ought have been; because his descriptions of his actions were, at best, problematic.

If I were to do what he did, I’d deserve what he got. More than he got, actually. I think he was treated fairly lightly. He confessed to trying to kill someone.

The use of “mangina” is actually an attempt at shaming language. It fails because it rests on false premises.

1: That calling people names is actually going to make them feel bad.

1a: That “mangina” is such a name.

2: That all men fear the idea of being called effeminate.

3: That men who are in favor of treating women as equals actuall care (on a personal level) what the douchenozzles of the world; who don’t think women are actually people, think of them.

Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
8 years ago

“Mangina” Haha, get it?!

Man + vagina = inferior man!

Real men have masssive cocks and big hairy ballsacks, right?

Foxipher Jones
8 years ago

Thank you for the glossary; it definitely makes navigating this acronym-riddled environment easier. It might be worth adding the Nice Guy phenomenon to the Incel definition. I’m referring to the men who insist on telling people that they are Nice Guys and lament long and loudly about how women won’t date them.

The last bit of the PUA definition (emphasis mine), seems a bit problematic.

PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old female ploy of “playing hard to get.”

Is the phrase “female ploy” used jokingly or seriously? Clarify, please?

Thanks.

Colin
8 years ago

What a sad little blog.

http://i.imgur.com/ChRau.jpg

Snowy
Snowy
8 years ago

Not as sad as trolling a faq page, Colin.

jumbofish
8 years ago

As a male feminist I don’t feel particularly hated by men or women for me being a feminist. People have weird hangups about feminists but most people don’t tend to hate them. I have notice feminists who are women get the worst end of the stick especially with the stereotypes about what it means to be a feminist.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

I don’t get it. It’s saying women laugh at the “male” part and men laugh at the “feminist” part? Because I don’t see how it works at all the other way around, and it doesn’t work front-ways, so…

Yeah, no, it’s just dumb.

DAVE
DAVE
8 years ago

I do not know the labels, but I do know that I missed the bus, early on, no female friends, no dates, just understanding that I was looking at a life without women. That is just the way it worked out. Probably better for everybody even though I did grow up believing that I could be a good husband and a good father.

Foxipher Jones
8 years ago

You do know that you can still try to get to know women, right? It’s not a bus that only comes once. Find the right route. Pick a stop. Get on the bus. See what happens.

Aktivarum
8 years ago

Feminism – means an idea of what the state goverment should look like – Women means female human persons – Women (as well as men) are individuals and thus can be either for the feminist idea of goverment or for any other idea of goverment. Any opinion regarding goverment has zero to do with women. Women compared to equal numbers of men are clearly not even interested in the subject of politics. In voting numbers women could elect whichever american president they want since years back.

PUA – Your descripition is not correct at all. To put it in simple easy-for-all terms PUA is the male equivalent of female lifestyle-magazines like Cosmopolitan and Plaza telling women how they can be hotter by giving false first impression and also telling women they have the right to increase sexual desirability by these tips. PUA does the exact same things however while male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status. And no this does not mean “playing hard to get” It means not needing other peoples permission, having fun and giving value.

Nancy
Nancy
8 years ago

“PUA does the exact same things however while male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status. And no this does not mean “playing hard to get” It means not needing other peoples permission, having fun and giving value.”

And this is what is wrong with the PUA attitude – that it doesn’t matter what men look like. This is evolutionary psychology propaganda. Good looking men don’t have to be PUAs because women will approach them. Being good looking is a passive way to attract sexual attention and that’s why PUAs will have none of it – because it’s not manly to sit there and be good looking – you’re supposed to do something.

The core of the PUA belief-system is that men don’t have to please women in order to get women. They believe that men have to “game” women in order to get women. Because pleasing women is only giving women what they want, while gaming women is only giving men what they want. Giving women what they want makes a man weak. A real man tells women what they really want – which of course is to be gamed.

I’m just glad that PUAs for the most part are not going to reproduce.

Aktivarum
8 years ago

Nancy:

“And this is what is wrong with the PUA attitude – that it doesn’t matter what men look like. This is evolutionary psychology propaganda.”

Hoppsan!
Both those claims are wrong. You are confusing the method part (PUA) with the science part (EP) Since PUA is not a science you can say whatever you want as long as it produces results. This includes saying “looks doesnt matter” – however looks and style are clearly a part of it and what doesnt matter is what you could do nothing about. For instance a short guy is told height doent matter – why? Cause it makes him more confident.
Girls do not care whether its true or not. its the confidence itself they want.

Claiming EP say it doesnt matter what the man looks like is like claiming Womens magazines say hot women might as well dance and sound like chickens – What they actually say is when everything else is normal – a guy would gain more from power than from looks and a girl would gain more from looks than from power. Statistics show social advantage for powerful men – but not for powerful women.

“Good looking men don’t have to be PUAs because women will approach them”

You seem to assume I think women approaching me is something of special value. All it means being approached by her first is me not having to be the one who start the conversation! I still have to turn her on and I am still the one responsible for her feelings of comfort. PUA is the art of seduction – not the art of approaching and talking to people..

“Being good looking is a passive way to attract sexual attention and that’s why PUAs will have none of it – because it’s not manly to sit there and be good looking – you’re supposed to do something.”

Not at all. Being good looking is a way to attract social attention. The way to attract sexual attention is “being hot” (see writer Ariel Levy) When women wanna be hot they increase make-up and decreas amount of clothing. When guys wanna be hot they act more aggressive. Typical example: Rock stars… Where do you see successful female rock bands? Female Maiden? Female Metallica?

“The core of the PUA belief-system is that men don’t have to please women in order to get women.”

PUA does not have any belief systell. It doesnt matter why other people think stunning women want to make-out (Nor does it to most women matter why guys like a push-up bra). Just that they are doing it prove the point.

“They believe that men have to “game” women in order to get women.”

As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines. Saying PUA believe men have to “game” women is like attacking womens magazines for having ads about make-up, hair-extensions, wonderbras or whatever with the claim the corporations involved believe women have to “game” men with darker eyes, red lips, bigger chest etc.

“Because pleasing women is only giving women what they want, while gaming women is only giving men what they want.”

Not at all! Women are 100% free to have sex with whatever guy they find most pleasing. Whatever women find pleasing is what a PUA would need to do. Whichever guy she had sex with should be the one she thought was most pleasing.

“Giving women what they want makes a man weak. A real man tells women what they really want – which of course is to be gamed.”

Actually , giving women what they want makes women wanna have sex. Having sex without giving women what they want is impossible.

Howard Bannister
Howard Bannister
8 years ago

Actually , giving women what they want makes women wanna have sex. Having sex without giving women what they want is impossible.

…um, yeah, it’s totally impossible for gay men to have sex without first calling up the central office of women and making a sacrifice to the altar of ‘what women want.’ After that, they’re home free.

Amused
8 years ago

As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines. Saying PUA believe men have to “game” women is like attacking womens magazines for having ads about make-up, hair-extensions, wonderbras or whatever with the claim the corporations involved believe women have to “game” men with darker eyes, red lips, bigger chest etc.

In terms of advice, women’s magazines mostly print bullshit that’s obviously wrong on many levels. Thus I will agree that “game” is the approximate male equivalent of that.

In terms of ads, you don’t seem to understand what advertising is all about. Advertisers don’t give a shit whether specific products actually improve women’s chances at attracting potential mates, or whether any product, pitched to ANYONE, actually does works as advertised. What they try to do, instead, is create a sense of necessity, an expectation and an illusory promise through narcissistic appeal. That’s all. Which, co
me to think of it, is pretty much what PUA “gurus” do.

Howard Bannister
Howard Bannister
8 years ago

He seems not to understand that feminists specifically do attack women’s magazines for those very things all the time… it’s like he actually doesn’t know anything about feminism.

Whoops.

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

Aktivarum: As told, it is the male counterpart to womens magazines.

As told by whom? I look at the women’s magazines when I’m at the store… they aren’t about how to “trick” men into going to bed with you, so you can give them a “pump and dump”. They don’t tell you to isolate men from their friends so you can work them over at your leisure.

No, they say, “do this special something in bed so he won’t leave you”. “Ten tricks to keep your hair exciting so he won’t ogle other women”, and shit like that.

Very different focus. Or perhaps not… they both tell women they aren’t actually important without a man.

And the PUA gurus… they are some scary people, “Push until you get a “definite” no”. That seems to go hand in hand with your comment that it’s about not needing to get permission.

As to the EvPsych… tell me more. Any studies to support your PUA theories? Peer reviewed, with data?

Tell me all about it

Aktivarum
8 years ago

Howard:

“…um, yeah, it’s totally impossible for gay men to have sex without first calling up the central office of women….”

Thats funny! Since the context was PUA its already implied the sex is with women. You know that already so why do you pretend you dont?

darksidecat
8 years ago

Feminism – means an idea of what the state goverment should look like

LOL WHAT? Um, that’s hilariously wrong. Feminists have a wide range of political positions, though they do think women should have equal political rights-whatever they think those should be.

Any opinion regarding goverment has zero to do with women.

Are there zero women who live in your country? Zero women as residents or citizens? Zero women subjected to its laws? Even if you asininely ignore laws targeting women for discrimination, women would still be citizens and residents, therefore opinions regarding the governance of the countries where they live has quite a bit to do with them (as they are approx. half of the people).

Women compared to equal numbers of men are clearly not even interested in the subject of politics.

Didn’t you just say that feminism was a theory about the gov’t? Okay, you’re wrong, but you just contradicted your own definition. Also, women vote at higher rates than men, not lower ones. That sexism often denies women access to positions of political power does not prove that women aren’t interested in politics or government.

In voting numbers women could elect whichever american president they want since years back.

Pst pst women aren’t a hivemind. Also, NO, NOT MAJORITY RULES!!! THIS DEMOCRACY IS AWFUL!!! That each person has a vote, so groups with more numbers have more votes is sort of a feature…constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.

Aktivarum
8 years ago

Amused:

“In terms of advice, women’s magazines mostly print bullshit that’s obviously wrong on many levels.”

Tell me one thing then, why do women who get very well payed for creating male attention normally do the things described? Are you telling me you have better advice? I have a friend who works as hostess (Car-shows and stuff), why dont you tell me some better ways to get lots of guys to wanna have sex then? Cause that translates to money (Giving you the choice and power) Because that is the actual purpose and – for any reason – having a different goal does not warrant as valid criticism.

“Thus I will agree that “game” is the approximate male equivalent of that.”

PUA is the male equivalent. “Game” Can be anything as revealed by the book-title “The inner game of tennis”

“In terms of ads, you don’t seem to understand what advertising is all about. Advertisers don’t give a shit whether specific products actually improve women’s chances at attracting potential mates, or whether any product, pitched to ANYONE, actually does works as advertised.”

Well, I did not discuss advertising in general and I don t agree the products arent working as advertised. I see in fact people who depend financially/personally on them using them with success. My guess would be you don t agree with the purpose of the products and then your argument here is one of ethics – not function. This fallacy is very common for PUA.

“What they try to do, instead, is create a sense of necessity, an expectation and an illusory promise through narcissistic appeal. That’s all. Which, co
me to think of it, is pretty much what PUA “gurus” do.”

Actually post-Mystery-Style-era what PUA gurus do is 1) Have lessions regarding what women like and why. 2) Take students to clubs and make them do approaches , telling them how to improve what they were doing.

The most common criticism of PUA is not of function but of ethics. Most people think of love and sex as a game of chance. Their proplem with PUA is not that PUA doesnt get more phone numbers – I guraantee you – we do! Their problem is the fact PUA didnt “happen” to get phone numbers but actually had this and purpose and acted in ways that speed up the process and give a better odds succeeding.

It was the same thing when researchers wanted to do studies on love and romance. One senator flat out said (regarding grants) “bullshit, people dont want science about love” Well, there was an outcry about political control of science and the researchers got 80.000 dollars in the end – clearly its a difference between wanting love to be chance – and it actually being true.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

The most common criticism of PUA is not of function but of ethics.

Well, it’s both. It is grossly inethical to emotionally abuse people to get them to have sex with you, but it is also generally ineffective.

I guraantee you – we do!

I doubt you even convince yourself of this, let alone us XD

Actually post-Mystery-Style-era what PUA gurus do is 1) Have lessions regarding what women like and why. 2) Take students to clubs and make them do approaches , telling them how to improve what they were doing.

Wow, that totally sailed over your head, didn’t it? She explained to you how advertising works. If you think PUAs don’t try to sell their teaching services by making you feel you need them, you either suck at the concept of advertising, or haven’t actually heard its afficionados speak. To hear them tell it, trying to have sex with women without Game is a sucker’s bet which will never happen without massive amounts of effort and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain XD

I see in fact people who depend financially/personally on them using them with success.

The only element to this I’ve seen be accurate is that people are fucking brutal to women who do not use sufficient product, in higher class establishments. I know programmers who are harrassed for insufficient(ly fancy) makeup.

PUA is the male equivalent.

Of stupid crap about sex? Agreed XD

Aktivarum
8 years ago

pecunium:

“As told by whom?”

Me in the earlier post above. (Another context-based argument btw)

“I look at the women’s magazines when I’m at the store… they aren’t about how to “trick” men into going to bed with you, so you can give them a “pump and dump”.”

Off course not! They are about tricking men to want to go to bed to you giving you the woman power and choice whether she want free drinks, dating or sex – putting men in the role giving women whatever she think she needs. Since 40 years back most media want to empower women. PUA off course empower men but most people simply dont like gender equality when it refers to men being the part empowered.

“They don’t tell you to isolate men from their friends so you can work them over at your leisure.”

Well, women do not need to isolate guys from their guy friends cause when a woman wants to sleep with a guy, HIS friends are not allowed to do 1/10 of the stupid things a woman allow from her friends when I am trying to pick her up.. I asked several women about this and they often claim they try to “protect” their friends However they dont get the fact guys with lots of gf:s are better att handling this than guys with fewer.

“No, they say, “do this special something in bed so he won’t leave you”. “Ten tricks to keep your hair exciting so he won’t ogle other women”, and shit like that.”

Now you are confusing relationship and courtship. Every single advice in PUA as well as womens mags are about improving chances in courtship. For relationship advice you need an advisor who is educated in psychology and knows what the persons are like.

“Very different focus. Or perhaps not… they both tell women they aren’t actually important without a man.”

Actually, none of them said that. They say IF you already are dating a guy and want it to be exclusive this is what you can do. The rest was your subjective opinion regarding why they would say anything at all.

“And the PUA gurus… they are some scary people, “Push until you get a “definite” no”. That seems to go hand in hand with your comment that it’s about not needing to get permission.”

a) When saying “untill you get no” it implies you HAVE to have her permission.
b) The context of pushing until you get no are the kind of guys usually giving up. What kind of guys do you think the girls normally had sex with? Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no. PUA just analysed the situation and gave it a name.

“As to the EvPsych… tell me more. Any studies to support your PUA theories? Peer reviewed, with data?”

PUA does not have any theory – “A” stand for art..

But yes evolutionary psychology supports a situation where females who invest more are choosier in courtship (Trivers investment theory) It also supports that women when asked which guy is hottest use information not related to looks. Resarchers proved women statistics on attraction change with information on social stats. By having 9 pictures and asking women which of 3 guys was hottest women – without knowing it – show the same guy who had 4 on looks got a 9 when the sign said he had a different social status,

Researcher David Buss proved cross-culturally this is not just true for the western world but also true in different cultures. And then off course we have harvard professor Steven Pinker clearly peer-revewed and never without data on anything. Currently he works with showing how and why there is lesser and lesser violence in the world.

Aktivarum
8 years ago

Howard:

“He seems not to understand that feminists specifically do attack women’s magazines for those very things all the time… it’s like he actually doesn’t know anything about feminism.”

Actually I never said feminists do not attack womens magazines. I said they do not attack womens magazines because the mags give women more power over men by trickery (game). Also the attacks are based on the straw man fallacy. Neither PUA nor Womens Mags tell what you should do. They both tell you HOW you do things if you want to.

Free Will is the key to understanding this.

Aktivarum
8 years ago

Rutee:

“Well, it’s both. It is grossly inethical to emotionally abuse people to get them to have sex with you, but it is also generally ineffective.”

Seducing women is not the same as emotional abuse. In fact, people who are down with emotional abuse do not need seduction skills since they can simply trick women into believing they will one day marry and have kids. If they were ok with that they already had all the sex they wanted and would not need PUA

“I doubt you even convince yourself of this”

Thats funny cause it can only mean you give ridiciolusly high value to getting a womans number. Do you also need convincing when talking about hard things to do like the ability to ride a bicycle or cooking food? You know common stuff where contesting the ability doing it better with practise is just stupid.

“Wow, that totally sailed over your head, didn’t it? She explained to you how advertising works.”

We were not even discussing advertising. Also we are talking about human beings who have a free will to not buy the product regardless of the ad. One of the three researchers writing about Free Will is Kathleen Vohs, Associate professor of marketing so I am pretty sure they do know the subject.

“If you think PUAs don’t try to sell their teaching services by making you feel you need them, you either suck at the concept of advertising, or haven’t actually heard its afficionados speak. To hear them tell it, trying to have sex with women without Game is a sucker’s bet which will never happen without massive amounts of effort and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”

Well the fact is research proves very high correlation between number of girlfriends/ amounts of sex/ chilren, and resources – and only for men not for women. In fact women with better resources seem to be more likely to be single and childless. Which is one of the ad-companies most wanted groups.

“The only element to this I’ve seen be accurate is that people are fucking brutal to women who do not use sufficient product, in higher class establishments. I know programmers who are harrassed for insufficient(ly fancy) makeup.”

I was talking about women where the job is to attract people for money. For example if a waitress is hotter – she normally gets more money. If a singer is hotter, she normally gets more playtime sells more records and get richer. Observe Avril Lavigne who marketed herself as “against dropping clothes” on covers then got a few years older and made every feminist disappointed by – yes dropping clothes on covers herself.

Aktivarum
8 years ago

darksidecat:

“Um, that’s hilariously wrong. Feminists have a wide range of political positions, though they do think women should have equal political rights-whatever they think those should be.”

Well fact is two philosophy professors have analysed feminism and written books about it. Both concluded the same thing. There are 2 feminist movements. One for equal treatment of women and one for special treatment of women. Since women in general 2012 already have equal rights with men, the more active feminists seem with few exceptions be people who are AGAINST equal rights.

For example the Womens Center at Simon Fraser University went against the plans regarding a Mens Center. A gender studies person comments:

“The idea that the definition of equality should be that all people are treated the same is something that women’s studies scholars have challenged through research and theoretical work over the years”
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/05/03/SFU-Mens-Centre/

“Are there zero women who live in your country?”

Not at all, however women votes for several different political parties and this means what one woman likes another woman hates. Feminists supporting one woman is against a different woman.

“women vote at higher rates than men, not lower ones.”

Voting do not require interest in politics. According to several newspapers more women voted for Hillary Clinton that time when she started crying.

“That sexism often denies women access to positions of political power does not prove that women aren’t interested in politics or government.”

1) How often is sexism proven and how often is sexism just assumed? The Sexual Paradox contest the claim for sexism.

2) Many studies show women are less interested than men in taking risks and making sacrifices. How did feminists respond? They killed Larry Summers carreer.

3) When i said women are not interested. I meant if you have 1000 random men and 1000 random women more men will be interested (Measuered in time money) in politics than women.

“Pst pst women aren’t a hivemind.”

Never said they were. I said if they wanted to vote for women they can.

“constitutionalism is supposed to be a check on the majority if it tries to apply unfair rules, it has had varying success.”

Actually, The Constitution is a check on the goverment. Historically majorities was opressed by kings and churches (something u should know) making a law to protect us from the majority completely redundant.

Also the definition of democracy is letting more people be a part of making decisions. Not finding excuses to only let your friends do it.