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.
Every feminist? i wasn’t disappointed by Avril Lavinge, I forget she exists.
I know men who voted for GW Bush because “he seemed like the kind of guy you could drink a beer with”. All this proves is that some people don’t vote on issues, but instead vote on whichever candidate they find most likable. It’s not a gender issue.
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.
You can’t just make up statistics to prove your point. Well, you can, but I won’t take your hypothetical study seriously.
The reason the feminists were concerned about the proposed men’s center at SFU is that the men wanting to start it up do not want to work in collaboration with women. That makes it look more like a reactionary “women suck club” more than a safe space for men on campus. Why should the school fund reactionaries?
Oops, the part of my comment “When I said women are not interested. I meant if you have 1000 random men and 1000 random women, more men will be interested (Measured in time money) in politics than women” was actually a quote from Aktivarum.
I always get a kick out of this one.
Let’s start with the obvious fact that the costs of taking risks are not the same to men and women. Financial, political and social success is considered men’s birthright, so men enjoy a far wider safety net than women when they take risks. They are allowed to fail without being written off as “typically incompetent” members of their gender. Men can expect, as a matter of course, that OTHER people will sacrifice for them in order to reduce the risks that they are supposedly taking: that the wife will put a dent in her own career to promote his, and spend all her free time keeping the kids from being a nuisance to him, that the whole family will move thousands of miles for his job, disregarding all other factors, such as convenience, personal happiness, proximity to family and friends, etc. It’s completely ordinary for an ambitious man to have his wife sacrifice her career for his and to do absolutely no child care. For a woman to do something like that is unthinkable, even in this day and age. Women are allowed to pursue careers and take risks, sure — as long as it doesn’t inconvenience the menfolk. And merely putting your kid in day care so you could go to work earns you buckets of rage from people who deem you a horrible mother.
The second problem with this statement is inconsistency. I like to play a little game with this one. If men are natural risk-takers, that means they take risks EVERYWHERE, including the family life; that if they are willing to risk money because it’s in their psyche, then it follows that they are also willing to risk ruining relationships, children and their loved ones’ happiness; if they are willing to sacrifice time to climb the corporate latter, that means they are also willing to sacrifice others. After all, you are talking about a propensity for risk-taking here, that’s valued in and of itself, not just a means to an end, but an end in itself. But as soon as I point this out — that being “natural risk-takers” would suggest that men make terrible husbands and fathers – proponents of this idea do a complete about-face. What hypocrites you all are.
Aktivarum: Actually I never said feminists do not attack womens magazines. I said they do not attack womens magazines because…
So they have a reason for not attacking women’s magazines, ergo you said (and admit that you said) they don’t attack women’s magazines.
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.
Ooh… an appeal to authority. I’m all agog.
Ah, the Simon Fraser University Men’s Centre, put into being with the stroke of a pen. One guy, who happened to be in the budget drafting committee inserted a line item for 30,000 dollars. One guy, without any appeals from an groups on campus, decided it was needful
Still, it isn’t just the women’s centre that questions the funding. Joel Warren, who represents labour studies students on a council that advises the overall student society, says students should have been consulted before the budget went to the subcommittee for approval. “It was created top-down by fiat,” he says. Syeda Nayab Bukhari, a doctoral student in GSWS and user of the women’s centre, agrees. “There needs to be a proper needs assessment,” she says, adding that she’s concerned about how the centre would “incorporate race, class and gender.”
Midgley admits no men approached him asking for their own space.
No one approached him. He inserted a personal project into the budget. And you say people questioning that is proof women are against equality.
Tell me one thing then, why do women who get very well payed for creating male attention normally do the things described?
Because advertisers are looking for one thing… some people to buy some thing.
They don’t care if it’s a small slice of the population, just so long as it’s enough to keep the client convinced they got value for dollar. If that means spewing nonsense, then they spew nonsense. It’s what all snake-oil salesmen 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.
More snake oil (for a guy whose not talking about advertising, you sure use a lot of advertising examples). What most people who are having problems getting attention from the opposite sex need is to go out and interact. It’s not the “secrets” or the “tips and feedback” which makes the change, it’s the going out and actually talking to people.
The PUA Gurus are dressing this up with bullshit about, “how women are”, and you bought it.
It’s so amusing when trolls think they’ve really scored by sneaking into the FAQ page.
Aktivarum: pecunium:
“As told by whom?”
Me in the earlier post above. (Another context-based argument btw)
And who are you? Why should I believe you? You’ve done nothing which convinces me that my experience is wrong.
You’ve told me, “how it is”, but offered no evidence to counter the evidence I already have.
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.
Is there a rational sentence here? I’d settle for comprehensible.
It’s not a response to what I said (that women’s magazines are about keeping a guy interested, not getting him), and I can’t make head, nor tail, of what it’s trying to say.
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
No, I’m reading the mags. They talk about, “keeping your man interested”. That’s not, “courtship” (how pleasantly archaic), that’s relational maintenance.
a) When saying “untill you get no” it implies you HAVE to have her permission.
Nope. It is based on the idea that you have permission, until she says NO!. You don’t have to get it, she has to withdraw it.
It also says, in no small number of Gurus explanations, that it has to be a, “strong no”, that “giving up” the moment she says no is a mugs game, and only wimps and losers don’t make her, “prove she means it.”
Trivers… ok. But it’s not as if Trivers is proven science. Trivers based his theory on the work of Bateman. Bateman has some problems. his methods had flaws, including the elimination of genetic variance, sampling biases, miscalculations of fitness variances, statistical pseudo-replication, and selective presentation of data. We conclude that Bateman’s results are unreliable, his conclusions are questionable, and his observed variances are similar to those expected under random mating.
A REAPPRAISAL OF BATEMAN’S CLASSIC STUDY OF INTRASEXUAL SELECTION Snyder and Gowaty, 2007
Martinez and Ryder do a more accessible analysis (it’s not behind a paywall).
The most important aspects of Batemans work, to Trivers were confounded by Batman’s use of flies that didn’t need to mate as regularly to reproduce, compunded by the presence of hormones in the male sperm which inhibit female copulation.
D. melanogaster males produce seminal proteins that can increase females’ latencies to re-mate by inhibiting receptivity. Thus, female ‘‘coyness’’ is induced by males rather than being an inherent characteristic of females. If receptivity was inhibited, the very small sample sizes used by Bateman (3 or 5 flies of each sex per experiment) may have effectively lowered the number of receptive females available, causing males to mate indiscriminately with any receptive female they encountered.
The Problem with Paradigms: Bateman’s Worldview as a Case Study
Martinez and Ryder (2005)
Researcher David Buss proved cross-culturally this is not just true for the western world but also true in different cultures.
Proven!
Citation needed. Where is this study?
That analogy is more right than you realize —
love, noun
13. Chiefly Tennis . a score of zero; nothing.
Which basically seems to be how PUAs view things too.
Congrats? Most people aren’t interested in just expanding their rolodex (holy shit is that an outdated reference!) — nor are most people interested in only having one night stands.
*picks up a cosmo, flips randomly* hair care products, let me try that again; ridiculously bad medical advice that mostly is just wasting 4 pages on saying either “that’s normal” or “see a doctor”, let’s try again. AH! here we go — “talk so he’ll listen” don’t say this: we don’t spend enough time together; say this: I’d really like to find a way to have more time just for us; why: instead of complaining, you’re presenting it as an issue you can both solve together — ignoring that I hit some sort of anti-feminist trifecta there, that’s “advice” for people already in a relationship and has fuck all to do with getting things from men. Unless time counts as things now?
Implying that men do need to isolate women? Isolation is an abusers game, not something one should be proud of doing. As is insisting that only no means no — “you want to get dinner?” “eh, I have to study” = no. And when it’s not about sex people know this and I can probably dig up a study proving that if I can remember the citation.
No, you’re confusing whether women’s mags talk about relationships or courtship — it’s the former. And you’re just continuing to prove that PUAs are not actually interested in relationships.
Ever actually read one? Because exclusivity almost never comes up, it’s all either pointless shit or how to be “perfect” so you won’t piss him off. That is, Pecunium is right with — “They talk about, “keeping your man interested”. That’s not, “courtship” (how pleasantly archaic), that’s relational maintenance.”
a) no, no it doesn’t, it implies that you have to force her to say no because you won’t listen to things that mean no
b) “Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no.” well hello rapist logic, I knew we’d get there eventually! What kind of guys do girls normally have sex with? One’s who’re respectful and at least halfway decent in bed?
Neither of those is ev-psych, the first paragraph is straight psychology (could be ev-psych in context, out of context it isn’t reading like that though) — Pinker’s still doing philosophy right? So still not ev-psych. Way to not answer the question there.
O RLY? Cover story: women and danger this decision could cost you your life; they don’t tell women what they should do? Guess that’s more like must not should, but still.
Trying to find wiggle room in anything but “no” is.
Do you get that most women will not stay with an asshole? No matter how rich he is?
Feminists! Observe that there are still a bunch of utterly not sex related jobs where being sexy is required! (hint: we know) — I couldn’t care less if Avril Lavigne strips, so long as she’s doing it because she wants to.
Wtf does that even mean? Women’s votes are only counted against each other now or something?
*dies laughing* Pecunium can we get your citation needed graphic please?
constitutionalism =/= The Constitution, let me google that for you.
——
Apparently PUAs really piss me off, sorry about the length!
Kendra:
“I know men who voted for GW Bush because “he seemed like the kind of guy you could drink a beer with”
The claim “I know people…” is anecdotal. It only shows who you choose to hang out with. Also the point I make was women changing who they vote for because of her H. Clinton crying in media. Did u mean guys vote for Bush cause they see him drinking beer?
“You can’t just make up statistics to prove your point. Well, you can, but I won’t take your hypothetical study seriously.”
I did not even present any statistics.
“The reason the feminists were concerned about the proposed men’s center at SFU is that the men wanting to start it up do not want to work in collaboration with women.”
Do you have any idea how crazy its sounds telling me the problem with a MALE ONLY space was that women were not asked for permission?
Off course women are not asked, the purpose of the space is women-free. It already exists such a male-free space for women. Its a simple matter of gender equality. You sound like the people who opposed the suffrage.
First common men cant vote cause they are considered stupid.
Then women cant vote cause they cant be trusted.
And now men cant have a Men´s center without mommy over their shoulder making sure the little boys behave (Clear cut Misandry). Dont we just love hearing the excuses from last century as long as it is the bad kind of people described? Its ok now cause now we dont mean black people,
We just mean a larger group including half of the black people.
“That makes it look more like a reactionary “women suck club” more than a safe space for men on campus. Why should the school fund reactionaries?”
Reactionary is in this case a Straw Man-fallacy, that is not what they said but something you made up. Also even if they were reactionary they should fund them cause
a) democracy creates creative people with smart and tested solutions while selective teaching creates opportunism and corruption.
b) They call themselves a school and not a church.
“Do you have any idea how crazy its sounds telling me the problem with a MALE ONLY space was that women were not asked for permission?”
Way to miss the point — no student organization can fund anything without admin permission, they control the money >.<
"They call themselves a school and not a church."
Which means that had it meant the school requirements it would've been opened, it didn't and thus was not. You could try starting an underwater basket weaving club and have this happen, or a frisbee team, or whatever — you have to meet school policy, which is perfectly reasonable.
Aktivarum: The claim “I know people…” is anecdotal. It only shows who you choose to hang out with
Then you can link to studies to support your claims about women voting for Clinton because she cried.
Off course women are not asked, the purpose of the space is women-free.
You missed the point of when they were not asked. They were not asked about how to spend money they had contributed. About how to use space they would lose access too.
They were not asked, in ways in which men are asked, when a women’s centre is being built. The disparity in treatment is an example of why a men’s centre isn’t as needed as all that.
a) democracy creates creative people with smart and tested solutions while selective teaching creates opportunism and corruption.
As with pretty much every fact claim you’ve made you might consider this
Hahahahahah! This is just too foolish:
Hahahaha!!! You mean Lawrence Summers? The former Harvard president who hypothesized that there were fewer women in science because maybe women just weren’t smart enough to do science?
Yeah, feminists totally “killed” his career. After that “maybe women just aren’t smart enough and spend too much time thinking about babies” speech (seriously, that was in that shit-speech, although it sounded more polite), his career was OVER!!! It was just awful: it got so bad he was selected by President Obama to be the director of the White House National Economic Council. Such a tragedy! His career- RUINED!!! So sad.
At least some PUAs (Gunwitch springs to mind) subscribe to the “no doesn’t really mean no” method, where a woman who says “no” is met with reasons why she doesn’t really mean no or doesn’t know what she wants, or possibly is responded to as if her “no” was not heard. Basically, in this case, “no” is ignored unless followed by “And fucking stop harassing me, asshole, or I’ll call the police/scream/taze you/etc.”
It’s interesting to note that in a recentish* study on job discrimination, high-end (expensive) restaurants were far more likely to hire men than women. Women were more likely to get hired at less expensive restaurants (diners, cafes, etc.) — where of course their tips would reflect their customers’ smaller bills. If being a hot woman is a prerequisite to being a well-paid server, it’s news to the US restaurant industry.
*If memory serves, this nationwide study was from the last 20 years or so, although it has been recreated on a smaller scale in different cities since then.
Possibly “several newspapers” stated this. But I always find that it’s so much more interesting when one puts historical events in context, instead of pretending that they exist in a vacuum!
1. When they weren’t talking about how some women supported Hillary after she cried in public, the media were busy hypothesizing about how crying in public had ruined her chance at the presidency, because obviously future presidents don’t cry!
2. All this was on top of YEARS of the media decrying Hillary as too bitchy, unfeeling, inhuman, cold, calculating, what have you … and thus a totally unlikeable person in general.
3. The crying moment came when Hillary was talking to a group of women voters about life as a woman running for president, which included intense scrutiny into her personal life — was she eating too much, not exercising right, did her eyes look puffy, did her hair look weird?
4. The media also speculated about whether the crying was just a crass, manipulative move to make Hillary seem more real.
5. All of which amounts to the kind of scrutiny that women face as political candidates which differs (and is in addition to) the type of scrutiny that their male counterparts face. Which is only one of the reasons** why, although women vote in greater numbers than men in the US, so few women run or are elected to political office.
**Actually, this probably comprises two separate reasons: Individual women’s unwillingness to subject themselves to heightened media scrutiny for female candidates and voters’ decreased likelihood of voting for such candidates after such media scrutiny.
Ahahaha, troll sneaks into FAQ and thinks he can leave his droppings unchallenged, and BAM.
Demolishment.
Does this happen in other blogs’ FAQs (I only really hang out here, other blogs I read on my feed).
This was fun.
I’m thinking of using the FAQ comments box whenever I’m tempted to post something off topic on one of the “live” threads. Given how often I go OT, this might soon become the longest discussion thread…
Of course, since I’m a woman, you can discount anything I say from personal experience. After all, wimminz always be lying, amirite? Also, when you say “he’s the kind of guy you can drink a beer with”, it means you think he’s down to earth and friendly, not that you’ve necessarily seen the person drink a beer. That’s how a male friend of mine described GW Bush. He said he realized it wasn’t the greatest choice when the economy crashed during the Bush administration. You think that only women vote based on what candidates they find more likable, but I’m saying that both men and women vote that way.
Then what was this?
Note that you said if you did a study on 1000 random men and 1000 random women. There is no such study, but I’m supposed to take what you say as a proven fact. If you know of a real study that shows this, then go ahead and present it.
No, I think the adjective reactionary fits for a club dedicated to the idea that women = suck. If there are some male students that want to start up a women suck club on their campus, they can do it with their own funds and not the college’s.
ithiliana: It happens on Making Light, mostly because the regulars there are monitoring several threads at once, and a lot of them do what I do, load the “1000 most recent comments” to both keep up, and look for spam.
So someone will find an old thread, on something controversial, and,”tell us how it is”, and get their ass handed to them, on a cheap plate.
Argenti:
“13. Chiefly Tennis . a score of zero; nothing.
Which basically seems to be how PUAs view things too.”
Relevance here? Zero, the longer title of the book is “The Classic Guide to the Mental Side of Peak Performance”
“Congrats? Most people aren’t interested in just expanding their rolodex (holy shit is that an outdated reference!) — nor are most people interested in only having one night stands.”
Again, PUA is a method – its not a scientific theory or a belief system. There are no rules saying you need to have one night stands. I could name several PUAs known for longer relationships.
“*picks up a cosmo, flips randomly* hair care products, let me try that again; ridiculously bad medical advice that mostly is just wasting 4 pages on saying either “that’s normal” or “see a doctor”
You seem to not know what business Cosmo is in. It is a magazine for entertainment. They dont sell the articles, they sell products using entertaining articles to lure people in. The “advice” you speak of is entertainment for women – little stories to socialize about, The real message is the advertisements. Hair Care, Make Up, etc is used by women to attract men. PUA is used by men to attract women. Selling PUA is like selling make-up.
“Implying that men do need to isolate women?”
Yes, and women would need to isolate men if male friends acted more like female often do and men did not isolate themselves from the guys.
“Isolation is an abusers game, not something one should be proud of doing.”
Telling a girl lets find new friends is not even close to anything called abuse. Girls reward guys for doing this implying they want guys to do it. It takes away resposability and creates freedom. Women dont “have” to do anything – they choose to do things.
“As is insisting that only no means no — “you want to get dinner?” “eh, I have to study” = no. And when it’s not about sex people know this and I can probably dig up a study proving that if I can remember the citation.”
Yes people know this but when women do have sex they more often have sex with which guy? The one listening or the one not listening? A published study on “token resistance” showed 50% of women refused sex with guys who respect their no. Guys according to half the woman population should “risk it”
“you’re confusing whether women’s mags talk about relationships or courtship — it’s the former. And you’re just continuing to prove that PUAs are not actually interested in relationships.”
I talked about what the magz sell. You talk about the entertaining material doing the selling. Relationships? Yes, that must be the reason well known PUA Adam had his girlfriend on lots of workshops. His girlfriend is there so off course PUA are not interested in relationships.
“Ever actually read one? Because exclusivity almost never comes up”
You dont really need to “read” a picture of lipstick colors or eyeliner-use. But you are correct the text is mostly pointless shit – entertainment – making people seeing the paid content – how to become beautiful – and btw what is on the magazine cover again?
“Basically those that kept pushing and not getting no.” well hello rapist logic, I knew we’d get there eventually!”
Rape is a crime of violence. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing armed robbery. Neither salesman, nor robber accept no. However in the real world being a salesman/PUA is allowed, being a robber/rapist is not.
“What kind of guys do girls normally have sex with? One’s who’re respectful and at least halfway decent in bed?”
1. Respect – This means fearing or admiring. Most guys admire the girl they are trying to pick up for something – this is why they chose her, So basically you either want guys to be afraid of women – or your description would be true for every single PUA.
2. Decent in Bed – You dont know how good he is until you already have chosen him so cleary he cant be chosen on basis of this.
“Neither of those is ev-psych, the first paragraph is straight psychology (could be ev-psych in context, out of context it isn’t reading like that though)”
There is no such thing as “straight” psychology: There are clinical or experimental psychology. Evolutionary psychology is the newest revolution in experimental psychology. Before the evolutionary approach there was the cognitive approach.
” — Pinker’s still doing philosophy right? So still not ev-psych. Way to not answer the question there.”
Pinkers Ph.D is in experimental psychology.
“Cover story: women and danger this decision could cost you your life; they don’t tell women what they should do? Guess that’s more like must not should, but still.”
See above, what business Cosmo is in.
“Trying to find wiggle room in anything but “no” is.”
See above, According to that logic any person in sales is “abusing” people by not respecting no.
“Do you get that most women will not stay with an asshole? No matter how rich he is?”
Guys in general dont want most women to stay after sex. Guys want to have sex with many women and relationships with a few special ones. Also, do you think the SMS Tiger Woods sent his mistresses was respectful?
“Feminists! Observe that there are still a bunch of utterly not sex related jobs where being sexy is required!”
Its not required at all. Nobody is forcing rich stars to act this way. They do it cause it pays better when it sells better and that is the business they chose to be in. Entertainment is about luring people in to sell them products… The reason Hollywood can do expensive movies is companies with products think it helps them sell.
“Wtf does that even mean? Women’s votes are only counted against each other now or something?”
It means nothing hinders a woman to become president, except lack of interest and support from other women.
“constitutionalism =/= The Constitution”
Yes and guess what Stanford Encyclopedia says on the matter
“Constitutionalism is the idea — that government can and should be legally limited in its powers”
Aktivarum said, way back near the top of this thread:
“Both those claims are wrong. You are confusing the method part (PUA) with the science part (EP) ”
No, I’m not confusing PUA with EP. I pointed out that your belief that “male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status” is evolutionary psychology propaganda.
PUA, like all organizations that have an interest in bolstering male privilege, eagerly adopts EP theories.
One of the standard tenets of EP is that women aren’t visual and men are. This of course ignores all the evidence that women are in fact interested in exactly the same features in a partner – youth and beauty – that men are. And I’ll testify for you – I am much more likely to be sexually attracted to a 25-year-old than a 52-year old based on physical appearance.
What EP always ignores is the fact that until very recently, women haven’t had the luxury to choose partners based primarily on youth and beauty. Until very recently most women had to compete to be chosen by a man who would then support her financially. Only in the last 50 years have women had the opportunity, in large numbers to be wholly self-supporting.
And a necessary caveat – this is only true of industrial societies. There are still some places in the world right now where little girls are sold into marriage by their families to old men.
But wherever women have the luxury of choosing partners based on aesthetics, they are very much visual creatures.
The fact that the “cougar” trend has happened now is no coincidence – it’s a response on the part of women to their freedom to choose men on the basis of youth and beauty.
And of course the term cougar is a legacy of absolute male dominance over mating practices. The term for men who prefer younger women is “men.” But the term cougar will fade as the behavior becomes more common, and in less than an evolutionary time-span.
And then of course there are “metrosexuals” – heterosexual men who put more care into their grooming and appearance than has previously been considered acceptable – or necessary. Why should men primp for women? Men had all the money – it was up to women to show they were worth the financial investment of marriage by men.
The appearance of metrosexuals at this time is also not a coincidence, but a response to female financial independence.
But since both cougars and metrosexuals have appeared within less than an evolutionary time span and flout the EP dogma, the EPs will do what they always do with evidence that disproves their theories – ignore them.
And that is but one reason why evolutionary psychology is such a pathetic joke.
Aktivarum —
“Relevance here?…”
Relevance minimal, hilarity of irony high — it was a joke FFS.
“Again, PUA is a method – its not a scientific theory or a belief system. There are no rules saying you need to have one night stands. I could name several PUAs known for longer relationships.”
Um…pump and dump, that’s all I’m saying. I don’t give one rat’s ass if some, or even some actual percentage (which “several” is probably not, several is an anecdote), have long term relationships. I don’t care if some get married. The commonly seen method is the pump and dump, and even when it isn’t, the idea that your tactics will lead to an actual relationship are absurd, how does anyone have a relationship with someone they don’t even speak to enough to know if they have anything in common?
“You seem to not know what business Cosmo is in. It is a magazine for entertainment. They dont sell the articles, they sell products using entertaining articles to lure people in. The “advice” you speak of is entertainment for women – little stories to socialize about, The real message is the advertisements. Hair Care, Make Up, etc is used by women to attract men. PUA is used by men to attract women. Selling PUA is like selling make-up.”
You seemed to have missed that I own one issue of cosmo and mock it (and that’s why I own it, my mother thought it’d amuse me). That “how not to get raped and/or murdered” article is definitely meant as advice though.
“Yes, and women would need to isolate men if male friends acted more like female often do and men did not isolate themselves from the guys.
Telling a girl lets find new friends is not even close to anything called abuse. Girls reward guys for doing this implying they want guys to do it. It takes away resposability and creates freedom. Women dont “have” to do anything – they choose to do things.”
Wow do you not see the difference between introducing your girlfriend to your guy friends and isolating her from her friends? The latter is an abusers game to the point it’s commonly cited as a red-flag. How is isolating her from her friends ever supposed to “create freedom”?!
“Yes people know this but when women do have sex they more often have sex with which guy? The one listening or the one not listening? A published study on “token resistance” showed 50% of women refused sex with guys who respect their no. Guys according to half the woman population should “risk it””
No, half of guys should ask again at a different time, she’s not currently interested. And saying no equals refusing sex? You are not entitled to sex.
“I talked about what the magz sell. You talk about the entertaining material doing the selling. Relationships? Yes, that must be the reason well known PUA Adam had his girlfriend on lots of workshops. His girlfriend is there so off course PUA are not interested in relationships.”
One guy! That’s even more an anecdote than the note about men saying Bush looked like a guy you could drink with. And you talked about what you think the mags sell, probably without ever opening one given —
“You dont really need to “read” a picture of lipstick colors or eyeliner-use. But you are correct the text is mostly pointless shit – entertainment – making people seeing the paid content – how to become beautiful – and btw what is on the magazine cover again?”
Here’s the cover for the one I’m holding — <a href="
"Rape is a crime of violence or coercion. Using your logic would mean a normal sales call would be equal to committing
armed robberyfraud by coercion. Neither salesman, nor robber accept no. However in the real world being a salesman/PUA is allowed, being a robber/rapist is not.”fixed that for you
“1. Respect – This means fearing or admiring. Most guys admire the girl they are trying to pick up for something – this is why they chose her, So basically you either want guys to be afraid of women – or your description would be true for every single PUA.”
Admire =/= respect, not when admire means “find sexy” (how in the fuck do I have to state that?)
“2. Decent in Bed – You dont know how good he is until you already have chosen him so cleary he cant be chosen on basis of this.”
Point was more that respectful guys who absolutely suck are likely to get dumped/not called back.
“There is no such thing as “straight” psychology: There are clinical or experimental psychology. Evolutionary psychology is the newest revolution in experimental psychology. Before the evolutionary approach there was the cognitive approach.”
Oh my! I have a psych degree, clinical and experimental are both “straight” psychology. Developmental, evolutionary, etc are branches of experimental; cognitive, Freudian, etc are branches of clinical. Please at least know wtf you are talking about.
“Pinkers Ph.D is in experimental psychology.”
Then I’d imagine he has some clue wtf he’s talking about, though that depends how long he was out of psych while doing philosophy. Pecunium’s point(s) about that study still stand.
“See above, According to that logic any person in sales is “abusing” people by not respecting no.”
Yes, please see above re: coercive sales not being legal either.
“Guys in general dont want most women to stay after sex. Guys want to have sex with many women and relationships with a few special ones. Also, do you think the SMS Tiger Woods sent his mistresses was respectful?”
You’re arguing on what most people do based on one incredibly rich man? Really? Also, you just admitted PUAs want one night stands, thanks for playing, please play again!
“Its not required at all. Nobody is forcing rich stars to act this way. They do it cause it pays better when it sells better and that is the business they chose to be in. Entertainment is about luring people in to sell them products… The reason Hollywood can do expensive movies is companies with products think it helps them sell.”
You clearly have no clue how the world works…if a waitress’s tips are tied to how she looks, not how well she does her job, then yes, she is “required” to look sexy (more like preferred, but the point stands). Nobody is forcing stars to act “this way”? Oh is that why female stars regularly complain about having to dress sexy and what all the tabloid articles on them being seen in jeans are about? You clearly cannot see the difference between being sexy in front of a camera and being expected to be sexy while out for a walk though. (And Hollywood can do expensive movies because people will pay to see them — if you did 100% product placements it’d flop epically.)
“It means nothing hinders a woman to become president, except lack of interest and support from other women.”
And the same public interest in her appearance…or did you miss when Hillary Clinton wore no make-up and glasses?
…which is what darksidecat said, to which you replied:
“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.”
to which I said the above, and now we’re going in a circle >.<
Shit I never pasted the link into my draft, it’s here (thanks Cliff pervocracy! [love the cosmocking btw])
One tiny note on what Rutee just said — “and most of those people are maintained by a full staff who makes decisions, at any rate…” — they also tend to have little to no control over what that staff does, magazine staff picks how the cover will be done, not the person on the cover. In other words Aktivarum, the women on magazine covers are forced to look the way they look and you can fuck off if you think their appearance being judged is what singers signed up for.
“And that doesn’t care about your job description, because as I said it hits fucking programmers.” — programmers, receptionists (and other office staff), cashiers, artists to a certain degree (particularly singers)…probably across the board, but those are where I’ve personally seen it.
Kendra:
“Of course, since I’m a woman, you can discount anything I say from personal experience.”
It was not a matter of experience, It was a matter about confusing your subjective life with the objective world. I can discount your friends as a measurement for people in general regardless you being a man, woman, black, gay or whatever. You simply picked people you like, not people representative of what the world is like. This is why democracy is the superior system. Ideas are tested on merit – not on social relations.
“After all, wimminz always be lying, amirite?”
I neither said you were lying, nor did i talk about women.
“Also, when you say “he’s the kind of guy you can drink a beer with”, it means you think he’s down to earth and friendly, not that you’ve necessarily seen the person drink a beer.”
The point I made was women changing their opinion to Hillary Clinton. I did not talk about why they earlier voted for Obama I expressed what made them change their mind.
“He said he realized it wasn’t the greatest choice when the economy crashed during the Bush administration. You think that only women vote based on what candidates they find more likable, but I’m saying that both men and women vote that way.”
No I did not say women vote on likeable. I said women stopped voting on whoever they voted on cause Hillary Clinton cried and had a tough time. She might actually have won had she played more on it being so hard for her – however that is not the way she wanted to portray herself.
“Then what was this?”
It was a conclusion from the scientific studies of gender differences. Men and woman are not interested in the same things and even more important -most extreme persons are men regardless subject. The reason being women twice as likely than men to historically produce offspring forcing men to either be good enough or be gone from the genepool.
“Note that you said if you did a study on 1000 random men and 1000 random women. There is no such study, but I’m supposed to take what you say as a proven fact. If you know of a real study that shows this, then go ahead and present it.”
There are lots of studies on gender differences. Here is a simple summary of the one from Marco Del Giudice, Tom Booth, and Paul Irwing on 10.000 people.
http://aktivarum.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/article-2082398-0f5722a200000578-729_468x383.jpg
“No, I think the adjective reactionary fits for a club dedicated to the idea that women = suck.”
They do not say women suck. Again that is just YOUR own intepretation. Same as the first argument against me above was just YOUR own inerpretation of me not listening to womens experiences. Know what? I might as well start saying you are a supporter of Society for Cutting Up Men and the shooting of Andy Warhol… Not that you ever said you were but hey, you are inventing things I never said right?
Also you assuming a Mens Center would be a “Women suck club” would mean Womens Center allowed to be a men suck club right? Otherwise there would be rules allowing neither.
“If there are some male students that want to start up a women suck club on their campus, they can do it with their own funds and not the college’s.”
They want a Mens Center, not a woman suck club. if the womens center is not a men suck club your fears can only explained by misandry where women can be allowed to live free while men cant be treated equally.