« Abraham Lincoln's Advice for Obama | Main | Must Read Essay »

July 13, 2010

Roissy vs. McArdle

I submit to you Roissy in DC in all of his majesty:

The cock has no interest in your feeble hate. It doesn’t believe in synthesis, or syllogism, or in any absolute. What does it believe in? Pussy. And whatever it takes to get it. It’s self-evident.

...in what warped fembot universe is successfully attracting women so that they have sex with you a sign of powerlessness? Is McArdle unaware of men’s ultimate goal? Hint: insert penis into vagina.

And here I have always respected men for their brains and self discipline. What a shame to learn I was wrong. I now consider myself to be "schooled" by someone who knows.

Posted by Cassandra at July 13, 2010 07:17 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3780

Comments

And here I have always respected men for their brains and self discipline. What a shame to learn I was wrong. I now consider myself to be "schooled" by someone who knows.

Brains and self discipline take time to cultivate. I was certainly a bit of a slut "back in the day". Now those days are behind me, although a diminished, aging libido probably has some bearing on that situation...

Posted by: camojack at July 13, 2010 08:03 PM

Somebody had trouble writing for a deadline.

Posted by: valerie at July 13, 2010 08:24 PM

I feel the same way about gasoline.

Posted by: Hummer at July 13, 2010 08:28 PM

The distinction being drawn is between men (and women) getting around a bit when they are young and those who maintain that that's all there is.

Which is sad.

Posted by: Little Miss Attila at July 13, 2010 08:55 PM

The linked thread appears to be coated with more slim than a rock in a trout stream. IOW if it appears that I should pull on the ole hip waders to read/comment on a topic, I'll have to take a pass.

Posted by: bt_sans-his-felt-footed-waders_hun at July 13, 2010 08:57 PM

I had been doing this young man the honor of assuming that he was a cheat and a liar. Now I wonder if he might not actually believe this foolishness.

Posted by: Grim at July 13, 2010 09:10 PM

Or, to paraphrase Chesterton: I would tell a man who is drinking too much, "Be a man." But you would not tell an alligator who was eating too many people, "Be an alligator."

That is the distinction he loses; and with it, everything.

Posted by: Grim at July 13, 2010 10:41 PM

I had been doing this young man the honor of assuming that he was a cheat and a liar. Now I wonder if he might not actually believe this foolishness.

Why don't we ask his penis? It seems to be doing all the talking :p

Posted by: Cass at July 13, 2010 10:41 PM

Such conversations, dear lady, I must leave to those better suited to them. :)

Posted by: Grim at July 13, 2010 10:45 PM

I disagree with what he says, but I will fight for his right to say it up to the point the dog gives me that really funny look.

Posted by: BillT at July 14, 2010 01:15 AM

I would tell a man who is drinking too much, "Be a man." But you would not tell an alligator who was eating too many people, "Be an alligator."

I think that is what bothers me most about this PUA nonsense, Grim.

Girls and woman who use seduction as a weapon or a means of getting their way are undeniably using feminine wiles, but I would never call that behavior "womanly".

It's a mark of how far modern masculinity has fallen that so many men think exploiting the vulnerabilities of others for personal gain is "manly".

As for your 10:45 comment, I believe I'll decline the honor as well :p

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 08:36 AM

Whether it's through brains and self discipline, dumb luck and cold cash, or the oft used intoxication + negotiaton = penetration, the most basic objective is the same. The big question is do you want to take it, rent it, buy it, sell it, charge it to the taxpayers, demand it, beg for it, coerce it, trade it, replace it, or kill it. Not every one of those options are legal/respectful. If you can't figure out which ones are bad, start thinking with your other head or become a democrat.

Posted by: Smart Grunt at July 14, 2010 08:43 AM

I will fight for his right to say it up to the point the dog gives me that really funny look.

FWIW, he has a perfect right to say whatever he wants.

I don't think I've ever suggested that anyone not say something just because I think it's eminently mockable :p The blogosphere would be a lot less fun if people like that kept their opinions to themselves.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 09:44 AM

And my hip waders would never again see any duty.

Posted by: bt_sans-his-felt-footed-waders_hun at July 14, 2010 10:08 AM

I had been doing this young man the honor of assuming that he was a cheat and a liar. Now I wonder if he might not actually believe this foolishness.

Given that he has a wife and small child, one wonders what the wife thinks and how the child will grow up with this kind of indoctrination.

First thing the child will learn about survival won't come from the Boy Scouts, but a whore house?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 10:14 AM

Once again, belief, greatest WMD ; )

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 10:15 AM

FWIW, he has a perfect right to say whatever he wants.

I think Bill was just cutting his losses, in case everybody worth saving has been saved and the LZ is looking too hot for hell.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 10:18 AM

Given that he has a wife and small child, one wonders what the wife thinks and how the child will grow up with this kind of indoctrination.

From what I've read of the PUA genre, the effect their actions will have on other people never enters into their calculations. It truly is all about them and what they want.

I don't like linking to (or even recognizing) filth like this but after a fair amount of thought I think it's important to do so occasionally because I'm continually appalled by how many people defend such idiocy without troubling to confront precisely what it is they are defending. So long as they can pretend it is something other than it is, they continue to rationalize it.

Sometimes, no matter how unpleasant it may be to do so, I think it's important to look squarely at things. Then people can decide whether that's really a hill they want to die for.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 10:43 AM

Like I said: Wolf.

He, and guys like him are nothing more than predators. They seek power and ability over others for nothing more than their own selfish gratification with absolutely no concern for anyone else. This is called strength. Textbook sociopath.

The wolf always hates the sheepdog because the sheepdog has the strength and power but chooses not to use it. This is called weakness.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 14, 2010 11:05 AM

I think Bill was just cutting his losses, in case everybody worth saving has been saved and the LZ is looking too hot for hell.

Nah, my bunch never left anyone behind in an LZ -- I even snagged a couple of very unwilling passengers a few times.

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/sequel_as_prequ.html

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of

Then people can decide whether that's really a hill they want to die for.

It's "...die *on*." And if I had my druthers, I'd prefer it *not* be a refuse heap...

Posted by: BillT at July 14, 2010 11:08 AM

Nah, my bunch never left anyone behind in an LZ

Journalist? William Wallenstein?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 11:30 AM

So long as they can pretend it is something other than it is, they continue to rationalize it.

They do so using time tried cult techniques. For example, there are gurus who have all the knowledge and the only requirement to be part of the group is to follow the guru.

That can be as ancient as Mohammed or as recent as Michael Yon. There's this special prophet, you see, who knows things you do not, and if you want to partake of his favorable connections, then you must obey and follow.

The rationalization is that the guru and the cult are the best bet to salvation.

And if I had my druthers, I'd prefer it *not* be a refuse heap...

That's why you leave the hill on a rotor copter.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 11:33 AM

Here are my conclusions, some of them, on the article's more substantial points.

First, game is girly, in the sense that it is feminine orientated or orientated towards tactics best suited to females. We described some of this in the Navy sexual harassment thread.

Long termed planning, manipulative or aware of emotions, the ability to indirectly coerce or influence behavior and thoughts, and the lack of decisiveness or the desire for negotiation and group approval.

These are all feminine survival strategies, the ones found most commonly amongst females attempting to survive Nature's tests.

Game is feminine not because it is about women. Game is feminine because it is involves long term planning, just not long term in terms of marriage. Game is feminine not because it involves knowledge of women. Game is feminine because it involves knowledge, awareness, and manipulation of emotion, which is an indirect factor.

Masculine survival traits are "beat skull in", "take action now, no matter how stupid it is because you get eaten if you wait". The msculine survival strategy would be to ignore emotion and go for the jugular. If you want a woman, take the woman and beat off all the competitor males. That's what you get all the "focus" hocus pocus when a single young male sees a beautiful young female unescorted. A derivation of hunting instincts and fear arrives. Not fear of death, but fear of social exile and being cast out of the tribe (which is actually death, when you think about it, just longer term).

Roissy, for all he attempts to put himself over McArdle, really does not understand the foundations and principles behind game. He doesn't even classify it correctly, because he lacks the terminology and definitions.

Game, seduction, has originally been a feminine skill, to be used in an environment of predators and male bruisers living a cave man existence. Women cannot fight off a male, even a weak omega one usually. It took the firearm, a force equalizer, and specialized H2H knowledge developed over the eons for fighting prowess to originate from the technical knowledge of the brain rather than solely the physical impulses of the body.

A man can no more take on a saber tooth tiger close up than a woman can a man. That's why you use a spear and pit trap. Indirect methods. Not a direct contest between who is stronger, you or the saber tooth tiger. Put up your dukes and let's see who lasts longer: pay per view. Any man that wanted to test his strength against a wooly mammoth would have tried to wait until one stepped on him and then prove he can lift up the woolly. This will demonstrate his strength. And I'm almost sure that our distant ancestors tried this or something like it. The ones that did, didn't make it into our DNA template.

The thing is, socially, men do not use indirect methods as a survival mechanism given the precedence. When men use indirect methods, it is often only in hunting. That is the thing. Game is a transliteration of hunting instincts, designed to kill and eat meat, into the hunt for compatible mates. That is how they are configuring their skill sets.

Thus, this makes game feminine, rather than masculine. Because it is the females that use indirect methods to attract mates. It is males that use indirect and direct methods in hunting.

When a female comes right out and focuses right on you and makes the first, second, and 10th move, that's a game derived from male mate seeking strategies. There's a lot of instincts that tell a woman not to do that, though, and it is not just society.


If the PUA community of gurus and what not actually knew and taught the feminine survival strategies on its own, you wouldn't have people like Roissy coming out and denying that game is girly or feminine. They would simply say that it is, and that men should use it anyway. Yet they are not. They purposefully go out of their way to transplant male hunting instincts, the trap and the kill, to social circumstances.

As one who has been trained by those better and wise than him to understand the appropriateness of H2H skills, I am not luxury to confuse a social situation with an asocial mass murderer requiring force to subdue or terminate.

It's not simply a matter of not wishing to or being allowed to. It is a matter of primordial survival. If you use the wrong strategy for a wrong circumstance, you will be the one that gets terminated. Thus it is in your survival interests, whether man or woman, to not suddenly get confused over which is appropriate for what type of situation.

PUA teaches techniques. The principles of alpha male or female behavior characteristics, the reason why they exist, are harder to find.

Roissy mentioned "be yourself" as one of those cliches. The reason why it is a cliche is because it is true. Yet the reason why it isn't adequate is because somewhere in human oral tradition, they left out a word that completes the wise saying.

It wasn't "be yourself" that allowed you success. It was "be your best self" that was so. We are different people in different circumstances, as well as different individuals to different people. We are not the same around criminals as we are around family. We do not treat strangers as we treat our lover. We do not use touch and voice the same with a male as we do a female.

Nobody can figure out "which person" he is supposed to be when someone says "be yourself". Especially if they don't know themselves. The trick was always competition. A person may not know who he is, but he knows when he gets better. So being the best you can be, tends to become its own self-fulfilling prophecy over time.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 12:14 PM

Let's not forget that this is the author of such timeless classics as "How to Nail a Virgin" and the unforgettable Five Point Plan for Saving Faltering Marriages:

1. Stop giving compliments, flattery, and gifts.
2. Come home from work late every night.
3. Buy yourself new, stylish clothes.
4. Cheat. If she asks, deny. No need to confess to the wife. She’ll be able to smell the competitor vaj juice on you.
5. After three months of executing the above four points, unexpectedly tell your wife her ass looks great.

*******************************

Sometimes, all you need to do is let the other person hang himself.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 12:45 PM

There are those who cannot understand the power of belief.

Link

Which is why they are a danger to themselves and to all of humanity, should they ever wield power enough to influence the masses.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 12:55 PM

...in what warped fembot universe is successfully attracting women so that they have sex with you a sign of powerlessness?

In the world of human survival, individual skills will soon enough be met by a superior force that will surround and smash individuals to dust.

That is why the good combine, for the combination of skills and resources will outlast the fury of nature, be it a day of hurricanes and tornadoes or 10,000 years of famine, drought, and volcanic ash.

Sex, one of the more powerful tools designed to given an incentive for individuals to combine for their mutual interest, has been proven and tested as a great species survival enabler. But simply attraction was not the only thing sex was designed to produce. In order to achieve survival of the species, true survival and not simply dwindling to extinction in 50 generations, one had to have more.

That is why you must keep women in positions of security or fertility, once you have attracted them. In this world of ours, whether it be the ancients of old or the modern crime syndicates, there will be plenty of factions that will attempt to steal what you have or undermine it. That includes every one of your allies as well, which includes any women you claim to have.

Attracting is one thing. Keeping is another.

Strength is not simply a burst capability that lasts 10s. It must be sustained, otherwise it's just hot air. Dissipates rapidly, even if it burns hotly for a second.

What is a sign of powerlessness is the fact that those with power, seek to use that power over those weaker than they. Or rather, they specially develop the power in order to make people weaker. That is a sign of powerlessness. For the ability to develop power has always come with it the implicit understanding that you gain power only by defeating equal or stronger enemies.

If you make women weaker to you and exploit their vulnerabilities, you will have lost a potential competitor that would have forced you to overcome your own weaknesses. When the natural enemies of the world and your personal human enemies combine to smash you to atomic debris, you could have used the extra strength. But you can't, because you don't.

To a certain extent, human beings will do a lot of things for survival of self. But we are motivated primarily by loyalty to blood and others. We are social creatures and the prosperity of our entire species has been built upon this fact. No man, not even the mighty Roissy can change that reality with a word and wish.

This is a legacy developed by countless trillions of humans over the eons. Some not even human as we consider it, just distant ancestors. And Roissy thinks he can over turn all that and define power in his own terms? Power has already been defined by the universe. Our only options are to become capable of using more of it or be smashed to constituent goo by it.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 01:19 PM

Journalist? William Wallenstein?

He never hitched a ride with us -- only a few did, and only one of them ever went near a hot LZ.

Only journos who spent any time actually living with us were Frank Harvey and a UPI stringer whose name (unfortunately) escapes me.

Posted by: BillT at July 14, 2010 01:27 PM

The wolf always hates the sheepdog because the sheepdog has the strength and power but chooses not to use it. This is called weakness.

Lately I've been pretty discouraged by what I read every day. It seems as though everything I've ever admired about men is under attack, not by feminists but by (largely conservative) men.

I was raised to revere and respect men because they're willing to fight to protect things worth protecting. But lately it seems that nobility of purpose has been subverted into something mean and ugly: mean in the sense of "small or common", but also mean in the sense of "malicious and petty".

I can't begin to tell you how much it grieves me to see grown men redefine masculine strength and vision as the province of chumps and so called beta males. There's nothing new about the tactic - for generations men have used shame to police their own ranks (often to a degree women thought excessive or harsh).

The R. Lee Ermey commercial that has been making the rounds (about therapy) is a perfect example of this. Contrast the ubiquitous "Aieeee!!!! Shaming language!" nonsense you see everywhere these days.

Masculinity seems to be undergoing considerable revisionism by those who claim to lament its demise.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 01:51 PM

not by feminists but by (largely conservative) men.

I wouldn't call them conservative. They speak something similar, like feminazis, but the differences are beneath the superficial surface.

Masculinity seems to be undergoing considerable revisionism by those who claim to lament its demise.

It's the same as the cycle of violence in effect. One person overthrows a nation, thus setting into effect the justification for the next person in line to overthrow him.

Without security, we have in effect war. Without the ability to produce and sustain prosperity, people of all lives and walks, sink into crime and bare sustainability.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 02:03 PM

I can't begin to tell you how much it grieves me to see grown men redefine masculine strength and vision as the province of chumps and so called beta males.

I *like* it when someone underestimates me.

Later, when the look of dawning revelation appears on their faces, it's priceless...

Posted by: BillT at July 14, 2010 02:09 PM

I don't know what to do about it, Ymar.

I feel as thought everything I love and respect in the world is under attack. It's as though the world has gone mad.

Grim has written of the question of who should enforce standards on men and women. I agree with him that it is primarily the job of men to determine what is manly (and the same goes for women) but I also see that women have a huge stake in what we teach young men, as men do in what young women are taught.

It seems to me that men have largely abdicated any notion of leadership in this area, but this is something women can't do alone (nor should we).

I don't think I've ever felt so hopeless about the state of things.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 02:10 PM

Reduce the government's control of and sabotage concerning any institution involving men or women, boys or girls. This would include education systems as well as marriage.

Part of this is that it is symptom of a larger problem, wherein people can't solve their own differences without being forced to go to the courts. Or rather, people could resolve their differences, if the power of the court wasn't a crutch that they could conveniently use to force the other party to accept a winner's take all deal.

Back in the past, government had to give legal protections to women, because of how the law was set up to give authority to the man of the household. Times have changed, but the law has not. Only bad changes.

It's not guaranteed that people can solve their own problems if you leave them to it, but it is more of a chance than government will allow it.

Once government power is reduced, then you can repair the underlying matrix.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 03:08 PM

Oh, the world hasn't gone mad. Although it looks chaotic and that it seems to be spiraling to the doom of all, much of it makes sense.

It makes sense if you see it from the perspective of the saboteurs, as I do.

To defend society, sometimes it is easier to think about how to best destroy society. Thus when collapse happens, you can recognize a pattern more easily than not.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 03:12 PM

I had no idea. His blog had me laughing like crazy. It's rare to see so much delusion in one place.

Posted by: Allen at July 14, 2010 03:13 PM

I had no idea. His blog had me laughing like crazy. It's rare to see so much delusion in one place.

This is my reason to not despair. Most men wouldn't have a clue what PUA even stands for, much less who this idiot is. Like myself. prior to your posts on the matter, many may only be passingly familiar with the term "game" as in "success with women" without ever knowing about practices like Negging.

Like Livid Terriers, I think they have up a disproportionate presence on the Internet. The rest of us were out, you know, having lives. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 14, 2010 03:27 PM

...in what warped fembot universe is successfully attracting women so that they have sex with you a sign of powerlessness?

In what warped sober universe is successfully attracting drug dealers so that they give you heroin a sign of powerlessness?

The addict is always powerless against the drug.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 14, 2010 03:32 PM

Like Livid Terriers, I think they have up a disproportionate presence on the Internet. The rest of us were out, you know, having lives.

Interesting observation in light of Ymar's idea that reducing the power of government is the answer.

The salient feature of the internet is that it is largely both a law-free and a consequence-free zone when compared to the real world.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 03:37 PM

I read as much of the Roissy stuff, and comments, as I could stand. What I'm seeing is not an attack on everything that we love and honor about men. What I'm seeing is some guys who can't do without women, don't know how to approach women in a way to secure their voluntary attachment, and therefore hate and fear women for their power to reject. These days, women can support themselves rather than marry a guy this unpleasant. So if a man is a sorry enough mess, what he takes from this situation is a fantasy that he can take what he wants without having to enter in to a negotiation that he feels inadequate to complete.

If he really wanted nothing but no-strings sex, he'd hire prostitutes. But hiring prostitutes feels obscurely petty, and requires an admission that he was tricked into giving up something of value. The prostitute secretly holds him in contempt and is paid to offer him a not-very-convincing lie.

So he moves on to a better fantasy, in which he claims to want nothing but the physical encounter, he doesn't even aspire to the human connection that he can't obtain, and he tricks the woman out of the sex for nothing. He tells himself that one beautiful woman is interchangeable with another, because as long as "there's more where that came from" you can never experience loss, rejection, or shame. Just break a new one out of the supply cabinet whenever necessary. Also, all the pretty young ones who rejected him will grow old some day, so they'll be sorry.

Sad life. What does it look like in old age? The suicide rate must be incredible.

Posted by: Texan99 at July 14, 2010 03:54 PM

"Most men wouldn't have a clue what PUA even stands for, much less who this idiot is. Like myself. prior to your posts on the matter, many may only be passingly familiar with the term "game" as in "success with women" without ever knowing about practices like Negging."
If I'd not been loitering with the villains hereabouts, I'd not have the slightest idea that there exists such a sad bunch of mutts. A bunch who could never be confused with the wild bunch...

Posted by: bt_resident_neanderthal_hun at July 14, 2010 04:23 PM

The government and the internet is connected in some interesting ways.

They both occupy an extreme end of their particular place on the continuum between Order and Chaos. The internet serves as a great place of change, chaos, and disorder. The government serves as a force for stasis, anti-change, order, and law.


Yet, the internet is unique in that the anarchy does not allow the strong to extend their control over other groups that resist. In physical reality, anarchy as the internet allows, would be a Hobessian World indeed. No laws except whatever local communities wish to enforce.

When you step from one blog to another, it can be like stepping between one society and another. Except in physical reality, the people there can prevent you from leaving, whereas on the internet you have an inherent set of freedoms that is hard to infringe upon.

It is far less important to reduce gremlins and trolls on the internet, because there are adequate mechanisms of balance and self-defense. But there is no self-defense against the government, for now you are dealing with an entity that can limit your freedom of action by right or might.

On the internet, they cannot simply call in the lawyers or the government to win an argument using "regulations" and "lawfare". Their ideas stand or fall on their own, as absolute chaos decrees. This has caused much turmoil in human forces throughout history, for often this meant there was no protect for the weak from the strong. But the internet removes the physical component from human relationships. Thus it also removes the social limiters, somewhat, as well, which is linked to human face to face interactions.

Just break a new one out of the supply cabinet whenever necessary.

one thing I noticed was that Roissy and his so called Leftist cabal of feminists are essentially allies on certain embarrassing topics. For example, both factions tend to favor casual sex and the Hook Up culture of Girls Gone Wild.

They have different reasons for backing such, but it is just like the incestuous relationship between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia back in the day. And just like Nazis and Communists, Roissy goes out of his way to portray himself as a warrior fighting the Left.

These people can't believe that they are fooling those like me, are they.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 04:30 PM

Cass: Not time to write a detailed comment now; I'll try to find some time tonight. Charlotte Allen, in the Weekly Standard, has the best response I've seen to this so far; it's rather long, but well worth the read.

Re the redefining of masculinity: The PUA's will claim that masculinity had already been redefined before they got there, and that they are merely dancing to the music that's playing. There's a certain amount of truth to this. If one buys the conventional wisdom that says that women are the choosers in relationships, then it follows that if a large percentage of women choose poorly, social chaos is inevitable. When moral behavior is not rewarded, a large percentage of people will choose to behave immorally. Why should they not? We teach in every other situation that it's irrational to keep doing something that doesn't work. Why should we demand that love and sex be exempted from the rules of reason?

Of course, the problem is that it leaves us at a dead end. The question that matters isn't so much "who started it" as it is "what are we going to do to fix it?" Of course, in pursuit of that, it helps to identify the enemy. And they are thus: the "alpha males" and "alpha females" who perpetrate this fraud upon society, and those who provide them with intellectual excuses. (I don't know if "alpha" is quite the right term, but I can't think of a better one. In this sense I mean "alpha" as those who are expert at manipulating love and sex to fulfill their base desires, and nothing more. "Alpha" in terms of "social leader" is the wrong context.)

Describing the alpha males as "conservative" is the wrong description, I think. A better word would be "reactionary". As for the alpha females, I'd say that they are mainly exploiting the current situation, which is working in their favor. Describing these people in political terms is kind of pointless, because most of them care little about politics (except when it involves their freedom to engage in libertine behavior) and they don't invest any time into studying political issues. After all, if it doesn't get you laid or get you bling, then in their world, it's worthless.

As for their intellectual excuse-makers, on the female side, we do have the gender feminists. Consider Naomi Wolf, who openly promotes and celebrates promiscuity as a liberated-female virtue. There may not actually be that many feminists who believe this -- but the ones that do are the ones who have control of the feminist agenda. On the male side, I really can't think of anybody. The PUA gurus pay lip service to it, but I really don't think they give a damn about intellectual justification one way or the other. Any philosophical discussion they try to engage in regarding it is probably just another pick-up tactic.

Sorry to leave you with a cliffhanger, but duty calls... more later.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at July 14, 2010 04:35 PM

Don't leave women hanging off a cliff. It might become a bad habit.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 04:45 PM

Interesting observation in light of Ymar's idea that reducing the power of government is the answer.

Well, as I said many many posts back, I don't happen to share Ymar's premise that everything is a political issue these days.

For something that is supposed to be caused by all this needless litigation the gov't is creating there sure does seem a dearth of lawsuits involved in seeking bad sex from weak willed women.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 14, 2010 04:47 PM

"Most men wouldn't have a clue what PUA even stands for, much less who this idiot is."

My browser is evidently more savvy than I am.

When I first clicked the link, I got a pop-up for Listerine...

Posted by: BillT at July 14, 2010 04:48 PM

I probably also am inclined to explain fewer things that Ymar would in terms of politics, but I liked his points about differentiating the imposition of order on chaos in the world of virtual ideas (the Net) vs. the imposition of order by government in our material lives. I was also interested in the distinction between conservatives and (angry, hateful) reactionaries, and the historical precedent for the latter to team up with the eelier-brained leftist types when people are feeling most threatened by change and failure.

I'm as uncompromisingly feminist as the nuttiest Leftist out there, but I go by the principle that you can choose your actions but not your consequences. Nothing's ever going to remove the necessity for women to choose their sexual partners well. Whether you're a woman who embraces traditional femininity and feminine roles or a gender-bending iconoclast, you've got to keep a weather eye out for dishonest and dishonorable potential fathers of your children. (The same goes with the genders reversed, naturally.) I'd hope that everyone from Betty Crocker to Naomi Wolf would be able to sniff out a PUA from a mile off. It shouldn't take more than a little conversation before you hop into bed with him, unless you genuinely like that kind of thing, in which case there's probably no hope.

Posted by: Texan99 at July 14, 2010 05:08 PM

Listerine? I'd think marketing a propane weed burner would be more appropriate for incoming links to that site. Penicillin ain't what it used to be...

Posted by: bt_resident_neanderthal_hun at July 14, 2010 05:36 PM

For something that is supposed to be caused by all this needless litigation the gov't is creating there sure does seem a dearth of lawsuits involved in seeking bad sex from weak willed women.

lawsuits are not politics, though they can be used as such. The absence of lawsuits, is not the absence of politics, nor is the vice a versa true either. The presence of lawsuits does not mean there is a political motivation or aspect present.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 05:51 PM

Part of this is that it is symptom of a larger problem, wherein people can't solve their own differences without being forced to go to the courts. Or rather, people could resolve their differences, if the power of the court wasn't a crutch that they could conveniently use to force the other party to accept a winner's take all deal.

You're the one saying the .gov's involvment was driving people to the courts.

I simply note that for being driven to it, not too many people seem to be showing up there over this issue.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 14, 2010 05:58 PM

Why don't we ask his penis? It seems to be doing all the talking :p

When I first clicked the link, I got a pop-up for Listerine...

If Listerine is the remedy for being exposed to Roissy's talking penis...

You know what? I'd rather not know.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 14, 2010 06:03 PM

When moral behavior is not rewarded, a large percentage of people will choose to behave immorally. Why should they not? We teach in every other situation that it's irrational to keep doing something that doesn't work. Why should we demand that love and sex be exempted from the rules of reason?

Again, Dave, I don't think I could disagree with you more here. First of all, love and sex are anything but rational endeavors. Men love to systemize things (and that's essentially what PUA does - it attempts to impose some sort of order on an essentially irrational phenomenon and then dresses up the unremarkable proposition that if you lower your standards, try harder to score, and risk rejection more often you'll probably succeed more often as some sort of earthshaking insight that ought to rock our worlds).

When I was raising my two sons I heard exactly the same argument (i.e., why should I be good - what does it get me?) from them. My answer was always the same:

1. You don't do what's right in expectation of a reward. You do what's right b/c it's the right thing to do.

2. The perception that moral behavior will prevent you from getting you what you want is generally only true when "what you want" doesn't comport with "what's moral".

The complaint one hears from these guys and their defenders is that being the nice guy means they won't get lots of consequence free sex. Oh, and morality is for losers. The logical problems here are legion:

1. Consequence free sex is an illusion that rarely survives contact with the real world.

2. The idea that most guys (nice or not-nice) are somehow entitled to all the consequence free sex they can handle is not based on any reality I've ever observed. People who think sex is EVER consequence free think that because they've intentionally closed their eyes to the consequences, not because the consequences somehow went away.

I guess people have to choose what they want in life. If the New Masculinity is based on selfishness and hedonism, I guess we can always blame someone else rather than looking at our own standards.

Me, I prefer basing my actions on what I think is right rather than what it "gets" me. But then I'm judgmental that way :p

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 06:04 PM

Describing the alpha males as "conservative" is the wrong description, I think.

I am not describing the alpha males as "conservative". I am describing self-described conservatives who I see linking and citing this nonsense approvingly every day.

I don't view PUArtistry as conservative at all. As Ymar noted, it's more akin to the follow-your-bliss, man hating brand of radical feminism than anything else. They use the same methods, arguments, and rhetoric.

What mystifies me is why any conservative would defend or pay attention to this crap. And yet they do.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 06:12 PM

You're the one saying the .gov's involvment was driving people to the courts.

Yet, I did not mention litigation court trials exclusively, did I?

Or did you think I did.

Let's be clear here. It is not my choice to speak exclusively of litigation and I have not done so. You brought that one up and I am contesting that, to say that your views of litigation are not my own.

I simply note that for being driven to it, not too many people seem to be showing up there over this issue.

That's your view to take. It is of little effect on politics.

Btw, people are showing up for divorce court. You should think on that particular type of court rather than non-existent cases.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 06:12 PM

I am describing self-described conservatives who I see linking and citing this nonsense approvingly every day.

Oh? Any particular names?

They use the same methods, arguments, and rhetoric.

But will swear that they are ideologically opposed. And will also say that those who dislike feminism and see it as a threat, can find shelter within their movement, and the same goes for the other faction vice a versa.

The belly of the beast is not always the whale or the Berkley community.

To be fair, Roissy seems to be an extremist amongst the PUA community, which (like most human organizations) has its own internal divisions and factions.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 06:25 PM

Yet, I did not mention litigation court trials exclusively, did I?

Excuse my shorthand. I'm using litigation and court remedy (as in your divorce court example) interchangably.

Btw, people are showing up for divorce court. You should think on that particular type of court rather than non-existent cases.

Except that as Cass has provided data previously the divorce rate (and hence divorce court remedies) have been relatively steady over the timeframe of "Game" (and were, in fact, higher prior to it). So, again, I don't see how something that hasn't changed (and has arguably improved) could be a causative factor.

PUA have been and is a fringe community for whom technology has allowed them to form into a cohesive social network. Much in the same way that technology (blogs) has allowed me to interact with all of you, whom I never would have met otherwise.

Those who have interests that are highly mainstream will be able to find like minded people in their neighbors, coworkers, families, churches, etc and have no need to search out the internet for them. Thus in many ways, the internet serves as a meeting space for those of us with less mainstream interests: heavy politics, debaters, Fan Fiction writers, Livid Terriers, and yes, PUAs so it is no surprise those fringe interest are over-represented there (here?).

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 14, 2010 06:48 PM

I am describing self-described conservatives who I see linking and citing this nonsense approvingly every day.

Here, as you have pointed out many times (accurately), my own unwillingness to confront these folks puts me at a disadvantage if my goal is to convince anyone else that these folks are conservatives.

As T99 says, you make your choices and you deal with the consequences :p

I decided a long time ago that I was going to try and concentrate on ideas rather than personalities. If I need to link to someone I disagree with to make my point, I will but I definitely hesitate to do that, Ymar.

In general, I will do so when the person I disagree with is a major blogger who I don't think will get bent out of shape if someone disagrees with them. None of these folks are inclined to link me (whether I agree or disagree) so I feel that's not a bad strategy: I can link them without worrying about their reaction. Over time, some have chosen to respond but most don't.

A good example is that Futurist post I linked a while back. I've been astonished to see how much traction that post gained, and that's why I didn't hesitate to say why I thought he was wrong.

To be fair, Roissy seems to be an extremist amongst the PUA community, which (like most human organizations) has its own internal divisions and factions.

I agree.

I have no problem with men studying the art of attracting the opposing sex, and some PUA methods seem to limit themselves to that goal. I think that's fine and even healthy.

What bothers me about the Roissy's of this world is the emphasis on exploitation, denigration and control. Women have known how to do these things to men (manipulate them, make them doubt themselves, make them so crazy that their good sense and morals are overruled by the Trouser Snake of Doom). I've always despised women who do that, though.

I apply the same reasoning to this brand of PUArtistry. It's destructive to both the men who practice it and the women they practice it upon. I don't see how it helps men to view potential life partners with hatred and contempt, or to think of them as nothing more than means to an end.

We've talked about objectification before and that's really what this is. There are women who view men as meal tickets and I find them equally objectionable. I just haven't seen any blogs purporting to teach women to do that sort of thing, nor have I seen ostensible conservatives saying that is a good thing.

I wonder why? I certainly don't go looking for this stuff and yet I see it pretty frequently.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 06:51 PM

"Me, I prefer basing my actions on what I think is right rather than what it "gets" me. I'm judgmental that way :p
Well contrary to current opinion, there is a lot to be said for being judgmental M'lady. May goodness and prosperity always alight upon you.

And may those who rely upon propane fueled weed burners to see them through, run out of gas at the most crucial moments.

*And so ends another of the Neanderthal's daily, sunset homilies.*

Posted by: bt_resident_neanderthal_hun at July 14, 2010 07:13 PM

I don't see how it helps men to view potential life partners with hatred and contempt

Well, I would have said that electing Obama wouldn't have helped America, but some people seemed to have disagreed ; )

In general, I will do so when the person I disagree with is a major blogger who I don't think will get bent out of shape if someone disagrees with them.

Sounds like the complexities of nuclear missile deterrence going on here *chuckles*

I do have a clearer grasp of how you see the situation though. I asked that question before, of course, but I didn't remember that these might be the same people that you were talking about before, but hadn't named yet.

I have a partial detective focus, so eventually vacuum and holes pop up on my radar.

We've talked about objectification before and that's really what this is.

I mentioned before the hunting instinct, of killing meat and eating it. That's women right? heh

But instincts against cannibalism, or maybe that is simply cultural programing, tends to preclude people from talking about that variation on the gig. But the trend is there, if you see how people talk about women as meat or lunch or how the Islamic cleric in Australia was talking about cats and cat food.

Biologically, those higher up on the food chain eats those below it, and this sort of hierarchy tends to get mirrored to pack hierarchies, but it is not the same. Food is just food, though. We don't have a social get together with the food. Why? Cause it is the food. Vampires probably have this little issue as well with humans.

Which is also why you can't cooperate with people in order to collectively survive, as a human being, if you think of your fellow human beings as food. See, there's a mental click that goes on when you do that, which preludes cooperation.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 07:37 PM

I expect this won't make much sense, but I have never minded if another blogger disagrees with something I write and says so.

I do worry - probably way too much - about hurting people's feelings. I have had people tell me they were intimidated by me before and that always upsets me. I also don't understand it, but I try to listen to people even if I don't agree or understand.

I guess my reasoning is that by the time you get to be a big blogger, you have to learn to let disagreement run off your back and therefore I expect big bloggers not to take disagreements personally or be hurt by them.

I've disagreed with Dr. Helen a lot, and I don't think that bothers her (if she even notices!). I don't feel too bad about saying so because my impression of her is that she's secure and self confident.

I realize that makes no sense to guys, but I try to be indirect if I have reason to believe disagreement might be perceived as criticism.

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 07:47 PM

May goodness and prosperity always alight upon you.

And you, my dear friend :)

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 07:49 PM

I have had people tell me they were intimidated by me before and that always upsets me.

Obama intimidates me too. I don't want to get my arse kicked, you know.

Oh what, what were we talking about again? Non Clowns, right, we were talking about those that are not clowns.

I guess my reasoning is that by the time you get to be a big blogger, you have to learn to let disagreement run off your back and therefore I expect big bloggers not to take disagreements personally or be hurt by them.

I had a similar problem, although it had little to do with writing posts on a blog.

I realize that makes no sense to guys, but I try to be indirect if I have reason to believe disagreement might be perceived as criticism.

There's that feminine strategy going on. Man the bunkers or something.

It makes some sense to me, but I'd have to agree that there may be a counter-intuitive issue going on with some people. Because while I can analyze the theory, I don't have as much knack at intuitively understanding or applying such a specific action in such a specific scenario.

For some males, too much agreement may actually be perceived as lacking a spine and submissive qualities. And I say "some" because this is actually a very general scenario, that applies to too many things at once. This can be strange even if you analyze same gender behaviors. It gets really interesting once you cross the wires. And it gets even more interesting when you include gay males or lesbian females.

The study of sociology can be very interesting.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 08:20 PM

I know I'm always scared, I must be one of those Omegas.

:)

Posted by: Allen at July 14, 2010 08:28 PM

This seems like a cultural shock difference between American and Japanese businessmen. The Japanese like to use the word "hai" to signal all kinds of things, but got translated as "yes".

So when an American asks a question, the Japanese counter-part takes it as a statement and always says "yes". But it doesn't mean "yes that is an affirmative", it means something more like "Okay, I understand and will comply".

This can seem very disorientating because your business counter-part, the guy you are supposed to be negotiating with, always tells you "yes" in response to anything you say, including questions.

They probably learned better by now, given the new generation.

I wonder if it would not have been better if they were speaking a different language rather than speaking the same one, English, and both thinking they are getting the right meaning across. At least with two languages, there is less of an assumption that a foreign word means what you think it means.

Hey, idea time. Men and women should learn gender independent versions of English, eh?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 08:32 PM

Ppppphhhhtttthhh :)

Posted by: Cass at July 14, 2010 08:43 PM

Wait awhabit. Hold on.

Does the O stand for Obama or Omega?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 14, 2010 08:51 PM

Yes.

Posted by: BillT at July 15, 2010 07:29 AM

*blinks*

*rereads*

*blinks again*

wow.

And I thought I had a hard time writing these days!

Posted by: BloodSpite at July 15, 2010 10:21 AM

Roissy was totally correct about his fisking of Megan McArdle's ignorance.

Cassandra claims to be against feminism, but actually agrees with 99% of the lefto-feminist agenda.

Ferdinand Bardamu has explained how Cassandra is painfully clueless, much worse than Cassy Fiano. See the later part of the article.

Posted by: Anon at August 6, 2010 05:49 PM

Cassandra claims to be against feminism, but actually agrees with 99% of the lefto-feminist agenda.

Really? What parts of the "lefto-feminist agenda" do I agree with?

Unsupported "arguments" like that are always so much safer to make from behind the cover of anonymity :p

Posted by: Cassandra at August 6, 2010 05:57 PM

*sigh* having read the linked post, the author doesn't present any argument whatsoever that explains "how" I'm clueless (much less where anything I wrote was wrong).

Not impressive.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 6, 2010 06:00 PM

*sigh* having read the linked post, the author doesn't present any argument whatsoever that explains "how" I'm clueless (much less where anything I wrote was wrong).

He clearly said that while Cassy Fiano scores a 4 out of 8 in her understanding of the evils of feminism, you are too 'painfully clueless' to warrant a fisking.

He also described conservative female supremacists (such as yourself) in great detail, and how they differ from left-wing feminists only in how best to abuse men. In all other areas, you agree with lefto-feminists.

The article laid it out clearly. You pretend that it didn't because you know you have been exposed.

I am sure that if you ask him, he will be glad to elaborate upon the nature of your painful cluelessness.

Or, better yet, why don't you fisk that article (even if it is devoted to the less-clueless Cassy Fiano)? You do know how to attempt a fisking, don't you?

Posted by: Anon at August 9, 2010 01:27 AM

I think that is what bothers me most about this PUA nonsense, Grim.

Nonsense? The reason you don't like it is because it works, and the costs of feminism are transferring back onto women.

Plus, that is quite hypocritical of you, since you have no problem with women mooching and freeloading off of men (do you ever tell women to offer to pay for the first date?).

You have no way of stopping men from learning or practicing Game, and returning the power balance back to normal.

About Grim : Well, she thinks fat women should not be shamed for being fat. Wrong. A healthy society would not try to make uglifying obesity normal.

Posted by: Anon at August 9, 2010 01:33 AM

From what I've read of the PUA genre, the effect their actions will have on other people never enters into their calculations. It truly is all about them and what they want.

This is Cassandra's usual misandrist baloney.

Women started doing this first. PUAs adapted to the new market realities. They are just responding to the incentives that feminists (such as yourself) have created.

You don't understand cause and effect very well, do you?

I'm continually appalled by how many people defend such idiocy

You don't want people to defend your writing.

Cassandra, you have a long way to go before you understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think (quite the opposite, in fact).

Game is the study of how women think.

Posted by: Anon at August 9, 2010 01:37 AM

Since you appear not to understand the concept of making an argument, let me break it down for you:

1. Writing a long post that attempts to refute something another author wrote, without presenting a single bit of evidence that I agree with her or that I have ever said any of the same things (much less endorsed, explicitly or implicitly, any of the positions he seems to think I support) does precisely NOTHING to establish that I am clueless.

It is yet another completely unsupported statement.

2. re: He also described conservative female supremacists (such as yourself) in great detail, and how they differ from left-wing feminists only in how best to abuse men. In all other areas, you agree with lefto-feminists.

Again, merely describing "conservative female supremacists (such as [my]self") as such presents no argument and no evidence from my writing to demonstrate that I am what he says I am. This is not an argument but an unsupported opinion. As no evidence was presented that I have ever argued that men should be abused in any fashion, much less that anything I've ever written supports left-wing feminism, there is nothing to refute.

3. "Fisking" a collection of unsupported opinions is about as big a waste of time as one can find on the Internet. There are no arguments to counter.

In the unlikely event that your friend ever manages to string a coherent argument together, there might be something to fisk. In the meantime, I have published your comments.

I understand that you want attention. I'm just not willing to waste that much time upon you :p

Posted by: Cassandra at August 9, 2010 05:44 AM

Again, merely describing "conservative female supremacists (such as [my]self") as such presents no argument and no evidence from my writing to demonstrate that I am what he says I am.

Virtually EVERYTHING that you write on the subject reeks of female supremacism. It would be easier to list what part of your writings don't exhibit this.

You have a long and shameful track record of anti-male bias, as evidenced here, on shrinkwrapped, Dr. Helen, etc.

You don't really know anything about human sexuality, or how women think, ant it shows.

"Fisking" a collection of unsupported opinions is about as big a waste of time as one can find on the Internet. There are no arguments to counter.

Yes there are. Discuss his points about why conservative feminists are virtually the same as left-wing feminists, except for a few tiny issues, and how conservatives are also prone to anti-male bias.

In the unlikely event that your friend ever manages to string a coherent argument together

His points completely exceed the intellectual level of anything you have written, for it explains why women such as yourself are feminists despite claiming to be opposed to the left-wing branch of feminism.

All you have is a weird combination of shaming languages, painful cluelessness, and misandry. You might be smarter than [deleted] Beth Donovan, but that is saying very little.

Posted by: Anon at August 10, 2010 05:02 AM

Anon, or Janine, or Right Wing Woman, or whatever the heck you're calling yourself this week:

You don't seem to understand that I have no interest in discussing a post I never linked to and find uninteresting. So let me spell it out for you: I have no interest in discussing your friend's post.

Or, really, in discussing anything with you. You were warned last time that substituting insults for argument would get you banned. Grow up.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 10, 2010 05:12 AM

"About Grim : Well, she thinks fat women should not be shamed for being fat. Wrong. A healthy society would not try to make uglifying obesity normal."

I think we can say with some confidence that, of the many problems American society has, this is not one of them.

Posted by: Grim at August 10, 2010 08:10 AM

"Anon" seems fairly fond of just making things up to suit her preconceived notions. Thus, if she decides I agree with left-wing feminists, she has no obligation to identify a single thing I've written that is left wing, feminist, or both. She simply asserts that I'm a left wing feminist :p

Not terribly convincing, but then she already agrees with herself so her target audience is in the bag!

Posted by: Cassandra at August 10, 2010 09:29 AM

If it's me you are talking to, Cass, there's little need. I know who you are.

Posted by: Grim at August 10, 2010 09:58 AM

MISANDRIST!!!!! :)

EVERYTHING YOU WRITE REEKS OF FEMININE SUPREMACISM AND MAN-HATRED, YOU MAN HATING MAN HATER!!!!

IT'S ALL SO SELF EVIDENTLY SELF EVIDENT THAT ALL I HAVE TO DO IS SAY IT IS SO!

*snort*

Posted by: Cassandra at August 10, 2010 10:33 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)