You may have noticed over the years that I cover a lot of topics that don’t seem to fit squarely in this blog’s mission statement of helping nerds date better. One of the reasons why I write about feminist issues or bad behavior within the geek community is because, frankly, getting better at dating is a holistic system. As I’m fond of saying, dating success is 80% attitude and 20% skill, and a lot of that attitude involves both issues of masculinity and also understanding and empathizing with women. The people who do best with women are the ones who not only understand them but, critically, don’t view them as opponents, enemies or inferiors. Much of what we assume to be the accepted wisdom regarding relationships is based around intellectual fallacies and cultural assumptions with no actual fact behind them. In fact, many of these cultural biases end up coloring the study of relationships and human sexuality, letting confirmation bias and naturalistic fallacies distort scientific inquiry.
I mention all of this because one of the things I’m always pushing against are the toxic philosophies that so often masquerade as dating advice. The Pick-Up community, for example, can be of use to men wanting to do better at dating, in theory… but so much of pick-up is based around mistaken ideas regarding gender roles and female sexuality that it’s difficult to sort the gold from the toxic, rape-y dross.
Bro, do you even alpha?
Of course, there are a lot of people who don’t feel this way. They feel that women have somehow gained an unfair advantage in the world, making it virtually impossible for a heterosexual, cisgendered white man to get a break. They see relationships as a fight for dominance and sex as a god-given right that’s being kept from them by women because REASONS.
One of the more vocal subsets of this particular philosophy is known as The Red Pill.
Before I get too much further into this, allow me to share the email that prompted all of this:
Doc, can you help?
My brother’s gotten caught up in the Red Pill Philosophy. It’s a mindset that shows up a lot in the nether regions of the internet that’s basically a mix of PUA and Men Going Their Own Way, but with a lot more violent misogyny. Some their “dating” advice is basically descriptions of abusive relationships. They claim to not hate women and focus on self improvement, but believe men must establish control/dominance over the women in their lives in order to “get sex”, and that women are intellectually/morally inferior to men. Many people recognize that this mindset is very dangerous, but all criticism from women and feminist men only makes fun of their more extreme points rather than offering an alternative to men and boys that are frustrated.
I ask because I want something to offer men my age and younger when they say acting “alpha” is their only way to get the relationship they want. The issue affects me personally.
My parents have a feminist marriage, since my mother is the breadwinner, however my parents are not happy together. Their marriage is sexless. Part of this is a fundamental lack of compatibility (they didn’t want to get married but did because of unexpected pregnancy), but it is also because our father allows my mother abuse and manipulate him. My father has many positive traits: he is intelligent, hardworking, and caring, but he is socially awkward does not stand up for himself. He is what red pillers call “beta” and earlier generations of men called “pussy whipped.” My siblings and I grew up in this dysfunctional household without a solid model for how men (or women) act in healthy relationships. My brother, who also had a long time crush on a female friend that was not reciprocated, “took the red pill” two years ago. He eventually got a girlfriend (not his crush) which “proved” red pill worked.
In some ways red pill did make him more attractive. He started exercising, eating better, improving his style and hygiene, expanding his social circle, and actually asking girls out. However, he became a massive asshole in the process. He believed wholeheartedly in the “alpha fux/beta bux” model” where men who are “beta” will only ever be hated and used by women, a model which our parents seem to fit. He believed that all women are the same, that women are only good for sex and babies, that all women are too emotional/unreliable to vote, lead, or work. He regularly insulted and talked down to his female friends, and touched them in ways that make them uncomfortable. He also gaslighted my mother and threatened her with a physical attack when he didn’t get what he wanted, since he believed she hated men and was out to get him. One of the popular red pill themes is that men should be dominant over the women in their lives, and sex and sexual acts are the metric of dominance therefore worth as a man. My brother’s girlfriend was a shy, socially awkward girl. She didn’t want to have sex, partly because of her youth and and insecurity, and partly because he was pushing for it too hard. To “break” her he would ignore and insult her in public, spread rumors about her, and use the more coercive PUA tactics.
One of the popular themes in red pill is the idea that men who want sex should “just go for it”. This is different from sexually escalating: the idea is that women secretly want a man to force them to have sex (because rape fantasies, evo psych, it demonstrates “alphaness”, other bullshit). Eventually my brother decided to “just go for it” with his girlfriend at a party. She had to fight him off and leave the party to get away. Needless to say they are no longer together. I had a long conversation with him after that (I’m probably the one woman he still respects). He recognizes that he tried to rape a girl and that that was wrong, but he doesn’t understand how to have healthy relationships with women without the red pill. While I can give him some help, I have no dating experience, and I’m not a man who has faced and overcome difficulties with women.
Do you have any advice for him and all the other young guys who grew up with only porn and red pill for role models?
Thanks, SadSister
So let’s get into this a little, shall we?
“Take The Red Pill, And I’ll Show You How Deep The Rabbit Hole Goes.”
Before we get too deep into this, we should start by defining some terms.
The Red Pill is, for all intents and purposes, what happens when the pick-up community decides that it hates women. The name derives from the scene in the Matrix where Morpheus offers Neo the choice: he can take the red pill and wake up from The Matrix and live in the real world, or he can take the blue pill and forget ever knowing that the Matrix is an illusion.
“Take the red pill and spend a LOT of time yelling on the Internet.”
Where the Wachowskis intended the scene to be a metaphor for the Buddha receiving enlightenment and no longer being bound by worldly concerns, to the Red Pill philosophy, it means “the recognition and awareness of the way that feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers affect society.” It’s a neat rhetorical trick – trying to claim both the identity of a persecuted minority (cisgendered, hetero men) while also proclaiming themselves inherently superior to the “blue-pillers”, white knights and “betas” because they see the truth: that they’re supposed to treat women like shit.
The Red Pill philosophy is heavily influenced by the Neil Strauss’s The Game and the Mystery Method school of pick-up; scroll through the field reports on the Red Pill subreddit and you’ll find it festooned with PUA jargon like “DHV” (demonstration of higher value”), AMOG (“alpha male of group”) and shit tests. Much of the Red Pill concept of “game” is focused on emotional manipulation and coercion. One of the key tenets of the Red Pill philosophy is that women are instinctively hypergamous – that they only date men of “superior” status and are quite literally incapable of loving men unconditionally – and thus men must be as “alpha” as possible at all times. Of course, because women are also incapable of logic and reason and only respond to emotions, it’s only fair for men to play upon their psyches in order to get their way. One of the most popular ways of doing this is known as “dread” game – deliberately making your girlfriend fear your dumping her or breaking up with her. Various ways of inducing “dread” include:
- Not answering her calls for a week
- Hitting on her friends (in a plausibly deniable way)
- Flirt with other women in front of her
- Running extremely hot and cold – being incredibly romantic one day and incredibly distant for three days after
If this sounds suspiciously like “emotional abuse”… well, that’s because it is. Much of the Red Pill philosophy is about regaining the upper hand because women somehow unfairly control the sexual marketplace. Interestingly though, only some women can control it as, in the Red Pill philosophy, women are only of worth from the ages of 16 to 25; afterwards they hit “The Wall”. From the Red Pill subreddit:
The point in a woman’s life where her ego and self-assessed view of her sexual market value exceed her actual sexual market value; the beginning of the decline. Usually occurs as a wake-up shock to women when they realize that their power over men was temporary and that their looks are fading. This usually results with first denial and then a sudden change in priority towards looking for a husband. Even after hitting the wall, many women will squander a few more precious years testing her SMV with alphas to double-check, hoping her perceived decline was a fluke, this will make her even more bitter when she finally has to settle for a worse-beta than she could’ve gotten before because of squandering her youth.
If this makes you scratch your head and wonder how a woman can control men through access to sex when she has such a limited window to work, then you’re not alone. The Red Pill philosophy isn’t big on internal consistency. After all, Red Pill-ers want to fuck the hottest women, yet these women are also the ones who are, in their words, “on the cock carousel”; so they want to fuck hot women and then turn around and shame the same women for fucking them. Women manipulate men, but men should apply dread game to get laid. They decry women for spinning multiple plates – RP jargon for “keeping men on the hook” – while also insisting that only betas settle down and alphas have harems. Women are manipulative and Machiavellian, forever plotting to fuck alphas and use betas but are also incapable of logic or rational thinking and instead rely on the “rationalization hamster” in order to settle cognitive dissonance.
Far be it from me to suggest that perhaps said Red Pillers have their own issues with cognitive dissonance, but hey, if the exercise wheel fits…
“Life ain’t nothin’ but bitches and tricks, son.”
“♬ In Just Seven Days, I Can Make You A Man ♪”
The appeal of the Red Pill ethos is simple; it’s all about taking someone who feels they have little power and convincing them that they have the only way to get power.
Let’s be honest: dating can be scary. You’re deliberately making yourself vulnerable to another person. When you get rejected, it can feel as though you are being judged on your entire existence. Many men, especially those who are socially inexperienced or just plain awkward, see each rejection as unfair or unnecessarily cruel; they believe that they should be given a chance to prove their desirability. Others feel that the universe has stacked the deck against them; only certain men are able to get women and this is inherently not fair.
“You say that so often. I wonder what your basis for comparison is.”
In the Red Pill world, it’s true: only certain men get laid: alpha males, According to the Red Pill philosophy, 20% of the men fuck 80% of the women. Don’t worry about the fact that this is mathematically impossible, it feels true and that’s the important part. So when someone is feeling like he’s been cheated by life, that it’s unfair that other people have an easier time getting dates or getting laid, the Red Pill ethos is there to validate those feelings. “You’re right,” says the Red Pill community, “It is unfair. You’re being denied something that is rightfully yours. You should take it back!”
It’s a classic recruitment technique, one used by hate groups for centuries: prey on someone’s insecurities and fears. Tell them that they’ve been wronged and then tell them “this is how you get to be strong.” Give them an enemy and tell them “this is why things are so bad for you. They’ve hurt you. They’ve wronged you. Don’t you want power over them?” They offer secret knowledge, helping you “wake up to see the real world”, unlike all those blue pill manginas. By being a Red Pill man, you’re proving yourself superior to others. You know things that other people don’t. You’re special. Not like those other people. The world of the Red Pill is one of “us vs. them”. An alpha fucks, a beta bucks, bro. Other guys are manginas, average frustrated chumps (because you’re not average or a chump, bro) or “white knights” – poor, deluded men who think that being nice to women will get them laid. Not like you, Red Pill devotee; you know the truth.
To someone who’s always felt like they lack control or who has low self-esteem, being told “no, you’re a god among insects” is intoxicating. You were weak, but now you’re strong. You’ve been given the secret of being Alpha – now you can be one of the guys who gets the women instead of the guy getting used. They’ll back it up with pseudo-science and evo-psych that sounds legit – after all, it’s confirming what you already believe. Don’t worry that “alpha” and “beta” doesn’t actually exist in nature; that’s just white knights trying to Nice Guy their way to pussy. Don’t worry that all you’re doing is masking insecurities instead of actually addressing your issues. Do alpha male shit, get pussy, bro!
But the Red Pill philosophy does more than offer the illusion of strength. It offers you an enemy to get revenge on.
“ANTI-SEX JUSTIFIES MY HATE!”
The dark side1 of the Red Pill is that it’s not about being a better man; it’s about hating on women. If you look at the statement of principles on /r/TheRedPill, you may notice something: there’s nothing in there about men. It’s all about how awful women are, not about how to be a better man; you get 19 bullet points about how women are the villain before you get to whinging about how much it sucks to be male in this world. Moreover, when you go through the Red Pill subreddit, you’ll find plenty on why women are awful, why you should never date American women, how women are cheating men out of their wealth, why women are shit and where a woman’s true value lies. You’ll see lay reports explaining why the best thing you can do is make a woman fear for the state of your relationship.
You aren’t going to see anything about, say, how to be a better father. Nothing about being a pillar of your community. Nothing about addressing issues like the rape crisis in the military, the demonization of African-American men or the demasculinization of Indian and Southeast Asian men. Just reasons why women are bitches and why The Red Pill is the Light, The Truth and the Way.
“See son? Says it right here: Feminism is a doctrine built on the pre-supposition of victimhood of women.”
And there’s a reason for that. As long as you have an enemy, you have someone to hate. As long as you have an enemy, you have someone to blame. And as long as you have someone to blame, you have a justification for hurting them. And let’s be honest: when you’re bitter about the fact that women don’t like you, there’s a part of you that relishes the idea of making them pay for it. Most of us recognize that impulse for what it is: a little dark whim born out of anger that quickly passes. But part of the appeal of the Red Pill is that it stokes that anger. It encourages you to feel it, to indulge in it. Women are inferior to you – why do you let them treat you like shit? It’s ok to abuse her; secretly, she really likes it. It’s ok to take what you want – you’re a man, you’re an alpha and this is what alphas do.
Of course, when you take that logic to its natural ends, you end up with people laughing over date rape accusations and advocating for domestic abuse as a relationship maintenance technique and why it’s ok to smack a woman around.
Waking Up From The Illusion
There comes a point in everyone’s life where they have to stop and take stock. And sometimes that picture isn’t pretty. The Red Pill ethos is seductive because it plays on a person’s desire to be special, to be told that he’s uniquely special. It validates both his victimhood and his anger. It casts the world as your enemy – a world of hypergamous, emotional sluts, jealous AFCs and pitiful manginas, all of whom are conspiring to bring you down because they resent you just that much. Admitting that you’re wrong, that you’ve been tricked, is hard… even more so when you have to acknowledge just how much damage you’ve done to others.
SadSister, I don’t envy your position. Your brother is in a bad place right now and it’s led him to do some frankly horrible things. It’s going to take a lot to make him realize just how fucked up his behavior has been.
Part of what helps is to look around, to really look and recognize how he’s been fooled. The Red Pill ethos is predicated on misdirection; as long as the person is distracted, they never notice the flaws in the logic. Once you stop and actually examine it, it crumbles like a sandcastle at high tide. When you strip away the gaslighting and the abuse, Red Pill tactics just don’t work. It’s Dumbo’s magic feather, if that feather kept whispering in your ear that all women were whores. What did he do that really worked? He started eating right, dressing better, working out, making new friends and actually asking women out. Everything else in the Red Pill philosophy led to his abusing every woman in his life and chasing them all away.
That alone should be reason to pause and re-examine his life. The problem isn’t that he can’t relate to women without the Red Pill, it’s that he can’t relate to them with it. Obviously, I think that one of the best things he could do is to start reading through my site for advice on finding and maintaing healthy relationships. But I also think he needs to do more.
He needs is to find positive relationship role-models in his life – people in happy, equitable relationships, not ones predicated on abuse and manipulation. It will also help to direct him to more positive masculine role-models, ones who help him see what true masculinity is like instead of the toxic stew that he’s been mired in. Personally, I think he could do far worse than to look at someone like Henry Rollins. He should also read books about healthy masculinity like Man Up: Reimagining Modern Manhood and even Confessions of a Pick-Up Artist Chaser, which helps break down why so much of the techniques the Red Pill advocate are so abusive from a woman’s perspective. Blogs like Yes Means Yes can help him learn to see what a positive, affirmative model of sex can look like.
And more than anything else: I think he needs to talk to a counselor. He’s got some vey deep scars in his psyche, and it’s going to take time and effort to heal them. And with luck, that counselor can also help him find ways to make amends for what he’s done.
Good luck, SadSister. Good luck to both of you.
- There are approximately three of you who see what I did there… [↩]
I think this kind of situation speaks to the environment that many young men grow up in today. "The Red Pill" primarily exists because there is a vast gulf between the kind of the relationships men want vs the practical knowledge of how to get there. Invariably, many of these guys grew up listening to the "Just be yourself" brand of dating advice for men only to find it ineffective. They are then left alone to drift through the vast sea of internet dating advice because there isn't a social framework for many men to learn dating skills from male role models or peers. Some of them stumble into a site like this one but others fall through the cracks and get sucked into the PUA community. To a man who has never received practical, step-by-step advice…the PUA community seems like the best thing ever and for the purposes of getting laid it often works (regardless of the ethical implications). What guys need is a positive roadmap…
Practical yet ethical advice is hard to come by, but guys shouldn't get the idea that certain behaviors are guarantees of success, which I bring up because the word "road map" implies arrival at a specific destination every time. Nothing is a free pass to creating attraction 100% of the time. The Red Pill-er in the letter seems to think that's true, though, evidenced by lifting weights and dressing well (perfectly fine) while being a grade A ass. The other side of that coin is the Nice Guy who thinks that being stereotypically sweet should win over any girl
Acceptence of the fact that you might not be someone's particular cup of tea should be pushed more, I think, and the stigma of romantic failure removed.
I think that is a very, very important point. Compare the environment that UnBent is describing for young men (which I do not disagree with), to the environment of young women. While there is a cliff of dating advice geared towards women that sells the "be yourself" advice, the vast mountain of articles, self-help books, and by-mouth advice given towards women is all about a road map of change to catch the guy. Wear these shoes, wear these clothes, do your hair and face like this, don't call/text too much, have this kind of attitude or this sort of lifestyle. Hell, even in romantic comedies, the woman only gets to Be Herself and be rewarded with the guy if Herself was already the epitome of femininity… and even then she still has to ditch the glasses.
I don't say this to suggest women have it harder, just that even when there is a road map, it's not guaranteed to succeed, and can tie you up in all sorts of other interesting knots. (The stark dichotomy between the dating advice philosophy given to men and women is interesting, though.)
This becomes a nasty double-edged sword, too: women are told to catch the guy they have to Do this, Be this, Feel this, Think this. And so they try, and they get the pushback: women are fake, women won't just be themselves, women rely on deception and trickery (by which we mean makeup and clothes that hide your stretch marks) to get guys.
There's a kind of "aggressive authenticity" movement that says that any kind of limitations or strictures you place upon yourself (even if it means being polite) is deceitful and wrong.
In a lot of ways, what Red Pill seems to me to be selling is the message that all that work you do to be a decent human being is holding you back, so you should just let go and redefine social morays to be what's easy and simple, and never bother trying to view other people as more than the disposable props in an action film. It's a fun message, because it probably is easier to just let go and be an asshole.
Basically, they're selling the idea that you were born a jackass, damn women messed you up, and now in order to win, you need to go back to jackassery, making you purer and more authentic and better than all those men wasting time on useless crap like "making human connections" and "being a worthwhile person."
Social morays.
http://artandlifenotes.files.wordpress.com/2014/0…
Snrk!
Mores, then. Jerk.
Sorry, just couldn't resist. More substantively, there's definitely plenty of good press given to the amoral charmer who has no fucks to give and gets whatever he wants as a result. Petyr Baelish is a bit more nuanced but he's the prime example. I get the appeal of this archetype, especially if you're not a Lannister. These other people have all the advantages, why play by their rules? Find the cracks in the system and drive a crowbar into them.
The thing is, if you follow that line of thought much farther you come to the line bout "I'll show them. I'll show them all! MUAHAHAHAHA!"
Is he more nuanced? In the novels, we never really get his thoughts or motivations.
More nuanced than the average Magnificent Bastard, yes. He has a past, he has at least a couple of motivations that we know of. He genuinely cares for Sansa in a way that's alternately touching and deeply creepy but still uses her as part of his master plan.
In the novels, he's hard to read. Varys seems much more devious there.
On TV, he's pretty sly, true.
I see them both as being pretty devious. I think they're both men who are going for the long con. Varys is more open about what he wants because he has had some occasions where the listener may be sympathetic or has no opportunity to repeat the revelations. Littlefinger keeps his cards a little closer to the vest, probably because no one would sign on to his plans or cooperate with him in terms of short term goals if they knew the extent of his ambitions.
Varys is hiding something rather large, too, I think. He's idea of working for "the Realm" implies to me that there's a larger organization (unless he really is the ONLY person who cares about the stability of Westeros.)
I think you’re right.
Possibility A: the most clever schemer in the realm is also the only one without a hidden agenda.
Possibility B: The most clever schemer in the realm has successfully kept his hidden agenda… hidden.
Hmm….
I always thought Varys was a spy for a foreign realm. Perfect place for a foreign spy – spymaster for the nation he is spying on.
He never says WHICH realm he cares for.
Littlefinger is just an odious, class climbing psychopathic paedophile with a head for figures.
Is he a pedophile be Westerosi standards?
He's not a POV character, but you get other people's firsthand impressions of him, and they are more subjective than the objective POV you get from a TV show. He's also less…sleazy? He's one of the characters whose adaptation I've liked the least. In the book, he seems more like a government minister with a plan for the long game who happens to do some business on the side. In the TV show, he spent way too much time at the whorehouse.
I think I like his TV adaption more because we get a little more of him without the coloring of someone's perceptions (especially Sansa's). The scenes between him and Varys were great.
Those were amazing scenes. I vary in terms of whether I like the subjectivity or not. With most non-POV characters, I prefer it, because it lets me have more of a role in deciding who's an reliable narrator and whose perceptions are untrustworthy. With some of the POV characters, I'm glad for the external view, because while I may sympathize with them in some ways I hate being immersed in their thoughts.
That funny. I found him, if anything, sleazier in the books. His mixed interest in Sansa is more squicky when she's 13. There's a revelation that hasn't come out in the show yet (That Big One About Everything) that makes him come off as far more ruthlessly calculating. Operating his brothels, while more obvious on camera, is less insane than the stuff he's done to friends and confidants. In both, he's arguably the closest thing to pure evil in the series.
On the other hand, in the book he's truly a modern man. He's used commerce to build a power base that makes him a rival to people with armies. He got rid of nobles and replaced them with commoners who were competent at their job. He managed to run an Empire in largesse when he was around and into ruin the moment he left with nothing but quill and paper. He's a self-made Wall Street tycoon in a world ruled by armies and by all counts he's currently winning handily.
So like any good Magnificent Bastard, you know you'd absolutely hate him in real life. Unlike most of the breed, there's also an uncomfortable mix of respect and disgust towards the character instead of just bastardly wish fulfillment.
Ah, see, I'm 100% squicked by it regardless of her age.
The commerce and power base angle is more what I'm thinking of than his actual morality. In the TV series, it seems like people see him as the slumlord and the whoremonger. In the books, it seems like other people might look down their noses at him because of his minor title, but that he cultivates a reasonable degree of outward respectability, regardless of the actual state of his morals.
I didn't get that from the show as much. Then again I'm going into it assuming that the Starks and Tywin are unusual in their disdain for brothels. The problem people have with him in both versions is that he considers (rightly, to some extent) money to be a replacement for good breeding.Proper nobles don't understand money. They have people for that.
So basically he is a Medici or Sforza…..
This is…so beautiful…
No, not like that at all, I find it funny when people discuss the red pill they never ask a red pill member what it means to them.
Being a asshole to a women doesn't work, the red pill clearly states you need to lift, work out, eat well, become social and dress well.
At which point they began to teach you to demand things, know what you want and be willing to move on if a girl/job/friend doesn't give it too you.
"Basically, they're selling the idea that you were born a jackass, damn women messed you up, and now in order to win, you need to go back to jackassery"
Red Pill clearly states, Women are what they are, you can't change nor judge their nature. Red Pill hates people who complain because we aren't feminist
Seems like you judge the hell out of their "nature."
So I totally get this…in theory. I suppose my personal experience is that I don't feel that I'm spending a lot of my time just reining in uncontrolled jackassery. We all have our "oh dang I really want to say something cutting right now" moments, but actually following through makes me feel bad in a way that's almost physical. I super doubt I'm the only one, because, frankly, I get good and crabby with the best of them so it's not like I'm a paragon of chilled out benevolence.
The people I've met (thankfully few, far between, highly avoidable) who were just unmitigated jackasses seemed much more like ambulatory bundles of raw nerves than the more placid people I've known. On some level I felt bad for them because it must suck to just have everything sort of get to you in that way, but in a practical sense I was not spending any more time in their presence than humanly possible.
Men are problem solvers by nature. They tend to see approaches to problem solving as series of steps. It is part of the base thinking process because to remove that is to appear as random.
Women are problem solvers by nature too – my evidence? How DO you stop a baby crying? Solve it’s problem!
(I know, ridiculous, but seriously, this idea that men see a problem and want to solve it while we…what? Hang around flicking our hair?)
That hair is not going to twirl itself okay.
I haven't had hair since I was 15. I'd help, just to know what it feels like.
Wait, you don’t see the hair flip as a crucial problem solving technique?
I think the problem is in the social narrative of what success looks like, more than anything. Everyone wants to be the suave ladies' man from TV or movies, and that guy always gets the girl. Not just A girl, The girl. None of the really romantically successful guys I've seen have been able to succeed with every girl they like looking at. What they do is they acknowledge, "Hey, I've got maybe a 1 in 30 success rate: let's find my 3%!" And failures roll off them, because hey, success is waiting somewhere else. The girl at the bar isn't interested? Cool. Maybe that one over there will be.
And it's not settling, because the process isn't about finding the hottest girl or talking down her defenses. It's about finding someone you like, who likes you as well.
But popular culture says if you're the stud, you go up to anyone and she's in bed with you by the end of the night.
Women get screwed on this one, too, because we're basically shown that success in dating for us should be us waiting and resisting, but being talked down by the man who is worthy of us. Push him away, and if he's really good enough, he'll come back. It sometimes leaves me feeling like I'm acting desperate because I do things like ask, "Hey, so, sex? We thinking about that?" I'm supposed to let him pressure me until he wears down my defenses, right? And then despite my reluctance, it will be TOTALLY AWESOME?
Cultural narratives suck.
Ethical? Did you just say ethical as if we have a obligation for a women's happiness?
A women is attracted too what she is attracted too, nothing can change that.
The Red Pill doesn't emotionally abuse women in anyway, if your gf/wife is not giving you sex you have every right to let her know you can get it else were if she doesn't want to make you happy.
Your ethical obligation to others is determined by the commitments you make to them. For example, I'd say all people have an ethical responsibility not to exploit or abuse others. You don't get out of that responsibility just because you happen to be a man and the person you'd like to exploit happens to be a woman.
As far as your ethical obligations to your partner go, that depends on your relationship model and also on how you're executing the ideas in practice. For example, if you're using the threat of going elsewhere to coerce your partner into sex, as opposed to making her aware of the consequences of her choices, then yeah, that's pretty fucking unethical. I'd also feel pretty safe saying that if you marry someone then you are taking on some ethical responsibilities in that direction.
Oh, the cognitive dissonance is on full display! You get offended at having an "obligation for a woman's happiness" and then actually say she has an obligation to yours, via sex, and you have every right to threaten her if she isn't fulfilling her obligation/duty to "make you happy"?
Happiness isn't mutually exclusive in a relationship – if one party isn't happy, neither party is happy. By contributing to your partner's happiness you thereby also contribute to your own.
Ethics all comes down to the simple golden rule, treat others like you want to be treated. If you were somehow failing to satisfy your wife/gf you would probably want her to come and talk to you about in kindness instead of threatening to leave you if you didn't tow the line. Not to mention in a situation of a wife/gf not sleeping with you, you probably would get better results, namely better sex, if you approached her in kindness saying you are really missing sexual contact with her and ask her what is going on. Because most likely if your wife/gf has stopped sleeping with you there is something going on, and a threat will only make the situation worse, not to mention have the opposite effect of making the guy even less sexually desirable.
No, no, no, see, HE is obligated to his OWN happiness and therefore must engage in all necessary measures to ensure it, regardless of who else it hurts.
"Happiness isn't mutually exclusive in a relationship – if one party isn't happy, neither party is happy"
I don't think this letter supports your claim, since the mother is described as an abuser and the one with power, and the father as a ball-less milquetoast with no social skills. If she wasn't happy, she has the power to change it. Since she isn't changing it, she probably is fine with what she considers "the couple's arrangement" in spite of the husband's happiness.
Most abusers I've known aren't particularly happy people.
[To a man who has never received practical, step-by-step advice…the PUA community seems like the best thing ever and for the purposes of getting laid it often works (regardless of the ethical implications). What guys need is a positive roadmap… ]
This type of the thinking is the problem. People aren't roads or games. You can't just input a code, or a follow and arrow and get the relationship you want. You can do the right things and still have someone not want to date you. You can still have relationships fail. I think maybe it's more important to teach guys things like respect and accepting rejection instead of this idea that following a certain path will get you everything with minimal effort.
You’re 100% right that a person is not a videogame level to beat, and there is no “walkthrough” to a date, sex, or a relationship.
At the same time, I feel like “what are some things I can do to go from not having a clue about how to talk to potential romantic partners to being able to have a chance of appealing to some?” is a question that can be answered without objectifying the potential partners in question.
Agreed. I'm not saying that you should never ask for advice but I do think there's a diference between 'how can can I improve my chances at making a connection' and 'how can I manipulate people into giving me what I want?'
Useful transition-phase stuff: http://www.reddit.com/r/ExRedPill
Above all, introduce him to a bunch of conflicting viewpoints. LessWrong for deconstructing of study methodology(because let's face it, the Doc's like for Sex At Dawn is also faulty evopsych), cognitive biases and special pleading, Patheos Blogs for a plurality of alternative models of self-fulfillment, MoodGym for self-CBT while on the shrink waitlist, sex worker blogs for models of consent that embrace sex-positivity with a pleasant raw tone that appeals far easier to the RedPill types, and so on and so forth. The dude must learn to think and observe for himself, and handing him another manual on how2humaninteraction could impede that development.
My opinion is the Red Pill is sort of an overreaction to what a lot of guys have tried before. "I was 'nice' before and I didn't get the girl. So now I'll be a 'jerk.'"
They're just replacing one false reality with the opposite.
I wrote a whole post on this on my blog (http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.ca/search/label/red%20pill ) but the main point is that at a certain point in order to strengthen our relationships, we have to stop believing our stories about reality over reality itself.
And that tends to be a process
Hey Dan, that link seems to be broken.
It's the left parenthesis that seems to mess it up. Copy the link, paste it into the address bar and delete everything up to and including "//" and it should be OK.
Yep, that did the trick! Thanks!
Incorrect, we have a lot of married men and a lot of men in long term relationships, nice guys do get girls,
they just want to know why they are being abused and being cheated on by guys that are assholes.
This entire "Nice guy gets angry he can't get laid" Mentality has to end, it was a invention of feminist to hide
the abuses men face everyday by making it seem he is just angry and bitter when in reality he is just
sick and tired
Never trust a movement that derives it’s terminology from pop culture. It’s a sign they haven’t thought things through.
I'd say never trust a movement that has impenetrable jargon. Red Pill might be more transparent than Thetans but any movement that uses buzzwords in place of thinking is worth examining closely before you repeat it.
Worth mentioning is that they have entire glossaries for the buzzwords they use: http://www.donotlink.com/bqbe
(a fascinating read, really)
Man, that's a lot of energy invested into thinking about facial structure.
I'm alternating between general disgust, appreciation of the few bits that are actually quite clever an occasional workplace inappropriate bursts of laughter for bits that seem so ridiculous as to be deliberate self-parody. As an example of the latter, ladies and gentlemen, let me present The Juggernaut!
juggernaut law
If a woman is below average height, has wonky teeth, Dumbo ears, this makes guys feel like they have a CHANCE with her, as opposed to if she were more "perfect", less flawed. So this means that even girls that are AVERAGE and BELOW still have guys hitting on them. You can't stop a woman's dating potential. She is like The Juggernaut. If she is a single mum, then more guys will think they are being her prince charming by rescuing her from all the "other bad, bad men out there". She is UNSTOPPABLE. Any flaw she has JUST MAKES HER STRONGER in the dating world.
Um yeah no. It would be funny if people did not actually believe it.
Its funny because it sounds like something I would write to make fun of the rest of the glossary but they went ahead and included it for me.
I continue to be baffled, just utterly baffled, by this stuff. Like, seriously, which seems more likely: that every single woman who struggles with dating does so because she doesn't fit the cultural narrative of attractive (Dumbo ears, single mom, weight issue, etc.) or because she's lying through her teeth, actually has men lined up around the block outside her door, and is just telling other people she struggles for… the lolz? The… power that comes with making other people pity you?
Every interaction I have had with RedPillers makes me feel like I'm traversing the globe and yet they're still insisting the Earth is flat. Take this exchange: I post on a RedPill forum about having difficulties with dating. The RedPill crowd insist I must just be picky and only want to date super models (see Juggernaut Law, above.) I post a picture of me, and one that shows my usual taste in guys (best celebrity example: Daniel Radcliffe.) They, in return, tell me down to even the slightest detail what's wrong with me, why I'm ugly, why they would never bang me…. while insisting I must be making up how difficult dating is.
Just-what. WHAT. http://media2.giphy.com/media/I3j4ApqtIS4Hm/giphy…
For being a movement that is supposedly founded so solidly on Logic, they are remarkable Wonderland about their viewpoints.
(AdamSavage)Well THERE’S your problem!(/AdamSavage)
I am not above the occasional Trolling-for-a-Good-Cause. Think of me as the scout: willing to go ahead into enemy territory to bring back valuable intelligence on how freaking ridiculous they are.
Damn doc, you beat me to it…
That is how conspiracy theories work: all logical until facts that do not fit are presented and then said facts are a) ignored or b) taken as disinformation and are part of the conspiracy
http://media.giphy.com/media/nuTCYnEPpzRYc/giphy….
Your gif fu is extra strong today, Marty.
Hear that RedPillers?
http://media.giphy.com/media/xXpJ7qm7lcoFy/giphy….
Flawless Victory!
Oh Eddie Izzard! Is there anything he can't make better?
Yeah this seems like typical sexist bullshit. Women are always wrong and even if were right we're still wrong.
Uh, do they not realize that straight women are not in fact their dating competition???
"Wristmogged means being dominated by another's thicker wrist. Skullmogged means being dominated by a man with a better shaped or bigger skull."
I'm an the 2nd definition and what is this? I already can't even, you guys.
Jesus.
"blackcel
A black incel. Also known as an niggacel."
WAT
Well clearly guys with small wrists are unattractive and doomed to being FOREVER ALONE.
Let me know when you guys get to beta-face.Or is that strictly a PUAHate/Wizard-chan thing?
Pretty sure it was in there. Juggernaut pretty much laughed the rest out of my head.
Smash Bone Theory was the best, because the idea of someone repeatedly bashing his head into a wall in order to get prettier is such a good metaphor for this stuff.
PHRENOLOGY LIVES
How, how do you tell who has the bigger and better skull? Calipers? X-ray vision? Do you do 'exercises to improve your skull?
Fedora size.
Every time I see the word "mangina", I always think of this scene from the TV show New Tricks when the police caught a murderer who, in terms of how misogynistic he was, fit the bill for a Red Piller, and the last thing one of the cops said after describing how the culprit committed the murder was something like "and if that makes you a man and me a mangina, then go ahead and give me a Brazilian".
I have that phrase on standby.
I remember that quote too- I’m a big New Tricks fan, but I think the misogynist guy actually wasn’t a murderer, but he had sent his son off as a child to another country becausehe had found out this other guy was the father, not him, and he didnt want to raise another man’s child. He’d also left his wife thinking for years that the child had been kidnapped and killed. Nice guy. The New Tricks guy was saying that a real man wouldn’t care and should just have raised the child as his son anyway.
Yeah, my memory of the episode in general is off but that one phrase stuck in my mind.
Funny how taking the red pill was meant to symbolize the Buddha's enlightenment. I always saw it as symbolizing escaping the cave in Plato's Cave analogy, or perhaps escaping Descarte's deceiving demon. I suppose great minds do think alike.
More or less the same concept. I always assumed it was equating the Matrix with the Hindu Maya, which is also more or less the fallen world of the Gnostic Demiurge. More or less the same thing no matter how you slice it.
I like the connection with Plato. I'd never made it before.
I think on a real life level, I like the 'Inception' metaphor better. It's more a progression through different layers as you learn and grow– 'surfacing' or 'going deeper into the mind' which I suppose is journeying in two opposite directions.
It speaks more to me because I've never found anything in relationships or life where you can just take a pill/read a book/hear a talk and you're done. It's something that needs to be integrated in your life and those understandings also tend to change and deepen and that takes time
Well remember that the hero/shaman's journey involves going to the other world, defeating the big bad and reintegrating with the tribe to apply your new wisdom. Despite the Matrix being "fake", the real world is clearly the Other World of the Matrix trilogy.
I rarely reply directly to these articles. I prefer to jump into a conversation thread that's already going. This one really speaks to me, though, so I hope you're out there SadSister. The situation you're in sucks a lot. The situation your brother is in sucks a lot but it may be better than you think. He's got the good habits that make him attractive. He's learned to get out there and do something to get what he wants. He's also got some really douchey, dangerous behaviors but he does realize he's pushed it too far. That means he's got at least some self awareness and sense that reality doesn't match the game plan that Red Pill types have given him. I feel for the poor guy. If I had a way to shoot you my private contact info without broadcasting it to the Internet, I would.
So here's my thoughts:
Henry Rollins has hours and hours of spoken word stuff that you can find on Youtube. Not all of it is related but it is all entertaining. Shoot him some links and let those lessons sneak in on their own.
The Doc here has done a really god job of taking the good lessons from the PUA community and presenting them in a way that doesn't involve treating women as a subhuman Other. See if you can find one that applies to his situation and shoot him the link. Maybe he'll find this article on his own.
I assume, admittedly without proof, that your brother has long term friendships that last. Those friendships can serve as a model for relationships. After all, you don't constantly worry about your friends leaving or try to keep them scared of you. He's got the confidence to b up front about hat he ants now, so he should be able to navigate the difference between being friends for real and having an ulterior motive.
Red Pill promised to make him happy. Simple question to ask (phrased a bit more diplomatically) "are you happy with who you are right now"? This is where Doc's columns on taking charge of your own emotional well being come in. Its a lot easier to avoid assuming bad faith on the part of another person if you're happy yourself.
Every PUA does some study in cold reading at some point. Mystery and Style suggested palm reading if memory serves. Here's the thing, if you're good at cold reading, you're good at empathy. You're taking some small cue and asking yourself "what does this tell me about this person? How do they feel? How would they react?" Now in PUA, a lot of the time this is to figure out where to push to get the response you want. Its a fairly small step to take that same skill and go from distant empathy where you understand what they feel to a close sort of empathy where you care what they feel. Someone who's good at it is nearly psychic when it comes to understanding others' needs.The trick is just shifting the focus from getting what you want to doing something nice and/or supportive for someone else. That's the stuff fo a good partner right there.
Most people like being around people who make them feel good about themselves. If your brother goes after people that his techniques work on, he's going to self-select people who fit his assumptions. That's not to say that everyone else will necessarily see through what he's doing, just that they won't tolerate his shit. If he can feel good about himself and genuinely like people, he'll have a lot easier time attracting people who value themselves as well as him.
Good luck, SadSister. Wishing both of you all the best. Give him a good nudge and hopefully he'll pull himself back from the brink before its to late.
SadSister, I know this is a difficult time and a terribly hard situation to handle. You are essentially dealing with someone who has bought into an ideology of hate. Luckily there are tools for family members to address these issues.
First off, suggest to your brother that he seek therapy to address the impact from living in an abusive household. A good way to approach it will be to remind him that he almost committed a felony (and did commit the felony of attempted rape) and that therapy might help him avoid committing another. The attempted rape is hard evidence that something needs to be done.
Second, read through some of the following resources on how to address prejudice and radicalism: http://diversity.missouri.edu/learn/speaking-up.p… http://muslimmatters.org/2010/10/18/yasir-qadhi-t… http://www.culteducation.com/coping.html http://bokamosoafrica.org/category/masculinity (South African focus but still applicable)
Raped? WTF are you talking about? Can a guy get a drink of water without committed rape these days?
From the LW's letter:
"Eventually my brother decided to “just go for it” with his girlfriend at a party. She had to fight him off and leave the party to get away. Needless to say they are no longer together. I had a long conversation with him after that (I’m probably the one woman he still respects). He recognizes that he tried to rape a girl and that that was wrong …"
When even the perpetrator can recognise that they tried to rape someone, it shows just how completely oblivious you are when you don't recognise it. Or maybe you just rolled a natural 1 on your Perception check.
The LW's brother's words not mine.
HOW THE HELL IS TRYING TO FORCE YOURSELF ON SOMEONE SEXUALLY EVEN A LITTLE BIT LIKE GETTING A DRINK OF WATER?!?
I feel like when your pickup technique sounds like something Dennis from It's Always Sunny would spout out while the rest of the gang watches uncomfortably, you've gotten the wrong advice somewhere… yeah.
Also just a friendly note it's not a huge deal but generally when making the distinction between cis and transgender, it's better to use "cisgender" or "transgender", because gender isn't a verb, and some people find using it in a verb-y way a lil' dehumanizing.
I'd say that anytime anything in your life starts to remind you of something from It's Always Sunny, it's a signal that things have gone very wrong.
The DENNIS system is flawless!
Agree on cis/trans — “cisgendered” and “transgendered” are no longer in polite usage in the trans community.
I'm glad someone mentioned this, b/c I didn't know that!
On a more abstract note, though, I find something compelling about the idea of gender as a verb. I female, what do you do?
I do have to say, the fact that the gang are all monstrously bad people and even THEY are uncomfortable with Dennis's rapey methods does give me heart, a little.
They really weren't though, except for Dee. The only reason Mac and Frank didn't adopt the DENNIS system was that they had their own systems that were working for them, the MAC (move in after completion) and "magnum condoms and a wad of 100s", respectively.
Though on the episode with the boat, Mac was definitely put off by Dennis's rapey vibe (but they won't SAY 'no', you know, because of the implications)
Is the "a lot of topics" in the first line supposed to be a link? Because it looks like one, but it's not clickable at the moment.
It is and it’s supposed to lead to the Nerds and Male Privilege article, but for some reason, the code isn’t translating properly and I have no idea why.
As a young Asian man, I just had to say that the only people I have seen trying to address the demasculinization of Asian and Indian men are Redpill and PUA communities. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody claiming to be a feminist discuss the matter. Which makes sense: it’s our fight, not their’s.
I think that Redpill sites are full of gross generalization and anger, but I also think there’s a lot of truth and useful information they have.
A lot of the emotions that drive the redpill and PUA communities are real and underdiscussed, and I sympathize a great deal (especially the past few days, believe me), but they mix in so much hate and bad philosophy and bad psychology that I can't take them seriously.
This is the thing. Plenty of people feel lost and unsure of what it means to be a man in a shifting cultural landscape. Arky can additionally specify Asian man but I think its much broader than that. Yes, its frustrating, confusing, even infuriating. It feels like we were promised something only to have it taken away when we got to the finish line. It feels like our parents knew what was expected of them but we just sort of played video games until one day someone said "ok, you're an adult now. Hope you were studying". The thing is, blaming people who are not like us for that doesn't fix the problem. It just lets us keep being angry at people who aren't like us. The solution to finding out you've been handed a load of shit is not to paint everyone else's world with it.
What is this hate everyone keeps talking about? Please show me a example of hate on the red pill(That is a post, not a comment)
Really? Dear Zod does someone have time to field this from the glossary above? I'm a little tied up with other stuff right this second.
Yep, me either… I've yet to see any hate that is endorsed as a defining maxim of "the red pill".
These claims of "Hatred" remind me of the Anti Sex League from Orwells 1984.
FWIW I'd be happy to connect you to feminists who are dealing with this issue, but you need to be prepared for the fact that an uncritical "remasculinization" within the current paradigm of masculinity isn't really the goal. On the bright side, they are decent, ethical people who are capable of both empathy and compassion, unlike the redpillers.
If you had any links or websites I should be paying attention to that specifically talk about this issue, I, for one, would love to read about that.
It comes up from time to time on Everyday Feminism, e.g. http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/10/every-day-rac…. The end's a little self-congratulatory for my taste, but it's a start. But the real meat is going to be connecting you to the scholars I know who are working on this issue; I'll have to get their permission first so it may be a little while.
No problem, and thank you for the link.
This has been something that I've been trying to found out more about for awhile. I see feminism decry what is negative about masculinity, but its hard to get an idea about what they would like to see masculinity or "maleness" become.
The one sentence version is "worry more about being a good person than a manly man."
Yes, I know that part.
The problem is being a white, hetero male in society what I see as "being a good person" is filtered through the schema of someone who can't fully appreciate what it's like to be in the shoes of someone who doesn't have the same privileges I do. I know I have "blind spots" and, moreover, I don't always know where those "blind spots" are. Personally, I do find it helpful to get input from others in different positions from me and use how they express their experiences to shape my actions going forward.
I keep noodling on writing a book on precisely this topic. But it's a very back-burner project so who knows whether it will go anywhere.
From where I sit, I feel like it's a needed project for society today. The only people who are giving positive* insights on being a heterosexual man in society today are Christian fundies ala Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill, Robert Bly hippie-folk-drumming-naked-in-the-woods, and MRA/red-pill people.
(*I'm using "positive" in the additive sense here, not in the good/bad sense. As in they're talking about things to do vs. things your shouldn't be doing.)
I feel like I've said ths a lot lately, but jump over to Youtube and type in "Henry Rollins Spoken Word".
Personally I think we need positive masculinities (plural). A lot of the so-called "modern masculinity" articles I've either give masculinity traits that I and/or others could never live up to given my/their personality and temperament and smuggles in certain assumptions about masculinity that aren't "objectively" toxic but are toxic to certain people with certain experiences and personalities.
My friends and I call it "artisanal masculinity." Any mass-produced masculinity is going to hurt as much as it helps.
I found this to be interesting, though I wish the conversations hadn't died so quickly:
http://groupthink.jezebel.com/traditional-masculi…
Reminds me of a quote Clarisse Thorn used in the first post of her masculinity series; it was a friend of hers describing her preferences in men: "“I think you personally find expressions of masculinity hot, but you also have no patience with sexism. You’ve caught on that it’s tricky for men to figure out how to deliver both of these things you need, that you don’t have a lot of good direction to give to fellas about it, and that neither does anyone else.”
She and the commenters in those long threads never found a satisfactory answer :
Personally, though, what I dislike about modern women who are attracted to masculinity but not sexism is that it often means that the only way for a man to be attractive to them is to be hyper-competent, Mature and Adult, not vulnerable, and confident, *all the time*, because the other traditional ways of being masculine won't be accepted by these women. That seems like a very high pressure situation for the man in that relationship. For example, one woman in that Jezebel article comments said the man complaining a little when he was sick was a huge turn-off. Really!?! Gender liberation goes both ways, lady. I think men have the right to complain when they're sick without being punished.
I feel like this a lot of the time. I like to think of myself as a feminist, and I hate stereotypes of what women want, but… I fall into those stereotypes a lot of the time. I love a guy who will take charge, who will pin me against a wall and kiss me breathless. But I don't like the assumption that it's because I'm a woman and not because, well, that's what I like. It's hard to seek out what I like without feeling like I'm betraying the cause.
I will say this, though: the guys I've found that make my toes curl don't think of it as acting like a man, at least not out loud. They call it taking charge, and it's limited to our fun sexy-times together. If I pick up the check, they don't argue with me. If I suggest things to do, I have as much voice in the conversation as they do.
Are my standards high? Yes, probably. But also… I'm not necessarily looking for perfection. Treating me like a respectful human being is point zero, and I'm not willing to budge on that. The rest is… a mix of possibilities. Some guys will be able to geek out about my favorite SF authors. Some guys will cook with me. Some guys will give and receive massages. Some guys will wrap a fist in my hair and kiss my throat. We can find ways to interact, and we can walk our path together.
Unrealistic expectations absolutely come up on both sides, but I think that's a product of wanting your partner a la carte: I want John's stoicism, with Javier's ability to provide, Joaquin's gallantry, Jabir's ability to make love, Jebediah's eyes, Jorje's abs, and that cute little dimple Jai has, but no other part of him.
It's boutique lovers, and we look for deviations from the ideal.
If you're interested in some books that might help you think this stuff through, I found Pepper Schwartz's work on peer marriage really useful for what fully equal partnership looks like – and once you've got fully equal partnership, then it can be fully equal partnership in pinning you against the wall.
I will check that out! Thank you.
Hahaha, I'm a switch so I also like to be thrown to the ground and ravished sometimes. Sometimes (less often) I like to be the ravisher.
But I don't think that makes me a bad feminist because that kind of dynamic relies on trust and communication and FUN in a relationship, the exact opposite of toxic ideals of masculinity.
I think the problem is that one of the manifestations of sexism is that many (if not most) men consume far more caretaking than they give. When a woman says she doesn't like it when a guy complains when he's sick, she might be enforcing traditional masculine roles – meaning, she's not okay with him expressing vulnerability. But it might be helpful to consider that she might also perceive it as a manifestation of sexism, because of all the men she's encountered in the past who wanted to be cared for when they were sick but didn't expect to reciprocate. I'm not suggesting that it's an okay attitude to have either way, but it's helpful to understand how the same attitude might come from either a masculinity-enforcing or sexism-rejecting perspective. I also think it probably has something to do with caregiving work being devalued and feminized – meaning, she doesn't think he's going to do that work, and so she's resentful when she's even implicitly asked to do it. Sadly, there are a lot of people (male and female, feminist and otherwise) who reject sexism in the sense of thinking men and women are equal, but not in the sense of valuing traditionally feminine behaviors and activities. I think the latter is key to having a healthy masculinity, actually.
Speaking personally I think my husband is totally masculine and totally hot and I have no patience with sexism, but artisanal masculinity means I don't know how much his experience generalizes. But on Sunday we had a really interesting conversation about why baking is part of his masculine identity but cooking isn't. (Though he loves cooking more – it's relaxing.) He likes to bring baked goods to people's houses to show them how manly he is, which I find incredibly charming – and if they don't see it as masculine, then screw them right in the eye.
Agreed. I got really angry with my ex-boyfriend when he expected me to nurse him like some kind of fucking Florence Nightingale/Virgin Mary through a cold. Not because I thought his endless whinging about very minor symptoms was unmanly, but because it was childish and self-indulgent, and most importantly, I didn't see him for dust when I had actual influenza and needed someone to get me lemonade and check how many tablets I was taking.
It wasn't the lack of manliness that stuck in my craw, it was the lack of reciprocity.
And I think that reciprocity in this area – as with most caregiving work – is very hard for men to see. It means that a guy may be really puzzled about why he's getting "stop your selfish whining," when in fact the behavior is in fact pretty selfish but it seems normal to him because that's how we raise men to behave.
(By the way, I actually think this is good news – because if we've learned one thing, we can learn something else. Guys who learn to see clearly have a huge advantage both in treating women fairly and in negotiating masculinity without bumping into problems like these.)
This is the pattern I have heard from women who complain about men being whiney when sick and I have seen it in action in non-romantic relationships.
I have been through a couple little outbreaks at work where most of the foreign staff was laid low. More often than not, male colleagues would ask female colleagues for nursing and help (e.g. get a new poo buck, ORT, soup) but when the women got sick the men only rarely reciprocated because, "Well if you are sick someone needs to pick up the slack. I do not have time to help." Um excuse me? When you were sick, I covered the work and your nursing.
Needless to say, after a few experiences like this, I became the mean one who would not help a sick colleague (although in truth I would help anyone I saw who had helped someone else)
Exactly. Another exBF, and the exGF, both got lots of blankies and hot toddies and days on the sofa with cats and Disney movies when sick, even if "sick" just meant "have had a hard week and feeling a bit strung out". I LOVE looking after people who need a bit of TLC. But those were people who had my back and looked after ME when I needed it.
Can you explain what you mean by "artisinal" masculinity? I read that and think of something refined yet not accessible to everyone, which reminded me of an earlier comment by the Wisp about how he (and many) men may not be cut out for the current types of masculinity.
I say this because flaunting the ability to reject gender roles while still being "manly" works for some men, myself included, because we have other traits or abilities that make us undeniably masculine. I'm a muscular firefighter and martial artists, so my less-than-masculine pursuits are highlighted as breaking stereotypes, but not everyone has that sort of "street cred," the ability to get it, or the desire to keep up its maintenance.
Maybe "bespoke masculinity" would be a better way of putting it? Artisanal makes me think of cheese.
That…kind of makes me more interested in men
Hmm.. good point. I REALLY like cheese.
Art is anal cheese?
Truer words were never spoken but only if Art is spelled with a capital A and pronounced with an "ah".
And that makes me less interested again! Anal cheese sounds like the sort of thing one should probably see one's doctor about. 0_o
I do like it better but I can't help picturing a wooden sign that says "purveyors of fine bespoke masculinity since 1884".
True, but now I'm picturing going to a Ren Faire and coming home with portions of artisanal masculinity, lovingly wrapped in greaseproof paper. Goes well with oatmeal crackers.
I know a perfume maker who might just make use of that idea.
Isn't that the slogan of Brooks Brothers?
I went to their website to check and its either that or "we use too much !@#$ing Javascript".
Hmm, I use "artisanal" in the sense of "made by an expert individual in small batches." Expertise, in this case, means self-knowledge. I find that self-knowledge and calm confidence (not the showy kind, just the "this is who I am" kind) is the theme among the guys I know who successfully embody artisanal masculinity, not the degree to which they also exhibit conventionally masculine traits. If I had to sum it up, it's an attitude of "I am a man, and this is who I am, therefore this is masculine."
Oh, good. As long as it's not sold at Whole Foods. That could get pricey.
I agree with the motto; being unapologetic for yourself in the face of flak tends to earn respect.
100% organic, free-range masculinity (so… Tarzan?)
That is probably the case in some situations, though I'd note that the women posting on Jezebel were just saying it was "unsexy". It came off as a performative evaluation rather than an evaluation of reciprocity.
Lack of reciprocity, feeling undervalued, feeling that you are placed in the selfless "mother" role etc. are unsexy so I can see why they would phrase it that way.
It's a tough balance to strike, for sure, because no one wants to get caught up in the stereotypes on the other end of the spectrum: dressing "too" well means you're gay, being "too" in-shape means you're vain and/or dumb, being "too" confident means arrogance, being "too" assertive means you're a dick, yadda yadda yadda…
I've been thinking about your comment since I woke up this morning, and I have a different perspective on the gender association of that particular way of showing weakness. I don't think that woman was objecting to her boyfriend not behaving in a sufficiently masculine way. Being whiny and expecting to be coddled when you're sick is a socially accepted way for men to be weak, which is why your replies are from a bunch of women who have experiences caring for men in those situations. I don't think traditional gender roles are that men are coded as strong and that women are coded as weak, but that there are a fairly rigid set of ways for both genders to express each. Men are expected to be providers and protectors and permitted to occasionally be insensitive, irresponsible, thoughtless, and demanding. Women are expected to be nurturers and homemakers and permitted to occasionally be vain, indecisive, wimpy, and petty. You know, your usual sitcom tropes.
It sounds like you're afraid that upending these gender roles has led to women expecting men to drop all of the traditional male weaknesses without permitting them to pick up any of the feminine ones. I think it's understandable to object to that, and I have met some women who do hold those expectations for their partners. (Is the woman in your example one of them? I don't know, and think the answer depends on whether she'd be similarly annoyed if her boyfriend complained about feeling unattractive, a feminine-coded worry.) On the other side of things, I have also met a lot of men who reinterpret gender roles so that they can drop traditionally masculine expectations and occasionally so that they can express more feminine-coded weaknesses, but who don't strive to reduce or even see masculine-coded weaknesses or pick up some feminine-coded strengths. Women fear running into this man in the dating market for many of the same reasons that trigger your anxieties – after all, if your partner brings many emotional needs and weak points and few strengths, that means you have to be the strong one in many different ways and most of the time.
I think the answer to this is to destigmatize feminine-coded ways of being strong. It's currently pretty problematic, because society doesn't even recognize the ability to feed and comfort your husband and children when you're just as sick as they are as a form of strength. I bring up this skill set sometimes, and it doesn't seem like it's a very appealing one to men who are exploring these problems. I think there's a lot of work to be done from both feminists and men interested in revising masculinity in affirming the value of this sort of work, whether it's done by women or by men.
1000 upvotes! Strengths are strengths and should not (in an ideal world) be coded masculine or feminine. The same goes for weaknesses.
Agreed. So why code anything as masculine/feminine? I read a lot of things on gender that make me question why we even bother with it.
The hobgoblin of all culture, tradition.
That is a damned good question and I really wish we could get to be gender neutral on a lot of things, especially human traits and behaviors.
I do think the jury is out on to what degree biological sex effects one's personality, so I wouldn't say coding things as being *generally* masculine or feminine is *necessarily* bad in the abstract as long as there's room for flexibility for individuals to mix and match and defy gendered generalizations.
This. This this this.
The price of sexual freedom is that people have more room to be unrealistically demanding and/or unrealistically lazy, it seems.
By the way, I'm with you in hoping that feminine strengths can be more recognized without nullifying masculine strengths. Myself, I have a mix of masculine and feminine strengths and weaknesses (I'm sure many people do), I would hope that all could be seen as valid by future partners.
I would say that the price of making a partial transition from a society with prescribed gender roles to one with more flexible gender roles is people exploiting the unevenness in their favor. I don't think that's necessarily something that would accompany a full shift to a society, which would include valuing traditionally feminine labor and think it as ordinary for a man to do as it would be for a woman to do labor market work, though.
If you mean sexual freedom in terms of the Sexual Revolution and not in terms of gender roles, I'd say there isn't much cause and effect there and that it's more that we shifted toward being more flexible about both due to a general shift toward emphasizing individualism over collectivism and tradition.
I meant the former.
How do you think this relates to society being more accepting of sex in non-marital relationships? The two occurred around the same time, but I don't see much of a cause and effect relationship there. I can pretty easily imagine a society that allows people to have non-marital sex but that still tightly enforces gender roles (there are certainly plenty of existing subcultures that do this).
What? Oh, I think I misread hour question. I meant to say that I meant frieedom of gender expression.
Ah, gotcha!
Hey, I just want to point out that I remember a time when a misunderstanding like this would have sent you to a bad place, and I was so excited to see this thread go another way. I know you're having a tough time right now but these days every time I read a post by you I feel so happy and so hopeful.
tl;dr <3
Awww, thanks!
"… it often means that the only way for a man to be attractive to them is to be hyper-competent, Mature and Adult, not vulnerable, and confident, *all the time*, because the other traditional ways of being masculine won't be accepted by these women."
I'd really like to give you a big 'ol hug for this.
Oh, no argument. That's a good goal to have. As a fellow white collar white male, the biggest trick is going to be believing some of the crazy shit that people pull on your non-white and/or non-male and/or less physically, mentally or economically able friends. The next trick will be to not respond to the actions of those idiots by shooting fire from your ears and lightning from your ass.
That said, yeah, go out and find other perspectives. Also, keep asking around here a lot. I've learned quite bit about what women want and what they deal with from the comments here.
Ass-lightning sounds painful
Well its certainly not comfortable. The collateral damage does save on those Brazilian mangina treatments, though.
Sometimes it's worth it, although in the end there can be only one.
I would upvote this 100 times if I could
Also stumbled upon this stuff, might be useful: http://books.google.nl/books?id=1NQ7PZhiO0sC&…
But plenty of the demasculinization stems from those very same communities("lol NOWAG manlets"). They're addressing a stereotype they're perpetuating themselves in the first place, and they seem to force you to resign to that particular paradigm instead of telling you to seek out social circles that don't buy into it(it's your lived experience, so I don't know how widespread the sentiment really is, but I'd wager there are communities out there were people would be unfamiliar with it).
As an Asian woman who faces a related, but different set of stereotypes and dating challenges (don't get me started on the number of guys who've tried to "China Doll" me, jesus fucking christ), I'd really love for you to elaborate a little more on what you feel is the "demasculinization" of Asian and Indian men, and how the Red Pill addresses that.
Just generally speaking from my limited experience, in popular media, Asian and Indian men are rarely the "heroes", their strengths are often relegated to math-y, science-y, geeky abilities, unless they are an accented KUNG FU MASTER (gag), Asian and Indian men don't "get the girl" (GAG). In terms of stereotypes, there are the ones about physical ability and appearance (penis size, skinny men = feminine men, Asian/Indian men don't conform to western standards of lantern-jawed masculinity, so they're "pretty" at best). And in terms of personality stereotypes…. I'm not going to lie, I've had multiple people, including my mother, tell me not to take Asian or Indian men, because the assumption is that they have a culturally ingrained sense of sexism related to their race. But that's just what I've seen/heard from my experience as a non-Asian dude, and obviously not from a dating standpoint– if there's anything you've like to elaborate, contradict, or add on, that would be great.
Well, you covered most of it. I think the biggest issue is that many women just don't see Asian/Indian dudes as sexual options (courtesy of our lovely mainstream media).
How does The Red Pill address this? Well, a lot of people outside TRP in our lives just laugh at us. They (mostly white men) say "lol, what a loser, using race as an excuse." They pretend that white privilege, race, and racial stereotypes aren't issues. They tell us to "be ourselves."
At The Red Pill, all these lies go to die. What appeals to me about TRP is the brutal, self-effacing attitude of the place, and how TRP doesn't shy away from the uncomfortable truth. Yes, Asian men have a disadvantage. And after admitting that, TRP, PUA, and the associated communities tell us how to address it. They emphasize physical fitness, dress sense, defying stereotypes, and aggression. They teach us social scripts to employ in situations that our upbringing did not prepare us for.
Finally, it teaches us to avoid being taken advantage of by women. There are some women who will only date a horde of white men throughout their twenties, but then suddenly become interested in Asian men. To clarify, there is nothing wrong with dating white men or many men. But something is suspicious when a woman who claims "I don't date Asian guys," explicitly or through her actions, suddenly feigns interest in an Asian. Before TRP, I wouldn't have realized that. But now, after what TRP has taught me, I can avoid being taken advantage of by one of these women.
So in short, I'm not ignorant, and I know that TRP has its share of idiocy and extremism. But I also really think that it's a force for good in my life.
Just curious. Do you feel the same about white men who dated many, many, many white women who suddenly develop an interest in Asian women?
Well, yeah. It brings up the question: why is he/she suddenly interested in something that he's proven he/she has no interest in?
For our fictional woman, she most likely is suddenly interested in an Asian guy (despite a decade of saying "I don't date Asian guys) to please her parents, to exploit his financial resources, or some other ulterior motive.
For our fictional man, perhaps he has bought into media stereotypes of "China Dolls," and sees our woman not as an equal, but as something to be possessed and dominated.
It's equally disturbing either way.
True that.
In my experience, though, in many cases it can happen because people do not live in areas where there are many Asian/Indian people to date and then move to a more diverse area and start dating a more diverse group.
However, anyone that says "I will not date $group" at any point in their life earns a major side eye and is off my friend list, much less my dating list.
Or, and this is just personal experience, he dated a bunch of people without much thought to race but primarily white women because that was his (my) middle class suburban peer group and put no though whatsoever into the fact that his next girlfriend was not white.
Perhaps. But you have to remember that we're coming from different places. It's unfortunately quite common for women to say "I don't date Asian guys." It's pretty weird for guys to say "I don't date X-race women."
Oh agreed, that's why I started out with personal experience. I guess my point is sometimes it can be a good idea to give people the benefit of the doubt even if past experience with other people hasn't given you a lot of reason to. . . and yeah I get that its easier for me to say that, its just the best I got.
Out where I live, we have a lot of empire builders in the entertainment industry who are perfectly happy to exploit small players, keeping up a line of patter to convince you that they don't have an ulterior motive. My rule of thumb has been that I'll give anyone the benefit of he doubt once but if I have to do it twice before they've fixed the first problem, we're done.
No, I’d say it’s *very* common for white men to say “I won’t date X”, especially when X is “African-American”.
Cosign on that. So, so, so many men will not date African American or American African women. Online dating makes it even more glaringly obvious. All races except African American/Black checked? Really???
Yeah, we've seen a whole lot of that on the forums (back when we had forums). Believe me, it happens.
" It's pretty weird for guys to say "I don't date X-race women.""
Um.
No, it is emphatically not.
It is "weird" as in "not okay", but it is *not* at all unusual.
http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/1ja730/i… http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/107i17/w… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/literally-darling/t…
This is just personal experience, but if you'd asked me when I was 18 whether I was attracted to Asian men, I probably would have said no. If you'd asked me at 25, after having gone to college, law school, and then moving to New York, my answer would be very different. This certainly wasn't to please my parents (I'm white, they have a preference for the type of man I'd like to date – namely, the sort I'm not attracted to – but seem indifferent about race), and none of the men in question had more in the way of financial resources than I did. The difference was that I actually knew some Asian guys at that point and had gotten used to finding Classmate A and Coworker B attractive.
Right, but I think what he's getting at is that there is not much wider cultural representation of any Asian cultures as anything but Asian-for-a-reason. Men are innundated with fetishized versions of Asian women, but the men are generally left out until a real-life run-in with the possibility that Asian men can be attractive too.
To date, I don't think MTV has ever had a male Asian cast member. I remember that was a criticism leveled at them years ago, and I don't think anything's been done about it.
I think wider cultural representation of people who are not white is generally a good thing to aim for.
I agree with that, especially because cultural bias isn't something one can change single-handedly. I think it's very pragmatic and useful to focus on how people can navigate the reality of a world full of unfair expectations and build the best lives they can for themselves, but it doesn't change the injustice of, say, how Asian and Indian men are portrayed. More diverse media representations doesn't fix the problem, but given that we do build at least some of our stereotypes from the media, it's a place to start – and it's a place to start that doesn't place additional work on the disadvantaged individual.
I actually always found Asian men attractive due to a childhood crush on Michael Chang, but I've never seen one so much as check me out, and I work in Chinatown.
Just a random thought
Oddly, most of the girls I've dated were Asian, randomly.
The tennis player?
Yep! Loved his calves!
He's coaching Kei Nishikori now, and those calves still look great.
Not, to my eye, as great as Roger's or Rafa's — but that just ends up being a matter of taste, I think.
/tennis fan digression
As I recall my anime fangirl days, we probably fetishized Asian guys to an unfortunate extent. But yeah, in Western media, I guess it doesn't happen so often?
I knew someone who only ever dated Asian women – often women who she had very little in common with as well -, and though she never said anything about it directly, I got the impression there was a bit of a fetishization thing going on. At some point, it seemed like she kind of outgrew it, and started dating people she had more in common with (both Asian and not), and seemed to be seeing Asian women more as people.
So that makes me think there may also be people who start off with a sketchy, racist attitude in the other direction (not wanting to date instead of fetishizing) and date based on that for a while, and then eventually realize their mistake and abandon it.
Sometimes exposure to different people leads one's standards for what's attractive to expand (and, obviously, people tend to be exposed to more as they age). If you don't run into many people of one group or another, they can seem like a distant "other" and so it can be hard to feel attracted to members of that group (this applies to subcultures as much as race or ethnicity or religion). Speaking for myself, in high school I didn't really find hispanic women attractive. However, after spending 2 years at a community college that was ~33% hispanic, I now find many hispanic ladies attractive.
This is far less sinister or cynical than your interpretation (though I'm sure people like you described do exist).
Yes, I've had something similar happen. I also think that this is a preference more likely to be held when young, or when someone hasn't had exposure to many types of people. When I was younger, basically every man I knew was either white or Native American, and most of the people I saw on TV were white, so I assumed those were the groups I was attracted to.. After having some experiences with expanding preferences, I try to lean toward assuming I may be attracted to [whatever] in situations where I don't have many data points.
Very much this.
Which could be a whole conversation about how it's still mostly white guys (and the occasional black dude) in the media who get voted as "sexiest man of the year" and put in protagonist roles and all that. But now we're not talking about something women are actively doing, we're talking about the system in the entertainment industry that was put in place by white men. And THAT, including better representation of non-white heroes (like Asians who aren't nerds or kung fu masters!), is very much something that gets a lot of ink in feminist spaces. Or at least in the comicnerd spaces.
Just going to throw this out there: you're not trying to date all women. You're trying to date particular ones. Yes, there re some women who will see you as inferior because you're not white/rich/stacked/whatever. Fuck them. Why do you want to expend your energy on them instead of looking for someone who does like you? Yes, by all means improve yourself. Work out, dress well, treat yourself right because youare a valuable person to yourself and you deserve it, because you are, as St Neal said:
"by birthright, a stupendous badass, albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that he could trace his ancestry back up a long line of slightly less highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating gizmo—which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time. Everyone and everything that wasn't a stupendous badass was dead.”
"Finally, it teaches us to avoid being taken advantage of by women."
The problem with that is that the philosophy "teaches" that by teaching that ALL women are trying to take advantage of men. Might as well say that the KKK philosophy teaches white dudes how to avoid violence from African Americans.
TRP's philosophy still quantifies masculinity as something that can be taken away from you. But (in a manner that is far too close to cults I've known for my comfort), if you follow *their* teachings, your masculinity is safe. Now, if you stray, if you become a feminist or something like that, they'll call you all manner of names that indicate you've lost your masculinity. Of course, in that case, it won't be about race (overtly), it'll be about how you left the fold and behaved in a way they see as "wussified." But they're still claiming you can lose it. Basically, it's the dread game, as applied to you. They've moved the focus from your race to your willingness to follow their dogma, but it's the same thing: We've given you something of value and we can take it away.
" Before TRP, I wouldn't have realized that."
I don't know that you've "realized" anything so much as they've fabricated something plausible sounding to paint women as the enemy.
You may think it's a force for good in your life. But dude? It is a hateful, horrible philosophy that comes from a dark, dark root. There's nothing it produces that isn't poisoned. You may not get "taken advantage of" by a woman (not gonna lie, there are women out there who take advantage of men. But then, as the Red Pill shows, there are men out there who make it a life philosophy to take advantage of women. So it's less a gendered thing and more that there are terrible people everywhere). But you're never gonna have a healthy relationship with this kind crap festering in the background. The very nature of TRP itself is emphatically against healthy relationships.
To be fair, in very multicultural areas, they often do see them as equally desirable. Exposure does broaden your horizons.
Other stereotypes of Indian men include being seen as FOBy, stinky wife-beaters and serial rapists. Then there's the idea that we're inherently backwards by virtue of being Indian alone. Oh, and also the endearing 'funny' and obnoxious Indian accent trope is something I've internalized over the years.
I'm Indian and I wish I grew up in environments that were more ethnically diverse. From my teenage years and onwards, I've been living in places where the majority of people were white and I'd always consumed 'white' media where 'white' beauty and 'white' heroes were the norm. I'd always had this gut feeling where I occupied the lower rungs on the "Attractive!" ladder and felt like that was simply the natural order of things.
There was this girl at school who had asked me out of the blue to be her boyfriend. She was taller than me, white, blonde, blue eyed and pretty. I said no, because it was so abrupt and I'd suspected that I was being made fun of (I couldn't imagine having a girlfriend at the time anyway). Apparently, she'd done the same thing with a few other boys who were non-white/awkward/ugly.
It's one thing to experience ingrained self-racism but, what do you do when you're the one with racial biases?
Others might be able to chime in with more concrete advice, but I found the best way to get past beliefs like that is exposure through friendship and other platonic relationships and questioning your beliefs and why you might hold them.
For example, when I first went to work in Angola I has some pretty negative stereotypes about men from sub-Saharan Africa mostly picked up from media. After working with so many Angolan and men from other African nations, the bigotry faded and I realized I thought this way because of the limited image I had been exposed to. Getting to know real people in all their complexity killed the stereotypes.
I'd add, read/watch more diverse media, especially if it's difficult for you to spend time in environments with a lot of other Indian men. India has quite a significant film industry, I'm sure you could find tons of movies showing Indian men in appealing roles in whatever genre would speak to you.
I think there's an advantage to seeking out specifically Indian movies rather than (or, better yet, as well as) generally diverse movies – sometimes, it feels affirming to be somewhere where all the people are "like you" in a way you don't normally experience, even if that somewhere is in fiction.
Agreed, and not just because I am a huge fan of Indian movies which are definitely evolving beyond the Bollywood stereotype – not that I do not love me some Bollywood. There are also a number of good Indian authors like Aravind Adiga becoming available in the US.
Watch movies with Hrithik Roshan in them! He is the world's most beautiful human! And Indian. And portrayed as so, so desirable. (My favorite example of this is a scene in Jodhaa Akbar where he's practicing swordfighting while shirtless and Aishwarya Rai's character just stares at him and drops the tray she's carrying.)
He is almost criminally good looking.
When I wrote about having racial biases, I was mainly referring to having a conditioned physical preference for a certain kind of woman. What do you do when you're the one having racist preferences?
@enail: I'm curious; did my comment imply that I wasn't familiar with Indian culture? That's not really the case. I'm like my father in that, he always appreciated Hollywood over Indian cinemas as being the benchmark for quality when it came to the technical and story-telling aspects of movies. In comparison, a lot of Indian movies always seemed to be so….lacking (I'm sorry, I wish I knew how to explain myself better). Also, Indian markers of masculinity have their own problems to do with destructive gender roles and don't work outside India (Eg. Having a moustache was/is commonly regarded as a very masculine feature, but nowadays this ideal is changing as we continue to embrace more Western ideals of beauty. Outside India, wearing a moustache means you look creepy and like a 70's pornstar).
In any case, I have the experience of feeling like I don't possess a strong cultural identity and I've fallen in between the cracks i.e. I think I've always lived as an Indian on the 'fringe' and now I desperately want to feel 'white'.
@Henry Gorman and reboot: By "definitely evolving beyond the Bollywood stereotype" do you mean embracing 'white' ideals of beauty and lifestyle and how the industry is becoming more Americanized?
Also, I feel like the reason Hrithik Roshan is so drooled over is because he looks so…..anti-Indian i.e. he possesses a lot of European hypermasculine features (that goddamn chiselled face and green eyes, taller than average height, fair skin, luscious hair and an impossibly good looking and hairless body). So, while I can see the appeal, it still makes me uncomfortable (Also pay attention to how the actors and actresses become progressively lighter skinned through the years. Compare SRK's physique and skin tone in Dil Se vs. his appearance in Ra One).
I was thinking better production values, screenwriting, overall cinematic technique
What do we think about Arshad Warsi? I came across some pictures while looking up Roshan, and he is way more my type.
Didn't even know that was his name until you brought him up. He looks stereotypically 'Indian' to me (It's the nose…).
I had (and still have) the craziest, giddy crush on Sashi Tharoor. I met him at this UN thing back in the day, long before his political rise and fall and rise. Did not even know who he was until later but man I was damned near speechless when I saw him
He comes from Kerala. As does my family.
I have a huge soft spot for Kerala (and no not just because of my crush). Their health, education, and anticorruption programs are impressive. Life expectancy only 1.7 years less than the US with a small fraction of the resources? Yes please!
Prefer him to Roshan – he looks like a man who will utterly wreck your shit in bed.
ETA: Er – in a good way, in case that wasn't clear from context.
"I think I've always lived as an Indian on the 'fringe' and now I desperately want to feel 'white'. "
Do you mean on the fringe of the Indian culture where you live? (Where is that, by the way? Seems like your family has immigrate somewhere else?) Or on the fringe of general, white society?
My wife feels on the fringe of her Indian culture, as she's Indian herself but doesn't "live up" to the cultural expectations pressed on her by her family (and they expectations they feel from their community). She's very much American by birth and upbringing, which she acknowledges without problem, but her association with American values causes a lot of friction with her Indian heritage. (I'm a living example–her mother was asking if my wife was meeting nice Indian boys 2 YEARS into our relationship.)
I've had a similar experience with my Hispanic background, but I live in Florida where one look around shows that I'm not exactly a minority locally. I'll bet your situation is quite different.
@Conreezy: "Do you mean on the fringe of the Indian culture where you live? (Where is that, by the way? Seems like your family has immigrate somewhere else?) Or on the fringe of general, white society?"
I meant that I felt I was on the fringe of both societies (Not Indian enough to feel Indian and not Anglo enough to be seen as a part of the whole. That's my biased impression anyway…). My family is pretty insular and anti-social so, we'd never really participate within our own Indian community out of ill feelings/paranoia, or even make an effort to assimilate with Aussie lifestyles. So to a certain extent, I think this feeling is inherited. Over time, you just start feeling like being Indian is inherently unpleasant and something to be ashamed of.
It's similar to what your wife feels, except I'd assume she's lucky enough to fall back on her American identity if she gets too exhausted from having to prove that she's Indian, to her own freakin' family.
I was born in Bahrain that already had a significant immigrant population (which allowed me to go to an Indian school). I'd moved to the UK at age 12/13 and later left for Australia at 15.
"I'm a living example–her mother was asking if my wife was meeting nice Indian boys 2 YEARS into our relationship."
Man, you'd think we'd know better what with being coloured and all.
No, I don't think your comment implied that you weren't familiar with Indian culture. I just have found in my own experiences that enjoying entertainment where "people like me" (for whatever value of "like me") are normal really helps with feeling out of joint with the world.
That works for a while but it's always fleeting. It gets harder as the culture gap gets wider.
I hear ya. I think real life experiences are really important on this. As someone who feels slightly alien in every culture, I find I connect more easily with people who have some sort of cross-cultural experience or experience of being "other" – do you have any opportunity to spend time with people like that? Maybe that would be a good fit for you too.
Well, I'm at uni, which I guess is a good place as any to socialize and make friends. I don't have the confidence to make use of this opportunity though. There's a lot of fundamental social skills that need work and a lot of baggage that needs unpacking before I can get to a healthier place to start making connections.
Maybe even if you're not at a point where you want to try making connections, you could keep your eyes open and try and notice other people who might be feeling like they're on the fringe or caught between two cultures. Foreign students, non-foreign students of colour, children of immigrants, people of religious minorities, people of a particular religion who don't share some values that many people of that religion adhere to, LGBTQQA people, students who come from a poor or working class background, are all groups likely to feel the way you feel in some ways, even if it's not exactly the same.
And there can be people experiencing similar struggles even when they don't look it. I'm not biracial, but I'm bicultural and where I'm from, there are some pretty hard feelings on both sides towards the other group that can be super hard to deal with. I've always had some pretty obvious "tells" from both cultures which meant I can't pass well for just one or the other and even when I do pass as one, it feels like I'm betraying the other parent. To look at me, though, that's not immediately obvious. Put yourself out there, you might be surprised at what you may find
@enail & Reine_margaux: All good suggestions. But then you run into the problems of not having enough empathy, vulnerability and all the other fuzzy virtues that enable connections to form in the first place. And that's another conversation for another time…
I know this is a standard response, but are you in therapy? Also, I don't know if this will help or not, but many medium and large universities have general therapeutic support groups. Yeah, unless there is one specifically for minorities, the group will mostly be white people, but even if you have unique struggles, having peers listen to you nonjudgementally can be surprisingly beneficial.
I did see a counselor for a very short time (although for different reasons than what I've talked about). As much as I'd like to be in therapy, I have my reservations.
While I'm a research rather than a clinical psychologist, I'd be happy to give you my perspective about any concerns you have.
Thanks for the offer.
Anytime! Just let me know.
Despite the fact that your post makes me seriously wish that you had grown up in a more multicultural area where you could have been around more people who don't see white as the end all, be all of beauty, I would like to seriously thank you for opening my eyes on this topic. I had never thought about how asian men are seriously underrepresented in media and now that I have, it makes me want to see more of that diversity. I mean the only interesting male asian non-geek, non-martial artist asian character I can think of off the top of my head is Matheson from Crusade and that's kinda sad.
Something that actually stood out to me watching The Maze Runner was that they have a prominent Asian character who isn't a nerd or a martial artist. He's the leader of the Runners (the kids that go out to map the maze every day to find a way out), so he's athletic, but not in a "kung fu master" sort of way. He's not the Chosen One Protagonist, but in terms of Characters Who Get To Do Cool Stuff, he probably comes in just behind him.
Also the leader of the colony was a black kid and the colony itself was pretty diverse (y'know, for being all-male. My step-brother told me that later there's an all-female group as well?).
Pi from Life of Pi is another prominent one.
EDIT: Oh, and Kimball Cho from The Mentalist.
And, what's his name? The ridiculously good-looking dude? Ergh, I'm drawing a blank on the show he was on, so I can't google him. But I saw him on something else recently, some cop show, it was filmed somewhere with really pretty scenery? …this probably isn't helpful. But it's going to drive me crazy for days. :\
BD Wong? He was also the crooked auto shop teacher in The Substitute 2.
Nope, not him. But I figured it out by guessing that the pretty scenery cop show was Hawaii 5-0, and it's Daniel Dae Kim, and the character I was thinking of was Jin from Lost.
Seriously, is that guy not the definition of chiseled good looks? It's ridiculous!
Oooh Jin! Yeah, forgot about him.
Daniel Dae Kim is Matheson from Crusade. It was the first time I ever saw him and yeah, I love him in Hawaii 5-0.
The guy in Glee was good-looking and a fantastic dancer, but they went all MUST USE ASIAN STEREOTYPES and it got gross.
Do you mean Sleepy Hollow, maybe? The guy who played Sulu is in that as a cop (and a bad guy…sigh, too pretty…)
And Flash SHOULD have had really hot Indian guy play Director Singh, but noooooooo… (which pisses me off because I was looking forward to sexy, I-am-so-tired-of-your-crap-Barry, dapperly-dressed Singh. But then, they're going with a young hot Captain Cold, so everything is just weird).
I will watch ANYTHING that John Cho is in, movie, tv show, anything. He's one of those actors that always brings a lot to the character, above and beyond what is in the script.
Hikaru Sulu, and he was a huge deal in those days for that exact reason. Ronald Sandoval is a more recent example.
@Reine_margaux: "Despite the fact that your post makes me seriously wish that you had grown up in a more multicultural area where you could have been around more people who don't see white as the end all, be all of beauty…"
*Shrugs*, it doesn't exactly help when your mother culture fetishizes fairness though. You should watch some of the ads for whitening creams/soaps on Youtube (the majority of the target audience are women for obvious reasons, but it's not like men get a free pass on those beauty ideals either).
Oh man, I saw a lot of that and tried really hard to combat it when I was working at a tutoring center with a 95% bengali (and 0% white, I was the only white chick in the center at all) clientele. It drove me nuts. My girls had the most beautiful, rich skin colour and they all wanted to lighten it. They were so beautiful and it drove me nuts that there was cultural pressure for them to be ashamed of their looks.
I wonder if Asian people are not seen in a lot of representation in film roles in the first place is because most people aren't actors, out of those that are, not everyone is successful, and don't Asian people make up a minority of the American population? Also include the immigrant culture where it is common that parents from Asian descent often try to get their children to pursue :"safer" career paths such as becoming a doctor. If so it is quite natural to feel not represented. However that's no excuse for people to only give Asian men the stereotypical characters in film though.
It's less the lack of actors and more the lack of strong, non-stereotypical characters of those races that are written. Asian women, I feel, have managed to break out of that more than men, but that could be because I tend to notice female characters more than male characters. Gender bias, I admit.
Yeah, when I've read articles, they've indicated that there are plenty of Asian actors looking for work, but they have trouble getting cast unless the role specifically describes the character as being Asian. If the character doesn't have a racial designation, usually only white actors are considered for the role.
Sung Kang as Han in Fast & Furious: Tokyo Drift.
One of the most ridiculous movies ever, IMO, but I pretty much watch it just for the way he delivers his lines.
AMOF, he was the one that got me into the franchise – and for a Vin Diesel fangirl that's a pretty tall order.
I especially like the non-misogynistic misogyny. "Oh, I don't hate women, I just think they're less intelligent than men, less capable than men, abusive towards men, and responsible for the decline of western civilization as we know it".
Oh. That's all. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, REALLY. How is that misogyny? That's just a statement of fact. Women are more stupid than men, the sky is blue, Black people are worthless. All true facts.
True story femmebrah.
I know. Silly feminists with their "misogyny."
I probably shouldn't joke like that actually, since I have discovered that some dude people do not think that misogyny is a thing. Because, obviously, if they don't see the sexism in a situation then clearly it isn't there. If I see it, it's just because I'm female, illogical, and in all likelihood PMSing.
Yeah, I had a pretty rude awakening on the "I don't see it" thing earlier this year. I'm going to a big event later this year with my cast and its led to me marking out "safe" camps on my mental map so that no one is ever out of sight of people who will back them up, no questions asked, if someone gets out of hand.
I avoided reading about Red Pill stuff when I found out about it because, frankly, if I want to see something depressing I'll watch the news, but the philosophies DNL mentioned read like a checklist for my dad's (vehemently expressed) views on women. The only difference is the lack of PUA terminology. He frequently asks me if I have a girlfriend yet (despite how many times I tell him I'm not dating yet) and when I tell him that I don't he either tries to commiserate with me about how all women are deceitful or yells at me to get off my ass and 'start hunting'.
And he wonders why I don't like spending time with him…
Ummm… So you like being single? I don't get it? Why don't you date? Your dad sounds concerned.
He kinda sounds like a raging misogynist, actually. The fact that you don't differentiate also makes me wonder as to your leanings in that area.
His other posts make me quite certain as to them.
Well, I've read two now, and this was the first. If I'd read them in the other order, I'da been certain quicker.
I don't date because I'm going to college and working, so any relationship I had would come in at a distant third when it comes to priorities and that wouldn't be fair to the other person. And my dad is a neurotic, chronically angry misogynist whose entire purpose in life is to try and make me into the 'perfect son' at the expense of anything like a real relationship.
Examples: When I was a baby he never had anything to do with me and told my mom "I won't bother with him until he's old enough to play sports." He still harps on me to join the military (which I don't have anything against in principal, but I would never pass basic training even if I made the medical screening to get accepted in the first place, which is doubtful), and he spent at least a decade (from the time I was ~4 until I was fourteen) living with his mother and calling her an 'idiotic old crone' (among other things which I won't repeat) when she didn't fund every stupid whim to cross his uninhibited frontal lobe. He also firmly believes that Asperger's "Is just a bullshit doctor's note to get out of doing your homework" and that anyone whose depressed "just needs to suck it the fuck up, the world doesn't owe anyone anything".
Your dad sounds awful. I'm sorry.
Meh. It's just something I have to deal with. Ironically enough, he's probably one of the reasons I didn't turn out to be someone like him in the first place. I was not a happy person going through elementary-high school and I could've ended up being quite piece of work, but after seeing the way he treats everyone he comes in contact with one of my overriding goals in life became 'BE HIS POLAR OPPOSITE. ALWAYS.'
In your position it's a good idea not to date. Since you can't support yourself yet that's going to be a major ding against you, and you're going to have to work damn hard to convince someone to overlook the Asperger's.
…Right, because affluence is the only thing women look for…totally…
Hey, it might be helpful to remember that there are other people out there who might want a relationship that isn't their first priority either. I know you have complicating factors that might make this impractical, but I do know women who either don't want a first-priority relationship at all, or are in situations like yours and don't want to wait until they're out of school to do any dating.
That said, you know I totally support you if you just want to wait on the dating front – please don't take what I'm saying as any pressure to change your mind.
A big part of it is that I'm still living at home (I don't have the money to afford an apartment since a minimum wage job wouldn't cover that and all of my money goes to college anyway) and I don't have a driver's license (the first time I ever drove I almost got T-boned by someone doing 50 on a residential street and I made the mistake of not getting back on the horse). I'm working on driving and I'm completely student loan free, but it's safe to say that I'm undatable as things stand right now.
Do you have other transportation options where you live? Bus routes, stuff close enough to bike to etc?
The nearest bus route is a bit over ten miles from my house, and I can bike places in the warmer months, but since I live in Minnesota that's about four or five months depending on how long winter decides to be on any given year. Plus, there just isn't much interesting stuff around my house. I live in a suburb that edges towards the lower end of middle class so there's not much in the way of interesting stuff to do around here.
A beta like you disapoints his alpha dad
I'm sure I do.
On the other hand, you make me damn proud to know you.
#blush
Curious if anyone here has ever successfully deprogrammed themselves from undesirable, family-learned relationship patterns that they don't want to repeat in their own personal lives? I'm in a place where I know what I don't want, and how to recognize it, even if I'm still afraid of slipping into old familiar patterns just because they feel comfortable (at first). But I'm less sure of how to seek out and pursue the kinds of relationships that I actually DO want (partly because I'm not even sure what those would look like, or what personalities would mesh best with mine in healthier ways).
The short answer is yes, the longer answer is I'm not sure how my particular situation could be helpful to you aside from a bunch of generalities that you probably already know.
Yeah, I've been studying up on all the generalities. Short version of my situation: a much less extreme/toxic version of LW's parents but with a similar controlling woman/passive man dynamic.
I guess I'm hoping for a roadmap that I can maybe only draw myself? Or, put it this way: Am I looking ahead to a long period of trial and error that's rewarding in the long term but frustrating in the short term and daunting to contemplate? Journey of 1000 miles, one step, etc., etc.?
I did this with minimal trial and error. I was in one significant relationship that I can't even say was bad per se, but was pretty clearly the same pattern my parents played out and was very slowly killing me. When he proposed, I broke up with him; the next guy I dated was the man I've been deliriously happy with for nearly eighteen years. I'd be happy to try to unpack some of what I did, but the more specific you can be about what you'd like to know, the more helpful I'm likely to be on my end.
As someone trying to learn to trust his own judgment, I guess my biggest question would be: how did you recognize you had something good that ALSO ultimately worked for you? Did you have to analyze what did and didn't work in your earlier relationship, and consciously seek out someone with certain characteristics, or did you just get kind of lucky and have an extremely suitable person fall into your lap and it turned out that that thing worked?
I developed what I like to call a "beacon" – a vision of my life that I could dream towards. Then I looked for a guy whose values and goals were compatible. I made that my number one priority, and I was willing to compromise on just about anything else. So, for me that meant having a vision of my life where I got caretaking instead of doing all the caretaking, and where we subverted rather than upheld traditional gender roles. Every guy I met, I asked myself, "Does this person seem like a guy who is going to enjoy caring for me? Is he stuck on being The Guy?" When I met my now-husband, he impressed me because he walked away from flirting with me to go help a friend. Even though there were many other ways in which he wasn't who I'd imagined myself marrying, I chose to pursue him and I'm happier and happier with him every single day.
For you, that beacon might be "is direct with me without being domineering," and that might be the litmus test for whether you choose to pursue a relationship.
As for how I came up with my vision … getting to know people with other relationship models helped a lot, even though none of them had marriages I particularly wanted to emulate. It showed me the assumptions I'd been making, though, and that was enormously helpful.
Is that at all useful?
Yes, that's definitely useful! I think I'm somewhat lacking that vision for my own life right now, but in the meantime I'm staying open to new possibilities, and hoping I have the sense to recognize the ones that might turn out to be good fits for me.
I think that's a great approach for developing a vision. Iterate fast and at low cost – that's my motto in all things.
You actually sound way more conscious and thoughtful than I was when I was dealing with this stuff; I was mostly operating on instinct. I have a lot of hope for you!
Haha thanks. I had some non-dating-related issues that kind of forced me to get better at all that self-awareness and emotion-management stuff.
You are but that is the same journey everyone is doing as well. Having parents with a relationship to model is helpful, but it does not mean that people with that sort of family are not also figuring things out through trial and error.
I also think at least part of this is learning the difference between healthy and unhealthy versions of behaviors. Typically, the healthy version respects the boundaries of others, the unhealthy version does not. So take the example of your parents – It's perfectly healthy for your mother to make her desires known. It's unhealthy for her to do so by way of yelling/screaming, since that usually results in the listener feeling attacked. It's healthy for your Dad to let your mother have her way with stuff he doesn't really care about. It's unhealthy for him to feel like he has to defer on everything, even if he cares about it a lot and doesn't want to go along. Just a few concrete examples.
Also want to echo Marty – there are behaviors that might be unhealthy for you, but healthy for someone else, and vice versa. This is because everyone is allowed to define their own boundaries, and naturally, they vary. So it might appear that one partner is bossing the other around, when in truth the deferring one really just doesn't care about the issue in question. The tricky part is, most people will not discuss the details of their relationships with strangers, as its generally a private matter. People will complain when they love their spouse to death, people will say everything is fine while being hideously abused. So you have to accept that you're almost never going to have all the information, never going to get the "real story". Bear this in mind whenever you're making any judgments about anyone else's relationship.
Those are some fantastic examples! I really like how you said this; that the same behavior can be healthy or unhealthy, depending on lots of different factors.
For myself, the first step was learning to like myself. That was hard, hard work. But once that took place – and trust me, I don't exactly LOVE myself, but I like myself a lot more than I used to – all of a sudden, I couldn't deal with guys who were disparaging to me. That was my relationship model.
Once all that took place – and it took nearly two years – I met a guy (I am a straight girl) and I felt a connection. I basically felt like I was talking to my best friend. But I know that if I had met him a few years ago, I'd have discounted him as "boring" because he was nice.
The key thing is that I always feel good around him and if we argue we listen to each other and if I tell him he's hurt my feelings or whatever, he's sorry and does his best not to do it again. It never occurred to me that a relationship could actually feel GOOD.
So, seriously, my best advice is to work on liking yourself because then you will only want to deal with people who make you feel good.
Thanks for this advice, it's definitely one of the biggest areas I need to work on. I've had some therapy, but I'm not there yet. I've never been one to stay in relationships with people who don't treat me well, but I still need to get to a point where I'm confident that someone who WOULD treat me well would return my interest.
I COMPLETELY understand where you're coming from. I am still at the point where I'm like, 'he is so NICE. What is he doing with ME?"
For myself, I can only say that starting to like myself was the only way that I was able to be with someone who treats me well. It is hard, hard work but I think it's worth it.
I don't know if it helps any, but I only started to like myself when I started to really work out. It wasn't so much the change in my appearance that did it – though that helps. It is more that there is this tangible way that I can see that I'm stronger- I can lift more weights, do more reps. And it feels amazing to accomplish that.
For me, it's been doing more creative work lately, without worrying about whether or not it's "good." It makes me feel more like myself, and approaching it that way makes me stop thinking in perfectionist mode.
I also find that doing stuff has the happy side effect of reducing the amount of time I have available to mope about never doing stuff.
I think it helps to be really, really honest with yourself about what you are seeing, why you don't like it, what about it isn't healthy, what your definition of healthy even is, and, most importantly, try to strip away the judgment around it.
I know that last part sounds strange… if something is unhealthy, shouldn't you judge it and thus avoid it? But the more I experience of life, the more I think that you cannot truly take away valuable lessons from life experiences unless you remove as much bias as possible first.
Take the "controlling woman/passive man" example. You judge that as an unhealthy dynamic, and so are striving very hard to avoid it. But here's the funny thing-we frequently fall into those very traps we try so desperately to avoid. My parents have a dynamic in which my mother seems to be constantly begging my father for romance-he respects her, takes care of her, and yet doesn't seem attracted to her. I swore up and down I would never get into a relationship like that, and yet guess what kind of relationships I kept falling into. It's like a really bad magic trick.
I have absolutely no academic credentials to back this up, but I've wondered if this is the result of us both loathing and loving ourselves. We don't want the "unhealthy" dynamic of our parents, but we also kinda dig those patterns that created our life (what you say about comfort.) So we're pinballs, constantly bouncing back and forth between running to and running from.
What helped me halt this path was to stop placing any value judgment on it at all. I started trying to view it more objectively, less emotionally ("I will never end up like that!") I started examining why that dynamic might actually be working for my folks (still together, and seemingly happy, after 35 years.) When I started to feel tingles of judging other relationships as dynamic, I tried to do the same thing… What seems to work for this couple? What does it seem like the benefit is to this behavior?
I try to leave the question of whatever something is unhealthy or damaging for the people actually IN the relationship, because truthfully, save for a therapist or a very close friend, I'm not sure we really can identify what is unhealthy for someone else. What might be unhealthy for you might be perfect for me. By stripping away the judgment and in turn the bias, I was able to start shifting through what specifically about my parents' dynamic bothered me, and thus have more concrete leads on what I value and what I qualify as "healthy for me."
Yep, I definitely keep falling into the dynamic I'm trying to avoid, which is why I don't trust myself. And there are certainly SOME things about it that appeal to me – I often get the direct communication I crave, and it's nice to have someone around who's not afraid to get bossy if I really do need a fire lit under my ass (assuming that person is committed to getting me to be the best version of myself). Unfortunately, in practice, I've also attracted a fair number of people with personality disorders or narcissistic streaks who are committed to no such thing, and mostly seem to want someone passive enough to put up with them unquestioningly. (That also describes my paternal grandmother to a tee, so there's a lot of familial conditioning about putting up with them. On my end, this means that the skills of setting boundaries and negotiating compromises are largely missing from my toolbox.)
So it seems like you can identify those people after you get into relationships with them, and are able to break the relationship off. So that's actually a great start!
Is there anything about their behavior in a relationship that you think would become obvious before being in a relationship with them? Did you realise they were narcissistic before you started dating them, but thought for whatever reason it would work out? Are they super practiced at hiding their personality disorder because they need to be to get along at all in the world? Do you think other people who know them see those things in them?
Thanks (…?) to OKCupid, I've gotten much faster at reading the signs. I'm fairly introverted, and I often find that a red flag for narcissism is never being able to stop talking long enough to listen to a quieter person's carefully considered reply to a question. (Repeated over time to allow for first-date nerves, etc. And even if it turns out that they just have a talkative personality, I still want to be listened to anyway, so some give and take is necessary.) Big tipoffs for personality disorders are impulsive behavior, willingness to cross typical social boundaries, and what I've heard called "splitting" (i.e. "YOU ARE THE BEST/WORST PERSON EVER AND THERE IS NO NUANCE!!!!")
Obviously not everyone with those behaviors has those particular problems, but nearly everyone with those particular problems does exhibit those behaviors. The problem was that I used to mistake a lot of that stuff for instant chemistry. "Hey, she's totally carrying this conversation, I don't feel so awkward, this is great!" "Hey, she's super fun, this feels like an improv-class game, I finally feel spontaneous!" "Hey, she doesn't care how fast we're moving, and I haven't dated/slept with anyone in a really long time!" "Wow, she's REALLY excited about me, I always knew I was this fascinating!" And then all the downsides would hit, and I'd wonder again how the hell I meet these people, and I'd get off the Manic Pixie Nightmare Girl train at the next possible stop.
Luckily, the human brain is built to (eventually) recognize patterns.
Uhhh…funny story on that. Extreme talkative-ness is sometime the product of racing thoughts, which is a symptom of a couple of different mental health conditions…namely ADD, and I think Bipolar Disorder as well. I definitely wouldn't jump to conclusions at a first date, but just saying, there are perfectly innocent explanations for such behavior that people almost certainly aren't going to feel comfortable bringing up immediately, assuming such a thing is the case and they've gotten a diagnoses (which they might not have).
The good news is you can filter out someone with such a condition from a straight up jerk pretty easily. Most people who do this even semi-involuntarily usually acknowledge its a bad habit and have some degree of self-consciousness or self-awareness about it. Therefore, if you gently point it out in some way, ie "Hey you haven't let me answer your question", you'll probably get at least an apology or something of that nature. If not, then even if she does have some mental disability, she's clearly not being sensitive to how it's affecting the people around her, and yeah, THAT'S a red flag.
It sounds like you aren't doing too bad at all! If you haven't gone through Captain Awkward at all, I'd strongly suggest you do that — she's really great for helping with relationships and boundaries and awesomeness of every kind. Plus the commenters, also awesome.
To an extent. There's nothing bad or wrong with my parents' marriage. It makes them happy. It's not what I want in my own adult life, though. Throughout my childhood I basically assumed that I would have to eventually turn into my mother and be a housewife with some kids and a working husband. And I actively dreaded it because I could tell how exhausting it was, even though I knew she was ultimately happy. But I couldn't imagine being happy myself with that life, so I thought I was looking at an adulthood of complete unhappiness.
But growing up, moving out of their house, reading more online about other people's lives (blogs, mainly), reading feminist books and magazines, meeting adults who weren't in my parents' circle…it all kind of opened up my world. And these sound like such old-fashioned second-waver realizations, but thinking "no, my eventual husband does not have to be the breadwinner" and "I do not have to have children if I do not want to" and "we do not have to live in the suburbs where everyone is super-nosy and judgy like they were where I grew up"….THAT was radical for me. So was "you don't have to be one step away from explosion all of the time, there is medicine for that." And "pets are great." There are definitely things that I do that are very similar to my parents, but in these ways, I'm trying to make the life that I want.
Well, my dad's a complete and total dickbag (sexist, racist, and narcissistic to the point of near sociopathy) and I've done my damndest to just…not be him. I don't know if that counts.
Counts to whom? You seem to be doing pretty well on the "don't be that guy" front to me.
Thanks, that's nice to hear. Also, for everyone's amusement/derision, his latest stunt is trying to get me to spend my spring break with him in florida (he rented a house for the latter half of february into the second week of march where he intends to go fishing in the gulf of mexico…in his dinky alumacraft with a forty horsepower outboard…) in the interests of 'finding some drunk chicks' because 'apparently you need help figuring out how to get laid'.
This is the man that contributed half of my chromosomes and I feel dirty every time I talk to him…
I would ask your brother why he want's to make women feel the same way your father felt from your mothers behaviour, and how what he is doing is any better?
Or how he would feel if someone treated you (SadSister) the same way
Although I identify with the rhetorical version of this question, I've found that in practice it doesn't tend to sway people's thinking. The usual response involves either "one of the good ones" rationalizations, or gaslighting explanations about how SadSister really would like to be treated the same way because of evolutionary biology.
Interesting. I have seen the opposite especially when directed towards "All $group" statements in face to face encounters between people that have a close relationship and emotional ties. The, "So if all $group are X are you saying I am X?" is generally met with a "No not you" which leads to "So then all $group are X is not true." and so on.
I agree that it does not work if the people have weaker ties. There already has to be preexisting respect and closeness for this to work.
I think the problem with that strategy is that we're hip to it. It's no longer shocking enough to get us out of a brain rut, because we've heard it before, probably numerous times, through sitcoms and romcoms and movies about how a football team single-handedly took down racism. Because we grew up hearing some variation of "I'm in $group, does that mean I'm X?" we've started augmenting our arguments around it.
For example," Most girls are liars and manipulators and need to be tricked into having sex, but not you. Yes you're a girl, but you're *special.*"
Digging a level deeper, what I've often seen is "ok, you're right, not all x" followed by a firm resolution never to share that opinion with this member of x but no underlying change in attitude.
I definitely agree there needs to be respect and openness for this approach to work. I also think there needs to be some degree of openness to other views on the part of the person being asked. If there is, I think there's some possibility the question will lead to genuine reflection.
If not? I've seen people construct some pretty specific universes where all women are evil and deserving of hostile sexism, except for a handful of chosen ones who jump through the right hoops to qualify for benevolent sexism (and equivalents of the same thing with other poisonous beliefs). I think this particular ideology is particularly susceptible to being used that way, because at its heart are a bunch of excuses about how women are turned on by this kind of behavior regardless of what they say they want.
If the brother isn't very open to reexamining his biases right now, I think the recommendation in the article of attacking the belief from the angle of, "So how's that working out for you?" might be the easier starting point.
" I think this particular ideology is particularly susceptible to being used that way, because at its heart are a bunch of excuses about how women are turned on by this kind of behavior regardless of what they say they want."
Dear God, yes. Wander over to R/PUA or r/AskMen, and there are tons of guys who subscribe to the "Don't ask a fish how to catch a fish; ask a fisherman." (AKA, those silly lady brains don't know what they want!) And yet, ironically, I'm not supposed to ask other women what men want; I'm supposed to ask men what men want, because how could we ladies are all intrinsically man-hating and unable to see the logic of male preferences.
http://media.giphy.com/media/dQxTWKIQEAo36/giphy….
Sigh. I've run into that logical runaround too many times before; oddly, no one ever seems to consider that there may be more than one useful source of information about what's desirable in terms of dating.
At least the gif makes me smile?
I will now attempt to cheer you up: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-08/26/9/enha…
http://media2.giphy.com/media/WsKVAem02Efuw/200.g…
http://media2.giphy.com/media/1lImgTBYE8UaQ/200.g…
Consider me cheered!
Wait, is that guy throwing downvotes?
Oh yeah. For example this approach works with my best friend when he occasionally let's slip something sexist. With my dad? Pointless would be an optimistic prediction. I can not imagine it working online ever.
The times I have seen it work best are between family members and usually over a child coming out or a girl from a conservative cultural background addressing family sexism. And of course it only works if the parents are willing to listen and want to preserve the relationship.
In the case of SadSister, it reads to me like a situation where it might work given that her brother seems to come to her for advice.
That makes sense. I was a little skeptical about the brother, but you make a good point that he's actually confiding in her (which actually suggests that this may not be completely ingrained, since he's recognizing that at least one woman is worthy of giving him advice, which tends not to be a role the "one of the good ones" types allow).
Or why your father gets the credit for being hard-working when your mother is the breadwinner?
Or, conversely, why your father gets the criticism for "letting" himself be abused, and not your mother for being the abuser?
Seriously. I am pretty uncomfortable with the way the letter conflates the marriage being theoretically "feminist" with the father being abused. A woman being feminist does not cause her to become an abuser; these are two separate factors. It's very unfortunate that the LW's brother seems to have assumed that the problem with the marriage is caused by the mom being the breadwinner and the dad not putting her in her place or some such, rather than with the mom being an unkind and manipulative human being and the dad staying for the same reasons plenty of women end up staying with abusive partners, and I hope the LW phrased it that way to express how he sees it, not how she sees it too.
A film examining the nature of reality, the limits we impose on ourselves and the system that derives strength from it, gets used for selling dating techniques.
Something really REALLY went wrong
You should see people misunderstand the point behind Fight Club…
It is like using Creedance Clearwater Revival to sell car wax…
It is a small tragedy
I ain't no fortunate son, which is why I use Turtle Wax to give my car a fortunate shine! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsQuTCycrwI
Dare we ask for an entire themed article?
About Fight Club? Quite possibly. There's a treasure trove of issues regarding masculinity to be mined in there.
I mean, most of it's kinda *obvious*, but that's never stopped me before.
Isn't that movie essentially two hours of "don't be Jack or Tyler. Walk the middle road"?
There's actually some genuinely thoughtful parts of the movie, especially in Tyler's lines. "We're a generation of children without fathers", "we all thought we'd grow up to be rock stars. But we won't." etc.
Oh I won't argue that Tyler comes out and expresses the problem well. I'll also say that every time I pass a certain piece of architecture in my home town I'm tempted to "destroy a piece of corporate art" as a homework assignment. Its still the fairly standard yin-yang, Flynn-Clu, thesis-antithesis dichotomy. Neither of them is supposed to be a model of a whole life well lived. Although now that I think about it, there is a tendency for people trying to get over being Jack to swing into Tyler territory.
I think there are lots of very thoughtful things in Fight Club. It's also one of the best film adaptations of a novel I've ever seen.
Also just found this (on Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club_(novel) (Not that I agree with all of this WP article …)
"Really, what I was writing was just The Great Gatsby updated a little. It was 'apostolic' fiction – where a surviving apostle tells the story of his hero. There are two men and a woman. And one man, the hero, is shot to death."
So you've sort of already written a learn from this
(And similarly, "the hero was doing it right" is not the conclusion you're supposed to draw)
(I would still love to see a Learn From This: Fight Club. I love Fight Club, primarily for the existentialist angst – the same reason I love Waiting for Godot, TS Eliot, Camus, and Fitzgerald … which would not be the main focus of the article, and I think anomie is something experienced by the people misreading Fight Club … and maybe experiencing it is one of the reasons they misread it.)
Fargo the series (and possibly the movie) touches on many similar issues.
You're paragraph of describing Red Pill recruitment techniques sounds eerilly synonomous with another recruitment movement: Nazism. Same arguments, but different enemy to hate. Just shows how dangerous hateful rhetoric can be when used on a vulnerable and gullible segment of society.
Similar to radical Islamists too and pretty much any nationalist/racist group.
Also a LOT of cults. They don't always specifically have an enemy-enemy, but usually anyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs and potentially tries to talk to you about maybe not being in a cult is a Bad Person.
And any salesman for that matter. Rule 1 of a sales man: you can't sell something to someone, that they don't need. You make that need out of thin air.
And yet in spite or the other side’s advice that he should work in his personality and be “nice”, he got a girlfriend by being the prototypical asshole.
And though he had a progressive, feminist man that averts all the toxic masculine stereotypes, he ended up alone, ostracized and stigmatized enough that he fell in the hands of an extremist, bigot group.
It is a fake advise telling him to turn around. He’s already crossed the point of no return. If not for his social awkwardness at a late age (which already stereotypes him either as one of these guys, a future school shooter or a plain poder), because of the attempted rape over his ex girlfriend. He already has a reputation, and like the reddit user Cenodoxus mentions here :http://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1u9994/starting_to_think_the_red_pill_philosophy_will/ceg25ql, once you earn a reputation, it’s over.
(And before anyone mentions the fact that he could just apologize, try to think about how serious his offense was -or the one the reddit user mentions-, and think about when was the last time you’ve seen people actually forgive and forget that sort of offense. As a counter example, look at the people asking for Ray Rice being thrown in jail forever, or at least thrown out of the league -his only source of income- forever, among them level-headed people like respected senators and personalities. And assault isn’t that far away from attempted rape. The more common examples, in general, just end up being submissive doormats at the mercy of whoever sees the chance to exploit his past and his reputation)
Thing I want to argue isn’t that he should be a red piller, but that he should be nothing at all. People like this guy are lost socially, and every attempt at re-socializing so late in life al leads to that sort of embittering submission to whomever can manipulate their los, stigmatizing estatus, or end up creeping people out, at best, or seriously harming them, at worst. People who unlike them hace done their homework properly and without arrogance, who may end up with a ruined day, at best, or a ruined life at worst because of them. And look, it goes beyond the intentions of the socially-awkward guy: the creeping will happen anyway; like the reddit thread mentions the reputation will be tarnished anyway, and like I showed already, apologizing for these sort of offenses will accomplish nothing anyway.
I’m worry, bit the impression I get from the site is that it preys on those outcasts too, at the peril of innocent women as well. Only with a feminist spin to it.
I strongly disagree with this, but we may have different ideas of what an apology means. After a consistent pattern of changed behavior, I'd be willing to accept an apology from someone like this – but not before. It means he's got real work ahead of him, but I do think there's more hope than you portray.
I think there's hope as well, but possibly that this shouldn't be presented to him in terms of specific expectations. You might be willing to accept an apology, but many victims would not and would feel violated by future attempts at conduct. I think part of ethical change for him means leaving his former victim alone and not inserting himself into places where she's likely to be unless she chooses to provide an opening for future conduct. I think there's more hope for reestablishing ties with other people in that circle in a one on one way after genuine improvement. Some people will take your stance, some people will be less forgiving, and I think he should be prepared for both outcomes.
Where I think there's really hope is with other people. It's not as if the world is limited to people who were victimized by his current behavior. If he can change, I think he'll find that many people are open to someone who behaved horribly in the past toward others but who no longer behave that way.
"Hope with other people" is actually what I meant. I agree that he shouldn't expect to repair the relationship with the women he's mistreated, but I think that if there's evidence of real change, there are other people who will accept him with time. I read the OP as saying "No one will ever forgive you no matter who they are," which is what I was disagreeing with. You're 100% right that he needs to leave his former victim alone.
Gotcha. John Milton's focus on apologies and reputation had me in the mindset of thinking about his former girlfriend and other people he's hurt, and I extended that generally to the concept of forgiveness. The idea of social forgiveness is harder for me to get my head around, but I think there's a lot of room for it. In my experience, people actually tend to be more sympathetic to a good redemption story than is prudent, and that even people who are careful about observing actual change tend to be pretty forgiving.
The myth of the Secret National Women's Creeper Alert Service rears its ugly head yet again.
The only guarantee is no longer being a terrible person. Honestly, if that's not enough for him, yeah, the rest of the world is better off with him out of the dating pool.
I'm not sure if I agree with Johm Milton here, but… everyone seems to be focusing on this guy and how bad they feel for him and I find it incredibly difficult to think he can fix this. All of these suggestions are helpful, but there's one major flaw:
the letter writer is his sister, not HIM.
If he isn't interested in fixing this himself, I'm not sure there's any hope for him. Since the sister is the one who wrote in, it's hard to say how much he really recognized that he tried to rape his then-girlfriend and how much he recognizes he needs to change.
And I find it strange that it isn't really mentioned to the letter writer that, if this doesn't work, she might want to cut him out of her life. If he doesn't improve and continues his behavior, he could eventually turn violent towards her or her loved ones. He's already tried to rape someone; violence isn't far behind, if it hasn't happened already.
I don't know, the entire story doesn't sit right with me and I'm not confident there's a way for him to go back.
I don't really feel all that bad for him. I feel bad for his sister and the people around him. I do get why the answer didn't address cutting out, though. It doesn't seem like the LW is at that point of pure frustration and despair yet, and a sibling relationship is very hard to cut off unless the entire family is on board
I'm concerned about him because his sister seems to be. If she'd written a different letter, I'd be offering a different perspective.
Worth noting, people have been called on derailing other threads for empathizing with guys like this and suggesting ways they an recover. In this particular case, it happens to be the topic, so its not derailing.
Agreed. The only person who can change him is himself. But I don't think he's a hopless cause just yet. The incident at the party seems to have been a wake up call that he's becoming something he doesn't want to be and LW's asking for help to see if she can point him on the right road.
Such hogwash. I've seen people recover from these horrible faux-passes with a slap and a scolding, provided the social circles aren't stagnant. Call it a nasty side-effect of rape culture or a logical extension of the spotlight fallacy, but plenty of folks forget before they care about forgiving(yes, even the ladies). Word travels through the grapevine and the dudettes make a mental note in the backlog of 'potential predators', but face-to-face positive interactions often overwrite that rather quickly.
I've encountered the whole idea that learning social interaction at a later age comes at the cost of poor feeble maidens having to serve as test subjects mostly from dudes and very little from feminists(and the ones that did entertain the notion were inevitably of the women-can't-possibly-enjoy-flirting moonbat variety).
"women-can't-possibly-enjoy-flirting moonbat variety"?
Borderline radfems that think gaslighting is a-OK as long as you label it "internalized misogyny" and believe men shouldn't even initiate conversations with women they don't already know unless it's out of necessity.
Oh, feminism's equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church?
That would be the real radfems, this would be the equivalent of a Christian teen who goes through a vlog-against-atheists phase.
"I've seen people recover from these horrible faux-passes with a slap and a scolding"
Probably from women who unfortunately are acustomed to that sort of thing. But in a more aware society, it's the sort of thing people don't live down.
"Word travels through the grapevine and the dudettes make a mental note in the backlog of 'potential predators', but face-to-face positive interactions often overwrite that rather quickly."
If they give the man a chance to overwrite it through face-to-face interactions. I'd be reluctant or would outright refuse to deal with someone who's a potential predator or emotionally abusive person. And this as a man, thinking about predative, emotionally abusive women.
Um yeah, he GOT a girlfriend…did you not notice the part where he then LOST that girlfriend because the RP bullshit he had absorbed ended with him attempting to rape her?
He was given advice to just 'go for it' with his shy, quiet girlfriend, tries to rape her, and she dumped him. That's a dazzling success, don't you think?
If that was his first girlfriend he simply lacked game and needs to try again. Don't see how one failure dismisses the entire RP philosophy.
Because the philosophy was "attempt rape and see if it works." Seriously, that plan *failing* is the Best Case Scenario.
Ignoring everything else that is so deeply wrong with this comment, why do people always say that the NFL is Ray Rice's ONLY source of income. It is his CURRENT source of income. Last I checked, he's still an able-bodied young man. This is by not means the only job he can get. It may be the only job he can get that will make him ridiculously wealthy and famous, that comes with endorsement deals, where he gets to play ball for a living, but there are plenty of young football players out there who will never be picked up by the League at all, and it isn't like not being in the League is dooming them to a life of unemployment.
It's like how people said it was such a shame about those poor Steubenville rapists and how them being tried as rapists destroyed their chances at good colleges and pro-ball.
THANK YOU.
And I have to ask if he wasn't a famous football player would we even be having this conversation? If he was a security guard, or clerk at a grocery store, would people be saying how awful it would be if he lost his job for knocking his girlfriend unconscious?
Would people other than his boss and family even know that was why he lost his job? It is not like most domestic violence cases where everyone lives even make it to the local papers.
What's so deeply wrong about the comment? I find it's mostly right. It's not a nice thing to bring up, but it doesn't make it less true because it's uncomfortable.
We all can choose whether we want our relationships to be based on power and control or on trust, consent, and mutual respect. In some sense, using a dating strategy based on power and control (these include both the Red Pill version of PUA and things like Cosmo's dating advice or The Rules which advocate being withholding and manipulative) can feel easier and safer. You don't have to be vulnerable or talk to the other person about your feelings or apologize for your shitty behavior. You can manipulate and dominate rather than negotiate. And if you run into somebody else who is using a strategy like that, you can struggle for control with them.
But choosing coercion and control over compassion and consent means that you lose so much more. Do you ever want to trust your partner? Do you want them to trust you? Do you want them to be happy? Do you not want to be constantly making an effort to keep somebody else confused, hurt, and vulnerable? Do you want genuine emotional support from your partner, or comfortable, open conversation, or actually good sex? By taking the easy way out, you poison your relationships and lose everything that makes being with somebody else good, and hurt anybody who you love. Don't do it.
Disney movie much? Seriously that is not how things work, A girl either sees you as a provider(beta) or a good
candidate to pass her genes along(Alpha) its purely a biological response. Evolution is not politically correct at
all.
Reminder from your local researcher: the so-called "evolutionary psychology" this approach is based on is delusional, cherry-picked crap full of problems like, oh, say, researchers failing to rule out alternative explanations when the data appears to fit their biased models.
Cherry picked? Just like this article?
Zing! This article was nothing but cherry picking and hasty generalizations
So you only see women as incubators for your genes and men as either underlings or competition? Because, you know, the one thing humans do better than any other species is cooperate long term.
Aaahhh, so that's what evo-psych is.
Wow, it really is just a heap of self-satisfied bull pucky, ain't it? You do realize that human beings form complex relationships that don't hinge on weird biological responses, right?
Ugh. That concept of yours is both ignorant and really really gross.
Bro, basically everything about humans suggests that we actually don't just respond in mechanistic ways to inborn instincts. For one thing, we just don't have very good ones– how many other animals can you think of that are helpless for as long after birth as human children are? We evolved to have our behavior taught to us by other humans.
We also do lots and lots of things which aren't explained well by an evolutionary/inborn conception of human behavior. Like, for example, most of our behavior from our adoption of agriculture a few tens of thousands of years ago (which, I should note, is a small blip in evolutionary terms) onward. We farm lands, drain swamps, build cities, make complex art, try to exert power and control over people we'll never see, create vast systems of knowledge that explain the world, deck ourselves out in fabulous clothes, and develop really complicated social and kinship hierarchies. And we do those things in all kinds of different ways. Evolution isn't politically correct, but, it's made our behaviors and preferences responsive, mutable, and self-referential rather than unchanging and permanent.
Discourse on evolution aside, I honestly feel pretty sorry for you. It sounds like you've never actually had an emotionally close, mutually supportive relationship with another human being. I've experienced friendships and romantic relationships like the ones I describe as desirable many times. They're pretty great and, in fact, they're not at all impossible. I hope that you do get to experience it someday.
Funny how literally no one here has had your experience in relationships.
Almost as if your Red Pill relationship model isn't the only way for people to be attracted to each other.
No! Really!?!? You mean the vast majority of people out there have: a) never heard of the Red Pill and b) end up in relationships? Say it is not so!
Self disclosure of bias: I'm fairly new to the RP. (And I'm a nerd.)
From what I can see, the RP is simply about not putting women on a pedestal, self-improvement, confidence, and taking responsibility.
There is how things should be, yet how things are in reality. Women are attracted to assholes, jerks, ect. I always thought that if I was a nice guy – it's really hard for me to be an asshole actually – that eventually I would find "that" girl. It's never happened. I ended up always being in the friendzone and never being a dating option.
Men have been sold a false set of goods with the current – be nice and yourself – and you will find someone. All the advice from feminists in particular has been terrible. I actually saw a video where Laci Green suggested it was sexy and necessary to ask permission to kiss a girl. Really? I used to do that and it never worked because women are turned off by cautious and timid guys. (No, that's not rape.)
When I employed the RP ideas of taking initiative, approaching girls, and being assertive suddenly I was getting laid. My self-confidence is actually high for once.
Criticize RP. Fine. Offer some alternatives though that actually WORK and improve one's confidence, lifestyle, ect. RP says not to put up with shit in general and that applies to girl. I've applied that and the results have been tremendous.
Tell me something, in all your time of being a nice guy, did you ask for what you wanted? Did you set boundaries and enforce them? Did you approach women? Did you work on being someone that the people you want to date would want to date?
Because if you haven't done all of that, its kind of hard to say objectively that being an asshole is what made the difference for you. The alternative is to be all of the things you said, all of the things I said and not start from the assumption that women are hypergamous juggernauts who are constantly running economic calculus on whether or ot you're good enough. You can respect women as people and still be confident and assertive. If you want some particulars, well, thee's all this blog evar.
Amen. Because if "taking initiative, approaching girls, and being assertive" is being a jerk, it makes me wonder what the "nice" side looked like. It probably looked like someone who *wasn't interested*, and so girls friend-zoned him because hey, if he liked me, wouldn't he ask me out and initiate something?
RP sets up this straw man that it's being "nice" that's the problem, when they define "nice" in a totally different way than anyone else. "Nice" to me is a guy who is respectful, thoughtful, kind and empathetic. None of that conflicts with a guy who asks me out, or asks assertively if he can kiss me. I will say I'm one of those gals who doesn't need to give explicit permission for a kiss, but I have never docked a guy points for doing it.
Also, I am genuinely curious on this point: how in the world is RP about taking responsibility? All I've seen (and I've read a lot of it) is blame, blame, blame everyone else. It isn't enough to knock a gal off the pedestal-she's gotta to be *below* you, with you on the pedestal, because it's her fault (or women's in general) that you aren't getting laid. Or is the responsibility they tout all about "Hey man, ladies can't help it that they are hypergamous sluts who dig jerks, so it's on you to become that"?
"Because if "taking initiative, approaching girls, and being assertive" is being a jerk, it makes me wonder what the "nice" side looked like. It probably looked like someone who *wasn't interested*, and so girls friend-zoned him because hey, if he liked me, wouldn't he ask me out and initiate something?"
I do sympathize with him. A lot of us guys are socialized to feel like if you "ask for what you want" and she doesn't want that then you are scum. Hell, I sometimes feel like an asshole for appreciating women's bodies (that I see IRL) purely in my mind.
That doesn't make you an asshole. All the overwhelming majority of women ask of you is that you don't force them to be aware of it – don't leer or stare, don't make women who aren't interested in discussing the subject talk about it with you (which probably means keeping it out of some broader topics), and don't expect that women will be turned on by the same images that you are or assume that they're not very visually oriented if they don't. The critiques about all these other things don't have much to do with you noticing a pretty woman or an attractive advertisement in a way that doesn't involve anyone else.
Sure, but this is case where my rational brain and emotional brain disagree. Honestly, maybe this is a personal issue, but sometimes I feel as if it's very obvious to others what I'm thinking even when it probably isn't, almost as if people can see right through me. I do stare sometimes when I'm really tired, though then I'm just as likely to stare at people I'm NOT attracted to.
We all do that when we're tired. And sometimes people take it in the wrong way. I've done that myself and had to apologize. Sometimes we make mistakes.
The rest of the time, it's probably not nearly as obvious to everyone else what you're doing a you think. There's a great study that I'll see if I can link to about people's self-perceptions every day and their perceptions of their classmates. Pretty much everyone was hyperaware of their own appearance and incredibly indifferent to whether their classmates were sloppy or dressed up on any given day.
Also, this is kind of an empathy fail on your and their parts! – people aren't reading your mind mostly because they are too wrapped up with their own shit to even be thinking about what's going on with you at all.
If you ask for what you want and gracefully take no for an answer, you're not an asshole and I'm sorry if anyone has made you feel like that. If, however, you don't ask for what you want and try to Nice Guy™ your way to success instead, that is kind of assholish behaviour, albeit understandable when fearing rejection.
I'm working hard at getting over that and learning how to flirt. It's taking some time.
There is an unfortunate amount of stigma attached to getting it wrong for everyone.
I had a girlfriend as a nice guy and was cheated on , used and abused. Nice guys get girlfriends if they are unlucky.
The emotional abuse on men is never address. The same tired old crap, "
You don't get girls because you are ugly, boring, no job, no car" In fact a lot of guys have these things plus social skills plus they stand up for themselves, they are just to nice.
I'm sorry you were abused. However, I strongly doubt that your self-description as a nice person is accurate.
I've had this experience as well. It's common. But y'know, let's keep complaining about men or trying to find ways to understand and "empathize" with women. Isn't it curious how they don't seem to be particularly interested in empathizing with us?
Look at Jess's predictable reply. It's a perfect example of everything that is wrong with gender relations now. Women categorically refuse even the possibility of any and all introspection. Everything is forever the man's fault, everything is on him, it's his job to approach, read her mind, "empathize," change himself and accord to her desires, even when she herself is incapable of articulating them or even recognizing what they are. It's his job to know what she wants even when she doesn't know. He's always the big bad man, the misogynist, the fedora wearing neckbeard in his mom's basement, he's always "bitter" for expressing his actual feelings.
Look how she never even has to consider you or your experiences at all. Even when they are overwhelmingly common. The problem is always you. If you were cheated on, surely it was your fault because everything is the man's fault always. Now it's your job to work harder to empathize with women and stop being an oppressive, sexually degenerate, potentially dangerous monster and recognize that "women are human beings."
See how Jess recognizes your humanity? And we wonder why the Red Pillers have endless debates in which they question if women are even capable of love or empathy. That's hilarious. Do you think Jess has to figure men out? Clearly she doesn't. She can count on men doing all the work, taking all the risks. It's their job to understand her, not the other way around, isn't it? Does anyone else see the problem?
Look at the empirical evidence. You have an unprecedented level of confusion, hostility, anger, misery, and heartache throughout the male population, and yet we go on and on trying to figure out what is wrong with us and how we can better conform to the demands and expectations of women. But we're never allowed to question those demands. We're never allowed to ask if what women expect is reasonable, or if it's the case that women only allow men a limited set of completely unrealistic masculine identities and punish any guy who can't successfully affect them with sexual and social invisibility.
It's hopeless, why even bother? Please feel free to fail to make the connection between what I've said here and the 300 guys who messaged you this week on okcupid, ladies. Remember, it's all about you, princess.
You clearly have no idea whom you are talking about.
Pretty much every assumption you have made is wrong, but instead of detailing everyone's life story I'll just say:
When she wrote, "I'm sorry you were abused", she meant that sincerely.
Yeah, wow that is a lot of reading into my post. For the record, takuan is right – I meant the "sorry you were abused" completely sincerely. It's not fair or right for anyone to be abused, even if other posts they've made suggest they may not be a very nice person themselves (with or without being aware of it).
It’s like they don't even *see* the archive. Or the linked articles. Or…<p style=”color:#000;”>
Have you even bothered to read this blog? Not pedestalling chicks, self-improvement, taking charge of your own life, how to build confidence: this is all shit that is discussed extensively on this site. This is the alternative. Also, asking for permission can be formulated a thousand ways, verbal and non-verbal(from letting her meet you halfway to flippant remarks along the lines of "are you going to kiss or do I have to come over there?"). No-one's suggesting you act like a robot.
You know, there is this blog that manages to give advice everything that Red Pill does without demonizing women. How to avoid Oneitis. How to cultivate an abundance mentality, How to flirt. How to read nonverbal signals. How to practice enthusiastic consent.
It has been around for 4 or so years, Dr. Nerd something. You might want to check it out.
What are you even talking about.
The guy I'm dating right now? I knew I could trust him when he asked me if he could kiss me. Because I knew he respected my autonomy.
If you think women didn't want to kiss you BECAUSE you asked, I'm sorry, dude, but the harsh truth is that they just didn't like you.
And it IS necessary to ask to kiss a woman you have no previous established permission to do so with because, while it may not be rape to force a woman to kiss you, it actually is still a crime: it's called sexual assault.
Additionally, that thing about "not putting women on a pedestal"? Try looking up the term "benevolent sexism." Guess what; feminists are against that, too, because it's still dehumanizing.
I don't think you read the post because Dr. Nerdlove did offer alternatives that work.
The fact that you called yourself a "nice guy" and used to phrase "friendzone" without a hint of irony tells me you actually are probably an asshole. Just because you don't pick up on it doesn't mean it isn't there.
If women weren't interested in you BEFORE you started using manipulative and abusive strategies to date them, that's your fault, not the fault of women.
And you say that now you're "getting laid." But if you're forcing kisses onto women, it's not a far guess that you might've raped someone already. Without even realizing it. Because the startling thing is how few men even realize they've raped someone. (For example, the study showing that a huge amount of college men would admit to forcing a woman to have sex as long as it wasn't CALLED "rape.") So maybe you should re-evaluate your behaviors. There's a change you've already hurt people.
In my opinion anyone who can become an "Asshole" was an asshole to begin with. A truly decent person would never choose to become an asshole, even for sex. They just wouldn't.
Yes. This. If you were a decent human being in the first place, I don't see how you could decide that this behavior was something you wanted to adopt.
No but a truly decent person who ets worn down by powerlessness and disappointment can get so wrapped up in a cycle of negative thinking that they lose track of. . .what's real for lack of a better term. I fall down that rabbit hole myself sometimes. Its a question of "is not having to be bitter all the time worth the effort", because it is not always easy and you always have to be vigilant of your mind trying to slide back into old habits.
I've had some really bad luck. I've had some times where I wanted to kill myself I felt so worthless and so like "What's the point". Never have I ever thought to myself, "I'm going to treat others like shit to get ahead." At most the worst I've ever thought is, "I really wish I could just step all over others to get ahead, but that's wrong so I might as well die since I don't belong on such a nasty planet."
I have emapthy, I can see how people get desperate. I can also understand how someone might have been brought up surrounded by bad role models and influences and makes bad choices until he/she realises that's what they are doing. But saying you were nice until you decided not to be, that never sits well with me. That just implies you were never nice to begin with quite frankly.
I feel like there's something here about male and female socialization. I've heard OTG's narrative from many, many women, and I've only ever heard the "I was nice but it didn't get me what I deserve so now I'm an asshole" narrative from men.
I've had the occasional "Everyone already thinks I'm a witch, so I might as well be" stretches of time, but it was much less about being a witch getting me what I want, so much as hopelessness and throwing my hands up in the air. Being a witch wasn't going to get me anything from other people, it was just going to loosen the noose of expectations around my neck. Is that similar, in your estimation, to that male narrative?
"Life's a bitch, now so am I."
Catwoman from Batman Returns?
Best Catwoman. Sorry not sorry.
*______*
Not even remotely sorry.
*backflips into shot*
*licks hand*
"Miaow."
*BOOM*
*backflips off*
I think there is too, so I'm thinking about narratives I have heard from women. "I was nice but that got me relationships where I felt used, so now I date different men/am more cautious about giving in relationships/decided to stop dating" and "I wasn't attracting men so I lost weight/got a makeover/lowered my standards" are ones I hear.
It seems like women aren't socialized to connect being nice with deserving a relationship, but I'm not sure if that's because some degree of nice is expected as a baseline, because our unhealthy narrative is that you have to be attractive to find a relationship, because being able to find a relationship isn't assumed at all, or some combination.
Well maybe it's as simple as coming down to those stereotypes from which those philosophies stem: Girls be nice, Boys be assertive. Girls are approached. Boys do the approaching. So when things aren't going well for girls they try to change themselves to be sweeter, more attractive, more pleasing. In general, more approachable. And when things aren't going right for boys they think they have to be more aggressive in their approach, more indifferent etc.
And let's be honest, for a certain category of people that works. But the cool thing is that men and woman are first and foremost individuals (I know I know, generalisations make things so much easier she said generally). So my totally not demure self can find a guy who likes such feminine coded things as musicals. And we can both be very happy about it and not worry about all the ways you are "supposed" to behave.
I think it's because so much of a woman's attractiveness is tied to her looks. As a guy, it was really hard for me to shake that programming and admit that I actually don't HAVE to like a good-looking woman who was otherwise a terrible person.
It's the old story: girls have to "be hot" and guys have to have the right personality, because we're supposed to be doing the convincing (of the pretty ones, to the exclusion of almost every other criterion.)
The thing is, if we step outside of dating, you see this in business all the damn time. Amorality for profit. . .aka naked selfishness is what drives Wall Street, Silicon Valley, used car lots, sweatshops etc. No one becomes a Bernie Madhoff by saying a a kid "I want to screw retired people over and take their money". They do it step by step by convincing themselves that everyone else is worse, by (Red Pillers take note) learning to see people as targets, marks, dupes, robots or anything but thinking, feeling human beings. Its the dark side of "don't over think it". They focus on their cleverness and how good it makes life for them instead of the trail of damage that they leave in their wake. Sure, if they can get what they want without hurting anyone, they'll do that but the getting takes higher priority than the not hurting.
And there's an entire culture of greed and get yours out there to encourage them. I should know, I used to be a very good time share salesman until my conscience started kicking in. At the end, I quit because every time I wiped out someone's life savings, I would go home and throw up. I still took the check, though.
Yes, there are a lot of assholes out there (I consider thinking you are more important than anyone else as an asshole quality, then again, I come from a country where "socialism" isn't a bad word). It's why I'm not in any of those jobs. But just because we glamorise being an asshole doesn't mean being an asshole is a good thing to be nor that the kind of person who chooses to be an asshole when they were supposedly nice wasn't always an asshole to begin with.
I think my main disagreement is that no one "was always an asshole to begin with", unless we want to define people as assholes by default. I mean, babies are selfish and kids test high on psychopathy scales, so maybe that's where we're starting. I don't think that's what you're getting at, though.
In the particular case of Red Pill, KKK, Al Qaeda and other groups, they do create assholes. They take a sort of unfocused anger at everything (I'm angry because I can't get a date, a job, enough to eat) and instead of teaching people how to deal with it, they aim it with the goal of turning the new recruit into a weapon. They turn self-hatred or circumstance-hatred into hared of the Other. Its an easy (red) pill to sallow because now all the bad things in your life are not your fault. They're someone else's. Make no mistake, the guy SadSister is talking about has been indoctrinated as thoroughly as any soldier in a belief system that has rewritten his entire reality to where what he's doing is not evil. Once Women/POC/Liberals/The Great White Satan/Them Damn Eye-rack-ees are The Enemy, a direct and deliberate threat to you and your way of life, they are evil and the rules of good behavior no longer apply.
I'm making the same argument I usually do the other way: yes, your past actions have consequences. Yes you are responsible for the damage you've done. You can still decide to be someone else right now. That's seeing the code in the Matrix instead of the Matrix in the code. Not this facial structure, women are evil crap.
I guess ultimately I'm talking about one particular thing: the men who claimed that once they were nice guys but now they are assholes. I think what you want to talk about is much more complex. Quite frankly considering the language around the Nice Guy TM and how obvious it is that that type is actually an asshole that simply calls himself a Nice Guy I would think you'd get what I'm trying to say which has been said before and I'm not the first to say it:
Nice Guy TMs are assholes.
So when those guys claim that once they were nice but now they aren't and they get the girl, it isn't the asshole thing that's changed, just their being proactive and approaching ability, which of course is more attractive than just passively hoping some girl will read their mind.
The larger question of everything else you've been talking about is much more complex (though I do think some people do have predilections towards certain personality traits). I know enough people who have gone through serious shit who never went the asshole route to believe a very specific kind of personality can be manipulated. But I'm not unempathetic to the point that I don't see the power these groups have and the danger they wield when it comes to the naive and hopeless. I don't disagree. I just think those guys who say, "I was nice and it got me nowhere so now I'm an asshole" were really just "Nice Guy TMs" the whole time. That's all. Very minor point that has been stated many times before on this site.
I agree that these men were never nice and that the only thing that's changed (if there has been change, which isn't always the case with these types) is the way they go about meeting people.
I don't think it has to be binary, though. If you take someone who's already an asshole in a fairly specific way and surround him with a bunch of similar assholes, I think it's fairly predictable that they might all be worse after a sustained period of time.
Absolutely.
I'm really sorry, I guess I just thought I was speaking an oft spoken truth here at this site. I didn't mean to suggest any binary nor that it was easy to not be an asshole (being an asshole when life is treating you like shit can often seem the most reasonable recourse). I just meant very simply that in the case of dudes saying, "I tried the nice guy thing, didn't work, so now I'm an asshole" that that rarely rings true. You don't try out being a nice person. It isn't a tactic. If it's a tactic by its very nature it isn't nice.
Anyway, I think I'm taking people off course here, and I don't disagree with any of you so I apologise if I've kind of forced everyone on this digression.
I get it but this guy isn't claiming he was ok. His sister is. That carries more weight. No it doesn't excuse anything he's done to this point. It does mean that he's more likely to be able to see a way out than someone who was an asshole looking for an excuse.
Also, not directed at you in particular but just a general point: this guy has admitted he's gone off the deep end and is looking for someone to throw him a lifeline. His sister is asking how to do that. If they're both sincere, and I have no reason to think they're not, the issue of whether and how best to pull him back is a hill I'll die for.
But I wasn't talking about the LW though. I was talking about the guy who started this particular thread in the comments section, armenia4ever.
I have not made any comments about the letter writer nor her brother, who quite frankly, sounds like he has suffered from some form of PTSD from growing up in an abusive household and needs some serious help. In fact I think he needs help more than he needs a girlfriend right now.
Oh well <AdamSavage>There's my problem!</AdamSavage>
Such greed is part of the human condition. Just be thankful that we live under a system that makes it so that Wall Street, Silicon Valley, used car lots, and even sweatshops produce far more value for everyone involved than if these institutions didn't exist. Knowing that you will earn even more profit through cooperation is a powerful motivator for such cooperation. Creating a system that also punishes purely combative activities makes competition possible and directs greed into creating value, not just grabbing other's piece of the pie. Taken as a whole, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other ideology.
I think this actually does happen, but it's coded differently. I would say that things like "The Rules" are actually very similar to the Red Pill– they assert that people of the opposite sex are essentially terrible and untrustworthy in certain ways and that you need to combine a particularly ugly performance of gender norms with a lot of deceptive behavior, emotional unavailability, and manipulation to achieve baseline romantic success. Following "The Rules" requires you to act like an asshole, but since there isn't as sharp a pre-existing notion that being an asshole makes women romantically successful and attractive, people who embrace the Rules don't frame their change that way.
I don't think it's really civil to accuse people of being possible rapists just because they don't ask verbal permission to kiss someone. Especially since a lot of the ladies advice to just go for it (see http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts1252313… for an example).
I'm assuming here he backs off immediately if she doesn't seem to be enthusiastic. I personally think you should say something like "I could kiss you so bad right now" to make the permission verbal, but I do recognize that not everyone who doesn't probably is a rapist.
And I would change "Because the startling thing is how few men even realize they've raped someone" into "Because the startling thing is how few people even realize they've raped someone", because according to the new CDC data one third of all rape victims are male and 80% was raped by a woman (using the definition "sex without consent = rape"). My hypothesis is that most of those bought into the whole "Men can't get raped", although I sadly don't have the data to back it up.
Pointer to the dataset? My read of the most recent numbers I've seen is that it's around 20% and 50% respectively, which for the record is unacceptable either way – I just want to make sure that I'm speaking from data I can feel confident about. I also agree with your hypothesis re: consent.
(I'll also point out that thebearpelt didn't suggest consent had to be verbal. I think the idea that "I can kiss you against your will and it doesn't matter because it's just a kiss, not sex" is what she's arguing against, but I'm happy to wait for her to weigh in.)
I'm using the CDC data from 2011 (published september 2014): http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1…
To calculate my numbers from the CDC data (because outdated FBI definitions of rape are outdated): 8.8% of women are forced to be penetrated, as is 0.5% of men (79.3% by men, so 20.7% by women). 0.3% of women are forced to penetrate someone else, as is 3.6% of men (82.6% by women).
Summing up (assuming that there are approx. as many women as there are men), 4.1/(4.1+9.3) = 31% of rape victims are male, and (0.5*20.7+3.6*82.6)/(0.5+3.6) = 75% of male victims are raped by women (I'm ashamed to admit I probably made some round off errors before when arrived at my 80% number).
We're parsing armenia4ever's words also differently then. As far as I see he's only saying that you don't need verbal consent from a girl to kiss her. I have to admit that I didn't read "I can kiss you against your will and it doesn't matter because it's just a kiss, not sex" from that, so I took thebearpelt taking offense to armenia's words as meaning that you need verbal consent always or you're a potential rapist.
But discussing what someone may or may not have meant is somewhat an exercise in futility, so I'll let TBP weigh in before I put words in her mouth.
I'm looking at those numbers now, and the reference I'm finding with those numbers refers only to intimate partner rape, where I can fully believe it's more like 1/3 and 75%.
"The lifetime and 12-month prevalences of rape by an intimate partner for women were an estimated 8.8% and 0.8%, respectively; an estimated 0.5% of men experienced rape by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, although the case count for men reporting rape by an intimate partner in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate."
Similarly, table 6, which I believe may be your source, is headed: "TABLE 6. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of intimate partner violence victimization, by sex of victim and time period — National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011"
That's what you get when you're in a hurry trying to replicate some figures you calculated before.
You're right of course, I was using the wrong table. Using the right table, 30% of victims are men, 70% of men were raped by women.
That's pulling from Table 1?
Lifetime rates of rape, defined as completed or attempted forced or drug-facilitated penetration:
Women: 19.3%
Men: 1.7%
Made to penetrate (separate category):
Women: 0.6%
Men: 6.7%
So assuming no overlap and classing the two as a single act, which I think is fair here, that gives a rate of 19.9% for women and 8.4% for men, which… yeah, is just about 30% of the total.
The 70% number looks good, too, based on checks on the section marked "Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators"
Okay! Peer review completed, and I approve your 30% and 70% numbers.
And I just realized that my reply could come across as totally trivializing and obsessing on the numbers rather than the issue, which was not at all my intent. It's just that since I slapped at your numbers before, I wanted to be sure and follow up to say yes, these numbers are good, so others will have that data.
I do think that the push to include "forced to penetrate" numbers is a good one: the way that gender roles have played out in conversations about sexual violence tends to make it hard to even agree on definitions. If we can't have a common language, we can't have a conversation. And if we can't have a conversation, we can never understand.
No worries, thanks for the peer review!
I like my numbers to be credible, and people taking their own look at the data always helps.
I just ran through the same math and it looks good to me. Even better, it comes out at 21% of total rape victims being men raped by women, which means it's consistent with other data sets. A single data set is believable; multiple different data sets across different years from different sources is highly, highly persuasive to me. Obviously there's some variation but everything convincing I've seen is in the 18%-22% range.
I think (and Eliza Jane can correct if I'm wrong) that what she's referring to is intimate partner rape vs. rape in general, and that the latter has the percentages weighing much more heavily toward woman being the victims. According to the report, "Intimate partner violence can be perpetrated by current or former spouses (including married spouses, common-law spouses, civil union spouses, and domestic partners), boyfriends/girlfriends, dating partners, and ongoing sexual partners." So rape by friends, acquaintances, people you happened to be at a party/bar/club with, possibly even new dating/sexual partners (e.g., I would assume based on the definition they wouldn't include someone you're on your first date with or just met) would not be included in the stats for intimate partner rape.
That's accurate, but Azazel's second set of numbers are (I believe) based on the data from table 1, which is not specific to intimate partner violence. Table 1 essentially says that for every 19.9 women who are raped (by their definition of full or partial penetration) or forced to penetrate, there are 8.4 men who are raped or forced to penetrate. The male figures skew towards "forced to penetrate", and those are lumped as part of "other sexual violence" in these numbers.
Ah, sorry, your reply was posted while I was typing mine, so mine was totally unnecessary. (And incorrect, it looks like, if there's only a small percentage difference between the figures.)
Did you happen to look at the gender of perpetrators against women? I am wondering if it is a similar breakdown of 70% men, 30% women? I just had an interesting chat last night about female-female sexual assault and got the impression that there is a tendency not to see it as rape and fore there to be serious underreporting, sort of like female on male rape back in the day.
From the report: "For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators. In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators."
There might very well be under reporting, but that's not directly visible from this data alone. I think the most of lesbian rape would be grouped under "unwanted sexual contact (kissing, fondling, etc.)", but as Eliza says men still are undeniably the biggest group of perpetrators even there (yay toxic masculinity).
So it might be that lesbian rape gets drowned out by all the rape men commit, or it gets under reported. Probably a combination of both.
What would be interesting is a repeat of the study that got college men to admit they were rapists when the researchers didn't call it out as such. Because of "benevolent" sexism (women are too pure to rape) they didn't seem to have interviewed any college girls. I'd be very interested in some numbers about those.
Sigh. Because no one can penetrate so therefore it was not really sex. Which is kind of the same logic I heard for why victims have trouble realizing they have been raped by another women, especially when coupled with the "women do not rape" fallacy.
I think it would be very interesting to see a repeat of that study with men and women of a variety of sexual orientations.
I would also like to see greater exploration of the racial differences because nonwhite men are the most likely to be assaulted as compared to white men but the pattern is different for women.
"Additionally, that thing about "not putting women on a pedestal"? Try looking up the term "benevolent sexism." Guess what; feminists are against that, too, because it's still dehumanizing."
You clearly subscribe to a world view in which it is axiomatically taken for granted that the big bad men menace or potentially menace the trembling little damsels in distress and then you complain about benevolent sexism and argue that "feminists are against that too!" Is there anybody more guilty of invoking these archaic notions of gender than feminists themselves?
The reason the big bad man and the victimized woman who needs to be saved script is so uncritically and easily accepted by mainstream society is precisely because it does not challenge their preconceived ideas about gender, ones that are literally centuries old. There is no more clear, blatant, or ubiquitous example of benevolent sexism that I can think of. Is your post for real?
"Women are attracted to assholes, jerks, ect."
Women are not a monolith. Although, in general, being a jerk is a good way to make PEOPLE, even ones identifying as female, not like you.
"I always thought that if I was a nice guy – it's really hard for me to be an asshole actually – that eventually I would find "that" girl."
So what you're saying is that you thought if you were nice, you would be rewarded with a woman. No, it sounds like it's not that hard for you after all.
"Men have been sold a false set of goods"
That is such an unsettling statement.
"I actually saw a video where Laci Green suggested it was sexy and necessary to ask permission to kiss a girl. Really? I used to do that and it never worked because women are turned off by cautious and timid guys."
No, buddy. It didn't work because THOSE women didn't want to kiss YOU. It's funny that when women say things that they want, you don't believe them. I'm sure plenty of other women here also would rather be asked to be kissed. Yeah, I have told a guy who asked to kiss me "no thanks." It's not because he was cautious and timid and asked me. If he *had* just kissed me, I would have probably slapped him. At the very least, we would never have spoken again. It would've been a huge violation for me.
There is a BALANCE between being absurdly timid and between being an aggressive a-hole.
Ugh. Just…so much wrong and gross about all that.
Actually my current girlfriend says the opposite and told me she hates guys that asked to kiss.
I didn't ask to kiss her and ask to feel her boobs, and she is still with me.
Do you think your girlfriend can speak for the entire female population?
That question goes both ways. The women here saying they want guys to ask don't speak for the female population. I know several girls in real life who say its off putting when guys ask to kiss, even if they like the guy.
I think the "ask with words / ask without words" is a matter of personal preference, but "if you're not aware that you have her consent either implicitly or explicitly then you'd better damn well keep your mouth to yourself" isn't.
Yup it goes both ways. In fact, I know women who like being asked, who don't like being asked, and who like both depending on the context.
However, JJ has been extrapolating all kinds of stuff from his GF and her preferences.
Except that Bisian's usual stand is that women are not a monolith. So saying "no, I can't speak for all women" doesn't undermine her point. There is also such a thing as non-verbal consent but I feel like a guy who uses a casual boob honk in his example may not be the target audience for that.
You can still recommend asking even if you recognize that women have varying preferences. If the harm done by kissing someone who doesn't want to be kissed is worse than any harm that might be done from asking a woman who doesn't want to be asked, that seems to justify it.
My personal recommendation wouldn't be quite that strict. I'd say that people who aren't good at telling whether someone wants to kiss them should ask, that people who are generally good at telling this and who've gotten implicit signals can opt for either option, and that people who are tempted to not ask because they think they'll get more kisses that way shouldn't be trying to kiss anyone.
"people who are tempted to not ask because they think they'll get more kisses that way shouldn't be trying to kiss anyone."
I feel like these are the people who go off on rants about how women don't like to be asked.
You and me both.
In my experience, I have said "no" to some men who asked permission to kiss me because….I didn't want to kiss them anyhow! Shocking idea, right?
The guys who've tried to kiss me without asking–some have gotten the green light, some have gotten a polite "no," and some have gotten a rude, loud rejection. Depending on the context.
And sometimes, the asking guy becomes the go for it guy…in the same night.
Story time!
Dude was watching a movie with me in my house. He asked if he could kiss me. I said no–I'm not into you that way. Five minutes later, Dude tried to kiss me! Cue a "What the fuck are you doing?" outburst and a "Leave my house and don't talk to me til you've figured your shit out"
Seriously people: if you're going to ask, you don't get carte blanche to ignore the answer if it isn't what you want it to be.
"Women are not a monolith. Although, in general, being a jerk is a good way to make PEOPLE, even ones identifying as female, not like you." If everybody is a unique snowflake, then we could simply take your reasoning to its logical conclusion and decide that there is no patriarchy, no gender, no sexism, no social norms, or even a society. Did you not know that this response is so common that it has become a joke? It's usually referred to as the "NAWALT" fallacy, meaning Not All Women Are Like That. The irony is that this response is so common that it kinda proves that maybe a hell of a lot of women ARE like that, no?
what are the "rules" for commenting (or are they listed anywhere)? Does DNL arbitrarily judge which comments are allowed? He keeps deleting my comments (this one will be deleted soon too) – seemingly for posting opinions he disagrees with (even if expressed in a "polite" manner).
Perhaps you might want to consider the fact that you've been trying to link to Heartiste and his ilk when you're wondering why I'm not interested in having you comment here.
The bad thing about the Red Pill is that its repackaged NLP, which is pseudoscience. The concept isn't completely off though.
Erotic Transference happens every day in clinical psychology. A therapist tries to avoid it, but even then it regularly pops up.
Provoking it isn't difficult, especially with vulnerable personality types. The three components are
1) Non-judgmental empathic listening.
2) Modelling a desired caregiver (judicious questions mixed in with the listening can tell you who to model on.)
3) Keeping a close but not intimate emotional distance (and avoiding most self-disclosure)
Doing those three things, not simplistic in themselves, are quite emotionally manipulative and seductive… when you notice an attempt to push on your boundaries, then begin to covertly punish and reward their behavior based on your desired outcome. You can, in relatively quick order, foster emotional dependence.
I somehow doubt that non-judgemental, empathetic listening is high on the list of RP techniques. No one who has a dozen terms for variations in facial structure is paying much attention to the people outside the mirror.
"1) Non-judgmental empathic listening.
2) Modelling a desired caregiver (judicious questions mixed in with the listening can tell you who to model on.)
3) Keeping a close but not intimate emotional distance (and avoiding most self-disclosure)"
Yeah, but then the other person is basically using you. I've been in friendships (though not romantic relationships) where I filled this role, and guess what? They didn't give shit about me, I was just a sympathetic ear to use and discard.
That's fair. For some people, there's a very important fourth step:
4) Choosing the right people to care about impressing
Some people aren't going to be interested, no matter what you do. Some people play games. Some people use others. When you're learning how to make people like you, part of that should be learning how to pick people who you should want to like you.
Listening is required but it's not the whole technique, or even the most important bit.
The most key point is to model someone whom they have unprocessed transference with (read… "issues," good or bad.)
Then you need to maintain a frustratingly out of reach only still close emotional distance, generating tension (to promote action.)
"Then you need to maintain a frustratingly out of reach only still close emotional distance, generating tension (to promote action.) "
Oh boy, I get to use this image again!
Seeing that written in black and white made my stomach do a back flip. This is something I did a lot when I was younger, not so much as a technique but as a combination of really liking to hear about people and having weird availability; basically being in two dating pools, each an hour from home in opposite directions. Seeing the process laid out makes it pretty obvious how effective it could be at getting someone hung up on you.
"1) Non-judgmental empathic listening.
2) Modelling a desired caregiver (judicious questions mixed in with the listening can tell you who to model on.)
3) Keeping a close but not intimate emotional distance (and avoiding most self-disclosure)"
Except for 1) that sounds a) personally unsatisfying and b) a shitload of work.
The thing is 2) is something that can happen without intent, especially with someone who has a lot of issues and 3) is something that can happen just as a result of poor availability. In other words, its something that can happen coincidentally if you're not watching for it. Three is really two parts, limited availability and not talking much about yourself. The latter is something I've been taught. Don't want to come across as self-centered, after all.
Stopped reading after the women complaining about her brother. Why? Because your entire article is based off of some shithead who is stuck in his anger phase and still hates women. You apply this immaturity to the entire red pill community and ita fairly obvious that both you and this guys sister, as well as the kid himself, know significantly less than you’re all pretending to.
Theres just way too much that you get wrong in your introduction, I won’t even waste time reading the rest of your piece thats based off of an ill informed perspective.
There are stages to taking the pill. Many get angry because well women ARE NOT morally equal to men in the slightest. They have little priority for honor and integrity and that does make them a bit inferior if you ask me. The are less capable to representing truth.
But of course, that is misogynist to even say a woman is inferior right? To point out how little women care for honor. Lets just excuse all of the lying that gender perpetuates. So illogical is this way of thinking that it is sometimes quite infuriating.
Sure many people take the red pill and use it negatively but are they entirely to blame? If the true nature of women weren’t so drastically different to what they pretend, men that swallow the pill would feel so let down and angry.
The man who needs to loudly proclaim his honor is the man who wants the image of honor more than actually doing the right thing. You start by assuming that women as a whole are flawed. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
And of course every man is the paragon of truth, honor, intellect, integrity and virtue. No man has ever pretended to be something he was not for personal gain or public acclaim. Nor has any man lied or shaded the truth or lied through omission.
Shit dude, we are all people and share all the same weaknesses, vices, moral failings, ethical lapses, etc. We also share the same virtues, capability for honor, integrity, bravery, etc..
In all my time in the pokey bits of the world I have seen incredibly acts of cruelty and incredible acts of honor, self sacrifice, and bravery by both genders. No gender has a lock on good or evil.
I'm always especially baffled by the "women have no integrity!" thing when it comes hand-in-hand with a philosophy about screwing over, using, and abusing other human beings.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
I want to start calling PUA and RedPillers the Wonderland Advice Givers because of all the wacky logic. Thoughts?
http://media.giphy.com/media/oyys1ZScz5bKE/giphy….
I don't know. If that means I get 364 un-birthday parties, I may jump ship.
Wait, are you saying Red Pill is the New Math of relationships?
My favorite quote from above: "But of course, that is misogynist to even say a woman is inferior right?"
Um, yeah. Just as it is racist to say anyone from $race is inferior. WTF do these folks think misogyny means?
http://www.manfeels-park.com/comic/chivalry/
Ahem. . .this was meant to go here, not the other spot its in:
So let me make sure I got this straight: misogyny is saying women are inferior and not saying women are inferior is misandry?
But of course! Because someone has to be inferior, because…… because…… ummmm…..Look squirrel!!!
There's no excuse for attempted rape. Explanations yes, but no excuses. The rest of society would benefit from him spending a few months in jail and away from anyone he could potentially harm.
So let me make sure I got this straight: misogyny is saying women are inferior and not saying women are inferior is misandry?
No, I'm saying I can understand why someone who grew up the way he did and who marinated himself in Red Pill bullshit would eventually get mentally twisted enough to think that rape is okay, but that doesn't mean I agree with his logic or that I'm sympathetic to him in any way. I understand why Walter White started cooking meth, but I'm not about to start doing it myself. Like I said, I think he should spend a few months in jail.
Sorry, that was me being a smart ass. Wasn't actually questioning your opinions. . .and in fact I seem to have replied to the wrong thing. This as supposed to go under the comment about "actually misogyny is definitionally saying women are inferior".
Okay, sorry.
Nothin' for you to apologize for, man. All the fuckups were on my end.
You know you can delete your own comments now, right?
Tangent: I appreciate the sentiment, but there aren't that many cases where society benefits from someone spending a few months in jail. That's minimal incapacitation time and generally not enough time for serious rehabilitation, either. All it really does is lead to people losing their jobs and housing, which doesn't typically make people safer to be around.
I don't want him to spend time in jail for rehab purposes, I don't like to treat prisons as mental hospitals like we do in the states. I live with a cop and had classes with an ex prison psychologist, and I've heard stories about the 'rehab' that happens in jail. I want him to spend a few months in prison as a scared-straight thing. If he's so deep into the redpill bullshit that he's internalized the idea that rape is okay I think he needs to get a major shock before he'll be receptive to change, and jail time will shake just about anyone to the core.
I don't really buy the scared straight doctrine. People who have committed minor crimes sometimes realize the error of their ways after being arrested and spending the night in jail, but I haven't seen an actual jail sentence change anyone's mind, since all that seems to result in is an unemployed person with scary internalized ideas. I wouldn't mind seeing this guy in the probation system, but if he's treatable, I'd rather he be treated than punished. If he's not treatable, then I think he needs to be incapacitated in a long term way. (Also, I frankly don't think that it's fair to the victim to expect her to undergo an attempted rape trial if all that's at stake is scaring her abuser straight.)
The dude who tried to rape someone has a higher capacity for honor than his victim? We should excuse that because he's going through his anger phase? Nope. Nah. Not considering this.
Try to taking into consideration this young lad's frustration with society (feminist upbringing/ emasculated farther/ society's false force fed relationship advice) all this culminating in puberty to amplify his actions, yes girls do like it when a guy takes control and escalates the situation and are forceful, but he needs to be in tune with her feelings, expectations as well as her arousal.
In no part of the red pill does it say rape a girl. His actions were wrong but not a reflection of the red pill communality, yes there is anger within this communality, because guys need to vent once they see the reality of relationships and there place as individuals in society, but they can and do get passed there angry phase's.
As for women not telling the truth, is best put
"Keeping your word" is a masculine trait, in men or women. A person
with a feminine essence may not keep her word, yet it is not exactly
"lying" In the feminine reality, words and facts take a second place to
emotions and the shifting moods of relationship. When she says, "I hate
you," or "I'll never move to Texas," or "I don't want to go to the
movies," it is often more a reflection of a transient feeling-wave than a
well considered stance with respect to events and experience. On the
other hand, the masculine means what it says. A man's word is his
honor. The feminine says what it feels. A woman's word is her true
expression in the moment.
Basically women lie to protect her/your feelings (white lies) and men don't (the majority of the time)
As for this article, it complicity misses the point of the red pill, it’s not about hating women, it’s about understanding yourself and what you are capable of, though disciplining parts of your life and therefore growing your masculinity. As well as understanding the nature of women and not having unrealistic expectations as most men seem to have these days and then become angry when they find out the truth.
When people look at the red pill reddit they see a lot of anger, because these young and old men find out that everything they know about relationship dynamics and how to have a successful relationship is a load of crap,
“oh you haven’t found the one yet"
"oh just be yourself"
"oh just be nice and give her attention and she will come around"
They see that they were lied to by society and needed to improve, that they could have avoided painful backups and handled things a lot better with this now information, some guys have gone through divorces in there 40 then found the red pill, then gone oh I could have really used this information in my teens. Of course this is going to make you anger but we move past it and get on with our lives in a better more productive why.
Since taking the red pill my life has improved dramatically as well as my friends that have also taken it, don't start bashing it till you have tried it yourself.
<< Basically women lie to protect her/your feelings (white lies) and men don't (the majority of the time) >>
"Of course I'll call you."
"I'll totally respect you in the morning."
"Oh honey, I love you"
"No, I won't come in your mouth!"
Ok bro. Sure.
<<As for this article, it complicity misses the point of the red pill, it’s not about hating women, it’s about understanding yourself and what you are capable of,>>
Lessee: first you called all women liars.
Then you insist that it's ok that it's understandable he tried to rape his girlfriend because he's going through his angry period.
Then you called women liars again.
Meanwhile, I linked to the permalinked statement of "What the Red Pill is About" post on /r/TheRedPill. Out of the, what, 24 bullet points, men weren't mentioned *at all* until the 19th. Every other point up until then is about how much women suck.
So… yeah. Not really buying the "It's not about hating women" part of your argument.
Oh cool, we get our own reality now? Is it sparkly and pink? I bet there are unicorns there!!
I heard there's the elusive pegacorn somewhere in the mountains.
Well, we know there are some in Equestria, but I'm pretty sure the bronies disqualify that as a feminine reality. http://i.imgur.com/0noL6Bd.png
Please…please no. I don't want to live in ponyland…
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr05/…
Are you a cartoon villain?
I can't believe I'm reading something this… ludicrous.
Are you even awake right now? Because that shit you're spouting sounds like dream logic.
Times when you really really just want to believe it's a troll.
*sigh* and we were doing so well…I'm a bit surprised we made it this far before the first troll showed up.
*nomnomnom* Popcorn?
I brought butter and salt! Someone else will have to bring the nachos and the candy, though.
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/…
Yes please!
http://media3.giphy.com/media/17RaL7HOgI1CE/200.g…
Okay, I'll bite. By honour and integrity, I assume you mean being direct in her dealings and keeping up her part of the traditional gender roles(you keep up your physique, she keeps up her looks, you take her out on dates, she is giving and generous in the bedroom, etcetera). After doing the whole RedPill routine, you feel slighted that women aren't as invested in the latter as you, and are generally flaky and indecisive. What sits in the way of this is the villification of dudettes who actually do take charge as trying to out-alpha you, and a normative standard which all women must adhere to(which leads to bitching instead of finding the segment of society that does fit your preferred gender pattern).
<< Many get angry because well women ARE NOT morally equal to men in the slightest. They have little priority for honor and integrity and that does make them a bit inferior if you ask me. >>
A. We didn't.
B. Ain't YOU the little charmer?
<<But of course, that is misogynist to even say a woman is inferior right?>>
Pretty much the definition of the word yes.
Bye bye now!
> But of course, that is misogynist to even say a woman is inferior right?
Umm… yes. Yes it is.
> Lets just excuse all of the lying that gender perpetuates.
Sure, lying is the exclusive provenance of women. Also, men never cheat on their partner or commit crimes, either.
> So illogical is this way of thinking that it is sometimes quite infuriating.
So let me see if I have this straight: it’s “illogical” to fail to stereotype entire genders?
> Sure many people take the red pill and use it negatively but are they entirely to blame?
So what you’re asking is, is it fair to hold people accountable for their actions? Yes. Yes it is. The irony is that you babble about honor AT THE SAME TIME YOU’RE TRYING TO AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY. I’m just a woman, but even I’m pretty sure that counts as “illogical.”
> If the true nature of women weren’t so drastically different to what they pretend, men that swallow the pill would feel so let down and angry
So women are evil deceivers and manipulators, therefore any honorable man will naturally demonstrate his basic decency in the face of evil by becoming deceptive and manipulative, and if a little attempted rape happens along the way, well, at least it was the honorable thing to do.
You are a terrible human being and it is my most sincere hope that I never encounter either you or any other member of your disgusting rape-apologist tribe in real life.
Picture me rising to my feet and applauding loudly in an embarrassingly sincere manner.
Holy crap, wow. Um. Yes. Yes, actually, believing that growing a Y chromosome in utero somehow endowed you with a concept of honor that women don't have is kind of what misogyny is.
…
I feel like you should have to read about female war heroes or something and write a thirty-page essay as punishment. Balls. What a disgusting human being.
It wouldn't be a crazy idea to think I could have easily become a red piller given the right (well, wrong) circumstances.
I have crazy self-esteem issues, I'm incredibly self-centred (I prefer self-focused but I've been told that sounds wanky) and my empty track record should also propel me to frustration. And it does on the odd occasion.
But, the thing that sets myself and others like me apart is that all we blame is ourselves mostly. That's not much healthier but at least it means I'm too much of a wuss to buy into that shit.
Anyway, this was really enlightening. I knew little of Red Pills outside of general ideas and this was a good run down of what to look out for and avoid.
I feel very much the same. It's uncomfortable to realize that "all it takes is a little…push"….
Indeed, but you can also look at it the other way now: we know Red Pill is pretty nasty so it would take far more than a little push to get us there. Hopefully it means we would avoid it altogether, but I know people who have succumb to worse trains of thought when they used to talk the opposite.
I don't like the hate in Red Pill. I don't like the fact that it often attracts crackpots with massive anger issues. I don't like its hate and anger towards women and those women who post on Red Pill forums.
Where it is positive is when it recognizes and explores the things the PUA/Magic Skills belief system doesn't. Growing up, I noticed that quite often the most successful guys with women were the good looking, cocky, asshole guys who treated women like crap. The arrogant guys who disappeared up their own rear ends. I'd be bullied by these guys and they'd always be dating really amazing women. Women who would disapprove of the bullying but not leave the good looking guy.
Now, of course, that's high school and high school isn't real life. But it still happens a lot in every day life. The friend who no longer speaks to me rejected me because of my looks and threw herself at a guy who treated her like crap but happened to be good looking. That's not her fault. The abuse she got wasn't her fault. And you can't fight nature so I don't get the blaming and hating women for going for looks pretty much the same as men do. What does get annoying is the dismissal of what guys like me see on an every day basis because it doesn't fit the magic skills belief system.
Attitude is important in dating. But 80%? Not in my experience. More like 80% looks, 10% skill, 10% attitude and mindset together. Like it or not, the most successful guys with women tend to be the arrogant, good looking guys who don't give a crap. Otherwise known as the jocks that PUA was modeled on. The guys in the clubs who act like total jerks and always manage to pull. The guys who can go after the woman you basically love and get her just because they want to piss you off.
No magic skills, no attitude and no mindset can make me a guy like that. It can't make me attractive.
Redpill without the hate teaches the huge importance of looks, stops people over analyzing things (common in the PUA magic skills world) and actually relieves anxiety because you realize there's not much you could have done to make her attracted to you if she isn't. And it doesn't buy into the myth of it being your fault if you can't get a girlfriend. Now, taking responsibility is important. But there's a myth that women go for looks less than men do and that when a man fails in dating it's because of his attitude or his skills or whatever. Realizing the truth that he just wasn't physically attractive enough helps.
This isn't calling women any more shallow than men are. And it's not a hateful anger against women. It does hurt when you realize you weren't born physically attractive to women. I have found that that can hurt quite a bit as part of being a straight man is being attractive to and being with women. Realizing that you're likely not good enough isn't fun. But I think it's better than believing the magic skills stuff.
Women cannot control what they respond to. You can't fight nature. There's no sense getting cross with women about this. Some women are very nasty when you're not physically attractive and the instant judgement of how you look can seem harsh but it's no more than a man would give to a woman. Many people who get into Red Pill stuff have been conned out of a lot of money by the magic skills lot. The PUAs who sold them stuff that was meant to fight nature and obviously didn't work.
I'm largely not physically attractive to women. "Going for what I want" won't help and largely doesn't matter. I'm not the good look. Realizing that was hard and it hurts. It's not fun. It is, however, something real. It can also occasionally make you make mistakes. I made a mistake walking away from the med student despite the fact that in all likelihood she would have much preferred the guy with the looks and the full head of hair she spoke to after me. That was a bad move even when you know certain truths about life. There's always flukes.
I know this is going to get down voted on here because this isn't a Red Pill friendly audience. I don't like the hate, I don't like the anger. What I do like about Red Pill is it's honesty compared to PUA when discussing certain topics.
You're not going to get downvoted because this isn't a red pill friendly audience. You're going to get downvoted because what you are saying directly contradicts the lived experience of many of the people here, which you have been told approximately four thousand times already, and yet you keep repeating the same things as if they're truth.
I feel like a huge number of people have told you, over and over again, that you're not a deformed troll or whatever it is you think you are. I don't know, because I've never seen pictures. But I can say that half the things you write set off these screaming alarm klaxons in my brain: avoid! Avoid! Because everything you say and argue here seems to be part of an attempt to validate that every failure in your romantic life is based solely on a thing you can't control, and therefore you have nothing you can do about it except blame.
To your very small credit, here, you seem to be blaming other men for your romantic failures (they stole the good wimminz) instead of other women (who are just so stupid), but it all comes across as extremely patronizing, like you are trying to teach us what we actually think and feel and respond to. The women here are your target audience, dude! Maybe you could conduct some market research instead of ordering your customers to drink New Coke?
Editing this because it was harsh and written in anger. Apologies.
So, because it contradicts the experiences of people here, its not true? I was told off because people thought I was dismissing people’s experiences. Why then should my experience be dismissed so easily? I know I’m biased. Doesn’t mean what I experienced didn’t happen.
More often than not, good looking guys get the girl. That’s life. It’s not saying anyone stole anything as this isn’t an entitlement rant. It’s looking at why good looking men are most often the most successful with women. Looking at real world stuff. I respect that my arguments don’t match the experiences of those here. We’re all different. But that does not mean what I experienced didn’t happen.
No one is dismissing your experiences – though I do think you've convinced many people here that you are not a reliable narrator, you still experience what you experience, and your feelings are very much your own. What we dismiss are the ridiculous generalizations that you draw from your experiences. When you're ready to stop doing that, I'm ready to engage with your actual experiences and your feelings about them.
@Kleenestar.
I may not be a reliable narrator. Who amongst us is? But I do have the advantage over most people here when it comes to my lived experiences of actually being there.
We all draw conclusions and generalizations from our experiences. Such is the nature of the learning process. People are free to disagree with me when I do that but I'm not sure what makes my generalizations ridiculous? Is it because they don't fit with another belief system? They may very well be wrong. But ridiculous?
Yes, ridiculous. When you say: "Women are like this/women do this." And there's all these women here who are actually, y'know, women, who aren't like that and don't do that.
The fun thing about human beings is that we can learn from more than just OUR experience. So you keep making wrong conclusions about an entire gender, and people are telling you, hey, that's wrong, and your experiences are kind of insular and a really small sample size. And you basically say, "But they're my experiences, so that's the only way I can possibly perceive the world." And at THAT point it becomes willful ignorance. Which is ridiculous.
Also, again, making sweeping generalizations about a huge (51% of the population) group of people based on your own small experiences and sticking to that in the face of other people, even and especially those who belong to that group, contradicting that.
Try that with a race. Just try it.
@thatthat.
I respect the women here. And again: why is what they say immediate proof that what I say isn't true? I know not all women behave in one particular way. I do, also, notice that, in my experience, a lot of women behave in a certain way.
"not all men do that" is not treated on here as a reasonable response to a woman who expresses she's been mistreated by a man. And rightly so. Why then does someone saying "I don't behave like that" invalidate my experiences? I know not everyone behaves like that and I respect the words of people here.
I think what people get frustrated by is that you say "not all women behave this way," but by asking these questions over and over, you kind of ARE saying "all women behave this way."
Yes, some women like jerks. Some women like good-looking jerks. Some women will date an anti-feminist guy. These things are all true.
But…. so what? Why does the question of "Why do these women do X?" need to be answered beyond just mere curiosity. And why does answering this question somehow mean that you will know more about either dating or women? If we answer this question, all you will know more about is "group of women who date jerks."
Knowing more about this group only makes sense if this is the only group you can or want to date in. You want to figure out why some women date jerks, because those are the women you want to date. Otherwise, why not just shrug and say "Some women date jerks, oh well, let's go find some who don't?"
But continuing to insist that you HAVE to have this question answered, you are either:
1) self-limiting yourself to only dating women who like jerks or
2) suggesting that women who like jerks are so numerous that you can't FIND one to date; in essence, saying all women are like this
So the first is frustrating, because it's intentionally self-limiting and biased, and the second one is frustrating, because it's an untrue generalization.
Be real honest with me here, Trix: some women date good-looking jerks. So? Why does that matter to you? Some men will only date women under the age of 25 with long hair, a size 26 waist, and double D boobs. The only time I start feeling anxiety (as opposed to an eyeroll-shrug-move-on) is when I start feeling as if that "some" is growing into "more" or "all." If you AREN'T generalizing, then why does is it so important to address and discuss this fact?
@MartyFarley.
It matters to me because these jerks are so often what I find to be my competition in dating. They are around me. It would make sense to know how and what they do. Not to model them because I have no desire to become them. But to know what they do to provide and effective counter if possible. Know thy enemy and all that.
I don't have a huge abundance of women interested in dating me because (I feel) the way I look. This means I have to be careful and every and all encounter I have in that respect. There's a short supply. Can't mess up.
Except again, they are only your competition *if you assume all women date jerks.* If you accept the idea that not all women are the same, and thus not all women like jerks, then the Jerky Guys are only your competition if you want to date Women Who Like Jerks. And why in the world would you want to date women who like jerks?
You ARE messing up by focusing on these women! You are seeing every encounter as precious because you are trying to charm the unbendable… you are trying to get women to date you, when you are not their type. And I don't mean physical type, I mean personality! If these women like jerks, and you are not a jerk, they are not going to like you!
You are setting yourself up for failure by pursuing women who aren't interested in your type, because then you HAVE to be absolutely amazing-perfect-theEpitiome-of-Attractive to have a chance. Nearly anybody would fail in that situation!
I am just flummoxed why you would focus on trying to date the group of women who aren't inclined from the beginning to like you (because they like jerks and you are not a jerk.)
@MartyFarley.
I don't want to date women who like jerks or to be a jerk or anything like that. But I'm not really in a position to explore what I want here.
I don't think all women like jerks. The jerks tend to be the most successful guys I see with women. For sure. But that doesn't mean every woman likes jerks. It's just the jerks have, in the past, deliberately gone out with women just to show me that they can or to piss me off. Now I didn't think I owned the women or they were mine. It's just that jerks have the power to do that regardless of the woman in question and I need to be mindful of that power and where it comes from.
I don't get to set the rules or choose who my competition ends up being. I've been in many a social group in the past where the good looking jerk guy has been the centre of attention and I could have danced the can can in a clown's outfit and not been noticed.
I don't actively go for women who are not my type or who like jerks. Jerks are, by their looks and nature, attractive. I don't want to be them but my personality does not compensate for the looks deficit. I tried being a PUA/jerk (to me those are the same thing pretty much) once. It made less women like me. Still no dates.
If jerks tend to be the most successful guys you see with women, it's because *you are focusing on women who like jerks.* That's an easy explanation right there. I would pay money, actual money, that there are plenty of cool guys with girlfriends/wives that you are ignoring because 1) the cool guys don't stick out 2) they might not make it known they have a girlfriend 3) they are dating women you don't find desirable 4) they are in a different social group than you.
If the jerk can snap a girl out from under you that fast, *then she did not really like you.* And why would you be sad to lose a girl who was never that interested?
Okay, this really needs to be addressed: being the center of attention doesn't mean you can never get girls, or that the guys are successful. Of COURSE the good looking jerk gets all of the attention. But that does not extend to assuming he gets all the girls. I can see where you go from Point A to Point B, but really, it's shifty logic at best. If only attention-seeking, good-looking jerks got women, we'd all have the same fathers and be living like fundamentalist Mormons.
And this is what drives people crazy: you talk about not believing in "women all like the same thing" or hypergamy, but your belief system is *exactly that.* You are essentially saying here that 10% of men get 80% of girls, and thus those men are your competition which is just… so ridiculous, dude.
Maybe you really, really need to examine why you are so focusing on jerks and the women they get, and why you want THOSE particular women in the first place. If you admit that not all women like the same things, and thus not all women like jerks, then you need to really evaluate why the women who DO like jerks are the ones you fixate on.
@MartyFarley
"If the jerk can snap a girl out from under you that fast, *then she did not really like you.* And why would you be sad to lose a girl who was never that interested? "
In that case because I was stupid enough to love her. A mistake I've since rectified. It's just likely that most women I meet won't like me in that way and that jerks could easily make a move on women I liked and get them. Doesn't mean I think I'm owed or own anything. Just you have to be careful of the competition and give up when it seems right to do so. As I did with the med student earlier this year.
It might seem strange to people here but I factored in the other guy she spoked to. Full head of hair. Well that's about 20 points above my hair. Tall, good physical shape and height with that kind of beard look that women seem to like that I can't pull of without itching on my face for days. He was, as unfortunate and upset it made me feel, more likely to be someone she liked.
I know that's not treating people as individuals. But common likelihoods speak volumes.
I don't fixate on one type of women. Not all women like jerks but women liking jerks is a common thing. Therefore it is likely that the women I know or interact with will like jerks. They may not see it as jerk behaviour but it follows. I don't think eighty percent of the women sleep with 20% of the guys or anything like that. But jerks are hugely popular with women. It would be foolhardy not to see and notice that.
Those men are my competition. They are, in my experience, the most popular guys with women. Why would they not be my competition?
Realistically, I'm not going to have many chances. It is just possible a woman might find me hot enough to date. It would be a fluke out of heaven but it could happen. And I'd be vulnerable to jerks in that moment. Life is like that. Bullies win more often than not. It's not something I like but life isn't something I like very often either. You just have to make the best of a bad situation.
To have any chance I need to know what my competition is and what they are looking for. My wants really don't come into it here.
Yes, Trix, we get it. You and only you are able to transcend fixation on physical attraction and appreciate the looks of a wide variety of women ranging in age from 23 to 26 and in appearance from Willow Rosenberg to Amy Pond. Women on the other hand are only able to appreciate the looks of men who look nothing like you and who all coincidentally happen to be jerks, a trait which you have none of yourself because you're cursed with horrible ugliness and therefore couldn't possibly have character flaws.
We get it.. Really, we do. Do we really need to spill thousands and thousands of more words about why no woman will ever like you but also about how it's perfectly normal and okay for you to ask out women 10 years your junior?
A veritable saint, yo….
(Said in voice of Jesse Pinkman)
@eselle28.
"You and only you are able to transcend fixation on physical attraction and appreciate the looks of a wide variety of women ranging in age from 23 to 26 and in appearance from Willow Rosenberg to Amy Pond."
Not what I said. I'm as vulnerable to physical attraction as much as the rest of the world. I do like a range of different women's body types but physical attraction makes a difference in my thinking.
"Women on the other hand are only able to appreciate the looks of men who look nothing like you and who all coincidentally happen to be jerks, a trait which you have none of yourself because you're cursed with horrible ugliness and therefore couldn't possibly have character flaws. "
Not what I said. I have character flaws. Fixing those doesn't help attraction wise. Women may like a whole range of physical types. I don't know. But the logical conclusions of investigation must be that I am not physically attractive to the majority of women. It's not a conclusion I like coming and it sometimes makes me want to pack it all in and go live as a monk or just end things (not planning to just a feeling). But it's life and you have to get on with it however bleak it gets.
I didn't even ask out the woman 9 years my junior. That's what people hare complained at me about. I did it once.
How do you know that fixing character flaws doesn't help? Have you fixed yours? Are you even aware of what yours might be?
I've asked you about women you've asked out prior to those two women. If you want to provide some more data points, I'll happily consider those from women you asked out in 2012 or 2013.
They are not always your competition. You're making it sound like every time you attempt to flirt with women there is ALWAYS some "jerk" (jerk according to your beliefs) around the corner looking to screw you over. From my experience it is quite rare for these situations to happen. Even in the cold approach, bar, nightclub scene which is more common and having to compete has happened to me before, it is not the dominant situation that occurs.
Also, there are other places to meet women, maybe you can find ones where there is less direct competition?
"I tried being a PUA/jerk (to me those are the same thing pretty much) once. It made less women like me. Still no dates. "
So then…maybe women DON'T like guys who are jerks? If "being a jerk" doesn't work, maybe there are other factors in this that you're not seeing or accounting for?
@thatthat.
Without the looks, all bets are probably off. Measuring behaviour in isolation is difficult given the presence of the halo effect and other stuff.
Women don't tend to like PUAs and guys pretending to be jerks. But the good looking guys tend to end up acting like jerks because they get away with it more often.
…you're really committed to this idea, aren't you?
I guess if it basically means that you can't get a relationship because of your looks and not your character flaws, that makes it easier to swallow?
"There's a short supply."
Yeah, there's your cognitive error right there.
But there are a whole bunch of other commenting people who've been invested for .. let's see, at least the *year* I've been on the site who are telling you that.
(Yep. You've been complaining about the exact same thing, and the same people, and the same two women and the same dude whom you feel wronged you (not disputing that they did, of course *eyeroll*) and doing nothing different about any of it, for that long.
What are your "experiences" around that?)
So I needn't waste much more of my breath /typing speed adding to the chorus.
You're a white dude, and a professional. You're quite possibly the most privileged being in the dating universe.
And yet all you do is make excuse after excuse as to why your situation is so allegedly impossible to change — without doing any reflection about the women you choose (nope, just ruminating on those two, when you're not chasing down students ten years your junior), without letting go of that experience of that dude who "took" that woman from you (seriously, dude, don't you get bored with that narrative yourself? I wasn't even there, and I am sick to death of hearing it. How much more bored must you be with it having lived with it this long? Is it fun feeling sorry for yourself, but doing nothing to change your situation? Is it just easier, do you feel, to continue to feel sorry for yourself about this *one thing* that happened this *one time* than to change what you're doing so you can have a multiplicity of experiences, rather than just that one?)
Maybe you could think of it as your experience not having to continue to be your experience if you actually took some initiative — oh, once, maybe? – to do something different instead of coming up with several thousand excuses, every single time someone here suggests that you do something different, as to why you feel you can't.
Because you're not just saying "in my experience, good-looking men get the girl". You're saying that you have decided that this happens everywhere, all the time, that it's biology, that the many, many women telling you that there is more to it than that are wrong or lying.
You've been told by quite a number of people who have seen your photos that you are fairly nice looking but that some of your body language comes across as shady. You can choose to ignore this because it's easier than trying to accept that you might be able to do something about it. But don't you dare tell me that how I experience attraction is 80% looks when I have told you otherwise.
@embertine.
"You've been told by quite a number of people who have seen your photos that you are fairly nice looking but that some of your body language comes across as shady."
And whilst I appreciate all of those comments that doesn't seem to be how things play out in the real world. As in my life outside of here. I'm often over looked and dismissed as not being physically attractive enough. Even out right bullied for my looks by strangers. As happened earlier this week when a waiter in a Chinese restaurant made fun of my "large belly" (in his words).
Despite the huge pain doing so caused, I have worked on my body language as best I can. It seems to make little to no difference. Still ignored as a dating option. I have tried for many years to change various things and see if they make a difference and I keep coming back to it being about stuff I cannot change. It's not a conclusion I like to come to but one cannot ignore real life.
"But don't you dare tell me that how I experience attraction is 80% looks when I have told you otherwise."
I made no comment on how you experience attraction. Just that dating success, in my view and experience, comes down to 80% looks (for the guy). I can't change or really influence whether a woman finds me physically appealing or not. That's not in my power.
"I made no comment on how you experience attraction."
Yes you did.
"Just that dating success, in my view and experience, comes down to 80% looks (for the guy)."
And there you are doing it again.
@Embertine.
That's still not a comment on how you experience attraction. That's a comment on what I believe a guy needs to succeed in dating.
I find your attitudes so disturbing and loathsome that I think it’s best if I no longer engage with you.
@embertine.
Fair enough. Thank you for your words and time.
…implying that embertine isn't a dateable woman or something?
Well, since you've got this weird underlying attitude that women can and will pick up on, I guess we'll never really know what it is that's turning women off. I'm not banking on it always being looks.
Trix, as your fellow Ugly Poster, I share your frustration with feeling that what people tell us online and what we experience in real life is contradictory.
However, without being able to show folks our real life behavior, then we're just as stuck in our bias ("It's our looks not our behavior!") as other posters are ("It's your behavior not your looks!"), with neither side having any evidence.
So here's my proposal: let's both of us make a video. It could even be us having a conversation on Skype. And when the new forums are up, let's post our videos and get some feedback. Because the whole loop of Looks!-Behavior!-Looks! is helping no one. Let's actually present our body language and behavior in meat space, and see if evidence can start falling on either side.
What do you say?
@MartyFarley.
Assuming I don't manage to get myself banned from here before the new forums are up (fingers crossed). I'm happy to take you up on your proposal.
The blog and the forum are separate, and even more so with the new forum, which DNL does not manage. Mods on the forum may consider a member's behavior on the blog when looking at the context of a problem post etc., so there can be some impact, but a ban on the forum is not an automatic ban on the blog or vice versa.
Marty, this is one of the reasons I'm so fond of you (and I think others may be as well). You and I don't always see things the same way, and I know people argue with you a lot. But AFAIK you don't shy away from trying new things and testing hypotheses. Very cool.
Okay, I may have been harsher above than I really wanted to be, and I apologize for that.
But here's the thing: I have seem dozens of comments in this exact mold from you. And the conversation always goes exactly the same way. You say, "Women always go for goodlooking guys," and women say, "Um, not true." And you say, "I know it's true, because I'm not goodlooking, and women don't go for me, and also, this guy was goodlooking and a jerk, and a woman I know went out with him instead of me."
What you're doing, whether you intend to or not, is assuming you know all the motivations that drive people to act around you. And you are taking the data points that you register and assuming it's a complete survey of reality.
On the first point, people are telling you, "Hey, you are not so unattractive I would not date you, but you are carrying a toxic cloud of negativity around that would scare me away like whoa." And you are saying, "But that's not what's causing the problem. It's my looks." And people say, "Maybe consider that your looks are fine, and the actual issue is something you could improve?" And you say, "Nope. Women like good-looking guys."
True fact: I don't message good-looking guys on OKCupid at all. Ever. I start my messaging at around my 4s, and target my 3s. Really good-looking guys are intimidating to me. But by the time things turn serious, if they do, I generally think the guy is pretty awesomely hot. Because I like him, not the way he looks in a picture.
On the second point: There was an interesting study done once about men and women in crowds, and they were noting that if a crowd was 5/6s male and 1/6 female, the men in the crowd perceived it as equally mixed. This happens because you notice the deviations more, and your brain assigns it more weight. When I was a kid, there was a little machine that did something with the sewers along my walk home. It would turn on a couple of times an hour for around 2 minutes. Until I was probably in high school, I was convinced my walking by it turned it on, because it always seemed to click on as I was walking by.
This is only tangentially related, but the psychological phenomenon is real: if you think that the good-looking jerks get the girl, then without realizing you're doing it, you're watching for examples where that happens, and the 1 in 6 starts to feel like 50% to you.
The sewer station didn't know if I was walking by, but if it didn't turn on, I didn't notice it at all, so I believed the world was something it wasn't.
This is the best description of both cognitive bias and how magical thinking plays into it that I have ever seen.
*throw armfuls of upvotes*
@ElizaJane
"What you're doing, whether you intend to or not, is assuming you know all the motivations that drive people to act around you. And you are taking the data points that you register and assuming it's a complete survey of reality. "
Not exactly. It's more weighing up what is likely. I recognize my biases and people's behaviour is often unpredictable. But there are things that logically and likely follow.
" And people say, "Maybe consider that your looks are fine, and the actual issue is something you could improve?" And you say, "Nope. Women like good-looking guys."
I have spent a very long time changing things other than my looks and getting no results. Surely the logical conclusion therefore is that it must be something I cannot change? I don't like coming to that conclusion. But life is real life. If my looks are fine, why am I ignored as a dating option, referred to by women sometimes in public as "physically unattractive", given the impression by women that my looks put them off dating me and have strangers in public bully me because of the way I look, my weight etc?
Why do those things happen if my looks are not a problem? And my attitudes may push some people away but the guys with good looks I've seen being successful with women often have much more toxic attitudes than I might be said to have. How come they are successful if their attitudes are worse than mine?
"if you think that the good-looking jerks get the girl, then without realizing you're doing it, you're watching for examples where that happens, and the 1 in 6 starts to feel like 50% to you. "
I may watch for times when that happens but the reason I think it in the first place is because I saw it happen quite a lot. And it does happen a heck of a lot.
Trixnix, you have approached two significantly younger (8-9 years if I remember correctly) women in what, 9-10 months? So you have two data points from women who are at an entirely different stage in their lives (med student who was moving and one starting university) who are at an age where men in their mid-thirties in the workforce might see them as dating prospects, but the feeling is often not mutual. Who, mind you, you never asked out on a straight up date.
I do not understand how you can extrapolate to all women based on this.
Yeah, I find asking people out on a date helps when trying to get someone to go out on a date with you.
@Rebootl730.
I'm not only using them as dating points. I also use the reactions and general treatment I get from the other women I know. And only the woman staring uni was 9 years younger. I have no idea how old the med student was. In my experience, women tend to date older men. As in older than them. That happens a lot round here. I don't necessarily have a preference for younger women. Depends on the person. I really fancy someone older than me. Not seen her for a while but when I did last see her she was justifying to me (un provoked) why it was okay for her to have spent the night making out with a good look she knew had a girlfriend.
I accepted being the over looked guy dating wise a long time ago. It hurts. Nothing I can really do about it. At least Red Pill (without the hate) shows why this happens or why this can happen.
Not that much older when you are in your 20s and still in school. If I had a dime for every time one of our intend says, "Ugh. This guy in his thirties asked me out. Jeez why don't they date women their own age! You know, the ones who actually have real jobs." all the refugees in Phoenix would have mansions.
After people are out of school and in the workforce you start to see more age gapping older and younger but even then most women side eye someone 9-10 years older if they are under 25. There are often too few common cultural references and too few years out and about as an adult to have common experiences. It also often squicks people out if someone mentions something they did in college and you were 10-12 at the time.
@rebootl730/
I appreciate what you're saying. Here where I live it tends to be women rejecting guys younger than them but not having much of a problem if the guy is older than them. I don't have a particular preference for women really younger than me. The woman who went to uni recently was an exception and that was down to her being her. Normally I try to go for a few years either way and I still have no idea how old the med student was. She appeared to be approaching her final years and placements of study so I could guess but I have no real proof.
So med school should be 25-26, right? Or does the UK do undergraduate then med school like the US rather than the European system where you enter med school after high school and do 6-7 years? So still 7-8 years younger and still in school.
And as far as you have reported those are the only two women you have gone for in almost a year, so what are the circumstances of the other women you have "gone for" since making changes and following advice?
@rebootl730
I have no idea about what med school is like here in the UK. As far as I can guess, you do an undergrad and then med school. If she was 26 that's currently 6 years younger than me and would have been six years when we met. It changes to seven years next month unless she's also had a birthday in that time.
In the UK, we don't talk about someone being "in school" when they are in university or college. Only when they are in high school or lower. The med student was a student and she really didn't look hugely younger than I was.
I get why some might have questioned the ten year or nine year age gap but six years? Really? Women around here date older guys more often than not. Most of my female friends have boyfriends who are older than they are.
There isn't a huge abundance of women I can date in life. I feel I know why that is. Others don't so it makes sense to only have tried asking out two women recently. You kinda get the hint after a while that you're not what women are looking for. I approached both of those women having following advice and changing things. Made no difference as far as I could see.
Yes, 6 years is a significant age gap, especially if someone is in a very different life stage (school vs. not.) I'm 30, and consider 5 years my ceiling.
Look at what you wrote, really look at it: "Lots of women around here date older men." "Lots of women around here date jerks." Do ya think, just possibly, these two things are conflated? That maybe these jerks go for younger women because they know younger women are more likely to put up with their jerkiness?
Is it just possible that women who shy away from a large age gap are also the ones who aren't interested in jerks? And that by maybe focusing on a smaller age gap, you'd also find those who aren't interested in jerks, who you continually insist are your competition?
@MartyFarley.
It's possible. But I've not been actively searching for a particular age gap or age. It depends on the person. I've found most women I've met to be attracted to jerks and that's no surprise. Doesn't mean they are only attracted to them. Just that it happens. And I've met a lot of women over the years.
I still think six years isn't that bad. And eventually I'd like a family. It makes sense to go younger than me biologically. My mum had me when she was older and whilst that turned out okay it did put my mum at somewhat of a risk and I can't do that to someone I love. It makes sense to go for someone younger eventually. Though, as I have said, I currently fancy a woman two years older than me.
I'm not in a much of a position to focus on anything really as it's up to women whether they like me or not. Not up to me. Jerks are the most popular guys with women in my experience. Therefore they will always be competition.
"And eventually I'd like a family. It makes sense to go younger than me biologically. My mum had me when she was older and whilst that turned out okay it did put my mum at somewhat of a risk and I can't do that to someone I love. It makes sense to go for someone younger eventually."
Ah, the battle cry of every other single guy your age who has trouble dating but still wants to justify only being interested in very young women who are just so mean for not finding you attractive. And you all seem to want the fantasy of dating for five years, being engaged for another, and then being married for three more before having biological children. I'm going to say to you what everyone on earth starts saying to women when they turn 30: maybe you don't get that. Maybe you have to rush a bit, not just because your partner is reaching the end of her peak childbearing years, but because you are. Maybe you need to make some efforts to meet women your own age, while those 32-year-olds are still your age and aren't the 10-years-younger women who are ignoring you because they're not into forty-something dudes.
You know what? I am beginning to believe that all of Trixnix's statements about women are really about conventionally attractive women 21-26 years old.
That's more or less what I've picked up, especially now that fretting over the fertility of his fellow 32-year-olds and these constant arguments that women like older men, no matter what either data or his personal experiences with rejection might say. It's basically the same old 50-year-old dude who keeps cluttering up my online dating inbox in his younger incarnation.
"You know what? I am beginning to believe that all of Trixnix's statements about women are really about conventionally attractive women 21-26 years old."
Ahem. Hi.
And his statements are still wrong!
@eselle28.
Okay, seriously? I like one woman who is 9 years younger than me and one woman who was possibly six or seven years younger than me and I get this?
I don't have a fantasy about anything. I don't even think it's likely I'll get a date how can I have a fantasy about a relationship? I don't mind rushing if I meet the right person and it's what she wants too. I just don't fancy putting an older woman through risk or pain insisting on a family or going into every interaction with a woman I like making it clear how much I want children.
I currently like a woman who is 36 nearly 37 and another who is 40 plus. I'm not chasing the wrong women. It's that women, for whatever reason, don't like me physically enough to date me. At least that is the logical conclusion I come to based on the evidence available. It sucks but it's real.
Yes, you do, because you keep braying about this fertility argument, even though women who are your age are entirely capable of having children.
Whatever you say you might like the facts remain that you have only asked out two women this calendar year, and both of them are substantially younger than you are. If you want to provide more data points by actually asking those women you like out, I'll consider that data. All I have now is what you've been doing and your very problematic statements.
Just to note, he didn't even actually ask out either of those two women. One he texted after taking off on her at an event, and decided not to ask out because she responded to his general text without enthusiasm. The other was a woman he already knew who he suggested grabbing a drink with, with no indication this was a date and not as friends. (And even though he uses this as an example of someone liking him as a friend but not seeing him as a dating option–based on the fact that she suggested inviting another friend to join them–he later admitted that she ended up blowing him off even on meeting for drinks, which kind of suggests she wasn't that into him as a friend either.)
That's a good point. I've been grading these overtures on an easy curve because they're literally all we have to work with aside from his friend who dated the good-looking guy (actually, now that I think of it, they're not friends anymore; maybe there's a general pattern of attributing people who aren't that into even a friendship as being uninterested in romance due to looks).
We are focusing on that because those are the only examples you have given us. That, combined with the fact that you routinely point out there's nothing weird about a substantial age gap, tons of girls date older, etc., it starts to smell a little like "I am really only attracted to younger women."
Which, okay, but then own that. Own that, and recognize that probably has a substantial impact on your success because you're playing in a tougher ball game. So don't blame your looks, don't blame women liking "jerks," don't blame other guys…. just own the fact that you're competing for a much smaller percentage of the female population, that is highly desirable to a much larger percentage of the male population.
Please answer this question: what TYPE of women are they? Why do ALL of them seemingly like jerks? What is making you focus in on these women, despite feeling or getting signals that they are not interested?
Yes, to be clear, I don't think that people have to like people their own age. If a man is only interested in younger women, so be it. I'm certainly not interested in all men. I just ask that guys who do this recognize that if they're not successful doing so, it's not a case of "no girls like me," but a case of none of the very small group of highly desirable women liking them.
Ugh, all the BS surrounding female fertility decline makes me ragey as well. It was widely debunked just last year:
"The data on which that statistic is based is from 1700s France. They put together all these church birth records and then came up with these statistics about how likely it was [someone would] get pregnant after certain ages."
So all the creepers who insist on dating women in their early 20s because ~fertility are going to have to find another way to back up their preferences.
Hey Trixnix, I'm going to try this again because I feel you are your own worst enemy. I am one of the people who feel that you are not bad looking at all from the pictures I've seen. But what people cannot tell from pictures are things like body language, tone of voice, type of humor (or lack thereof), level of energy or passion or excitement, and other real-life characteristics.
These elements are extremely important in social interactions, including dating. There are men whose physical appearance is less attractive than yours who come across as fun, exciting people to spend time with, and they get girlfriends and wives. I have seen this myself many times.
Whenever you are willing to do some reality-checking, I would suggest you find someone to observe you in social activities or encounters and give you feedback on how you are coming across. While the ideal person is a good friend who can be honest with you, it is possible to hire someone to do that. The catch is that you have to be willing to actually listen to the person if he or she is telling you that (just for example) you come across as aloof or snotty or bored or condescending or socially terrified or predatory or whatever. That person should be able to give you concrete examples of behavior that you can change.
So, for me, I tend to get very excited about things easily. I had no idea that I was frequently interrupting people until a good friend clued me in. A friend of mine is a great person, but had the obnoxious habit of constantly name-dropping until I told her how much it was turning people off and she learned to at least curb it.
Also, please read and think about Eliza Jane's comment about confirmation bias. There's a wealth of wisdom there. Good luck.
Love this. I for example talk quite fast and laugh a lot. It wasn't until people started asking if I was nervous about something that I realised that while for me talking fast and laughing is a sign I'm really relaxed and comfortable, others thought it was nervous energy. I still have to work on it a fair bit actually. But I had NO idea I came across that way at all.
@OneTrueGuest.
You've taken a break because of the topic matter and discussion and I respect that so I'll open this out to anyone who fancies responding but: what happens when the feedback is taken onboard, things get changed and no difference is experienced?
Consider where the feedback is coming from, if it's honest and reliable. Consider if you've *really* changed those aspects at all. Consider whether or not changing those aspects will positively affect impressions of you overall, or just with certain people. Consider whether those certain people are worth your time.
@thatthat.
I agree with the merit of your argument and I've done all that over and over again. Keep hitting the same wall. Why is that happening if looks are not the issue? Why are women's reactions and first impressions of me (instant ones) different to how they perceive the good looks they meet? Why does that happen if looks are not the issue of importance here?
I don't like the conclusion I have to come to but I cannot ignore real life.
Not OTG, but I will say that the feedback loop needs to be continued. If a person is inventing a new product, they make a prototype and test it. It usually sucks. Then they analyse it, modify it, and try again. This is the way of the world. Very few things happen on the first try. Also, it helps to really reflect–that is, sometimes there was a change, but it was small, so then is it worth increasing that change, or better to try something else?
I think the "gets excited about stuff easily" thing is a near-universal geek trait. In my case, I tend to let my volume dial slip when I get excited. Since I already have a voice that carries, this tends to make me come off as a lot more boisterous than I mean to.
I apparently bounce. Like, literally start bouncing up and down on the balls of my feet. Anime hearts may or may not appear.
My friends (and sometimes people I've just met) just straight up tell my I'm a cartoon character.
For me it's this. I also have a terrible poker face.
@Robjection and others.
I don't bounce. And were I allowed to play poker (used to be a magician so people really don't fancy playing with someone who knows how to do a false shuffle) I'm told I have an amazing poker face. Not that making changes to that makes any difference.
What's wrong with going somewhere where there is cheese?
For my money there should be cheese everywhere.
Oh I really like that idea. I feel like there is a huge gap between pictures and real life, which is how Trix and I keep having these "I am ugly" experiences while people who look at our pictures would think we would do, if not great, then average-fine.
Do you know how you would go about finding these sorts of people to hire? I looked into an image consultant, but the prices are astronomical. I have… hesitations about asking even honest friends to do this, as I feel there will always be a bias.
Can I hire any of you lovely folks? Pay ya to watch me for an hour on Skype or something?
Or fly here!! I'll make cookies! I have an adorable dog!
The ideal situation is a person who can go with you to social situations; so, that would be better than Skype because the idea is to be able to give you objective feedback about how you interact with others. Maybe search for social coach or dating coach and narrow it to people who will do that and not try to sell you sight-unseen on some expensive program. That is, make it clear exactly what you are looking for and find people who will do just that. Also, try to talk to people they have worked with before, if possible, to find out what worked, didn't work, etc. If the person has a blog or website, sometimes you can see testimonials and also tell a little bit from the writing whether they might be good match for you.
An alternative is someone who will videotape you while you have a fake date or social interaction with them, and then go through the tape with you and show you and explain to you how you are coming across. The trick with this is that they have to be good enough to make you forget you're being taped, so you act natural. That's all I can think of for now. I know it's much easier in NY or LA or other large cities, but hopefully there are resources in your area as well!
ETA, if all else fails, maybe an acting or presentation teacher or coach, who will tape you and talk about how you come across individually. Even though it will be missing the social interaction part, it still can be very helpful.
@Christine.
I think it's worth pointing out in my case that I've actually done a lot of acting and theatre studies work. I have qualifications in it and have performed in a lot of amateur and professional stuff. I even had a solo during an amateur production of a musical. Plus I've performed street theatre and professional theatre. I know all this stuff about communication and rapport building from my days as an actor and my current days as a therapist.
But I find it makes no difference applying it. As much as I hate it, the lack of change combined with the bullying about my looks and weight must point to the problem being physical and looks in nature. It is, unfortunately, the most likely solution. I have been in touch with a dating coach but since PUA is a load of nonsense most of the time it's hard to find someone. A charisma coach I know charges over a hundred pounds an hour and I'm not convinced he doesn't do so well because he looks how he looks.
There's one woman I trust but she's expensive too.
The rest of PUA and social coaching is weird. Socializing is different to dating. You can be good socially and ignored dating wise and vice versa.
Oh come on…that was a post with me talking about my acting experience and not trusting PUAs. And two people still down voted that?
There are some people who downvote any posts by a person they dislike or disagree with, regardless of the post content. BiSian and Gentleman Johnny both seem to have a couple of particularly devoted downvoters, and I think a fair number of us have somewhat less devoted ones. It's best not to worry about it too much.
Hi Trixnix, I don't know why that comment was downvoted, and I'm sorry to hear that you have not been able to connect with a dating or social coach who can help you. The point I was trying to make (in general, not just for you) is that it is difficult to get valuable information about how you are coming across sexually or in a dating social interaction. Of course, dating coaches specialise in that, but social coaches can also do that if you specify that's what you want/need. Since I don't know you, this is only a guess, but I would be willing to bet $$$ that in potential dating situations, you do no exude sexuality. If you do not do that in a way that is honest to yourself, it is difficult for others to connect with you that way. If a person (male or female) has outstanding good looks, then other people will project onto them; this may lead to attraction, but it's not the only way, and otten it's not the most useful way if the goal is not ONS. I may be misremembering what your goal is, but in any case, a man does not have to be great-looking to be attractive; he does need to be able to convey sexual interest in an effective (noncreepy) way. That is why I do hope you'll be able to find a way to get some hellpful feedback in that area. It sounds like your friends are good people, but not everyone is able to give that type of help. Also, performing is completely different (unless you want to live your life as a complete phony; not a good idea). The reason I was thinking an acting teacher might be able to provide feedback is that, knowing that your goal is to be more attractive, the person can tell you about things you don't even know you're doing. I'm going to just add some things to your other comment below.
@Christine.
Thanks. Appreciate the feedback. I'd say giving off a sexual vibe when most of the women I meet judge me as "not a dating option" fairly instantly would be a minefield and likely to come across as creepy which would alienate people. That said, expressing a sexual vibe in the past hasn't worked. It's almost as if women see you as "not sexy" and get annoyed when you try to be sexy. This may just be me interpreting it but some of the feedback I get from some women sounds like I was daft enough to even try.
I've never noticed conveying sexual interest being the deciding factor. Usually the woman likes the guy straight off (as my female friend said about her boyfriend) and then works out if he's interested or not. He doesn't create that interest. It's something the woman feels at first sight or first interaction and, in my book at least, usually largely based on physical appeal of the guy.
As much as I would like to be able to do that, I can't compete with that power through showing sexual interest. At least not instantly and directly. That's not to say I approve of covering stuff up. Just that the "this is what I want and I'm gonna go and get it" stuff usually applies to the good looks of this world. Overt confidence from a non attractive guy can come across as creepy.
That's not me having a rant about the unfairness of it all. Life is unfair. Life is often bad. These are just realities people build comfort within and I've certainly tried to do that as best as possible.
"Usually the woman likes the guy straight off (as my female friend said about her boyfriend) and then works out if he's interested or not. He doesn't create that interest. It's something the woman feels at first sight or first interaction and, in my book at least, usually largely based on physical appeal of the guy."
That hasn't been my experience, nor that of most of the women I know, so don't assume that will always be the case. Most of the people I know who got together did not instantly bond.
"Just that the "this is what I want and I'm gonna go and get it" stuff usually applies to the good looks of this world. Overt confidence from a non attractive guy can come across as creepy. "
I agree that being overly aggressive is not a good idea. Noticing and showing appreciation for another person's attractiveness is different and often welcome.
@Christine.
"There are men whose physical appearance is less attractive than yours who come across as fun, exciting people to spend time with, and they get girlfriends and wives. I have seen this myself many times. "
And I am glad they experience such happiness. It is just unfortunately not something that often happens in my real world social circles. I have spent many years changing various things about my body language, energy, vibe etc. None of them made a difference dating wise. Social wise? Yes. They helped me make friends easily but that's as far as it tends to go with women these days. They like spending time with me. They see me as a good friend. They like spending time one on one with me but it's mostly them telling me about their boyfriends and trusting me with things. Not "friend zone" as this is genuine friendship and I'm not interested in hitting on these women or secretly trying to get with them.
I'm also not angry with these female friends for the guys they go for. It's just sometimes very painful to realize that no matter what I do, I don't get a chance to be seen as a dating option by women. To be a normal, attractive man instead of feeling like a broken freak.
I have had and taken onboard feedback from female friends and other friends I trust (including men). One female friend even said I was "doing everything right/doing all the right things". Socializing is fine. I'm someone both men and women like spending time with group wise or one on one. I get invited often to stuff other people don't get invited to and whilst women rarely if ever fancy me they do share stuff with me and start conversations with me often.
That is what makes the conclusion that the problem lies with the physical side of things so popular in my head. I'm liked. I'm just not "liked in that way".
Hi Trixnix, I responded to your other comment above, but here is what I'm thinking. Without knowing you or seeing you IRL, this is speculation, but I have strong feeling that you are probably not giving off a sexual vibe, just a friend vibe. This is what I was hoping you would be able to get feedback for. A man does not have to be good-looking to be sexually attractive (I could give numerous celebrity examples, but I think we've done all this before). If you could find a dating coach or social coach with dating expertise, that person could observe you or help you role-play dating situations and show you how you are coming across. That said, in general things are different for people who are very good-looking. But that also comes with problems. Others project like crazy onto them, and often relationships never gell or fall apart when the pursuer realizes the good-looking person is nothing like what they thought (the halo effect falls apart). I've observed that with my two former model sisters. I was wondering about something though, if you care to discuss it. While I feel that you look perfectly fine, you're unhappy with your appearance. What are the things that you can or could change (let's say if $$$ were not an issue), and what would you be willing to change (again if $$$ were not an issue)? I'm just curious because I have an acquaintance who is very unattractive. I hesitate to call another woman ugly, but if I did, she'd be the one. However, she always has a boyfriend or girlfriend (she's bi). She also happens to be the most incredibly stylish person I've ever seen anywhere. (I really don't know how she does it.) She's also quite an unpleasant person, but she's a nonstop flirt. She puts her heart and soul into looking as good as she can, through makeup, hair/nails and an amazing wardrobe (mostly vintage). So, again, just curious; no problem if you don't want to discuss this.
@Christine.
Thanks. I've put my heart, my soul and a tonne of money into looking the best I can recently. Not that it really does much in terms of making a difference. If I had the power and money was no option and it wouldn't upset those who loved me (family), I'd change pretty much everything: hair, facial construct, weight, height, and a whole load of other things.
Flirting when most people would instantly decide I'm not attractive to them would be problematic. As would expressing a sexual vibe to the majority of women when they wouldn't be interested. Last thing I want is to come off as a creep. I lack anything to compensate for that and I'd rather not alienate people.
Why would you making changes to yourself upset your family? This puzzles me.
The things you've mentioned wishing you could change can sometimes be changed, if not now, then in the future. Hair (transplants? don't know too much about this); facial construct (what specific features? plastic surgery can be helpful if you know what you're doing, are realistic, and get a great surgeon); weight (this is doable if you're dedicated; I exercise 3 hrs/day because it's important to me, and also eat only healthy foods in moderate portions–is this something you are working on?); height (can't be changed AFAIK, but you can learn to wear clothes and footwear that maximize the effect visually); other things… here's where I want to mention some things I've been thinking about for awhile.
How you look is not the only way to be attractive. Women can be attracted to sound, smell, and touch factors. You can work on making your voice attractive; some women (including me) are very audio-oriented. You can decide if you want to wear cologne or not; some women (including me) do not like cologne and just like the natural smell of men's bodies, phermones and all. (That was one of the things that attracted me to my husband–phenomenal phermones!) Also, I've been thinking about a guy I know who is a woman magnet. He isn't good-looking; in fact, he looks kind of weird. He's very smart, sweet and has a great sense of humor, but I've been thinking for quite awhile about why women go so crazy over him. So, here's my hypothesis: he is a very touch-oriented person (that may be unusual for men, I'm not sure) and because he displays that, it attracts women (who, in general, tend to be more touch-oriented). So, for example, his personal presentation always has a lot of texture (layers of clothing, textured fabric, etc.), and he often is doing "touch" things, like straightening his trousers or sleeves, pushing his hair out of his face, rubbing his fingers across his lips in a thoughtful way when he's trying to think of something to say. None of this appears to be "put on"–I think that's just the way he is, but it creates this almost irresistible urge to hug him or touch him in some way. He is super sexy, even though not good-looking in the usual sense. Maybe just ideas to think about. Experimenting can be fun if you just keep an open mind and reflect on the results, even if they are incremental.
Also, I don't think I see flirting and giving a sexual vibe the same way you do. I'm not talking about an aggressive "I'm hitting on you" type of thing. I agree that could be a turn-off. I'm thinking of a more "I'm a sexy kind of guy and this is how I see the world" type of thing. I can't think of examples right now, but in general it was showing that you like sex, are comfortable being sexy, and have a sense of humor about it.
But are you asking women out? Like "Hey I'm really enjoying this conversation and I'd love to take you out for coffee/a drink. Would you like to do that?" Where you get a yes/no answer. You can say that women are only interested in jerks, but maybe they are only interested in men who ask them out.
@ElizaJane
"what you are saying directly contradicts the lived experience of many of the people here, which you have been told approximately four thousand times already, and yet you keep repeating the same things as if they're truth. "
I know what I'm saying contradicts the lived experiences of many people here. And I respect the people here and their experiences. I must respectfully ask why the lived experiences of the people are taken to be the arbiters of what is and what is not true?
"Because everything you say and argue here seems to be part of an attempt to validate that every failure in your romantic life is based solely on a thing you can't control, and therefore you have nothing you can do about it except blame. "
I'm not blaming anyone. Whether a woman likes me in that way or not is largely beyond my control. I can't change that. She likes my looks or she doesn't and she's free to not like my looks. As frustrating as that might be sometimes since rejection hurts. What can annoy is the "you just need confidence, bro" stuff from PUA which preaches that attitude can somehow override the fact that a particular woman doesn't find me physically appealing enough to date.
I spoke with a female friend a few days ago about when and how she met her current boyfriend. She liked him the moment she saw him. Obviously just one woman but notice how PUA would not have made a difference. He had the looks she liked. Women are obviously free to date and like who they like. Rejection hurts and being the guy who isn't seen like that can obviously hurt a lot. But hate towards women doesn't make sense. Nature is nature. What is annoying is PUA which tries to preach that if only I had more confidence, a different attitude, a magic wand etc.
And for those wondering if I know what it's like to be a fat person: waiter in a Chinese restaurant this week made fun of my "large belly".
"other men for your romantic failures (they stole the good wimminz) "
Actually I'm referencing a case where a good looking guy deliberately went after a woman I liked for no other reason than to piss me off.
"like you are trying to teach us what we actually think and feel and respond to"
I'm not doing that. There's often a difference between what we think we respond to and what we actually respond to but I'm not attempting to teach anyone of anything.
" The women here are your target audience, dude! Maybe you could conduct some market research instead of ordering your customers to drink New Coke?"
The women here are not my target audience. It's highly unlikely any of them would want or be in a position to date me and I'm not attempting to sell them anything. I respect people here and what they say. I maintain that there's often a difference between what people say and what people do and it pays to see how people act and judge from there but that doesn't mean I dismiss anyone here's experiences or words.
"There's often a difference between what we think we respond to and what we actually respond to but I'm not attempting to teach anyone of anything."
So we're lying or delusional. Right.
@embertine.
No. It's a statement of the truth of the difference between conscious awareness and what might be called "less than conscious awareness". We are often unaware of many of our attraction triggers. Men and women. I know it sounds offensive to say this sometimes but research backs it up as a general point.
Anytime you are telling someone what they think or feel and referring to it as "a statement of truth", you need to back the hell off. I will say again, you do not know what triggers attraction, you do not know how other people experience it. We have tried to tell you and all you can say is that we are wrong.
The research you claim backs this up has been thoroughly debunked by kleensetar, but you wouldn't listen to that either. You'll never benefit from any woman's perspective because you don't want to.
@embertine.
It hasn't been debunked by anyone. Some of it is called Misattribution of arousal. I don't know what triggers attraction in you, me or anyone. Because even the individual themselves is often unaware of what actually does cause them to feel attracted to someone or something.
With respect, I say stuff on here and it is immediately said to be untrue or I'm not a reliable narrator of my own life. I've done my best not to dismiss the words and experiences of people here and I've not said I know why anyone here feels the way they do.
It is sometimes offensive to talk about this and I accept that but we are human beings with often unconscious processes we are not often consciously aware of.
Yet you know that Emma Watson is dating Matt because of his looks, not, say his ability to read Chekov or recite in the original? You claim to be able to have this insight on two complete strangers? How do you know that intellect was not the attraction trigger since (as an actress) she is around just plain good looking people all the time?
Dunno Trixnix, you make a lot of authoritative statements about what women are attracted to, even if those women are strangers, but now claim that people are unaware of their own attraction triggers, so how the hell can you say that you know what are the attraction triggers of strangers?
@rebootl730.
Because you have to find your partner physically attractive to date them. You might get lots of other attractive bonuses and that's great. But if Matt were dog ugly and could do all the other stuff like read Chekov, chances are she wouldn't be dating him. To date him, she has to fancy him and that's physical attraction.
It's a logical assumption to make. People are largely unaware of their own attraction triggers. Emma may like a lot of things about Matt but without the looks those would likely fall into "friends" category. That's not a slur on her or him. It's an observation of how human beings often behave.
My female friend likes a lot of things about her boyfriend. Take away the looks part she likes and it's likely she would not be dating him. He may not be conventionally hot but she needs to find him physically attractive to date him.
This isn't a rant about women being shallow or a hate piece. It's common sense in my view.
That Matt guy was lauded by most of the national papers here in the UK as "hunky" and "popular with the ladies in Oxford". Neither of those things refer to his ability to read Chekov.
He may be a great guy. I could probably match him intellect wise but if he were single and he and I went out on the pull, he'd be more likely to get dates, make outs etc because he looks better than I do. That's not angry hate or a slur on him. It's just life. And I know it can sound offensive. And I know I might get lucky and miraculously walk into a room full of women who could look past Matt's looks and care about other stuff. Who knows. Not all women are the same.
But basic common logic dictates that the better looking, more conventionally hot guy would be more likely to get the girl. Unless I suddenly was able to buy and look like I owned a yacht.
So people are largely unaware of their own attraction triggers but you seem to know all there is to know about what triggers attraction in women?
@rebootl730.
No. Both things stand but I don't necessarily know anything about individual tastes. What I do know is you have to fancy your date, your boyfriend etc or there's not much point.
So why have you spent bazillion words saying that women like attractive jerks when (by your own words) you can not know why you or anyone else is attracted to who they are attracted to?
@rebootl730.
Because noticeable trends are noticeable. There's a pretty big trend of women liking attractive jerks. It follows that that may be true in situations.
It's also easy to "notice" false trends if you're looking for that particular trend or expecting to see it.
I play a game where I try to find one Batman shirt on campus a day. Usually succeed. Does that mean that most of the students wear Batman shirts, or that it's the most popular design for a t-shirt? Nope. Just the one that I noticed first because it's something that catches my eye and interest, and something I notice a lot more now that I pay attention to it.
Given the fact that other people can say that in their experience women DON'T go for attractive jerks, I think that maybe your "trend" is just the thing you're expecting to see.
Nevermind that this all started because you basically called Hermione's boyfriend a jerk based on looks alone. Which is…kind of a jerk thing to do.
Show me the data on women dating attractive jerks. And data is more than the 2-3 men you have previously mentioned. You talked trends, so show the evidence.
Oh and the men have to be jerks as evidenced by tangible behavior, not just attractive men you assume to be jerks because they are attractive.
*crickets*
"That Matt guy was lauded by most of the national papers here in the UK as "hunky" and "popular with the ladies in Oxford". Neither of those things refer to his ability to read Chekov. "
… because society papers are well-known for their commentary on celebrities' intelligence and wit, right?
Do you believe everything you read in the Daily Mail too?
" I could probably match him intellect wise"
I really, REALLY doubt that. Especially social intellect, which is actually kind of a big deal (as in, knowing how to LISTEN to people and interact respectfully with others).
Women
I love TRP, I introduced it to my friends and brother, we now are empowered. Demeaning feminists no longer controls us through their vaginas. Free at last!! lol
Oppressive towards men
Trixnix, I've seen your photos and I'd rank myself a couple of rungs lower on the attractiveness ladder than you. I can identify exactly two things about your appearance that give you an edge over me….
@HermitTheToad.
I have no desire to make you feel bad about your looks or anything like that. But if you would like to talk about what those two things you mention are, please do.
Trixnix, FYI, here are some reasons I've down voted this comment:
1. You've turned yet another post into an excuse to complain about how important looks are when it comes to dating and how it annoys you when this "fact" is dismissed, even though it actually isn't relevant to the post. You're framing your comment as if the Red Pill community supports your views, even though the "red pill constitution" DNL links to talks repeatedly about what red pillers believe attracts women: being rich, being well educated, being "popular", etc. along with looks. In fact, it directly claims that you can offset being not only not great looking but worse looking than the woman you're pursuing as long as you make more money than she does and have better social standing or whatever. It also talks repeatedly about behaviors that are "the most important" factor, like setting boundaries/not being a pushover, acting confident and powerful, being confrontational and risk-taking, etc. And it goes on about how your value to women is something you can change ("you should always be improving yourself"), not something that's based on uncontrollable genetics.
So, in short, the Red Pill philosophy says all the things you say you disagree with and that annoy you (that the way you behave and present your personality has a major impact on whether women like you, that you can work on yourself to become appealing to women, that non-appearance factors can compensate for a lack of looks). And yet you decided to… pretend? that it actually supports your beliefs just so that you can state those beliefs at length, again. And in doing so you've given praise to a community that is clearly focused on spreading harmful ideas about women. Because getting to tell us for the thousandth time how important you think looks are is obviously more important than avoiding supporting people saying really harmful things?
2. You claim that the asshole guys who bullied you were the most successful with women–that they'd "always be dating really amazing women." These "really amazing women" were also apparently women who didn't mind standing by and at least tacitly supporting a bully. This strikes me as being decidedly not amazing. I have trouble believing that all of the women who you aren't classifying as "really amazing" who weren't dating bullies were doing even worse things than supporting bullies. So what exactly qualifies these women as "really amazing" and the women who weren't dating the bullies as somehow lesser? You seem to be either ignoring the many women who don't appreciate or put up with asshole behavior, or deciding that those women aren't worth dating anyway for some reason so why should you count them.
3. You're changing your story to suit your argument. I've asked you before about this friend who no longer speaks to you and the guy she dated, and you admitted to me that she didn't know about the asshole things he was doing. That as far as you know, he treated her perfectly fine, and it was you he was nasty to. Now suddenly you're saying he treated her like crap and abused her? That means either here or before you lied about what actually happened.
4. You've gone on and on before (and do again in the replies here) about how people should respect your experiences and not deny them. People have repeatedly told you that the problem is not your experiences but your talking as if your experiences define reality for everyone, and that if you would frame your comments as "women I know" etc. rather than "women" in general that would be much better. And yet here you are again making incredibly global statements that assume your experiences define "women" and "nature" at large.
So, yeah, none of those things have anything to do with me not being "Red Pill friendly". They have to do with me not being "friendly" to people who constantly twist subjects to fit their personal agenda (regardless of how important addressing the actual subject may be to others), who consider supporting bullies to be "really amazing" behavior and ignore tons of actually amazing women, who lie to make their points, and who refuse to adjust their behavior even when other people point out obvious problems with it and obvious solutions to those problems.
Oh bravo Mel! This was masterfully done!
Agreed, I'm doing a lot of Orson-Welles-Only-Sincere applauding today.
@Mel.
DNL's definition of what the red pill is doesn't sound quite right to many people in the Red Pill world. Red Pill websites do talk a lot about the importance of looks. So I'm referencing stuff that Red Pill websites actually talk about.
"In fact, it directly claims that you can offset being not only not great looking but worse looking than the woman you're pursuing as long as you make more money than she does and have better social standing or whatever."
That's largely PUA thinking. Red Pill does talk about the importance of status but it also talks about the importance of looks and looks creating status.
"It also talks repeatedly about behaviors that are "the most important" factor, like setting boundaries/not being a pushover, acting confident and powerful, being confrontational and risk-taking, et"
Again, that's more PUA. Red Pill mostly talks about looks and status being more important than behaviour. The idea you can attract women through behaviour mainly belongs to PUA thinking. And it's often an ideology ridiculed on red pill forums.
"And it goes on about how your value to women is something you can change ("you should always be improving yourself"), not something that's based on uncontrollable genetics. "
Still PUA thinking. Red Pill talks about your value to women largely being fixed by how good you look, your relative status etc.
"So, in short, the Red Pill philosophy says all the things you say you disagree with and that annoy you (that the way you behave and present your personality has a major impact on whether women like you, that you can work on yourself to become appealing to women, that non-appearance factors can compensate for a lack of looks)"
This is still PUA thinking. Not Red Pill.
"Because getting to tell us for the thousandth time how important you think looks are is obviously more important than avoiding supporting people saying really harmful things? "
Red Pill forums and websites talk a lot about the importance of looks. I don't side with the hate of the red pill forums but I like that unlike PUA land, Red Pill forums do recognize that attraction is not something someone can control or create through magic spells. A lot of what Red Pill website says does support my views on looks.
Trix, all the things you're quoting I took directly from the "red pill constitution" DNL linked to that's posted on the Red Pill Reddit and associated websites, which that Reddit claims "contains a lot of generalisations which embody fundamental beliefs of the red pill philosophy". It isn't something DNL made up. It is what the Red Pillers themselves are saying defines their philosophy.
Here, if you want to read it for yourself: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1ypnv…
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to trust what actual Red Pillers say they believe in over your interpretation about what you think they believe in. For someone who likes to talk so much about the research that backs up his ideas, maybe you should try actually looking at sources before you assume you know better than everyone else on a given topic?
As to this:
"Red Pill forums and websites talk a lot about the importance of looks. I don't side with the hate of the red pill forums but I like that unlike PUA land, Red Pill forums do recognize that attraction is not something someone can control or create through magic spells. A lot of what Red Pill website says does support my views on looks."
Excuse my french, but who the fuck cares, Trixnix? You're replying to a post about a guy who got so caught up in RP philosophy that he tried to rape his girlfriend. And you decided the most important thing that could be said about this issue is how you like the fact that RP aligns with some of your beliefs about looks. You decided talking about your beliefs about looks was more important than letting the conversation focus on how to help people who are caught in such a toxic mentality they try to rape people.
You know what? In my book, that makes you an asshole. I am not going to help you continue this derailing any further.
@Mel
"For someone who likes to talk so much about the research that backs up his ideas, maybe you should try actually looking at sources before you assume you know better than everyone else on a given topic? "
I did. Your sources aren't the same as mine. Fair enough. I didn't make this up either. I wasn't going to suggest anyone did so because it's an awful place but check out sluthate.com and how they talk about red pill in relation to looks.
"Excuse my french, but who the fuck cares, Trixnix? You're replying to a post about a guy who got so caught up in RP philosophy that he tried to rape his girlfriend. And you decided the most important thing that could be said about this issue is how you like the fact that RP aligns with some of your beliefs about looks. You decided talking about your beliefs about looks was more important than letting the conversation focus on how to help people who are caught in such a toxic mentality they try to rape people. "
That's your interpretation of what I've said and what my intentions are. I can't win on here regardless of what I talk about. I talk about rape and people tell me off. I talk around the issue and people tell me off. Best I can do is talk to the best of my ability about the issues. Which, as someone who sits with the red pill ideas without the hate.
I said rape isn't okay. I tried to talk about decoupling red pill from those who want to rape people and think that's okay but I get told off regardless of what I say on here and it would not be polite to simply not reply when people ask me questions on things.
You don't get anyone out of toxic mentality by dismissing it and falling back on the magic skills thinking of PUA. Hence the discussion. Hence the engagement with people such as myself who feel the the Red Pill has some truth in it.
I don't think rape is ever okay yet I do support some of the red pill ideas. I can't imagine what I could bring to the debate other than perhaps to explain why I haven't married Red Pill with the idea that rape is fine and dandy.
"You know what? In my book, that makes you an asshole. I am not going to help you continue this derailing any further."
Fair enough. Thank you for your time and your words. I'm not best fond of you either.
So, Trixnix, you've probably noticed at this point that a lot of people that were previously quite friendly to you here are now quite hostile, and I suspect you don't quite understand why, when you're doing your best to be polite and explain your perspective.
And…to be honest, I don't think I'm actually capable of explaining it with any coherence, so I'm not going to try to do that. But I feel like it's probably a good idea to to acknowledge the situation and talk about it anyway.
Now, it looks to me like there is something that's going on in your way of thinking, that even though you feel like you're a pretty decent person and like you're doing your best to be respectful here, some of the things you're expressing show a mindset that comes across at odds with that. I think there is something very off in your way of thinking, something that's not at all congruent with what you'd like to believe about yourself, and that you're not able to see. And that's why the reactions you're getting don't feel quite like they fit for what you're trying to get across.
I know I don't have the level of trust built up with you that you can take my word for something that is invisible to you, so I don't think this will reach you in any meaningful way, but… if you're sort of bewildered by the flip in how people react to you here, by the hostility, and not quite sure how it happened, please think about the possibility that maybe there's something in your way of thinking about the world that's built on top of a really problematic base, and it's skewing how you come across and how you interact with the world in ways you can't see.
I'm not sure what you can do about it, but I think it would be helpful to you in the long run if you could just consider the possibility, really consider it.
I've been raped by my girlfriend
@Mel.
2) You're assuming a lot there. The women did not condone or support the bullying. They just dated the bullies. It was how it worked a lot in the schools I went to. I'm not saying these women were better than other women who didn't date the bullies. Just that you would often find very attractive women in that school environment dating the bullies. Sometimes people hate the person's behaviour but still find the person attractive and want to stay with them. It happens a lot in life. It's not anyone's fault but it happens.
3) No, the friend who no longer speaks to me was not aware about the majority of the asshole things he was doing. I'm trying to not share too much of this out of respect to her. I don't think he treated her perfectly fine at all. He treated her very badly in my books, the books of mutual friends and in the books of other women who knew how he treated other people he dated. If that's not too confusing. But the fact remains he was good looking so could get away with a lot. My former friend was basically in awe of the guy and thought he could do no wrong.
It's ridiculously abusive to only date someone because you want to piss someone else off. Would you like that happening to you?.
3) So was he completely terrible to your friend from the beginning? Did all of you who knew what this guy was like ever consider warning this woman?
@embertine.
3) Pretty much, yes. As far as I and others can make out. Not that she saw it. She liked him instantly and right from the start found him attractive. He could do no wrong in her eyes. Trying to warn this woman would not have worked for me. To say we didn't get on at the time is a bit of an understatement. Others didn't try as far as I know and many of the other women in the group knew what he was like but found him attractive anyway and were often jealous of his girlfriends.
Welcome to my life. It's a fun place.
2) I'm not assuming anything. Continuing to dating someone despite them behaving badly is implicitly supporting that behavior. It's indicating, "That thing you're doing isn't bad enough to make me not want to date you, thus it isn't actually that bad." Sure, it happens a lot in life–but there are also lots of women who would never date a guy who was cruel to other people no matter how physically attractive he is. And I am saying that women who would accept bullying behavior in a romantic partner are less "amazing" than the many women who wouldn't.
3) If your friend was not aware of the asshole things he was doing, then you can't say that she was okay with him being an asshole or letting him get away with it. How can you let someone "get away with" something if you don't even know they're doing it!?
@Mel
"I am saying that women who would accept bullying behavior in a romantic partner are less "amazing" than the many women who wouldn't. "
Fair enough. But growing up it was always the best looking, kindest women in the school who dated the bullies. And maybe that has warped my perceptions a bit but it happened. I had nothing against those women. They didn't harm me. They couldn't have stopped the bullying they disagreed with. It's just the jerks were the hot guys and at that time people wanted to make sure they dated the hot guys. I understood that. It happens in life.
3)She wasn't and isn't aware of much of the things he did but he clearly acted like an asshole around her and she saw him as being so good looking and attractive that he could do no wrong. Halo effect and selective filtering on a less than conscious basis. Not something you can really blame anyone for but good looking people get away with more bad behaviour.
Has it occurred to you that you might suffer from the halo effect in the same way that we mere mortal females do and that the best-looking women in your school weren't as kind as you thought they were?
@eselle28.
It's possible. But that didn't and doesn't make much of a difference. They were not outliers. That's the kind of thing that happens in this world. Though not with everyone. It's common for good looking guys who get women to become jerks and treat people badly. It makes sense to watch out for it and to keep it in mind when interacting with other people.
@Mel.
And to finish off:
1) I have worked on stuff like behaviours. It made no difference dating wise.
2) Red Pill does talk a lot about looks and I'm not using this as opportunity to wax lyrical
3) I do feel my experiences are dismissed here because they don't fit the experiences other people here have.
4) I'm obviously going to make assumptions and generalizations based on my own experiences.
5) I don't consider supporting bullies to be a good or amazing behaviour. It's just something the girls in my school did. The good looking guys who treated people like crap were, in my experience, the most successful with women. It's life. I'm not blaming anyone. Just reporting stuff that happens.
1) I don't believe you've worked on them enough. You still aren't even asking out women. (Your two examples of romantic failures from the past year are women you didn't even ask out on actual dates.)
2) Deciding, "Hey, this topic vaguely relates to my personal issues, so I'm going to bring up those issues all over again at length even though I've already talked about them repeatedly elsewhere the exact same way" is basically the exact definition of "using this as an opportunity to wax lyrical".
3) I have never seen anyone tell you that your experiences aren't happening or relevant. I've only seen people tell you that your assumptions about other people's motivations are not part of your experience, because you are assuming those things rather than having experienced them, and that your experiences are not a wide enough data set to decide how the entire rest of the world works.
4) Anyway, if you think it's so horrible for DNL to say that he believes attraction is only 20% looks because that contradicts your experience… is it not equally horrible for you to say to people here that attraction is mostly looks, when people have told you that contradicts their experience? Why is it unfairly dismissing experiences when DNL does it but totally reasonable conversation when you do the exact same thing?
I know you're going to say right now, "I'm not dismissing anyone's experiences!" because you've done that before. Well guess what. If by saying, "It's just nature, people have to be physically attracted, etc. etc." you're not dismissing the experiences of people who find personality equally or more important than looks in choosing a partner, then no one who says that personality and behavior matter more than looks is dismissing your experiences either.
Either making broad generalizations about what attracts people is okay, in which case you have no reason to be upset at anyone else for doing so based on their own differing experiences, or making broad generalizations about what attracts people isn't okay, in which case you shouldn't be doing so either.
5) Yes, and the girls who did it, you referred to as being "really amazing". Those were your own words, Trix, I didn't make them up.
@Mel
1) Where are these women meant to come from? I'm supposed to be asking out women who don't know anyone in my social groups. It's a big city but not that big. Most of the time, someone new I meet knows someone I already know.
2) I'm not using this as an opportunity to wax lyrical as I said. I tried talking about the red pill issues. That was down voted. I tried talking about rape and how that was never okay. I got told off for that too. I wagered I can't really win whatever I say so will just comment and reply to people as best I can. And as self absorbed as much as of my writing might sound to some, there is a point to this. You're talking to someone who sides with a lot of the red pill stuff. I'm doing my best to explain to you why that is. Why it's been like that for a long time. An insight of sorts.
3) I've been told I'm an unreliable narrator of my own life. Which is technically true in the sense we kinda all are but that to me sounds like "what you said didn't happen".
4) Because I've made clear on this one that it's my view based on experiences. DNL has a right to express his opinions how he wishes and he often cites it as if it's a truth of the universe. I've never found that to be the case. Though I'm happy if it works for some people. It's his blog. He can do what he wants and I've stated my opinion on the matter.
It's not dismissing people's experiences to point out the truth of someone needing to fancy the person they are dating. And that includes physical looks. Physical looks needs to be there. That's not a generalization or a guess. It's the point of dating.
5) I don't think the girls at school could have done anything to stop the bullying and people want the best looking people at school in my experience so I kinda forgave them. It's bullying. Bullies get what they want a lot in this world.
You know, this isn't a topic piece. There's a real LW here whose brother almost raped someone and who's worried about him. Do you really think it's appropriate for you to turn this into another repetition of your complaints about feeling unattractive?
@Eselle28.
Yes. And you told me off for trying to address the subject matter by talking about rape so I'm not sure I can win here. If you want to stop someone in the Red Pill fold from potentially turning into a rapist it makes sense to understand and hear from why some guys have embraced Red Pill concepts.
Red Pill without the hate, what's left of it, looks a lot like Doc without the feminism. They're both about "ok, you've got challenges to dating. What can YOU do to overcome them?" They're about accepting our failures as a stepping stone to success. They're about looks mattering but being something that you can overcome and then some by working on other aspects of yourself.
Also, for some reason, very fine point attention to facial structure for reasons I'm not clear on. Doc isn't as big on that one.
The primary difference is their underlying assumptions about women and I think enough digital ink has been spilled about both sides that it would be a waste to reiterate.
@GJ.
Red Pill seems to reject the notions of PUA. It's not an aspect of PUA. It suggests looks not being something you can "overcome" and I tend to sit with Red Pill on that one rather than with the PUA thinking. Facial structure is quite important. No where near as important as sites like sluthate.com would make out but it's a lot more important than PUA thinking would have it.
I also think that you're likely misinterpreting your experiences– and possibly doing so by misreading your immediate situation as well as by making some fairly dramatic, unfounded generalizations about other people's preferences.
I strongly suspect that not everybody who you've seen in a successful relationship is a super-good-looking guy, because most guys aren't super good looking, yet most guys do have successful relationships at some point or another. Hell, at any given time, a majority of men are married or in long term relationships.
I also suspect that you might view men who are successful with women as assholes out of resentment. Most people do have some jerk moments, and I suspect that most of us could be read as assholes by an uncharitable observer. When I was younger, I frequently fell for women who were in relationships with other people. I usually would quickly find a way to view the boyfriend as a jerk, because it made me feel more comfortable hating and resenting him. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is going on with you. This is a piece of self-investigation which would be worth doing.
Agreed. There is also a very unattractive human tendency to think that anyone who has something you want and/or something you have difficulty obtaining is a jerk or somehow achieved it through underhanded means. Most people recognize it for what it is and do not let the thought linger. Others just can not let the resentment and envy go.
@rebootl730.
Yes. And sometimes you call a spade a spade. What am I meant to do when I and others see and acknowledge someone treating their partner like crap?
I'm sorry but why is this controversial? I get that I'm talking from my experiences and my biases but the idea of good looking people succeeding with relationships and other stuff despite treating others like crap surely isn't a new observation? It happens everywhere. Not with all people and not with all good looking people but this happens.
PUA modeled the good looking, cocky jocks who got the girls. That should tell a lot about who the successful ones with a lot of women were. Women are all individuals, all different and not a monolith and I admit I'm biased and talking from my experience like anyone else is but honestly: why is it so difficult to see that good looking cocky guys more often than not are the successful ones with women?
PUAs modeled them. PUAs wanted to be them. Last night during a poetry event I went to, a good looking cocky guy made a noise to disrupt the event as he walked out. He got away with that because of the way he looked. It's the most obvious conclusion. It's not about hate or blame or resentment. It's about noticing life.
If you've not had these experiences I respect that and I genuinely want to move to wherever you live.
So he was disruptive on his way out, and you think that if he hadn't been good-looking then, what, the wannabe poets would have chased him out and tackled him to the ground? Do you hear yourself?
Also, you have amply demonstrated by calling Matt Janney a cocky anti-feminist that you are utterly incapable of separating your resentment of other people's looks from an assessment of their character.
@Embertine.
Just by looking at the guy who can see that it's likely he gets away with a lot due to his looks. His behaviour showed that. He's used to getting what he wants from life and from dates.
I have no idea who Matt Janney is. In my experience, it's the best looking guys who most often get the girl. I'm just wondering why this is controversial to some people.
It's not true of all guys or all good looking guys but I've seen countless occasions of good looking guys acting like complete morons to women because they and everyone else knows they can get away with it. Again, why is this controversial? It's not nice and it comes from a biased perspective but this is real life. These things happen.
He is a Russian language student at Oxford (where they met). I would hazard a guess he brings more to the table than looks.
@rebootl730.
Ah, two things were crossing in my mind and I forgot the Emma Watson thing. He may be a great person who brings more to the table than looks. Great. Happy for them. She's dating him because of his looks. Maybe not the only thing but you have to physically fancy your date. Take that away and the guy becomes a friend/friend zone etc.
Same with men. Matt was called "hunky" and "popular with the ladies in all the national press here". Yes, I get that. Because he's a good looking rugby player. I live in Wales. Women really like good looking rugby players here. I've seen them rush over to where the Welsh rugby team are when they turn up at bars and night clubs. Why? Because these guys are the masculine, good looking, sporty types a lot of women like.
"She's dating him because of his looks."
How do you know that? Or are you just concluding it because it backs up your world view?
@rebootl730.
Because that's what dating is. People fancy their boyfriends and girlfriends.
That's apparently what dating is to you. I wouldn't date someone I wasn't attracted to, but I assure you that I don't date people because of their looks. It takes a lot more than that to make a relationship worth it. Not everyone views dating the way you do, though I'm not surprised you mostly know people who do – other people very likely find this view repulsive.
….and that's all it boils down to you, isn't it?
that's…really really sad. and your lack of success at a type of social interaction you clearly don't understand while absolutely believing you do continues to be unsurprising. (And you just keep outright rejecting that looks are only a very small part of what makes someone "attractive.")
Sheesh, this is like if someone walked onto a basketball court after watching some pick-up games and the Harlem Globetrotters, and tried to play the game based on their observations alone, rejecting any input from the people who tell him that it's not actually necessary to spin the ball or dribble between your legs to make a basket. And he keeps losing, but he's so sure That's How The Game Is Played, and ugh, I don't even know, y'all.
Actually it is more than being attracted to looks for most people. Or is that the only thing that you care about in your partners?
In fact, for some people, being physically attracted [to looks] isn't even necessarily a factor at all. They're called asexuals.
You take one look at someone and think that you know everything about them just from the way they look. That says far, far more about you than it does about anyone else.
And I second reboot – way to take yet another thread and turn it into your creepy repetitive mantra about how you're such a nice guy but women won't date you because we're all about looks. I seriously doubt you are such a nice guy based on your behaviour on these threads.
@Embertine.
I don't know everything about him. I barely know anything about him other than the fact that the national press think he's hunky and that's why he's popular with women. This isn't a comment on his character. It's a discussion on why he's popular with women. Character very rarely comes into that in my experience. Women like the way he looks. He may well bring huge amounts to the table other than but they are at least initially interested because of the way he looks. It's attraction. Men and women both do this.
My female friend liked her boyfriend straight away.
The other friend who no longer speaks to me liked the guy who messed her about straight away. She liked his looks.
This happens. It's attraction and yes it's offensive to talk about sometimes. It's not a hate rant. I like Emma Watson. I like her being happy. I have nothing against her boyfriend. It's just common sense that looks win a lot of the time. I've seen it over and over again in my life and I know that will get called a bias, or me being an unreliable narrator but there's only so many times I can see something without acknowledging its presence.
@embertine.
And for the record, most women would describe me as a "nice guy" (not in the bad sense). Good guy. Just not a dating option. They don't fancy me. I can speak Russian and some other languages to a certain degree and am very intelligent. doesn't seem to matter much with the looks (in my opinion) being the way they are. As much as I would love things to be different life just does not want to play ball.
Most of the women here, having read your views on women and dating, would describe you as whiny, entitled, and a little bit scary (not maybe in the physically threatening sense, but someone who it would be very uncomfortable to have to interact with for long periods of time, or about anything remotely relationship-like). You come off as very unpleasant, and your views are downright gross.
I know guys who are "nice" enough, but who also have kinda gross views. Hell, I tend to meet with a whole bunch of them at an artist-get-together once a week. Lotta them are pretty cute and single, and they're all fun guys to be with socially as friends, but boy howdy, when I get a glimpse of their ideas of women and relationships, I wanna hi-tail it outta there. There's not a single one there I would date. Looks have nothing to do with it. Attitude does.
And all of them are pretty convinced that they're really nice guys.
It's rather pathetic how you guys have decided that a conventionally attractive guy who you know nothing about must be a jerk/terrible person.
@BiSian.
We haven't. It's likely given what we've seen succeed in real life but not 100% confirmed. He could be the next Nelson Mandela. Who knows. It's just looking at what makes him attractive and not buying into PUA land thinking of behaviour and personality. Things that only really come into play in my experience once someone has decided they like a guy or girl physically.
This isn't actually a rebuttal of what I said.
You have no proof this guy is mean, assholish or even a little jerky.
You are judging him because he's more conventionally attractive than you and that makes you jealous.
That is pathetic.
Get out of high school FFS Trix. You're a 30something year old man, grow the fuck up.
I swear this is the origin of the "women only date good looking assholes" myth. Nice Guy envy
@rebootl730.
Quite a lot of women date good looking assholes. Not all women but it's not a myth. It happens. A lot. It's life. It's not Nice Guy envy. It's life. Not all women like jerks. Quite a few do. It's not hate or envy to actually take a look at what is going on on the ground in life however upsetting that might be.
"Quite a lot of women date good looking assholes. "
Quite a lot of women date good-looking guys who are nice. Quite a lot of women date good-looking guys who are feminists. Quite a lot of women date homely guys who are nice. Quite a lot of women date homely guys who are jerks.
But for SOME REASON, "Women date good-looking jerks" is the story we mostly hear from guys who can't get any play. It's not actually the norm; it's just the story you tell to make yourself feel better.
Actually I think you just assume all good looking guys are assholes which is so hilariously wrong that I am not even sure where to start.
@HenryGorman:
"I strongly suspect that not everybody who you've seen in a successful relationship is a super-good-looking guy, because most guys aren't super good looking, yet most guys do have successful relationships at some point or another. Hell, at any given time, a majority of men are married or in long term relationships. "
I would disagree that most guys have successful relationships at some point or that a majority of men are in long term relationships or eventually find someone but I've argued that on here before and stats get mentioned instead of looking at real world situations with real people.
By far the most successful guys with women that I know of are all good looking guys. That is the common factor. I do know a few guys who are not so good looking who are dating/in relationships but they're not the hugely successful with women types. Not that that necessarily matters but if you look at the common factor amongst the guys I know who are hugely successful with women on a consistent basis, that factor is looks.
"I also suspect that you might view men who are successful with women as assholes out of resentment."
No, I view them like that when they demonstrate asshole behaviours.
I'm aware of cognitive biases but when the guy treats someone like crap in front of me I'm not going to pretend it's my resentment of him that I'm seeing and not him treating someone I care about like crap.
Heck, in the case of one guy I'm not even on the top 10 of the list of people who think he treated women like crap in the past. Even his best friends acknowledged he was being a "dick". But people more often than not put up with asshole behaviour if the guy offsets it with stuff like looks.
Are you seriously asserting that your extremely limited real-world observations are a better representation of what people's relationships in the world are like than meticulously-collected rigorous statistical data? Including things like governments' records of marriages, which we know are true because you need to register with your government when you get married?
Also, it seems like your definition of dating success is kind of odd. It looks like you'd only consider somebody "very successful with women" if they pulled in lots of partners in quick succession. But that isn't what everybody wants. Isn't somebody in a long-term relationship with a partner who makes them happy also very successful? Wouldn't you feel successful if you had a long-term girlfriend who you really liked?
It's also worth noting that a jerk who's attractive enough to draw people in the first place will almost certainly have more partners than an attractive non-jerk– because being a jerk isn't conducive to relationship maintenance and because people like that are more likely to lie about their intentions and treat partners as disposable.
@HenryGorman
"Are you seriously asserting that your extremely limited real-world observations are a better representation of what people's relationships in the world are like than meticulously-collected rigorous statistical data? "
Statistics are often flawed things that do not often accurately reflect the real world situation on the ground. Plus there's other data which supports a different view point on the issue. I recognize my own biases and the limits of my real world understandings but do you need to wait for a stat to tell you what the colour blue is or would you trust your own judgement ahead of a stat on that one?
"Also, it seems like your definition of dating success is kind of odd. It looks like you'd only consider somebody "very successful with women" if they pulled in lots of partners in quick succession. But that isn't what everybody wants. Isn't somebody in a long-term relationship with a partner who makes them happy also very successful? Wouldn't you feel successful if you had a long-term girlfriend who you really liked? "
Who is considered to be really successful in business: the guy with one company or the guy with many? I'm not comfortable with the way these things often get measured but more is better in this context. Dating coaches get evaluated on how many people they've been with not on whether they had one successful relationship. One achievement may be a success but success is rarely defined by one achievement.
"It's also worth noting that a jerk who's attractive enough to draw people in the first place will almost certainly have more partners than an attractive non-jerk– because being a jerk isn't conducive to relationship maintenance and because people like that are more likely to lie about their intentions and treat partners as disposable."
Being a jerk doesn't usually make someone good at relationships. It does make a lot of women throw themselves at you though. Right now, a female friend of mine is still upset that a guy who treated her like crap doesn't want to sleep with her and keeps messing her about. She still has feelings for him. I wish she didn't because she's worth more than that crap but this is unfortunately real life where jerks so often win because they get seen as the attractive ones. Assuming they have the looks to back it up.
"Who is considered to be really successful in business: the guy with one company or the guy with many?"
Uh, that's a weird comparison, because most people's answer to that would be, "It depends how much each of those companies is worth."
And if the guy has had many companies because his companies keep failing.
And if the many companies actually do anything!
(say my three inactive LLCs that I need to pay charter taxes on)
Yeah, by that logic a guy with twelve hot-dog carts is a dozen times as successful as the owner of Walmart.
I hate to question your lived experience, Trix, but all your ideas about relationships seem to come from, like, Popeye cartoons.
Okay, the blue thing is a false equivalent– since the color blue being blue is tautological. Statistics are often problematic, but that's usually because they flatten out particularities, or because they don't actually measure what they purport to measure. "Most people get married at some point," however, is something that's basically impossible to misrepresent using statistics. And the vast majority of people who get married have had some measure of romantic success.
As for your second point– Sergei Brin , Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates all have only one company, but I would say that they're vastly more successful as businessmen than most people who own multiple firms. As for your dating coach example– I would actually have a lot of skepticism about using a dating coach who hasn't had successful long-term relationships for anything other than teaching me how to get casual sex. However, if I wanted advice for making my long-term relationship work, I would probably ask some people who have had a long, happy marriage.
To your third– it honestly seems like all of your examples are drawn from your accounts of the relationships of a small number of your female friends. Has it ever occurred to you that these people might be exceptionally bad at enforcing their boundaries, and that your impressions might be caused by that? Or that people are much more likely to complain about the ethics of jerk partners than talk about those of people who are nice? Or that you've just concluded that they're jerks because they're handsome– as you did with Emma Watson's boyfriend elsewhere in this thread?
You know what, every time you cite the concept of "looks" like it's some +infinity bottle of Spanish Fly, I'm just going to read it as "marijuana brownies". Makes more sense that way.
You do know that not all women are attractive to all men either, right? I can assure you I am not particularly attractive to most men.
Well, okay, so? I don't think I'm missing out that much on men who can only like me if I fit into the proper slot. I'm way more into my (short, fat, balding) husband who thinks I'm dead sexy and amazing no matter what size pants I fit into, whether I even have hair, or whether a crocodile bit off my face.
A pretty face and body are quite temporary. Your mind is forever.
Sorry Margaret, you don't exist. You see you are a woman who is in love with a short fat balding man, and since Trixnix has never once in his life seen a short fat balding man in a happy relationship no fat balding man has ever been in a relationship. Or, if he is feeling generous, you MIGHT exist, but you are so so so so so so rare as to not be worth mentioning. You and all the other very rare women who like less than perfect looking men. At this point he has rejected more examples of women falling in love with not traditionally handsome men that the pile is much larger than the pile of women who fall in love with the traditionally handsome. But you see the former pile is really just individual examples that don't speak to a larger pattern whereas the latter pile is the absolute truth of what women really want (that they themselves don't always know that they want).
Oh I know I don't really exist. I'm not a pretty woman, after all!
@Margaret.
With the exception of 2, none of the women I've ever been interested in have been super models. I don't really have huge standards and at one point had no standards at all. Still not physically attractive enough to be a dating option.
Um, no one said super models, but you yourself described them as conventionally attractive women who were 7-9 years younger than you.
@rebootl730.
1 woman who was 9 years younger than me.
Another woman I have no idea what her age was.
Both women I found attractive. Not automatically typical of the woman I usually go for. There's not a type.
Ask out some more women and provide us a wider sample, then.
I'd note that you tend to judge women as liking attractive jerks based on single choices.
Aaand *crickets*
@OneTrueGuest.
Actually, if I'm honestly, I haven't seen a short, fat, balding man in a happy relationship. Doesn't mean I don't think they exist but I say again: in my experience, the most successful men with women are by far the good looking guys.
I'm not saying people don't have individual wants and types but why ignore trends that I actually see in life. Those are the trends I have to deal with in real life. They are the experiences I face.
My brother is a short, fat balding man in a happy marriage
@rebootl730.
That's fantastic. And as I said, I don't know him so I can't include him in the guys I know who are dating women. Happy for him nonetheless.
Wait a minute. Your personal experience is something I am supposed to extrapolate to most women without having witnessed it, but mine is irrelevant because you have not witnessed it? How the fuck have you never seen a fat bald man in a relationship??? I have been to Wales. Half the damned male population over 30 is less than svelte and a good solid chunk are bald and at least judging from the population in the Tesco on a Saturday morning about 50-60% are coupled. Or do they somehow not count?
Know what Trixnix. I am done. You are jerk who talks down to people and has an inflexible, narrow minded, world view. Talking to you is pointless because you do not give two shits what anyone says.
" You are [a] jerk who talks down to people and has an inflexible, narrow minded, world view. Talking to you is pointless because you do not give two sh*ts what anyone says. "
Especially given this, with which I emphatically agree, I honestly couldn't figure out why so many of the rest of you were still engaging with him on this issue, truly.
"Actually, if I'm honestly, I haven't seen a short, fat, balding man in a happy relationship."
1. Leave the house.
2. Go sit in any public place for half an hour.
3. Look at the couples passing by. All of them.
Congratulations, you've filled that gap in your experience.
@Margaret.
I'm happy for you. You have someone. I don't. I'm still looking and my lack of looks limits my chances and opportunities with no real way around that. That's not me dismissing you or your experiences. I'm very happy you have what you have and it brings you joy. The majority of the women I know and have known dismiss me as a dating option because of my looks. I'm not angry with them for that. It's just life. My other qualities don't compensate.
I'll point out that the 'good' advice given by the Red Pill Forums is advice that's existed long before Red Pill, or the internet was invented. The idea that to get better at dating or making friends, you need to try have a healthy body and mind and interesting stuff to talk about.
And there was a guest post on Captain Awkward that said that even if you are unattractive you're still worthy of respect and love. You don't owe the world handsomeness, if you owe the world anything it's trying to be a decent person.
I'll ask this would you be someone you'd want to date? And take looks out of the equation.
I think there was a pretty good John Wong article about that on Cracked awhile back. They rerun it around New Years.
That advice goes back to at least 1873 according to the Gentleman's Book of Etiquette: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39293/39293-h/3929…
Rape is never okay. I think the red pill does have a point about women wanting men to be vulnerable and then punishing them when they are. But becoming this great big asshole who forces himself on women isn't going to help. Becoming an asshole just because of how life works isn't going to help anyone.
Those chicks are a nasty subset of fixer-uppers, and it doesn't surprise me at all they float around in a crowd of folks with fucked up personal boundaries. The notion that Red Pill circles only attract broken men is weird.
If your prior comments make it necessary for you to clarify that rape isn't okay, that may be a sign that you should rethink your original statements.
@Eselle28.
I was responding to specifics in Dr Nerdlove's piece. Red Pill should never be used as a justification for raping someone.
And here's the problem. SOME women will punish you when you vulnerable. SOME men will do the same to women. This is not a trait that would define an entire gender. And that Red Pill does this is part of the problem. That they're encouraging men to view women as 'the enemy' or 'the other' so they can justify their hatred and mistreatment of them.
Yeah, I have a huge problem with the "women say they want this, but then they do this" statements, because 90% of the time, they're not talking about the same woman, but women as a whole. Might as well be: "Women say they like chocolate, but then they never eat it because they're on a diet!" *Some* women like chocolate. *Some* women are on diets. Sometimes they are they same women, but usually not. But if you view women as a whole, then you see it as a contradiction, because they're all supposed to be the same.
Anyone who punishes someone for being vulnerable is a grade A jerk. But I wonder how often (as with the Nice Guy) a) she isn't "punishing" someone so much as their wants in a relationship are not lining up and b) "being vulnerable" isn't even the actual cause of the problem for her. I mean, there are some shallow ladies out there who really do hate vulnerability, but those aren't the actual rule. Unless you're just hanging out with awful people, I guess?
@thatthat.
I've just heard many examples of men being called "unmanly" for opening up and being vulnerable. People do contradict their words with their actions quite a bit so it does pay to look and what people do and how they act. Huge amounts of dating advice for men is about being "the alpha" or "being in control" "being in control of your emotions" etc.
Yeah, and huge amounts of dating advice for women comes from Cosmo. Doesn't make it good advice or a decent foundation for a healthy relationship.
Though now I'm thinking of that scene in Boardwalk Empire where one kept woman told Margret not to let Nucky tell her his deeper feelings because it would make him feel weak later. Turned out not to be good advice.
I don't know where your "many examples" come from. I mean, by rights, you could probably find "many examples" of the exact opposite because people are individuals who want/don't want different things. If you want to date a woman you can be vulnerable around, you need to be selecting for women who aren't the cold sort of person who looks down on a man for being vulnerable.
@thatthat.
Yes but the point is that stereotype is a strong one and women who don't mind a man being vulnerable don't hang out at certain clubs. It's not a trait you can easily look for or search for as it is sometimes held even by people you think wouldn't hold such a view.
Well, firstly, inner workings and personalities in general aren't so easy to search for in the short term. That's why you go on multiple dates before being in a relationship–because on paper someone sounds nice, but in person, not so much.
But if the sort of women who don't mind a man being vulnerable don't hang out at certain clubs…don't go to those clubs? I mean, a lot of the primary dating scenes around me expect women to be girly-girls, or Southern Gals (girly-but-outdoorsy), and look down on nerdy girls. So…I don't make use of those dating scenes. Cuts down my options, but then, those people were never options to begin with.
@thatthat.
Lack of abundance means it would be foolhardy for me to cut down my options even more. Going on multiple dates is not easy when you're dismissed instantly as not being physically attractive enough for one date never mind many. Like it or not there are only a few places in this city to meet women and it will be a mix bag of women personality wise in there.
Okay, dude, you have GOT to stop approaching this like a freaking logic problem, because that is part of what makes your attitude so very creepy.
"Lack of abundance means it would be foolhardy for me to cut down my options even more."
Doesn't follow, man. Unless your goal is to be in ANY relationship instead of to be in a GOOD relationship.
You think I don't know how hard it is to date? There's a pretty small nerd community in this town, and the well's pretty dry. Still doesn't make much sense for me to go out and try to get the sort of guy who doesn't want to date the sort of girl I actually am.
But how about this for you: You say it would be foolhardy for you to cut down your options even more. But all these women (the shallow ones who only date attractive jerks, apparently)? THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY OPTIONS FOR YOU.
" But I wonder how often (as with the Nice Guy) a) she isn't "punishing" someone so much as their wants in a relationship are not lining up and b) "being vulnerable" isn't even the actual cause of the problem for her"
Are you "mansplaining" men?
No. I'm making a not of the fact that a lot of guys view a woman not wanting to date them as a "punishment." That they did something ephemerally wrong, missed a button when typing in the code, and are now trapped in the "friend zone." Guys who view romantic rejection as something being done TO them, rather than a person simply not being interested in them romantically.
Rejection isn't punishment.
@Jenn.
I agree. I've just heard many stories of women wanting men to be vulnerable and then ridiculing them and calling them "unmanly" when they do become vulnerable. Vulnerable is not a trait associated with "being a man". More's the pity. It's not a trait that defines a gender but there is the stereotype in society that women are more allowed to be open, emotional and vulnerable than men are.
Mental health is one example of this. A lot of men seeking emotional or mental health support avoid doing so for fear of appearing weak and unmanly. Of course similar stigmas attach themselves to women seeking help for the same issues but there's a lot about being vulnerable not being manly.
So, up in the other thread, you mentioned something along the lines of how people down voting this post is evidence that "you can't win'.
On the off chance that that wasn't a semantic point, and you really don't get why people are down voting:
You posted more than 700 words about yourself and your opinions on looks and PUA/RP, and then 56 of an extremely shallow opinion that added nothing to the discussion of the actual topic of the post.
That's not a response. That's an afterthought. It's the literary equivalent of responding to a friend who has confided in you by talking for an hour about something completely unrelated, and then saying "oh yeah, and your situations sucks too".
That's why it got down voted. You'll notice that Lee, who has had many, many, many clashes with people in the past (although not recently), got as many up votes as you got down votes. I assure you this is because Lee actually responded to the letter, and actually contributed something useful to the discussion… and not because we all like him better than you. (not to say that you're not likeable, Lee, I don't know you, so I couldn't say).
I like Lee. I don't always agree with him, but he seems like a pretty alright guy, all things considered.
Good to know. I only know what I've seen of him here, which has been many things that I didn't agree with, and many things that I did.
I just worried that "not because we all like him better" might suggest that 'we' don't like Lee, and I wanted to clarify that wasn't what I was saying… perhaps a bit of overcautiousness, but I'll take that over accidentally hurting someone's feelings.
Maybe he's an attractive jerk! (Kidding, kidding)
I was pretty annoyed earlier in the article when the Doc made not-so-subtle accusation that Mystery and Style are strongly responsible for the Red Pill. I strongly suspect those two would find that philosophy as repulsive as most of us here do…
…but damn, I can't stay mad at a man who makes a good Darkseid reference.
Jar Jar Binks is responsible for the Galactic Empire. Some times our ideas take on a life of their own and its not always pretty.
And by most accounts, Mystery based his philosophy on The Selfish Gene.
So really, blame Dawkins. Red Pill's Patient Zero.
I do like blaming Dawkins….
LW, it sounds like your brother may be open to change – he just doesn't know what to do. I might suggest a values-centric approach instead of trying to learn specific tips and tricks. What kind of moral conduct does he admire? Can he decide that he's going to try to express, say, integrity and compassion in his dealings with others? He can use those principles to guide him through specific situations instead of trying to follow a set of hard-and-fast rules, which I think just lead to frustration when they don't work. If he's open to recommendations, I would suggest having him start with patience, empathy, and curiosity as his guiding values. He should listen carefully to women, particularly with the assumption that they are just as human and rational and flawed and weird as men; he should try to understand compassionately how others behave and why; and he should recognize that this process will take some time, so he might spend a lot of time listening and thinking instead of going out there and getting dates.
This is about being a good person – not a nice guy. It might not get him dates right away, or ever, because you can't control how other people behave, but it does increase the odds that a decent human being might want to be in a relationship with him. And he'll be someone he can live with being either way.
Can someone truly learn to be more curious in general?
I think you can decide to make an effort to take more of an interest in things that relate to others' experiences. I find it's a self-fulfilling loop – you try and take an interest, then you take an interest for real because something catches your attention, then it becomes a habit.
It's actually quite like re-training your brain to reject obsessive negative thought through CBT.
Oh yeah. Usually it is through questioning why things are the way they are and then doing research, exploring new topics because you know you know little about it, sampling new genres of whatever because you have never read/seen/heard any before, trying new things, attempting to see the world from new viewpoints, etc..
Personal example: I live in AZ which has a decent sized Native American population. I realized, despite growing up in the West, I did not know anything more about Native American history than the superficial gloss we got in school, so I decided to learn more. Right now I am learning about tribal law and sovereignty and it is crazy interesting (and complicated).
That reminds me, I miss isdzan.
RIGHT?
Seriously. Next time we have a virtual happy hour, remind me to make a toast in her honor.
I don't think you can directly change your traits, but you can consciously model your behavior on curiosity and deliberately practice learning more about others. Eventually it will become habitual, at which point I suppose you could say you "are more curious in general."
Do you consider curiosity a trait? I've always thought of it as the habit of wondering about the things you don't know.
Habits can definitely be changed, although it's not necessarily easy.
I think all human beings are curious, we just turn various parts of our curiosity off for various reasons. You can reawaken curiosity if you practice at it.
Dear Red Pillers,
Cypher took the Red Pill. He got all the same superpowers as Morpheus and the rest of the Scooby Gang. There's even a strong argument that he could have been The One. There are two telling moments in Cypher's arc. The first and most obvious one is that knowing the code didn't teach him why its wrong to kill your friends for a steak. I think that one speaks for itself. In the other, he's looking at a screen of Matrix code and tells Neo "eventually you don't even see the code, its just blonde, brunette, redhead. . ." Cypher has learned the code so well that he can take specific instances and abstract them back into the illusion in his mind. Its the moment that defines him as a power user but not a programmer. Contrast this to Neo who, when he's in the Matrix, sees the code that underlies the individual situation and as a result understands the rules of the world so well that he can rewrite them. The real code underlying the Matrix is no longer relevant to how he solves is problems because he an change the rules.
So go ahead, read up on AMOG, AFC, facial proportions, status. If you work at applying it, you'll be able to dodge bullets. Learn to break through that and see the real code, the person inside the outfit, the social conditioning etc and you won't need to.
I want the ability to like this a few dozen more times. That is awesome.
Cypher at the screen and Neo seeing the code in the climax was a revalation to young-adult me that has colored my experience with video games ever since.
http://media.giphy.com/media/T2MuGuH3u1eeI/giphy….
I got a Jack Harkness! I win at The Internet!
Damn straight.
I WANT a Jack Harkness!
Just for you: https://38.media.tumblr.com/a3991a5d10fa81033f95d…
Doc, it's official – you need to recruit Marty and put her in charge of your stock image library!
(I just realised I used "Doc" and "Marty" in the same sentence!
)
http://media.giphy.com/media/ZHkVpDiI3vIiY/giphy….
HOW DID I NEVER CATCH THIS.
http://thegreatscottblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2…
http://img.pandawhale.com/65407-great-scott-gif-e…
This one is called "High school students on a college tour": http://i.imgur.com/rUil2ul.gif
Also works for university tours.
Flamingos are inherently hilarious to me it seems.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/90772e20bf47736ab8182e…
(If you get the multidimensional aspect of this joke, congratulations, we can be uncool and lame together.)
Well … it is almost 2015. So you're right on time.
"Everything will be fine."
I am so sick of these hateful, toxic assholes claiming a movie that I loved so much as a teenager as their own. Thank you for illustrating how even just a brief look at the full narrative of the film don't support their (mis)understanding of its themes at all. Nothing could be less techno-buddhist-late-90s-counter-cultural than thinking the solution to all your problems with women is to virulently hate on them, even to the point of emotional and physical violence.
I think the red pill works depending on what you want. Red pillers don't think a long term relationship with a girl is really something that is good, rather men should have lots of girls they can have sex with at any time. Their belief is that even if you get married the girl will eventually make your life miserable by making you try to please her needs until she loses respect for you and cheats on you with some alpha male that doesn't give a crap about her.
There seems to be some truth to this although I have never had it happen to me. I have a very close friend that had been with a total of 5 girls through his life until about age 30. About 2 years ago he adopted Red Pill philosophy and the guy now has sex with multiple girls every week. Many of them are definitely interested in taking it exclusive and he has no interest in doing so. I personally am married and have been for a little over 10 years but I can tell you there are days where I am definitely envious of his lifestyle.
Strangely enough, I'd agree with your exact wording. PUA, Red Pill, Doc's advice and a number of other resources work depending on what you want. The point is that there are other ways to get the same thing (which we'll call sleeping with multiple new partners a week) that do not require underlying assumptions about half of the species being less than human. Having lots of partners is fine. Using deception, and coercion is not.
The same thing is certainty not sleeping with new girls every week, the red pill is NOT PUA.
Its a evolutionary explanation on what girls really want, guys have been lied too.
They really believe its about trust, shared interests and mutual respect. In reality its all about attraction.
A girl doesn't care how you treat her(To a degree) but rather if she is attracted to you.
Yeah, tell me more about how I think and what I want. So attractive….
Oh wait, no. I meant the exact f*cking opposite.
Go away little boy.
You place treatment and attraction on independent axes, so I'll humor you for a second. Given that attraction has nothing to do with how you treat someone, why would you want to be an asshole to them? Oh right, because RP also says its their fault you couldn't get a date before.
Considering you keep telling us stories of poor schmucks who've been done wrong by their women, you could also argue that a GUY doesn't care how you treat him, so long as you're hot.
I mean, that would still be bull, because people are individuals, and wow, your view of relationships is just tragic.
If you reread, dnl isn't saying red pill doesn't work. He's saying there are parts of it that are good like the self-improvement aspects and being more pro-active, which is why it is somewhat successful. But he's also saying that there are definitely parts of it that are very bad like the obsession with anger, control, sexism, and abuse/coercion, which are at the core of its philosophy and can easily lead to a multitude of really bad consequences for everybody involved like what we see in the letter. It's not wrong to want the things you want (gf, wife, juggle 6 women at once, etc.), it's just the way these men go about it is dead wrong and their good qualities are far outweighed by the bad qualities.
[Red pillers don't think a long term relationship with a girl is really something that is good, rather men should have lots of girls they can have sex with at any time.]
Why do you think this is a GOOD thing.
I mean I agree monogamy isn't for everyone and some people just don't want a long term relationship. And that's fine. You get one life you should do what makes you happiest.
Where I draw the line is the idea that all long term relationships with women are bad because all women are lying manipulators who will use and dump you the instant something better comes along. [And of course all men are paragons of honesty who would never do the same].
To me that is very different animal from 'long term relationships don't work me, I would prefer to have multiple partners].
Odd, I have a comment in my Intense Debate history that isn't showing up on the page. Is it in moderation or some stranger glitch?
Apparently it’s a glitch because the only thing that was in moderation was The One True Guest’s post. Huh.
Weird, I'll just copy paste it.
Even weirder, now its there.
The family sounds more like a matriarchy than a feminist one. Feminist ideology is opposed to matriarchy just as much as it is patriarchy and instead is for the equal empowerment of all sexes/genders.
As someone pointed out in another thread, it sounds abusive. There are non-abusive ways to have a woman-led family dynamic, no matter what you call it.
feminist is not opposed to matriarchy at all, just look at ray rice vs http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/story/us-soccer-h…
feminist do not care about men's issues at all
I know quite a few feminists who care a lot about men's issues, more so than I do actually. So, no, feminists do care about men's issues.
Feminists care about the enforcement of gender roles — even in cases when that superficially helps women. Women are the default caregivers of children (and this deserve default custody of kids)? Feminists have a problem with that. Women have a unique right to alimony because they can’t be expected to earn money equally? Feminists have a problem with that.
Now, if what you mean is that feminists don’t believe that men have the right to sex, well, you’re right. That’s sick, rapey nonsense that’s actively dangerous. If you want to have sex with a blow-up doll, go right ahead. If you want a person to sleep with you, obtain their effing consent, and in a non-abusive manner.
You have feminists that care, but find their own issues more pressing.
You have feminists that care and go out of their way to recruit men, because they believe in a united front.
You have feminists that actively oppose it because they believe men's issues are an MRA recruitment tool.
You have feminists that actively oppose "mainstream feminism", because they roll out Prizzy and the NWO fucking over dudes a couple of times in the paternity rights/rape definition expansion department.
You have feminists that try to co-opt men's issues and then make a set of demands to first "support X if you want my support on Y".
You have feminists that actively oppose men in general and want to live in a politically lesbian enclave.
Feminism is varied, whodathunkit!
"Much of what we assume to be the accepted wisdom regarding relationships is based around intellectual fallacies and cultural assumptions with no actual fact behind them. In fact, many of these cultural biases end up coloring the study of relationships and human sexuality, letting confirmation bias and naturalistic fallacies distort scientific inquiry."
1) I know that the Doc has posted on some of these, but it would be great to see another piece highlighting what the "empirical research" gets right and wrong, along with the fallacies of conventional wisdom. It was probably done previously, but still. One example was the study that "proved" that women don't want casual sex, but didn't control for safety and anticipated pleasure.
2) Obliquely related, as a man I personally am annoyed by men, red pill/manosphere or not, who are so obsessed with what women that they aren't with are doing with their genitalia. This comes up in other relationship forae; the red pill's talking points are so mainstream and fringe at the same time.
I’m actually slowly working on a piece that expands on some of what I’ve written about understanding women’s desire for sex, including talking about how the study that established “eggs are expensive/ sperm is cheap” was incredibly flawed.But depending on many factors, that may not be for a couple weeks.<p style=”color:#000;”>
Nice guys do get girls, if they are unlucky. A nice guy will get used and abused
both emotional and financially because that is what he has been told.
This guy will drive 4 hours to pickup a glass of water while his girlfriend cheats on him
with a guy that treats him like crap.
The nice guy will ask, "How come girls don't like nice guys"
He will than get ambushed by feminist saying "Girls don't owe you anything" and told he
is just bitter and angry when he is really just sick and tired and confused.
My point is feminist and women will often ignore men's issue and make it their own.
Its like we need a women's approval before we can read the red pill.
The entire nice guy in pop culture is seen as a social retard, geeky, mild mannered
kind of funny looking, shy, a loser and so on. When in reality he is a hard working man
working 60 hours a week just to come home to a nagging wife that divorce him for half his money for life.
We shouldn't look to women to address our struggles as men, because frankly they don't care
and whenever they do comment it is always about them and their issues.
The red pill is for men by men and is growing every day. So check it out if you want a none
politically correct view of the world
"Non politically correct" doesn't mean 'accurate'.
I prefer to be included in groups where we're not constantly afraid and suspicious of the other gender. I don't like being afraid and I prefer to be happy.
Women aren't put on this earth to make you happy, they have their own interests and they will act in theirs.
This simply means be suspicious to the point were don't forget women are people and people are fucked up.
"don't forget women are people and people are fucked up."
People aren't so degenerate that we can't learn to get along and get along well.
Straw man argument I never said don't get along with them, very rarely do men stick their penis in something they don't get along with, because after all we are trying to have sexual relationships with women.
"Straw man argument I never said don't get along with them"
No, but your comments are very antagonistic and I'm getting "us vs. them" vibes.
" very rarely do men stick their penis in something"
Some-thing, huh? Not sharing squishy bits with some-one?
The decent guy will ask a woman out. The decent guy won't go get a glass of water four hours away expecting sex in exchange. The decent guy won't feel he's owed sex and would rather get it from someone who wants to have sex with him instead of paying a debt. The decent guy has boundaries and is happy to help his friends within them but will not let them abuse that trust to violate his boundaries.
Its almost as if there are more shades in the world than black and white.
He is not expecting sex in exchange, he doesn't think he is owed anything, that is feminist putting words in men's mouth.
there are more shades but you keep bring up the scenario were the nice guy thinks he is owed something and he should want nothing in return.
This is simply not true, men don't think they are owed anything, they just want to know why their girlfriends treat them like crap.
I find it interesting you ignore the cheating girl and focus on putting your own words in my experience.
FYI: the nice guy didn't even want sex, he just wanted some fucking respect and not to be cheated on.
Boundaries darling.
Ay de mi, Johnny this one bores me. And his grammar makes my head hurt. Good luck man.
You didn't address any points I made, you just made up scenarios , you found my comment and replied which is typical the only argument against the red pill is , "Your gramers is badzors"
I made up scenarios? Where? Show me.
My argument against your pathetic little movement is that you make incorrect generalizations about men and women to make yourselves feel better.
And I have no interest putting effort into arguing with you, so I'm gonna mock the stupid things that come out of your mouth until you get bored and leave or (more likely) get offensive enough that DNL banhammers you.
In fairness, Mel_, Enail and Gentleman Johnny could all banhammer him too..
Yeah, but these twerps get extra butthurt when you do it.
"Blah blah, CENSORSHIP blah blah NAZIS blah blah CULT!!!"
Wait, we can do that? I thought we were special, Wednesday Only mods!
Don't let the power go to your head Johnny!!
Also I can't find the ban button. I'm not ready to use it yet but I only seem to have Report/Delete powers.
Yeah, me too!
Hey look what day it is!(also, if someone is especially egregious and I'm asleep or unavailable, you don't have to wait for me to ban them. Or if you'd rather not ban them until I get there, you can always manually disemvowel them…)
Wait, didn't we determine that banning was not actually among our powers?
Well could someone please do something about the thread MeyerNGaines started? Because he's managed to drive on poster off the site with the stuff he's been spewing.
I don't make generalizations , once again you are just accusing me of several things rather than addressing any points.
You can mock me all you want I don't really mind trolling since it helps create a discussion so I can introduce people to the red pill.
"I don't make generalizations"
"My point is feminist and women will often ignore men's issue and make it their own." = Generalization.
Will often? is not a generalization but than again look what is happening here
You are being mocked on the Internet for your views? Yeah that's so terrible.
I am a feminist. I don't ignore men's issues. Also, the super feminist non-profit that I work for serves both low-income women and men.
Good for you, another statement that doesn't even try to attack the points I made about what the red pill is about and how the dialog and conversation is framed as a nice guy thinking he is owed something when in fact he just wishes for something.
Like he is a not really a nice guy if he wants sex,love,affection in return, when in reality all they need to do is stop trying to win over women and demand what they want and if they don't get it walk away
Why not just be honest and communicative with the other person? Why is it either being meek and subservient or demanding? Why can't a man and a woman have a calm conversation about what it is they want from each other and if those things match yay relationship! And if they don't, that's okay, it was nice meeting you bye. What's wrong with that?
Allow me then –
Getting mocked on the Internet for being a bonehead is the price of admission. Its not persecution. Especially around here, its people responding to irrationality by laughing at because it happens all the damn time and it gets old and repetitive otherwise. Tell you what, make a point somewhere going forward: not an ancedote, not a generalization, a point you can back up and maybe someone will engage it. Of course at this point, you've already painted the walls with so much of your own feces, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
You literally just started spouting off a bunch of hypothetical scenarios as…what, some kind of proof that women as a whole are inherently selfish and probably cheating on a nice guy?
That's pretty general.
Nevermind that you keep referring to women as some kind of monolith, which, again…super-general.
You're doing a great job of "introducing" people to this philosophy, I'll give you that. You're shining a spotlight on how sad and hateful the whole thing is.
This might not be the best place to try to introduce people to the red pill…
And fyi, nice guys totally get laid. Nice guys who bring the girls that they're flirting with tea and come help them with work and keep them company and are generally sweet and caring and loving and thoughtful get pounced as soon as the girl they're flirting with has finished work. This happens even when the nice guy is super shy and hesitant because he can't believe that the hot chick from work that all the guys are drooling over wants him. And interestingly enough, it's that thoughtful, loving, sweet side that made her look at him instead of the other guys.
Long distance sucks, but he's worth it and he doesn't have to treat me like crap or demand anything of me for me to know that he's worth it.
Sorry Reine, you don't count. Because….REASONS…and….WOMEN ARE MEAN…AND LOGIC….
Just don't question the "logic" too closely.
Does this mean that I don't get to keep my nice guy who makes me tea? Cause he makes a really good cuppa and he has the sweetest smile.
Maybe I can make it up by being MEAN or something in another part of my life?
Yeah, you have to be dating a muscly jerk who doesn't respect you…And makes you make him tea. Or something. Because evolution.
You can possibly compensate by being MEAN to the whiny twatwaffles that DNL attracted with this article. Of course MEAN in RP universe apparently translates as "calls me out for using bad sources and mocks my inaccurate sweeping generalizations about gender." Bonus MEAN points if you manage to do it while insinuating that it's probably not their lack of muscles that's driving off the women.
I work around athletes and guys who have hard physical work, my sweetie was surprised I didn't go for one of the muscly jerks, especially since I was fending them off regularly as I was one of the only women on the job and I am, if I do say so myself, a rather good catch since I'm pretty and I get to play the exotic card since I'm foreign. But I've been on and off dating a guy who's been seriously mean to me in the way RP encourages for a few years now (I keep thinking he's changed, I keep being wrong). I'm constantly amazed that my sweetie tells me that I'm smart and beautiful because the guy I was dating before only commented on how tired I looked and asked what the f* it would bring me when I landed my dream internship… The fact that my sweetie thinks that I'm important enough to merit bringing tea and regular texts and a thoughtful card is… Well, I'm a little smitten.
And I will be the meanest mean girl who ever meaned to anyone who says he doesn't deserve me.
High fives and jedihugs for all of this!
Your guy sounds awesome and I wish you many happy tea-filled days
Made up scenarios? That sounds like a good description of your "point".
I'm packing for Wasteland Weekend. My witty reparte time is somewhat limited.
Quit speaking like you know what all men want or experience.
If you're talking about yourself, then talk about yourself – don't try to make bullshit generalizations to "nice guys." I fall asleep next to the kindest, most thoughtful, most generous, most loving man I've ever met every single night, and I'm deliriously happy that way.
I'm sorry you got cheated on and treated badly, but sweet fancy Moses – if "the nice guy" means "me, Justin," just have the guts to say so.
No, I'm bringing up issues nice guys face, I disagree with the go to line
"Nice guys think they are owed something for being nice", this is just one scenario which is generalized for every "Nice guy". I disagree with generalization and want to focus on issues men face specifically when dating women.
"I disagree with generalization except when I do it."
But sure, let's talk about this as an issue men face. We socialize men to be selfish and entitled, so that many men believe they are being nice when in fact they are behaving in selfish, unkind ways. Because they believe they are nice, they end up feeling like their niceness is stopping them from finding love, when in fact they are misattributing the source of their problems. Instead of solving their real problem, they choose to abandon the minimal social restraints on their selfish entitlement and end up becoming abusive assholes. That is a huge issue men face when dating women, because what kind of woman would want to date a guy like that without being either tricked or coerced?
The potential for cheating isn't an issue "men face specifically when dating women." It's an issue EVERYONE who dates, regardless of gender or orientation, faces.
It's addressed with trust and honesty, not with bitterness and mindgames.
Although if someone is literally driving four hours for a glass of water, there are some other issues at play.
Although I always wonder why RPers don't just try batting for the other team. Ya know, for comparison. It would save them tons of stress, seemingly.
LOL. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's had that thought. You'd think so, wouldn't you?
"This guy will drive 4 hours to pickup a glass of water while his girlfriend cheats on him
with a guy that treats him like crap."
Great Christmas. Who are *you* dating that this is all you've seen??
Red Pill = Conspiracy Theory
Stupid and dangerous ideas based on pure fear from people who refuse (or haven't learned how) to take responsibility in their life, and thus live in reality. PUA / FEMA, negging, false flag, , chemtrails, alpha-beta-birther, white knight / sheeple, Feminazi / Illuminati…It all comes from the same toxic cesspool.
"Women control the sexual marketplace" sounds an awful lot like "Guvmint gunna terk away our guns" to me.
(Ugh, the term sexual marketplace makes my head, heart and stomach hurt.)
The guy that works 60 hour weeks, come home to find his wife cheating, forgives her, she cheats again takes half of his money and doesn't let him see his kid, yeah that guy is crazy.
The boyfriend who gets beat up by his girlfriend who than's puts fake blood on herself to frame him.
What about the five black men who were put in prison because some girl said she was raped when she was really cheating on her "NICE GUY" while fucking black alpha cock.
In your world only women are victims and any men who is a victim isn't taking responsibility, this is probably why the suicide rate is 3 times higher and in some places historic highs for men.
Jesus Christ man, these things you list are criminal behaviours. What about the men who murder their wives, who rape, who manipulate, who cheat on their wives who work 60 hour work weeks? The thing is, no one is saying women can't be shits too. It's the idea that women are SHITTIER than men and therefore deserve to be treated the way they are by Red Pillers that makes no sense. Women and men can be absolute shits. That doesn't mean all women and men are shits and that certainly doesn't mean that the way to treat the gender you supposedly want to love and be with is to treat them like shit.
On a less vehement note: I truly appreciate that you've been hurt deeply by some women. Guess what, I've been hurt deeply by a couple men. But also guess what, I don't go around saying all men are terrible. Those guys were, and it was sad that I had to experience them, but I learned what I didn't want, and I kept my integrity and now I'm dating an awesome very non-shitty guy who respects me as I respect him. To find that woman who respects you can only happen if you respect her. And the only way to do that is to take away this general hatred of women you've been espousing here. It isn't healthy. It doesn't help. It just fuels the fire, it doesn't extinguish it.
No women has hurt me, and I not married but have a LTR, and she is a member of Red pill women.
and you are right men are just as bad as women, but guess what?
Notice how my post is down voted and yours is up voted, men's issues get censored and down voted. That is my entire point men need a place were they can develop their own sense of the world and realize the ways they are being oppressed.
The red pill constantly says don't hate women, and improve yourself, but that is being ignored. They focus on out of context and sometimes false statements, as we don't rape women nor do we even allow rape jokes to be made.
I never had anyone ever show me any post that hated women on red pill.
I guess it depends on your definition of hatred. I went over there just now and all I read was article after article written by men about how women are inferior, incapable of complex thought, that there are studies women don't mature past the age of 18, that they don't serve much purpose, that they manipulate, that they are good to fuck and that the men like it when they look at them with adoration, but that's pretty much the only reason they want to sleep with women. Nothing about women as complex people, as humans capable of reason. Nothing kind or generous about women (well the kindest things I suppose are all the nurturing stereotypes).
But of course if you buy into the notion that men are inherently superior to women then of course you won't think that this kind of literature is hateful. You will assume it is just reasonable and logical. And if you do, then that's cool. But you and I cannot speak any further because clearly you haven't an iota of respect for anything I have to say (because I'll assume you think me illogical, immature and manipulative).
You keep saying this word "sense-or-ship". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
On Reddit, downvotes do result in a comment being hidden unless a user goes out of their way to view it. Hence, a claim of "censorship" isn't completely wrong there and I can see why someone would assume that a similar thing was going on here even though it isn't.
Of course, by that argument, the broken pagination system and anchor tags are also censorship.
"The red pill constantly says don't hate women"
Yeeeaaah, about that. "I don't *hate* women/gays/black people/etc…" is a pretty common statement to hear from people who don't get that hatred isn't always frothing at the mouth rage. There are subtle hatreds too.
Your posts are downvoted because you're saying a lot of crap. Not because they're about men's issues. DNL does a helluva lot about men's issues.
"No women has hurt me"
Ah. So when you said in another comment thread here, "I had a girlfriend as a nice guy and was cheated on , used and abused." you were actually lying? Pretending to be an abuse victim to make some sort of point about being "nice"? That's a pretty horrible way to make an argument and a pretty horrible way to co-opt the concerns of men who have actually been abused. Both of which lead me to believe you're not worth trying to have a discussion with.
Oh … oh wow Mel. Holy shitballs that is enraging.
I don't believe any of your stories. Mainly because you couldn't make your point without the phrase "black alpha cock."
Also JJ, you aren't doing your little movement any favors in the way of publicity. In short, if you're an example of the "winners" we can expect to see from RP, everyone with an ounce of sense will stay FAR away.
http://i.imgur.com/6wTS0Ax.jpg
That is the story of the girl who accused 5 black men of raping her. I saying her boyfriend was a nice guy at home who loved his girlfriend and she cheated on him.
Yes, about 2% of all police reports made are false. There's no reason to believe rape would be any different from other crimes in this regard, so I don't see why you're so up in arms. Do you freak out this badly when a man falsely accuses another man of a crime? Do you decide it means all men are terrible people that you need to manipulate and control?
No, it shows how easy it is to put a men in jail , furthermore the false rape reports are around 41%
Numbers you pull out of your ass don't count.
Yeah, researcher calls bullshit on the 41% number – not that I think this tool is going to listen, but in case anyone watching thinks he might have a valid point, the answer is no.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF015416…
Sample size, Sparky. Would someone with real academic credentials like to find a counter argument?
Actually, the sample size would be fine if the study itself were well conducted – but this study is famous for being bad. Among other things, the author conflates unfounded rape cases with false accusations, which in practice means he's actually studying how the police fall down on rape investigations. The fact that he pretends to be studying false rape is either profoundly unethical or evidence of deep stupidity. Not to mention it's so far out of whack with other studies on the topic that, given that he refuses to share any data, there is some suspicion in the academic community that his data is at best cherry-picked and at worst falsified outright. (Which I suppose would be almost funny given the topic.)
I'm pretty sure Sparky here just Googled til he found an abstract that seemed to support his point. And definitely didn't pay to read the entire article.
But yeah, hilarious that this specific study is infamous for failing.
I've seen it assigned in research methods classes as a "rip this thing apart, also never do this" example.
But I think that, sadly, the study is probably circulated as "evidence" within the red pill community. Would only that they'd learn to apply a modicum of critical thinking, or even a quick Google.
If they used a modicum of critical thinking they would see the logical fallacies of the whole Red Pill thing. Logic does not seem to be a strong suit.
Wait, 100 cases over 10 years (total, not acquitted) from a single Euro town is a sufficient sample size to ballpark the rest of the developed world?
Well, generalizing appropriately from the sample chosen is part of what "well conducted" means.
(But the n itself is not the problem.)
So "normalized for"? I have a tangential connection to some heavy academics and i get the concepts if not the details.
No, actually, those are two different concepts. What I'm getting at is that a small but well-chosen sample CAN illuminate the behavior of larger groups if the generalization is appropriate, and if the results are either checkable or consistent with other data. For example, Lareau's groundbreaking research on class in America is an in-depth study of a small sample, but part of her work itself is figuring out to whom it generalizes and how she draws the boundaries of the groups she claims to describe. Make sense?
Ahhhhhhhh! Lightbulb.
Do you know what the researcher's specific definition of a false accusation was? One that didn't result in a conviction? One that didn't result in an arrest? One where the victim decided not to cooperate with police? One where the victim recanted or where there was fairly obvious evidence no rape occurred? Depending on what it was, I'd agree this might both include accusations that were not false and that the sample is very dependent on the interest of that police department in pursuing rape cases and the guidance offered to rape victims by district attorneys and support groups in the area. This isn't a sample so small as to be statistically insignificant, but with something that varies so much based on local infastructure, I'd think the researcher would at least need to be very clear about the limitations of the research.
It's an important question! What this guy actually studied is "what percentage of women will drop their case when faced with intimidation tactics from police" and "what percentage of police assume that all rape accusations are false."
The same argument can be said for the 2% number that was cited up thread. Realistically, we can't know for sure when we look at cases as an aggregate like this since there's no magic wand that gives us the real truth without all of the various messy human biases involved. We can't even be absolutely sure about those who have been convicted in some jurisdictions given the rate of false convictions that have later been overturned by by DNA evidence.
These numbers, based on the methodology used, might be thought of as upper and lower bounds, but even here we're wandering into a statistical minefield. We know that false accusations exist, so we can't just "listen and believe" and do away with due process. We know that rape exists, so we can't just have law enforcement pack up and go home. Everything in between is going to have some uncertainty to it.
Fail 1: No one went to prison
Fail 2: No mention of sex, let alone the women "fucking black alpha cock"
Fail 3: No evidence that she cheated on boyfriend, who isn't mentioned in that link either.
Fail 4: 3 dark-skinned men, not 5.
For those who don't wanna read JJ's links: an attempted assault where the women later recanted and admitted the story was fabricated =/= any of his stories above.
Oh sweet fancy Moses, and this guy thinks he is making red pill look like anything but a bunch of delusional, irrational hatemongers?
Proselytizing fail.
For those reading along, JJ is one of the more articulate and nice RPers I've ever found.
Think about THAT for a sec.
Also, can I just go on the record here as being on team Ew Gross Racism? I initially only responded to the rape issue but the more I think about it the more the racism bugs me too.
I'm on that team.
“Black alpha cock” huh?
Only part-black but here ya go: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3pishk
BRB, going off to raise chickens. TRP told me to.
I wonder what the hierarchy is? White alpha cock? Black beta cock?
What does the red pill rulebook say, hmmm…
…Ah, yes I forgot to name-drop the mens rights advocates…
More of the same old conspiracy theorist diatribe. You probably know what my answer would be, just as well as I know how you would likely respond:
"Open your eyes, man!"
"Get your head out of sand!"
"You're Sheeple!!"
…Next you'll tell me you have evidence that is a real "game changer"…
I tell you, if there's one word in the English vernacular that bothers me, its "sheeple". Its a pernicious shortcut to rational thought that allows anyone to dismiss anyone else who has a different viewpoint as less than a human being.
It also offends my aesthetic sensibilities by sounding like a taunt that 7-year-olds would make up – and if we must stick to childish taunts, I much prefer fart blossom and snot rag.
I always preferred booger brain.
Or poop-sniff.
Yep, it's cringe-worthy, that's for sure.
Sheeple: (sheep + people) the herd behavior of people by likening them to sheep.
Funny too, how those who use the term could well be accused of doing that very same thing.
Rule of thumb, any time you assume that less than 10% of the people will survive/are enlightened/know the truth/have evolved powers of x, chances are very good that you are not one of them.
Math is not a CT or RP strong suit
So I'll never be an X-man?
Nope, in my world men and women can be victims but that doesn't make all women victimizers. Thanks for playing. You are the new Weakest Link.
I never said all women victimizes nor implied that, I was talking about the issues men can face in dealing with relationships with women.
In response to a post that quoted some of the nastier elements of Red Pill theory which does generalise that all women are one particular way and thus deserve to be treated the way they recommend. By posting your examples of women behaving badly as a response to that post, yes, that actually does imply that you are disagreeing with the person mocking those quotes, and it says you think women deserve to be treated that way because they are cruel to men. Thus saying they are all victimizers. That's where you implied it. You might not have MEANT to, but you most certainly did.
You could have said, "Look, I know there are problematic elements to Red Pill, but there are some good things too. Like how they focus on the oft neglected issues men face in relationships. I don't think generally mocking everyone who supports Red Pill theories is the way to go. Here are some links to some positive statements Red Pillers have made." Instead you just trashed women. And it just doesn't help your cause by doing that, considering a lot of Red Pillers just trash women all the time. I should know, I just visited and read a crap load of posts and now feel a little sick to be honest.
ETA: Actually, could you link to some positive things Red Pillers have said, because I can't find them myself and it would be really interesting to see the community in a different light, the light you and your girlfriend seem to see.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2bnpp…
This post also received gold and highly up voted so you can be assured it is how the community feels as a whole.
"So I recently posted about a text my SO sent me, explaining why she missed me. She said, “Because when I'm with you I get to pour out all my anxiety and worry onto your shoulders and it relieves my own tension.”
This post was disapproved of by the people who replied to it. I find this concerning. Not everyone in the TRP community is looking to spin plates. I am here because I find good advice on what a man ought to be doing. When a man is in an LTR, he has a role to play. One of the core tenets we hold here is that a relationship is an exchange. Now, try not to be so dense as to think there’s nothing you need to bring to the table. So let me ask, what do you think you provide your SO?
It is not your good looks. This is a bonus, but not why women love men. It is not your wittiness. This, again, is a bonus. Women love men for their stability. Financial stability, physical security, and the ability to be stoic.
Sure, being charismatic and attractive can help you woo a few ladies, but this is not your primary role in a relationship. Your job is to be the rock. So when my SO let’s me know that I am her rock, I have succeeded.
There is a correct way to do this too. You are not to validate her every concern. There are (more often than not) times where you’re going to have to let her know that her problem is not actually a problem. She wants to tell you what bothers her because once she sees how you don’t think it’s a big deal, she won’t be as anxious about it.
How do you do this? Make a joke out of it, get her to realize how absurd the situation is, etc etc.
Anyway, if you’re not in an LTR make sure you know what you’re talking about. Too many people on here have been talking out of their asses. Read the sidebar material while you’re at it.
Edit: Oh wow, thanks for the gold stranger."
Well this definitely isn't a mean post, but it does play deeply into gender roles and I find it quite problematic nonetheless. Also the sweeping generalisations, once again, as if all men and all women all want the same thing seriously bug me. I know I definitely don't want my SO to make a joke out of a problematic situation I am going through. If it wasn't a big deal, I wouldn't be treating it like a big deal. There's also something a little icky to me about "letting her know that her problem isn't actually a problem", like she isn't clever enough to realise that herself. Nor do I think my SO needs to be my rock. I want my SO to be there for me yes, but I want to be there for him. I want him to also comfortable to be vulnerable with me, to know I can help him. Lastly, I outearn my SO, I own a home, I'm definitely far more stable. So I'm guessing this must make my SO miserable huh?
Anyway, thanks for sharing! I will say it's nice to read something not vitriolic for sure. And I can see where some would find comfort in such advice. It doesn't suit me nor many people I know, and thus the generalisations in it bug me. But it ain't evil
.
Sorry, I stopped reading after "you have to treat them like children". Any man who treats me like a child gets kicked to the curb. Hard. Sure, I want my SO to be there for me. The same way I want to be there for him. Because I come from a family of way too many repressed males and I have seen how that can go south quickly.
Be honest, the only thing that makes you sorry you stopped reading after "you have to treat them like children," is that you didn't stop before that part!
"There are (more often than not) times where you’re going to have to let her know that her problem is not actually a problem. She wants to tell you what bothers her because once she sees how you don’t think it’s a big deal, she won’t be as anxious about it."
You've got to be kidding me. This is one of the biggest MISTAKES men tend to take in relationships. Try googling "relationship man wants to fix problems not listen" and see all the results. I don't need someone to fix my problems–which, by the way, usually comes off as telling me what I was doing wrong. I need a partner, someone who has my back, someone who understands that whatever the sucky thing is, it really fucking sucks. And who the hell are you to tell someone else what's a big deal? Mansplaining again.
Another post that also got gold
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2h1yd…
"Sound unfair? Sure. But if you've embraced TRP, and I mean really embraced it, you've come to accept that nobody owes you anything, and sure as hell not these hotties. For me, this was the toughest part of the pill to swallow. More so than even the hypergamy truths."
Here you go, the red pill saying the world nor hot girls owes us anything and we must earn it.
Which would imply that Nice Guys DO feel owed. No one's arguing that RP's "take responsibility for your shit" approach is a bad thing. Its just the wrapping paper of "because women are hypergamous gold digging juggernauts who only want to take advantage of you" that people have issue with.
Edit: I'll add that I've already said once that PUA and RP without the mysoginy look a lot like Doc's blog without the feminism. Given that there are techniques that work, why bundle them with assumptions about the opposite sex that are hurtful?
TRP says hypergamy is a good thing and in a women's best interest, this is simply saying women want the best they can get(Which is true for men also)
We do believe you should watch out for gold diggers, but when do want a provider and someone who can provide a stable home, see my first link for that advice.
"Which would imply that Nice Guys DO feel owed"
No, some "Nice guys" might, but they aren't really nice guys, I know genuinely nice men who get abused than get stereotyped into the "I'm owed something" crowd when in reality they are just asking a simple question.
Its also saying (or at least is often presented as) that women will jump ship on an established relationship for someone who qualifies as objectively "best". In other words, it comes with the implicit assumption that women do not experience genuine emotional attachment. It also assumes that all women want a provider, or at least you seem to.
Not all women want a provider and most can provide from themselves however have you ever heard a women with a great career say,
"I want a man who makes at least as much as I make"
How many times have you heard a women say that "a man needs a job"
These are example of hypergamy , lets be honest how many women go out and take a guy to dinner and pay for it, than support that guy financially, not many.
Guys have their own version of hypergamy, but it isn't tied to resources but rather a girl looks, so yes a men could cheat on you with a hotter younger women.
Just like a women could leave you for a wealthier men.
TRP doesn't say hate women because of this but rather keep your attraction level high, stay in shape and continue advancing in your career. How many husbands let themselves go only to find out their wives find what they have been missing.
What a sad, impoverished view of human relationships.
A person is with you based on what you can do for them, not what they can do for you. Unconditional love only exist with your parents.
In other words you have to give to get and men and women are different and want different things.
I would love to sit on my ass and not work out and live a minimal wage job with no ambition, but that will heavily impact my chances with women.
Women value a man with goals and can take care and support a family
So, how long have you been with your girlfriend? Because I'm about to hit my eighteenth anniversary with a guy I love more than anything else, and this continues to sound sad and impoverished to me. I'm happy to believe that it describes your own relationship, but not that you're accurately describing the world.
less than a year
Ok, so maybe you should listen to some people with much richer and deeper expertise at having lasting, loving relationships.
…And I want to smoke my pipe in the den after dinner, that is if the wife didn't burn the roast…wait, what year is this?
To experience unconditional love you must love unconditionally.
BTW, everything in this post is a generalization.
And wrong.
Why would you be with anyone who only wants to take from you? Moreover, why would you be with someone if your goal is to extract from them as much as possible? How does acknowledging that that's your goal make you MORE enlightened than the average guy?
This is a very sad view of humans' capacity for emotion, and an amazingly limited view of human variance.
That's true, I won't date a man who doesn't have a job. Because I am a 35-year-old woman with my own house and a professional salary, and I want someone who is at the same stage of life as me. I have been taken advantage of before by a boyfriend who was bad with money and I won't accept that again. I know that people's circumstances can differ (and are not always in their control) but I don't want someone taking my house and my money and sitting on their ass online shopping with my card number all day while I work a 50 hour week.
So much so that, when my ex-GIRLfriend made it clear she expected me to support her financially……I DUMPED HER!!! Wait, does that make me a misogynist?
While I, on the other hand, would happily date a guy who wanted to take the domestic role! But he'd have to convince me that he was skilled at it and would follow through and do it, since the data says that unemployed men actually contribute slightly less unpaid work to the household than men with full-time jobs.
(After my maternity leave, my husband will be the one at home. So, you know, money, mouth.)
Exactly, everyone has to work it out the way they see fit. I don't want any TTLS's so deciding who was going to be stay-at-home parent wouldn't be a factor for me. I think not working because you are a carer, or ill, or a host of other reasons, is totally fine.
Here we have parental leave as well as maternity (and paternity!) leave, so you each separately get 18 weeks (maternity) and 5 weeks (paternity) and then up to 52 weeks of parental leave that you can divide up as you wish, but where you only get a certain percentage (70% I think) of your normal salary.
You live in the wrong place… Here a guy who will pay for a date? Super rare. You're expected to pay your own way every time. And as for advancing your career… Most of the men at my dad's law firm are divorced because they did just that, concentrating everything on their career and not realising that the woman wanted them, physically present and not just their money thrown at them. Because these women had their own careers and could provide their own roof over their heads and therefore did not need the extra cash provided. The love? Yes, that they needed.
Sure, a guy needs a job. Goals and ambition is attractive. Someone who is productive is attractive. Does that job need to be better than mine? No. I date a lot of people who work in theatre or the performing arts. They're, generally speaking of course, driven, hard working and creative, which are all attractive traits. However I am the one with the steady job with benefits who doesn't need to worry about those down times when no contracts are coming in. A guy's pocketbook is far from the most attractive thing about him.
Sigh… for the fifty-millionth time:
If a man doesn't feel owed sex/love/relationship for the simple virtue of being "nice" to a woman, he isn't a Nice Guy.
Though, if the "simple question" is: BUT WHYYYY DON'T YOU LOVE/FUCK ME?! well your nice guys have entitlement issues they need to unpack.
It's not that simple, He wants to know why she would choose him over someone who treats her like crap.
He doesn't think he is owed anything he is looking to change his strategy and approach to women.
This entire nice guy think he is owed something for being nice is simply reframing a men's frustration to fit a very narrow view point of male sexuality.
The mainstream media teaches guys to behave one way and to not be aggressive and to ask permission to kiss, when in reality a healthy level of aggressiveness and not asking the girl to kiss is all some guys need to start getting dates.
For example a
girl tells a guy, "You should of made a move",
the guy says, "I didn't want to scare you I respect you"
The girl than says: "Well I found someone else now"
So the nice guy who followed the advice from TV is simply saying, "Hey, this didn't work whats going on"
Funny thing is I think we agree on the generalities.
If you want something, go after it.
Don't do favors hoping to win favor.
Recognize that you have options.
Get out there and do something about it.
That's all good stuff. The bad stuff is assuming that you have to out-alpha the Jersey Shore to find a match. Different guys want different things from women. Different women want different things from guys. Your job is to find the ones that match what you want.
You can have the courage to get what you want without being an overpowering, disrespectful, infantilizing douche, you know.
And because I suspect you'll pick at this:
There is a damned big difference between being sad and hurt by rejection and asking the person who rejected you to explain in detail why they rejected you.
And if the rejected person acts angry, threatening, or otherwise tries to make their emotions the other person's problem–they are being entitled.
No gender here, BTW. Some women can and do have entitlement issues, same as some men.
That can happen, but that doesn't always happen, and the real nice are the ones who get used and lead on than dump and they don't say a word and keep living their life only to be used over and over until they learn they can actually demand things.
Same thing for nice girls who sleep with guys looking for love getting their bodies used than dump when the guy is done with her.
Your definition of "nice" doesn't match up with either the dictionary definition or the colloquial "Nice Guy TM" definition. So you're speaking at cross purposes and (I suspect) deliberately being obtuse about what definitions people are working from.
To imply that men with poor boundaries and abusive partners are the norm is HIGHLY dishonest, btw.
…hypergamy truths…
*heavy sigh*
I'm struggling to see what that has to do with…anything. Because while those are horrible things, you could easily find examples of the opposite.
What about the faithful woman who's husband of 10+ years leaves her and the kids for a "younger model?" Or the woman who knows her husband cheats on her, but who's been made to "dread" his leaving so much that she just puts up with it.
What about the girlfriends who DON'T need to put fake blood on themselves, because their boyfriends actually did abuse them? It wouldn't be plausible enough for a frame-up to work if the real thing didn't happen so freaking often. (Also, fake blood? Really? Because generally an arrest or a court case will require some kind of medical documentation.)
What about the girls who actually ARE gang-raped, who's attackers never see the inside of a prison?
It's not about a world where "only women are the victims." It's about people are just kind of awful to each other regardless of gender.
As for the suicide rate, that's an awful problem, and probably tied into the toxic idea that men can't or shouldn't seek help or be weak. That's still an attitude primarily fostered by men, both in media and in social interaction ("Dude, don't be a pussy."), though it's become ingrained enough in our society that some women do subscribe to it as well (although apparently according to you, some women subscribe to the Red Pill, which is just heartbreaking).
There's a guy at a performing arts company I work for who is a complete and utter waste of a human being. Cheats on his wife regularly. His mistress (or one of his mistresses) flies all the way across the country to be with him and he has her sit in his room all day because he's "hiding" her from the rest of the company, or she has to spend time in my department, since she used to work there and is theoretically here to visit us. He ignores her all day, goes out to party at night without her… Bottom line, he's disrespecting his wife by cheating on her AND disrespecting his mistress by treating her this way.
Should I take away from this (and from your own tirades) that all men are a waste of space who will cheat on you and mistreat you at every turn? Or should I take from it that he personally is a horrible human being and that I am incredibly lucky to have found my sweet, hunky guy who makes me tea and who I am pining over despite the current distance? I'm choosing the second option. And grinning like a fool every time I get a text.
I can link to a number of cases where men murder their wives and families (and often then kill themselves, too). Is it fair to conclude from this that this is what “men” are like and that it’s better to preemptively jab an icepick through their hearts because we can safely assume they’ll kill us if they get half a chance?
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
Hey, there's a lot of truth to "Guvmint gunna terk away our guns". Just look at all of the places that have enacted "Assault Weapon" bans. Look at the California SKS seizures. Look at the bans on importing surplus 7.45mm ammo. Look at all the places that say "no more than n rounds in a magazine". And, unlike women, Government largely is a monolith, so we can speak about it collectively.
As far aş İ can remember, the bana and restrictions only applied to new weapons. Those already owned were not taken away. For the assault weapons ban, a few minor cosmetic modifications (e.g. no pistol stock, no flash suppressor) and you were in the clear. And of course you could always just go and buy what you wanted in a gun friendly state (NV or AZ if you live in CA). Same with the magazines. Everyone I knew just mail ordered them. Have not been tracking the ammo issue.
Again, detachable mag SKSes in California. Look it up. There has been confiscation of guns as a result of an assault weapons ban in the US. This isn't a pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory, it's happened and it's evidence for "registration is the first step in confiscation".
A California resident cannot generally buy firearms in Nevada, particularly if he or she intends to take the weapon back to California.
As a former CA resident with many a barrel suckerl friend in CA I have to ask you to link an example of a gun being siezed independent of the commission of another crime. To my knowledge (and when I ask my barrel sucker friends), I have yet to see a documented case.
As for CA residents not buying guns in AZ, I play host to a damned CA buyers club during gun show season and throughout the year. I have seen literally hundreds of guns bought by CA residents in AZ.
Lastly, why are even talking about a largely ineffective (according to the many rants I have heard by aforementioned barrel suckers that it never really banned function, just form) federal ban that ended 10 years ago and is unlikely to be renewed?
If I walk into a Wal*Mart or a Cabella's here, there's lots of signs mentioning how they will not sell me a weapon. I think it's unlawful unless you are an FFL.
California still has an 'assault weapons' ban, and it still was the state that confiscated detachable magazine SKSes.
OK, your first link took me to this DNL article and the second took me to CA criminal code, but neither took me to a link that showed someone actually having a gun confiscated outside of the commission of another crime. Please link to a single case where a gun was confiscated from someone not also under arrest for another crime.
Don't go to Walmart or Cabelas. Go to places like Shooters World or Scottsdale Gun Club or other independent gun stores. They are FFL but do not recognize other states gun laws and run no risk of CA coming back on them because they have no business presence there. The feds do not enforce state laws so it is all on the up and up as long as you do not cross federal borders.
Funny that for someone who cares so much about gun rights that you know so little about them. I do not even own a gun and I know more about gun regs than you do. I would have thought you would also know some barrel suckers from your local range who would teach you all this stuff?
OK, Sparky, waiting for my ride share to finish packing so here you go. You asked somewhere for examples, so let's just run down some choices tidbits of the sluthate.com (a red pill site) glossary that treat women (and sometimes non-whites) as less than human beings:
face theory / face law / F.A.C.E.
The theory that face is most important and overshadows all other qualities when it comes to dating. F.A.C.E stands for "Face and Age Conquer Everything".
hump and dump
Having sex with a girl with the girl expecting a relationship, but instead of the man pursuing a relationship, he rejects her.
hypergamy
Usually refers to a facet of evolutionary psychology regarding women especially in regards to their sexual partners, preferring to marry above their league in either physical beauty or wealth.
(note: I get the "everyone wants the vest partner they can get" but this specifies that money and beauty are THE determining factors)
juggernaut law
If a woman is below average height, has wonky teeth, Dumbo ears, this makes guys feel like they have a CHANCE with her, as opposed to if she were more "perfect", less flawed. So this means that even girls that are AVERAGE and BELOW still have guys hitting on them. You can't stop a woman's dating potential. She is like The Juggernaut. If she is a single mum, then more guys will think they are being her prince charming by rescuing her from all the "other bad, bad men out there". She is UNSTOPPABLE. Any flaw she has JUST MAKES HER STRONGER in the dating world.
(brief pause for bouts of laughter)
LMS
(L)ooks, (M)oney and (S)tatus. Things that actually matter in dating things which have been studied by researchers.
(again with the implication that other things are not important)
provider game
Tactic used by men who wants sex. Basically the man jumps through hoops by going through multiple dates hoping that the woman will eventually reward him with sex. In a relationship he will support the woman financially or emotionally.
(rewards with, as opposed to engages in for mutual enjoyment)
slut
A woman who has causal sex with multiple men. Usage depends on circumstances, if the woman sleeps with the person than being slut means she was wild in bed, if she rejects the person it means she's hypergamous and a stuck-up.
(Not so much women related but holy fucknuts!)
yellow fever
A debilitating degenerative disease characterized by the unnatural attraction towards mongoloid creatures. Symptoms include: small phallus, low testosterone, short stature, weak facial bones, high voice, effeminate behavior, childlike brain, gracile bonestructure, head trauma during childhood.
Tell me again how there's nothing toxic here?
Red pill is not part of slut hate nor do we promote or allow any form of hate
Here is how Theredpill define things
"Hypergamy – The instinctual urge for women to seek out the best alpha available. This is marked by maximizing rejection (therefore women are the selective gender). A woman will vet her alpha through various shit tests to ensure his "health" on the alpha scale. She is conditioned to recognize a declining alpha, as hypergamy also tends to continue seeking out higher status males even while with an alpha male. Shit tests allow her to prepare herself for eventually leaving when a new higher status male is found. If the male fails shit tests to a great enough degree, it will effect her feelings for him. He will effectively lower his sexual market value in her eyes. This will enable her to jump to the next male with ease and little remorse."
Translation is don't get comfortable in a marriage, keep your looks and weight and career on track otherwise she could leave you for a better men.
Tag. someone else's turn.
Sorry man, all tapped out on the patience and sweet reason front.
I'm not sure sweet reason will be of much use, unless we are looking for him to demonstrate more of what's terrible about red pill while thinking he's making it look good. He thinks he's a proselytizing hero. I wish he could see how he really comes across.
I feel like I am chatting with ISIS supporters again. Actually, ISIS supporters complaints had a smidgen of truth since Noir al-Maliki's government did actually oppress Sunnis, so in comparison the proselytizing hero here looks even more irrational.
Nice part, though, his posts are perfect examples of everything that is illogical and wrong with the Red Pill malarkey.
The site he is quoting is not red pill, but sluthate.com, which the red pill has no affiliation with,
'Course not Sparky.
Yeah, but the one paragraph you did quote is so disgusting that I literally can't find the time to pick every bit of why apart.
@JustinJackson.
Sluthate has several threads marked "my friends tried to Blue Pill me" and including the terms "red pill". So it obviously talks about red pill/blue pill concepts.
But…that's still bull.
There are always people who will treat other people in relationships as interchangeable and only as good as their arm-candy potential. Hell, swap the genders around, and it could be the warning story a lot of girls internalize too–the story of the husband "trading in" for a younger model.
That has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the fact that some people are terrible.
Assholes, they do walk among us in every culture, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. To badly paraphrase Jesus, "The douchnozzles will always be with us"
So that's the red pill definition of hypergamy, eh? Well, then a lot of women I know are doing it wrong.
I’m obviously a little naive, but can you please define “shit test”? Because I can tell you, as a medical scientist, that I can test your shit for blood, to see if you have cancer; for the presence of pathogenic bacteria & parasites and for a variety of other signs of disease.
But I cannot ever remember testing for an iota of “alphaness”.
I’m also interested in what units “alphaness” is measured in. Is it micropenii/human?
I believe the units are Affliction shirts per misdemeanor battery charge.
Pfffffft. You're on good form today, Conreezy.
You think this is somehow better than what GJ posted? A post about how women are shallow and will easily trade up should someone "higher status" comes along? You don't see how this is incredibly offensive towards women? Seriously?
How do you not see this as offensive towards women, Justin, please explain it to me.
It seems like he believes that everyone is that shallow. I can't decide if that's less depressing or more.
Which suggest he is that shallow and (perhaps) his girlfriend is.
Have a link that examines some of these claims: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/20/ozys-anti-he…
Of course, seeing marriage as an endpoint of your personal upkeep will make both men and women decide to leave you, this has little to do with the dating marketplace.
@JustinJackson.
I'd be the first to point out the powerful role looks plays in relationships and how, why and when women like men and men like women. But what on earth are you talking about there? It's like you've read evo psych books and watched The Matrix too many times. Status and looks are both very important and can often make the difference but the view here seems to be that women aren't people and don't actually really care about the person they're with. And shit tests? Are we back in PUA nonsense land now. Shit tests were basically what PUA's rationalized women's behavior into when the women in question wanted them to get lost.
@GJ
"face theory / face law / F.A.C.E. "
They over analyze facial features on sluthate.com (I hate writing that domain name) a lot. That said, there is research to point to the importance of facial features in attraction and the often instant decisions people make about whether they find someone attractive or not.
"hypergamy"
I don't see any evidence for this in the outside world. In my experience, it does seem easier for women to date above their league than men but I don't see any mass movement of women ignoring certain guys because of their status.
" LMS"
Over used by the sluthate lot but backed up by research as being very important and often overrides other things.
"provider game"
No idea what they're on about here. I've never seen a guy use or talk about this as a strategy for dating.
And, unfortunately, on that site "slut" tends to refer to "all women/a woman" rather than it's definition in culture and society outside that site.
That site is very toxic and the hate and racism is insane. As is the trolling. It evolved from PUAHate which hasn't been seen for quite a while and I think we all get why here. Some people are justifiably angry at PUAs for selling them stuff that doesn't and cannot work. I get that. What I don't get is the trolling, racism, anger against women in general and the bullying of people they deem to be unattractive. It doesn't make any sense: they're upset because women treat them badly based on their looks. So they treat women badly based on their looks and bully other guys who they think of as ugly? What the F….
And sluthate does allow quite a bit of hate. The clue is in the name. Plus there are numerous references on that website to "going ER" and treating ER the shooter as if he is some kind of "incel hero" instead of a very disturbed person who tried to take his anger out on other people and unfortunately managed it for a while.
Unfortunately, you've not scratched the surface of how toxic sluthate is. I stand with some of the concepts of the Red Pill without the hate. But it should be made clear I don't support what's expressed on sluthate or other similar websites.
Welllll, the phrase "hump and dump" did put the Salt 'n' Pepa classic, "None of Your Business" into my head there for a moment, so I'd call that a tiny win.
Otherwise I got nothin'.
So, I can't help but wonder…How does red pill view Lesbians? I mean, damn man, that's a double-bitchslap to the critically endangered masculinity, no? Imagine, two women at once that can't be scolded for being insubordinate and tricked into a relationship with a man. How alpha do you gotta be the fix that, bro? Or do the gay guys that you don't need to compete with balance it all out, hmmm?
So misandrous they only go for women, I suppose(I haven't seen this one yet, although I have seen the "gay men are misogynist" equivalent).
Gay men are so misogynist that they become gay just to spite women?
As an addition to my last comment, this is another article that really reinforces the idea that masculinity as I see it should just die a swift and painless death for the sake of every one.
There's something seriously wrong if this is what manifests in it's wake.
It is just your typical neoreactionary thought (for cliff notes: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movem… and as such it is destined to fade into the margins of society (not that it is not already there since I bet less than 1 in every 100,000 people have ever heard of MRA, Red Pill, etc). I bet in 10 years this drivel will be looked at like advocating for a return to Jim Crow is looked at today.
You know a movement is marginal and possibly shrinking when they loudly proclaim they are growing.
I have never heard of that concept before. Intriguing. You're right, Red Pills fit it to a T.
Hello again everyone
I was browsing the internet and I saw this article, so I figured I'd pop in. I subscribed to The Red Pill some time ago, and while I think there's a lot of toxic and extreme ideas there, I agree with the gist of their content.
For example, there was an article today about Emma Watson, who has publicly exhorted society to change conceptions of masculinity.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2hb75…
And yet, she could not date a more stereotypically masculine guy if she tried.
One of the things TRP teaches us is that "words are wind," and that we should look at what people do, not what they say, for a clue as to what they want. It's one thing to talk about having the right attitudes and changing conceptions of masculinity. Yet the guys who get the sex are the masculine, muscular, aggressive dudes.
I mean, TRP is a lot more congruent with my experience than what I have read elsewhere, so despite its flaws, I'm going with what they say.
I'm sorry, dude, you lost me at "the guys who get the sex."
I am still trying to figure out why the looks of the man she is dating are relevant at all. There is nothing in feminism that says conventionally attractive women are obliged to only date men who are not conventionally attractive. That is more a MRA thing
Shorter MNG: "I can pick a tiny, irrelevant hole in Emma Watson's feminism! That means I don't have to listen to any of the other things she has to say! Phew, nearly had to challenge my own biases there. Close call, bros."
Now I see why guys in the various hate communities think feminists are the thought police – because that's how they think themselves. "She claims to be a feminist, therefore she must adhere to my definition of how feminists should behave!"
The point is that she's a woman who talks about how important it is to change concepts of masculinity. And yet she doesn't date a balding skinnyfat sensitive poet type, but one of the most stereotypically masculine men on the planet.
And that's what TRP tells us will happen: women will talk a big game about what they like, but the truth comes out in their actions. Your attitudes matter less than your status.
And that's what I observed, and one of the reasons I became frustrated with this forum: I got annoyed at people telling me that I didn't get sex because I (apparently) disrespected women. And yet, the men I know with the most successful sex lives are men who claim to treat women like objects and prizes to be won. Perhaps it doesn't help them, perhaps it doesn't matter, but the point is that if you want an attractive woman, you need to be an attractive man, not a feminist-friendly man.
So Emma Watson's burly rugby-playing boyfriend treats her like an object and a prize to be won, does he? And you know all this because, what, he plays rugby? This is such bullshit.
Now you're strawmanning me, I said that it doesn't matter what they're attitudes are, only their status. I'm still not convinced that being a "jerk" helps. But it apparently doesn't hurt.
But how the fuck can you tell that without any additional data? If you don't know anything about his attitudes, you can't identify whether it affects the outcome either for good or ill. And you seem to be concluding this guy is a jerk on the sole evidence that he is conventionally attractive. Sour grapes much?
How does this example prove it doesn't hurt? Is Matt Janney known to be a jerk? If not, all this suggests is that women may care about looks, athleticism, and other factors. That does't mean they can't also care about attitude and behavior.
My experiences with the "players" in my life have convinced me that it doesn't hurt.
You know what, forget it. The things you're saying make no sense and have no bearing on whether Emma Watson's speech was sincere or not, but you seem to be so far gone into this idiotic ideology that I doubt you have the capacity to see it. And they say women are the illogical ones.
Based on what you've told me about the people you socialize with, I have no problem believing that. Many of the women you know also sound like jerks, which makes them more rather than less compatible with men who are similar. There are other people out there. I suspect that you may not want to date them because it would require challenging some of your own ideas about what you're seeking in a partner, though. In which case, I don't see that as so much of an endorsement of the Red Pill as evidence that it's a philosophy for jerks who wish to remain that way.
So Matt Janney is a jerk then? Or is it just about his "status". His status as a college student who is only known for dating someone famous. Whose high-alpha status are we talking about, hers or his?
How do you know he is a jerk? You friends with him or something?
Oh right. I forgot you had some incredibly disgusting opinions about women. I shouldn't have engaged you. Sorry about that.
You know, there was a time I respected his struggle and his honesty. The change I'm seeing is not exactly an advertisement for TRP. It's actually pretty fucking scary.
Yeah me too. I felt similarly, but now just this little thread alone has really upset me. And I'm sure someone will come along and tell me to calm down or something, but shit, it really hurts reading such mean and nasty generalisations about women. It's hard to live in a world when you feel everyone hating you and thinking such awful things about you.
I'm getting a little of that, and a little feeling gross and pressured. I mean, apparently the only way I can demonstrate that I'm not the person described in the Red Pill nonsense is to go out and find the least conventionally attractive, least fit, and least employable guy I can find and parade him as a counterexample? If I care about anything except the jerk/not-a-jerk distinction, I'm suddenly chasing after alpha assholes and deserve to be treated with contempt? But for some reason men can care about a variety of traits in their partners and still be considered decent, reasonable people? Yeah, not much fun to read.
This. This so hard. I can't believe how disgusting and upsetting this is, coming from someone I previously rather liked.
That seems like some messed up psychology. "Women suck and the only way to prove you're 'one of the good ones' is to do things the way I want."
If that is how it works, then fuck being one of the good ones, ya?.
And there's something downright threatening about the corner women are being blocked into by such conversations.
It seems here that the premise is that because Emma Watson advocates changes to benefit men and women both in their general life, she is morally obligated to hand over her vagina to an extreme form of what she advocates. Any other choice is seen as condoning or even encouraging bad treatment of women.
And it's so enraging. Just because I believe in something doesn't mean I'm obligated to have sex with whatever man illustrates that belief system approved by his peers or shut up. Sex is not my only allowed tool for enacting or advocating change in the world, and this shouldn't change even if I was prettier, younger, and famous.
What is with this crazy obsession with how men look as the single marker of masculinity? It's almost as though the TRP notion of masculinity is simplistic and reductive. You have no idea what their relationship is like, in what ways he might be feminist, or how they negotiate these issues in practice. And as for status – let's be clear, she's dating down in status. I don't think TRP acknowledges that is even possible.
So if she was dating Ron Weasely, that would be because of his money and status, right? Its easy to draw a conclusion when you can make any possible option fit it. Its called non-falsifiable. Lots of other faiths use it, too.
@GJ.
That was kinda the unbelievable bit in Harry Potter. And one many fans objected to. It doesn't make a lot of sense even for fiction. It's not trying to make one option or belief fit. It's seeing what is there.
counterpoint: http://www.celebalerts.com/celebrities-with-ugly-…
(I kind of feel dirty even linking that, but none of the women in those examples are with those guys because they're "higher status" or whatever bullshit you think it takes for guys to date "out of their league")
Seriously, in either case Hermione would have been dating down. Harry might be the saviour of the wizarding world, but he's nowhere near as smart and capable as she is.
" And yet she doesn't date a balding skinnyfat sensitive poet type,"
…
You do realize that even a balding skinnyfat sensitive poet type can be a raging misogynist, right? I mean, that's basically a description of 90% of the m'ladying fedoras I've ever met. And that there are guys who are buff and butch who actually treat women like people, not objects, not pedestaled damsels.
Unless we're seeing something about her boyfriend treating her badly, then no, you're STILL showing all the flaws in the whole RP mindset. You don't know why she likes him. You're just assuming it's because of his looks. You don't know how he treats her, but you assuming, because he looks "stereotypically masculine" that it must be badly.
Which is just what so many whiny "Nice Guys" do–they see the guys getting girls and automatically assume that those guys are jerks because they have something the Nice Guys don't.
I'm a little horrified at the idea that for a woman to be a proper feminist, she can only date guys within a certain physical subset. That's gross and ridiculous.
My theory is that these geeks assume everyone gets the same number of character build points – so any points that aren't going into hotness must be going into goodness, or something like that. But there are so many conventionally attractive awesome guys out there, and so many physically unattractive assholes.
God didn't take the time to do balance testing on real life, it seems
I didn't say anything about misogyny, only that it's a nonfactor. Hermione has met tens of thousands of cool, respectful guys. What separates our lucky man from the rest is his muscles, looks, status, height, etc.
How do you know that? And how do you know that out of all the people she met he was not the most cool, respectful guy out of all the ones she met? And odds are she has met a large number of muscular, attractive men, given that she is an actress.
In addition, rugby player status in they eyes of the world and especialky in the US is far below actress in fame, wealth, career potential. On that traditional metric she is dating a lower status man.
And what about all of the uncountable muscular, wealthy, high-status guys that, as a high-profile actress, Emma Watson must have met over the years that she didn't end up dating? This current boyfriend must have had SOMETHING that made him stand out from the crowd of good-looking actors/athletes/whatever that Emma has gotten to meet. And I'm gonna bet there's something in his personality that cinched it.
Which, ultimately, is the point. You RP people just look at him and assume everything is about his looks. That's not to say his looks don't factor into it, but Feminism is in part about looking past the 2-D physical gender crap and seeing everyone as people first and formost.
For my second point: When, at any point, has there been any evidence that this guy acts like a jerk? YOU are the one assuming that he's a jackass based on nothing else but the fact he's an athlete. You are making baseless assumtions and then citing that as "evidence" that women like men who are jackasses to them.
It's way, way easier to meet a guy with muscles than a guy who genuinely respects women. I imagine it's approximately a million times harder in Hollywood. "Tens of thousands of cool, respectful guys" my left ass cheek.
I do wonder how Meyer knows so much about the men Emma met and the dynamics of her dating life and current relationship.
I'm guessing from the same place people on here "know" so much about the people Meyer has in their life and what they think.
Reading about it online.
I know what I know about Meyer from what he posted in the forums when they existed. He was pretty detailed about his friend circle, dating history, etc.
I doubt he has the same amount of detail on Emma's life.
You know what you know by what was posted online and filling in the blanks.
Meyer thinks they know about Emma's life because of what was posted online and in various magazines and filling in the blanks.
Neither side of this argument is in a position to write a biography about the other person in question.
Ah, false equivalence. Love it. Excellent choice of technique, could be improved in the execution. B+.
Well except Meyer actually said what his situation was directly. I did not extrapolate from reports on his life. So when he says what his situation is I have to consider him a reliable narrator. I do not think he has any direct communication with Emma Watson about her love life.
And why is writing online about yourself different from saying it on the phone or face to face?
Presumably Emma Watson hasn't posted first hand accounts of her dating life and her dating preferences, unlike Meyer.
You mean you think Emma Watson has talked extensively about her social life and community with Meyer? Because there's a big difference between conversation and reporting, particularly Hollywood reporting.
This is a bizarre assumption, especially if you know anything about her dating history. She's had at least two boyfriend who were not muscled or athletic looking at all.
I'll come flat out and say the ex-boyfriends were fairly rich… but then again, so is Emma. She's a world-famous actress who went to an Ivy League school for heavens' sake. Of course she's going to end up dating someone who is either good-looking, rich, or incredibly smart-she's all 3 of those things, and her entire social circle is dominated by those types of folks, both men and women. It's as ridiculous as claiming a male millionaire is shallow because he doesn't date truck-stop waitresses; even imagining that he'd ever meet one he clicked with, what are the odds they'd have anything in common?
The situation you describe with the truck-stop waitress is probably a bit more common than you might imagine. An owner-operator could easily be a Millionaire, and given that both would have a background in the transportation industry I can imagine there being a lot in common as well.
That's twisting the hypothetical, though. Madonna and Jennifer Lopez date their backup dancers, and I don't think anyone would be surprised if Emma dated a guy who worked on movie crews or who was an obscure musician.
If you want to play Marty's hypothetical straight so that it's a comparison to the odds of Emma Watson dating whoever people think she ought to be dating, it would be claiming that a handsome male hedge fund owner was shallow because he doesn't date truck stop waitresses.
WOW!
Holy freaking crap, really? REALLY? You just…you know that for a fact, then, huh, that she didn't choose to date this guy because she likes him as a person, but because of muscles, height and "status."
She's an internationally known actor. You do realize of the "tens of thousands of cool, respectful guys" (yeah, I'm sure she has literally met "tens of thousands" respectful guys), a lot of the men she was meeting are actors? With higher "status" and "looks" or whatever…
ugh, no, I don't even…it's so gross trying to talk about this like you can mathematically quantify why a person is dating.
You said PLENTY about misogyny, just not using the word. You're implying that to prove that she's a good person and a Real Feminist, she should be dating an ugly guy. Not a decent guy, but an ugly one. Because literally ALL YOU HAVE TO GO ON in this scenario is looks. Why do you assume that this guy isn't a cool, respectful person? Or if she meets two cool respectful people, to justify her feminism, is she required to date the less good-looking one?
All of your crap "status" calculations are bull. It's genuinely horrible disgusting. I thought you were bad before, but holy cats, you became exponentially worse. I don't know what you look like, but on the inside, you are a pretty hideous person.
The conventionally unattractive hurting poet has been a part of masculinity models for centuries, I think.
There are plenty of feminists who claim, on some level, that conventionally attractive men are obligated to date women who are conventionally unattractive. Look at the complaints about 'fat shaming' or 'body shaming'. Look at the complaints about the 'cotton celling' amongst trans advocates. Look at the feminists telling men that they are obligated to support their partner's careers in the name of equality.
I think you're half hearing the message but twisting it around. I think there are plenty of feminists who think our cultural standards of beauty are narrow, and it would enliven and better society to expand them a little bit. I think there are plenty of feminists who think that men who choose physical attractiveness over any other criteria in dating are <missing out——– shallow——-mock-worthy>. But I have yet to come across a feminist who says a man should date someone he has absolutely no attraction to.
Furthermore, there is already a very heavy cultural lean towards telling women to NOT have standards; that women should "give a guy a chance" regardless of her attraction level to him, that a woman should prioritize "shared values" and "compatibility" over all other things, and that if she doesn't she deserves no pity for having a hard time dating. I don't see feminists dishing out anything worse than the gender-swapped equivalent; you're just getting a taste of the medicine we've been swallowing our whole lives.
I also think it's worth noting that about 95% of the body shaming and fat shaming discussions don't involve dating at all, but instead focus on not calling people names, not offering condescending advice, not stigmatizing fat people for going to the gym and then wondering why they're fat, maybe making some decent-looking clothes in their sizes, and so on.
I guess if you think that the only people who deserve decent treatment are ones who might have sex with you, asking for fat people to be treated with basic human dignity could come across as trying to control who you date.
"stigmatizing fat people for going to the gym"
People do that? But, that doesn't even make sense!
Yes, people do it all the time.
Yeah they do. I nearly came to fisticuffs with some people more than once who were making mooing noises and saying some pretty awful stuff at an obese friend when I was exercise buddying with her.
That sounds terrible… and worse, deeply illogical. What exactly is an overweight individual supposed to do if both working to improve their athletic ability and doing nothing are both mocked?
I honestly think the answer is "not exist, or if they insist on doing so, hide themselves away so the mocker doesn't have to look at them."
Pretty much.
And it really is awful. My poor friend always ended up on the verge of tears (eyes filled up) and I was getting to the point where I was going to lose my temper, so we finally did what the jerks wanted and stopped exercising after 5:30 am. so it was just us and our local homeless population (who I prefer to the jerks) out and about.
The cultural idea you describe is very much applied to guys too, at least as far as physical beauty is concerned.
The thing I'm not seeing is a push from feminists for women to marry down. To marry a man who has less money and status than they have. I haven't seen anyone from the feminist side tell college educated women to consider men who work in the skilled trades, for example.
Funny, I've seen plenty of it. In some circles it's considered rather offensive to say you'd like to date a man who has a job.
What are these circles? Bohemian hippie burner circles?
College-educated liberal people in their mid-twenties to late thirties, particularly ones where many of the people are unemployed or underemployed. (I think I've mentioned what I do for a living. Are you extrapolating a Bohemian hippie burner from that? If so, I'm not insulted, but I am pretty amused.)
No, I know you're a lawyer, but you didn't mention they were circles *you* traveled in! I was taking it as circles you were aware of. I'm just baffled that people would think it is unreasonable to want a partner to be self-sufficient (not that it's wrong to not care about that either!).
Fair enough, though I did get a bit of a laugh thinking about myself hanging out with burners in my bun and my cardigan!
I can actually understand both sides of the argument, though not the amount of pressure that's in my specific circles to not care. On one side of things, the lousy state of the economy means that a good number of bright, interesting, capable, hard-working people are living at home with their parents and working part-time or looking for work. On the other side of things, the lousy state of the economy means that a lot of people who are working full-time can barely support themselves and their student lenders, and aren't in a place to try to plan a life together with someone who may be unemployed long term. There's also the issue that many people in that age bracket – I think men are worse about this, were brought up to pursue careers and don't have the sort of skills that could be helpful to a couple in other ways (I routinely complain about men doing this, but women struggle as well, I think as much because of the shift from homemaker to stay-at-home mom as from second-wave feminist rejection of these skills).
Yeah, I see both sides as well, but individuals shouldn't be shamed for preferring their partner be employed or for not caring if their partner is employed. I don't think we should shame people who have trouble finding full employment, but I take it that in these circles people are seeing wanting a partner with a job as shaming unemployed/underemployed people?
Essentially, yes. The mild version of it is recognizing that many of us have been unemployed (this includes me) and that for many people it's not a permanent condition and doesn't necessarily affect someone's ability to be a good long term partner. This is fairly widespread among certain circles. There's a stronger version about the futility of seeking work, but that's mostly exclusive to the particular individuals who aren't working.
Linda Hirshman explicitly tells high-achieving women to do this. I've seen it elsewhere too. The data also suggests it's your best odds of finding an equal partner. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean the message isn't there.
(Also: PhD married to BA.)
MS married to high-school diploma here. But then he makes more than I do, so on second thought I'm not sure if we count.
On third thought, I think we do, because he didn't actually start making lots of money until after we were married.
"The thing I'm not seeing is a push from feminists for women to marry down."
Really? Because it seems like the dominating social narrative since the days of fairy-tales has been "take what you get" and all that jazz.
http://media.giphy.com/media/DawfVSvDn4qmk/giphy….
I've seen it TONS. In fact I saw it on a Jezebel article just a few days ago, and the comments were filled with women who encouraged other women to stop having "shallow" and "superficial" standards like a guy with a college degree or, say, a job. The suggestion that you are a feminist but want a guy who makes equal or more than you do (and has similar educational credentials) will get you yelled at on most sites I've been on, feminist AND non.
Hum. It is a common idea in the feminist circles I follow to disregard both employment and education in men and focus more on their willingness and ability to shoulder an equal share of household/childcare/relationship responsibilities and for women to be supportive of their partner's desire to be stay-at-home or part time workers. I think this is becoming an increasingly common topic as women's educational attainment outpaces men's and stay at home dads become more common.
In fact, of my US/European/Canadian/Antipodean friends/acquaintances that are 50:50 male:female 2:3 women earn more than their partners and/or have a higher "status" job and stay at home dads outnumber stay at home moms by 3:1. And, come to think of it, almost all my single female friends picture a partnership where the man is full or part time stay at home.
Go work in theatre. Plenty of college-educated women marrying carps and stagehands there.
Guys always trot this "But feminists are trying to force me to date fat chicks!" argument. I see very, very little of that on the feminist sites I hang out on, including ones that heavily focus on the issue. You can not be attracted to someone's body without shaming them for it. Most of the discussions about shaming relate to the ways people talk to and about fat people, which isn't much of a burden for conventionally attractive men.
As for men supporting their wives' careers, I would say that if you marry a woman who wishes to have a career, you do indeed have an obligation to support her in her goals just as she has an obligation to support you in yours. If you don't approve of someone's goals, you probably shouldn't marry her.
The cotton ceiling debate is a very difficult discussion, but it's one that doesn't involve men at all, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.
Wait, the term 'cotton celling' only applies to lesbian trans women?
I see this same reasoning all the time when it comes to straight men and straight or bisexual trans women. "Oh, you're reluctant to court a trans woman? That makes you a transphobe! Even if you fully respect them and their gender identity professionally and personally" is a common attitude as far as I can see.
That is the only way I have ever seen that term used. Do a google search for it if you don't believe me.
I have seen those discussions relating to straight men before, though it seems to be a less commonly raised issue and doesn't come with a label. I have also seen similar discussions about straight women and gay men dating trans men. This is certainly something you'll run into in circles that talk about feminism, because it relates to intersectional feminism and social justice, but I think it's very awkward and inaccurate to paint this as feminist women telling men who they should be attracted to.
I’m trying to take a break, but this is batty enough to pull me out of lurk mode.
Explain to me the logic of “feminists try to bludgeon me into going along with what they want, therefore it’s totally cool when I do the same in reverse”. If you don’t like how they do something, doesn’t it behoove you to hold yourself to a higher standard?
How about: The feminists are quite right on (most) of this issue and we should question what we are attracted to. They should also ask the same of women.
There's a very substantial strand within feminism that discusses that frequently. There's also a strand that focuses on how women have been historically pressured to deny sexual attraction and should be more free to acknowledge what they want. Whatever side of things you come down on (I'll admit I'm right in between), at least the discussions are going on.
Are the people you describe as "we" (I'm not sure who you're including in that group) having the same conversation?
There are strands of feminism, particularly those focused on POC that ask people (men and women) to question what they are attracted to to identify unconscious (or conscious) bias. So if someone says "I am not attracted to $race/ethnicity" or "I am only attracted to $race/ethnicity" they will be pushed to question why. It is gender neutral, though.
"Fat shaming" doesn't really have to do with dating, it has to do with not mocking people or, well, literally shaming people for their bodies.
" Look at the feminists telling men that they are obligated to support their partner's careers in the name of equality. "
Um…what does this have to do with anything?
I think he's just listing things that make him personally uncomfortable.
[Look at the feminists telling men that they are obligated to support their partner's careers in the name of equality.]
So men should undermine their wives and gilfriends careers? But then you have guys complaining that women expect men to support them and that were greedy and lazy?
So basically we can't win. If want support for our careers were somehow hurting our husbands/boyfriends, if want them to support us were lazy and selfish.
So, guys should sacrifice their own careers for their wives and girlfriends, but must still always be providers? Similarly, there's no way to win.
How about people choose partners whose idea of work/life balance is compatible with their own, recognizing that as time goes on, they may both need to make sacrifices for each other?
Why would you have to sacrifice your career? Last I checked both people in a relationship can work.
Now if your partner is pressuring to give up a job you love that's not cool. Same if partner is giving you hell for staying home with the kids, that's also not cool. But these are things that need to be worked when they come up, not hard and fast rules for life.
This is not an either/or thing. Both partners support the other's professional decisions and each sacrifices on occasion to support their partner's professional life.
@rebootl730.
They're not strictly speaking relevant but there is a point here. She is currently dating a good look. She is of course free to date who she wants and it shouldn't really be a topic of discussion but the guy she is dating is basically your stereotypical good look, masculine guy. It's not that women are obliged to date anyone. They can date who they want and you can't find nature. It's just true that the most successful guys with women tend to be the masculine, good looking, cocky jock type guys.
That doesn't undermine anything Emma Watson said or suggested. It's just interesting to look at because it shows that the stereotypical good look, masculine, cocky guy is the guy who gets someone like Emma Watson. Not the more feminist guy.
should say fight nature not find nature.
But think of her social circle. As an actress she is going to come into contact with more above average looking people, so I do not see why it is surprising she is dating someone who is better than average looking. Most performers at her level are in relationships with people that are better than average looking, regardless of gender.
If she was a man would you feel it necessary to comment that he was dating someone who was more attractive than average?
@Rebootl730.
"If she was a man would you feel it necessary to comment that he was dating someone who was more attractive than average?"
Look, the dating lives of two people I don't know are not my business. But yes, in a general discussion, I would comment.
Emma Watson can date whoever she wants to date. She needs neither my permission nor my approval. Same with anyone else.
How do you know he is cocky? How do you know he is not a feminist? Or are you just assuming that he's an arsehole because he's better looking than you?
Apparently. Also, I supposed, because he got a hot, high status girl.
Huh, apparently he is a languages major at Oxford with a focus in Russian and a student, not a pro player: http://www.ourfc.org/PlayerProfile.aspx?ID=5696
So not exactly your stereotypical "dumb jock" and not exactly going into or in a high status profession
Yeah, did you guys miss the bit where he is a college student and isn't a professional player at all? That's part of why this argument is so ridiculous.
ETA: He is tipped to be good enough to play professionally though, and he has just graduated, so maybe?
And can probably read Chekhov in the original….
Rrrowr!
*siiiiiigh*
Oooh, linguists…
@rebootl730.
Serious question here: you meet the world's most physically ugly guy but he can read Checkov and is all intelligent and the like. Is he a dating option for you?
Again, serious question. Not saying anyone here is shallow.
How's his hygiene and is he a jackass?
oh ffs. You know what? My last boyfriend had a giant zit on his face – like, I'm talking the size of a dime – the night I met him, and I wanted to date him instantly. Other than the zit, he was average looking.
Similarly, there's a I guy I hang out with now, and he's really offing cute, and our personalities seem to be 100% compatible, and … nothing. Just not happening.
Looks =/= attractive =/= attraction
Attraction is not a predictable thing, so 1) your question is useless, because whether or not any of us would be attracted to this "most ugly guy" is not a thing any of us could know, even if we saw a picture, and 2) the question is not fair, for the same reason. You're asking women to either step into your trap of "aHA women aren't willing to commit that they would attracted to someone I consider too ugly to date, sight unseen, so it's impossible that anyone could actually be attracted to this hypothetical man!" or else declare, untruthfully, that we would. Unequivocally. Be attracted to. A man that we know nothing about. Save that he is "ugly".
Oh yeah, I've definitely dated (and slept with) guys I found physically unattractive because he had extremely attractive non-physical attributes. Speaks more than one language, super smart… Yes please.
Me too. One of them was even… short, fat and balding. It was some of the hottest sex of my life and I'd go there again if he weren't married.
Are we going off your definition of "ugly"? Quite possibly yes then.
Dunno if anyone was around for my forum-rant on this topic but… I have gotten rafts of shit from friends and acquaintances for pursuing guys who are "too ugly/weird/awkward/fat/etc for you" Which baffles and pisses me off because I'm usually going "YUM" while looking at/chatting up said guy.
I like what I like and it's not always conventionally attractive.
I know I don't exist in Trix-universe, but just putting it out there.
That's the problem, too. I mean I agree that there are certain traits that are generally considered unattractive, but by and large, not everyone considers the same thing to be hot. I have a friend who's only ever dated (and is marrying) skinny, nerdy types because that's what she likes. Me, I like a strong pair of shoulders, but I am easily swayed by impressive intellect (even when attached to balding hook-nosed men) or a sweet smile and strong morals. I mean the guys I've slept with are so all over the map that even I can't identify a type other than "I want that".
Yum
I'm going to note that Emma is 24 and has already graduated from college. Dating a guy who's a couple years younger and who's still studying kind of goes against the general cultural narrative for a financially successful working woman in her age group, doesn't it?
@rebootl730.
He may be an amazing person who feeds the homeless on the weekends. All great. Not why he's attractive to women. At least not in general. Some women may find those things sexy but they are the bonus to the looks. It's attraction not social stuff where you decide whether you like someone based solely on their personality. It's attraction. You have to fancy them. Physical attraction might not be the only thing but it has to be there else no date.
You know, I actually agree that, generally speaking, people have to find a romantic partner physically attractive to enjoy dating them. (Where we disagree is what goes into creating that physical attraction.) But I find it absurd that you would suggest that this is the only deal-breaker.
Sure, someone who's smart or generous or feminist or whatever may not be able to get a date with someone who finds him physically unattractive. Has it never occurred to you that people might also refuse to date someone who they find physically attractive but who doesn't meet certain personality criteria? Surely there are women you find physically attractive but whom you find incompatible in other ways?
I don't personally know even one person who would date any man or woman they found physically attractive, regardless of any other characteristic. Every person I know also requires certain other traits before they would want to date someone. It might be intelligence, or generosity, or feminism, or all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with looks.
In my experience, physical attraction has to be there, but so does emotional attraction. Just physical attraction without finding the person's behavior or personality appealing tends to fail just as much as just emotional attraction with no physical appeal. So even if we can reasonably say that Watson wouldn't be dating her boyfriend if she wasn't physically attracted to him, there's no reason it couldn't also be true that she wouldn't be dating him if he wasn't intelligent, or if he wasn't feminist, or if he didn't treat her considerately, or a gazillion other criteria that might be just as vital to her as his looks. To assume that his looks are the primary consideration, and that there either are no other real considerations or all other considerations matter significantly less, is a statement without basis and also rather insulting to her when you know nothing about her romantic priorities.
"Every person I know also requires certain other traits before they would want to date someone."
Same here. Hell, even if the standard is people who I'd sleep with rather than people who I'd date, I'd at least need "not an idiot," "not a jackass," and "not a total bore" to be on the list with physical attraction.
The guy isn't that big or good looking IMO, and I'm as straight arrow as they come. Just saiyan.
Apparently Trixnix and Meyer know him personally, given how they seem to know so much about his character.
@rebootl730.
There's no indication that he's a feminist. And I'm not saying I know him personally. But look: he's the stereotype of a good looking, masculine guy. Doesn't make him a bad person or her a bad person for dating him. But it does show what's attractive to a woman like Emma Watson and points towards why men often seek to ape such guys. Because they're the ones who are most often successful with women in my experience and the experiences of a lot of guys.
So a Russian language degree from Oxford is part of the stereotype of a typical, good looking, masculine guy? He seems to have more than looks http://www.ourfc.org/PlayerProfile.aspx?ID=5696
@rebootl730.
No, the looks he has are the stereotypical masculine jock looks. He may be an amazing guy. It's the looks that make him popular with women. The other stuff may well be an attractive bonus here but this is attraction. She has to fancy him.
No, but you said she was dating him INSTEAD OF a feminist guy. And that he was cocky. You have absolutely no evidence for that, you are assuming that he's a sexist, boorish, abusive idiot based solely on the fact that he is good-looking. Utterly ridiculous.
@embertine.
No, I'm actually basing that on having hung out with good looking rugby players quite a lot but I do admit I don't know the guy and he could be anything personality wise. It's just that in attraction, personality doesn't really matter until the looks test has been passed. You have to fancy your date. Whether you like conventionally attractive people or people others wouldn't touch with a barge pole, what makes it a date is the looks element.
@embertine.
Hunky, masculine looking sports players (and I know a fair few) tend to be cocky. It's also unlikely for him to be a feminist. You don't get too many male rugby playing feminists. Though if someone does have evidence he is a feminist, fair enough. I'm talking likelihood here. Have you ever been out with a lot of rugby playing men? They don't, on average, spend their nights discussing wollstonecraft.
Oh! Have a data point!
My ex played rugby at the university level. Totally a huge feminist–as in working on the sexual assault prevention program on campus, highly pro-life, sex-positive, you name it.
He's also the kind of man who makes off-color jokes all night long and probably reads as a "bro." Appearances can be deceiving and all that.
Also, to head you off: RugbyEx is not conventionally attractive.
Wait, "highly pro-life"? I thought that the feminists took any concern over the ethics of abortion to mean you want to control women's sex lives. Did you mean "pro-choice"?
Ah shit yeah, that's what I meant.
And sidenote: Prolifers are totally allowed to be "concerned" about abortion's ethics. I won't take them seriously until they demonstrate a decent understanding of biology AND the difficulties that pregnancy/having a child brings.
There are feminist pro-lifers.
Now that I think about it, I haven't really noticed there being much of a type when it comes to guys who walk the walk when it comes to being feminist (whether they call themselves feminist or not). The sort of dude who loudly tells everyone about his feminism tends to be in particular social niches that reward those behaviors, but I know guys who actually seem to live it who are athletes, blue collar workers, Christians, and all kinds of other things that don't fit with the stereotype of the male feminist.
" It's just interesting to look at because it shows that the stereotypical good look, masculine, cocky guy is the guy who gets someone like Emma Watson. Not the more feminist guy."
Holy balls, what? Did you just basically say that Emma Watson's boyfriend can't be a feminist because he's good-looking and masculine?
For the love of little green apples, what is WRONG with you.
Here's a thought–Emma Watson is dating him. That is pretty much we know about his personal life, but it seems to be a pretty good indicator that he is probably a freaking feminist.
Ugh. So gross.
But thatthat, she might talk a good game about feminism in public, but we know from Trixnix's copypasta diatribes that what women say and what we do are two totally different things.
I bet once she gets home and close the door she puts on a pinny and lovingly bakes him muffins while he trashtalks her and sleeps with her friends, because of course she does.
P.S. DO love little green apples.
@Embertine.
I never said any of that. There's no evidence he's a feminist. She's dating him because she finds him physically attractive and that's all fine and dandy as her private life is her business and she's allowed to date whoever she wants within all laws etc.
Whether he is or is not a feminist is likely to have no impact on her dating him. Women and men often date people who don't share their views.
And yes, people say stuff and then act differently. Hence the saying "actions speak louder than words". I'm not saying that happens here. Just that it happens in life.
So you know for a fact that she's dating him because he's good-looking, and that his personality or behaviour have nothing to do with why she loves him? Trix, you need to get through your head that Emma Watson's taste in men does not support your view, no matter how much you're trying to argue that it does. This is not the data point you think it is.
@embertine.
As far as I know, Emma Watson has only ever dated stereotypically good looking guys. Either on the male model end of the spectrum or on the masculine jock end of the spectrum.
And love is different.
You don't date people because of their behaviours. You don't date them because of their personality. You date them because you fancy them. You may like their behaviours or not. You may like their personality or not. But in attraction, looks is the important test to get passed. It's what makes the difference between friend and lover. If Matt was dog ugly, would Emma be dating him? Probably not. That's no slur on Emma or Matt. It's just common sense reasoning.
"You don't date people because of their behaviours. You don't date them because of their personality."
…
In the immortal words of Pa Grape: You just don't get it.
No wonder you have no luck.
"There's no evidence he's a feminist."
A strong, intelligent, outspoken feminist woman is publicly dating him. That doesn't automatically give him a Feminist Card, but it does make it more likely that he IS a feminist than not.
"She's dating him because she finds him physically attractive"
THIS! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?! You keep saying this! You have no IDEA why she is dating him? Is she physically attracted to him? Probably, but so what–she's around a lot of attractive guys all the time. You know nothing else about this guy or their relationship, but you IMMEDIATELY bank on the idea that she's dating him because he's hot.
Do you not see how disgusting that is? How you just strip her of intelligence and agency by not only jumping to that conclusion but consistently defending it as the Only Logical Answer?
That's sick, man.
Considering you DON'T know what's likely to impact why most women are interested in the guys they're interested in (since the only women you seem to know are the ones who are interested in jerks), your statement that his attitudes probably have no impact on their relationship is ignorant as hell.
Yes, people do sometimes date outside of politics or what-not.
But I think you can be darn certain that Emma Watson would not be dating a guy who did not respect her as a human being. WHICH YOU SEEM TO BE INCAPABLE OF DOING.
(And before you say: "I didn't say anything disrespectful of Emma Watson." Dude, this whole conversation you have been nothing BUT disrespectful and dismissive of her, by just deciding that she's apparently only into a guy for looks with no other criteria than: A) He's hot. And B) She's a feminist. )
@thatthat.
"A strong, intelligent, outspoken feminist woman is publicly dating him. That doesn't automatically give him a Feminist Card, but it does make it more likely that he IS a feminist than not. "
With respect, no it does not. My former friend was a very staunchly feminist woman. Who dated a man who treated women like they were a piece of meat. People date people whose politics they don't necessarily agree with.
"THIS! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?! You keep saying this! You have no IDEA why she is dating him? Is she physically attracted to him? Probably, but so what–she's around a lot of attractive guys all the time. You know nothing else about this guy or their relationship, but you IMMEDIATELY bank on the idea that she's dating him because he's hot."
Yes, she's dating him because she finds him hot. That's what attraction is. He may have loads of other things going for him but if an ugly guy turned up with those same qualities she likely would not be interested. That's not a slur on Emma. You can't fight nature. You need to fancy your date. It's kinda the point.
"Do you not see how disgusting that is? How you just strip her of intelligence and agency by not only jumping to that conclusion but consistently defending it as the Only Logical Answer?"
It's not disgusting. She likes a guy's looks so she dates him. How is that disgusting? It doesn't strip her of anything. She may like lots of other things about him. But you date someone because you fancy them. If she did not find him physically hot would she date him? Probably not. That's not disgusting. That's just life.
"But I think you can be darn certain that Emma Watson would not be dating a guy who did not respect her as a human being. WHICH YOU SEEM TO BE INCAPABLE OF DOING. "
We can't be certain of that. I wish we could. The amount of guys I know who treat women like a piece of meat and yet get with them consistently. I am respecting her as a human being. Mostly by not trying to pretend she isn't one. Human beings date people they fancy.
"(And before you say: "I didn't say anything disrespectful of Emma Watson." Dude, this whole conversation you have been nothing BUT disrespectful and dismissive of her, by just deciding that she's apparently only into a guy for looks with no other criteria than: A) He's hot. And B) She's a feminist. )"
He's hot. She's dating him because she likes him physically. That's fine. That's what people do. She may like other things about him too. Great. All fine. But she's with him because she finds him hot just like any man is with his date because he finds her hot. That's the bit that makes it a date. It's attraction. It's sex. Not afternoon tea.
Okay, this has moved beyond frustrating into straight up gross. You ave your heels dug in on this. You are completely married to the idea that this is the be-all-end-all.
You date a PERSON. Do looks factor into that? Sure. But so does LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS PERSON.
You say that if he weren't hot, Emma wouldn't date him.
Now, you have no evidence of that beyond the way the (frankly horrible) people in your life have behaved and your own skewed perspective of it–a perspective regarding women that literally every woman here is telling you is flat-out-wrong. But whatever, you've sunk your teeth into that idea like a terrier, presumably because it gives you, I dunno, anti-hope. Like your dating failures aren't your fault because Looks.
But he's not just A Hot Guy. He has other qualities too. It's as likely to say that if he weren't smart, Emma wouldn't be dating him. That if he weren't kind, Emma wouldn't be dating him. That if he weren't a feminist, Emma wouldn't be dating him.
I mean, it's all a hypothetical, but dude, how can you not realize how utterly disgusting it is that you're hinging everything on Looks, as if that is the BIGGEST AND ONLY THING that people in a relationship can care about.
I mean, really, from the very beginning of this, you've been pretty gross, but you are seriously committed to the idea that Emma Watson is a shallow person who primarily cares about looks in the person she's dating (that she probably doesn't Love, according to you).–of course, no disrespect to Emma, of course. Just, y'know, BLATANT DISRESPECT.
Here's another thing–just because you say "no disrespect intended" doesn't mean that the stuff you say isn't actually disrespectful as hell.
GROSS.
I also wish to speak up in favour of little green apples!
Hey, I think I've picked up a dedicated downvoter of my very own!
Yay! Join the club enail! We have chocolate cookies
I made them last night.
This is a good club
Minor baking derail – this weekend I am making both Somerset apple cake using apples from BFF's garden, and pumpkin pie using pumpkin from my garden! WE ARE WIZARDS!!
In other news, The Pumpkin was ridiculously perfect and has been made into an evil catface lantern. My cats are terrified of it, which means I'm like an artist or something? I dunno.
I'm making a hot buttered rum apple pie this weekend!
Apple baking fistbump.
I want to make hot buttered rum full stop.
I completely agree with all of this, but I would have +1'd just for the phrase "for the love of little green apples".
@thathat
No. I didn't say he can't be a feminist. He may be. There's no evidence he is or isn't. Emma Watson dating him is not at all an indicator on whether he's a feminist. Women (like men) often date people who don't share the same views and ideas.
Emma's dating life is not our business and she should never receive hate for her choices or her views. It's simply true that the good looking, masculine, hunk type guy is the guy who is successful with Emma Watson. The type of guy that is, in the experiences of many, successful with women.
"Emma's dating life is not our business "
And yet YOU'RE the one who brought it up.
You're using incomplete data to support a faulty hypothesis. You're not overtly giving her "hate" per se, but you're implying that there's something insincere with either her feminism or with feminism in general only because the one thing that you know about her current boyfriend is that he's attractive.
You have problems, man.
Argh, meant to up vote :/
We also know he's a college student at the #2 university in the world, the kind that can afford to pass on mediocre students even when they're 'hunky'.
Also, 2 minutes of googling reveals that he has a very successful older sister in the fashion world, and both were raised by a mother who balanced a law career and child-care after their father died from cancer when he was young. And apparently after their mother died when he was 16 from cancer, he still managed internships, schooling, and rugby with a spotless record.
So while I can't say 'feminist', he has the setup for a guy who is respectful of women with high-powered careers.
And he speaks multiple languages and has coached youth rugby teams abroad.
Come to think of it, it would be weird if he wasn't feminist.
Have any of you guys noticed that Matthew Janney isn't actually all that exceptionally physically attractive? I mean, sure, he's big, and he's handsome, but he's no Matt Bomer or Ryan Gosling or Hrithik Roshan. I can think of a bunch of ordinary, non-athlete male graduate students who I've talked to in the past year or so who are way hotter than him. Watson, on the other hand, is an exceptional beauty even by Hollywood actress standards. She could probably date a whole bunch of people who are more attractive, wealthy, famous, and high-status than this dude is– indeed, probably guys who are all of those things at once! So I don't think that Emma Watson dating him makes the "all women are hypergamous bitches who just want handsome/high-status guys!" point very well at all.
He's a type. Not my type, but a couple of my friends would lose it over him and think I was crazy for not seeing it, and he was apparently voted most eligible bachelor on the rugby team or something by his classmates.
That being said, Emma Watson is very attractive, worth about $60 million, apparently very smart, famous, and having been a child actress has been fetishized by millions of men as she's grown up. If looks were the only thing that mattered to her, she could just hold a casting call, pick the most attractive aspiring model from the horde of fans who would show up, an be done with it. And you're right that she could also probably date any number of handsome, wealthy young actors. Instead, she's dating a college student.
And a college student in a field that will never earn that much. Russian majors are not exactly going to rake it in.
Yeah, he's alright. Doesn't freak my particular brand of peaches, but I get it.
Emma Watson does for me what her boyfriend does for you, so I think she's dating up.
Now, take this with a grain of salt since I'm a hetro guy and all, but given the same choices that Emma Watson has had, I would stay true to the book and go for Rupert Grint. Nothing wrong with a little bit of Ginger Spice in your life -_^.
And there's the problem. Sex is something to get not something to share with a willing partner. I'm sure this had no bearing on why their relationships didn't pan out.
Wait, what? She's dating a rugby player so everything she says about feminism is bullshit?
[Church Lady]How conveeeeenient.[/Church Lady]
For all you know he cries at Disney movies and wants to be a stay-at-home dad. Think you might be finding an easy hook to hang your existing prejudices on there.
@Embertine.
He may be an amazing person. She's dating him (i.e not seeing him as a friend) because of how he looks because that's what attraction is. If you don't fancy your partner then you'd be unwise to date them. Difference between a friend and a lover is physical attraction to the person.
It doesn't invalidate anything Emma Watson said about anything. It's just that the stereotypical, masculine guy is the guy who is, in the experiences of many people, the most consistently successful with women. PUAs model and try to ape them. Dating advice teaches guys to be like her boyfriend. Etc
So she's not dating him because he's smart, or funny, or nice, or anything like that. It is literally just because he's handsome? You have a sad, twisted, and utterly warped view of human relationships and I'm happy to say they don't reflect me or anyone I know. I feel sorry for you.
@embertine.
She may like those other qualities. They are unlikely to be the deciding factors because we are talking about sex and attraction here. It's a date not friends. You need to fancy the person you're dating. People get rejected because the person they asked for a date doesn't like them physically. I don't like this world anymore than anyone else does but it is the world. People date people they fancy. Physical attraction plays a huge part in who gets with who.
An ugly guy she doesn't fancy comes along with all those good qualities she likes about Matt. Does she date him? Probably not. Because she doesn't like the ugly guy physically. That doesn't mean she's some shallow bimbo who only goes for looks.
It's that you have to fancy your date for it to be a date.
Your experience is not universal. When I'm attracted to someone it is a combination of physical traits and personality. There is someone I'm very interested in at the moment. He is very cute (which to be honest makes me a bit nervous – he's far better looking than I am), he's also really sweet, I don't know if he'd call himself a feminist but seems to tick all the boxes, gives really good hugs, makes me laugh and listens really well. When I first met him I kind of noticed he was cute but that was all. It wasn't until I noticed all the other things about him that I really like that I realised I was attracted to him.
Likewise, I think at least some of us here *raises hand* has walked away from a really physically attractive guy because he wasn't smart/kind/interesting/a good match in personality.
Yeah you know how people say they have celebrity crushes like on Ryan Gosling or whoever. Generally its actually crushes on the characters that they play. If Natalie Portman did not play Jane Foster (conventionally attractive, curious scientist) she would be less attractive to me. I think Chris Evans is totally hot and if I was a woman I would totally want to date him, but I only thought he was really hot when he started to take up the role of Captain America. When he was the human torch, yeah he looked like a supermodel but I would never say I wish could be like that. His performance and face was totally forgettable back then.
Yeah, I literally did not get the big deal with Evans until, like, Winter Soldier. Even then, though, most hot actors fall into a "that's pretty to look at, but that's all" thing for me. Except Charlie Day. Would totally date him (though, yeah, mostly for his roe as Newt).
A movie star is dating an athlete. Call the presses. A typically seeming feminine beautiful woman is dating a typically seeming masculine beautiful man, news at noon!
And what about the rest of us, what about kleenstar who consistently talks about how despite how sexy she finds her husband he is less conventionally attractive than her? What about me who pretty much always says the same thing? Further what about me who is dating a guy who loves dancing and musicals, things that are coded typically feminine? I do believe both kleenstar and I are also feminists. We talk all the time about not being happy about gender norms, are our words but wind? What about all those other famous women who date very not typically masculine men, men like the glam rockers of the 80s, and writers, and dancers? And why aren't masculine men allowed to date? Are you saying that only when masculine men can't get dates will things be good? Why is it someone must do without in any version of folks' reality?
Words are wind maybe (not really but whatever) but totally ignoring facts does not mean they aren't there.
We've talked a great deal, and your experiences reflect this kind of thinking in part because you are very status and appearance conscious yourself and have at least in the past surrounded yourself with others who are similar. I also think that many of your experiences may be going through a filter of your own expectations and that you may sometimes be interpreting events in ways others would not.
But if this makes you feel happier or less anxious or depressed, I'm glad to hear that you're happier or less anxious or depressed. Has it? Has it improved your personal life?
I think it has helped. I have more friendships with men and women alike, and I am generally happier and less anxious than before.
I think that before, I used to wonder why women didn't give me the time of day despite that I approached them with a friendly, open attitude. TRP helped me realize that it was because I'm not high-status or "alpha" enough to enjoy success with them. I come from with arguably the lowest SMV race (in America), my body isn't much to be proud of, and I've been diagnosed with what used to be called "Asperger's Syndrome." That's a pretty unenviable position.
I think a lot of the "be yourself," "be confident," "be respectful/feminist-friendly/kind/etc" advice that many people give give presupposes that it is an attractive man doing all of those things. For a romantically unsuccessful man, it's really frustrating to hear that kind of advice (particularly when it runs counter to your experiences), and I think that hurt me. A lot.
When I came to TRP, they dispensed with all of that, and they showed me hard truths. And it felt good to get that stuff out in the open, and realize that status and power matter the most to women. And the corollary to that is that we can attain that status and power, and consequently become more successful with women.
Disgusting. Utterly and completely reprehensibly disgusting. I guess it's nice you have "friends" now who share your horrible view of women, so that's something. But seriously? "Status and power matter the most to women"? I guess I should be happy that you are safely ensconced in this community that I don't have to worry about ever meeting your type in person.
I don't think I am ever more insulted than when I visit here. I decided to register etc because I really liked so many people here and how smart they are, but I don't know if it is worth the anger and depression that is caused when I read such nasty things about what I supposedly want and am. It makes me unhappy for days, affects my interactions with people in my day to day life. I am starting to realise that it is not healthy for me to visit here anymore. I used to find it a place of good conversation and complex thought, but now I'm realising how these evil horrible trolls just manage to take over every thread. Even the seeming thoughtful intelligent ones. Which is actually scarier to read when such posts are made by people who should know better.
I am not a horrible person because of my gender. I do not make the lives of men more difficult because of my outrageous desires and demands. I do not manipulate or deceive. I do not give a fuck about power and status. All I have ever wanted since I was a young girl was kindness, intelligence and a sense of humour. And my dating life has reflected that (not that it should matter but I almost always date someone who has less status and money than I do, and it doesn't bother me one bit).
So I'm going to take a break from this place and spend time in the real world with men and women who are kind and hilarious and supportive and don't believe any of this poison. To those of you here who are awesome, please keep being awesome and fighting the good fight. Don't let your voices be drowned out by irrational hateful people. I have mad respect for you all.
Take care of yourself. We'll miss you!
Aw… I want to bake you a pie, and somehow shove it through the keyboard. Take care.
That never turns out well
I was never as regular a poster as you, but I feel the same way. Many cool voices, shouted down by the same rampant bullshit, copy/pasted over and over into eternity.
I feel like we should make them a shield. Bullshit rampant on a field of oh-man-i-need-some-brain-bleach?
Thank you for all the great advice and insight you've given here. All the best to you.
If you're happier and doing better socially, then I'm glad to hear of it.
I will say that I've met a number of men who subscribed to that theory in graduate school and who later became fairly frustrated when they either attained status and power and still didn't attract the kind of women they wanted to date or when they did not attain as much status and power as they'd thought they would. But that's something that I think you'll probably need to deal with when you're done with school.
Yeah, I know it's not a cure-all. But that's where the other parts (exercising, social interaction, wardrobe upgrade) come into play. Put all of those things together, and my options improve.
So … exercising, dressing better, and learning social interaction skills are threatening when DNL suggests them, but you're totally on board with them making your life better when they're embedded in a community that makes totalizing, hateful assumptions about women? Nice work, dude. Don't complain to me when the only people willing to date you are just as manipulative and borderline abusive as Red Pill asks you to be.
I just wish that DNL didn't talk as much about feminism, politics, and issues he has with the geek community.
So when you're looking for practical advice, you'd rather it come with a side of ideas that even you label toxic and extreme rather than with a side of feminism, politics, and geek-related issues? Okay then.
Yes, I can tell it's very hard for you when you're asked to treat women as people. You might "get sex" with that attitude but I look forward to the hilarity that ensues when you try to form a loving, lasting relationship.
TRP talks about feminism and politics, just about the other side of it.
Dude, that is straight up unsettling, that the meat of advice is the same, but you rather it come from the group that advocates treating women as a lesser species than someone who actually respects women.
When I was here, I got sick of having people tell me that I had toxic and horrible attitudes about women when I didn't. You guys tarred me with that brush months before I ever heard of The Red Pill.
When I did hear about it, it was through Reddit threads hating on it (the Streisand Effect I guess), so I took a look at it. And yes, it had its share of asshattery and stupidity, but aside from that, they had some reasonable and useful things to say.
I think that at some point in the future, you may want to think about why toxic statements about women aren't as triggering for you as being told that some of your own attitudes are toxic. But you don't seem to be interested in doing anything along those lines now, so there's no point pushing it.
If you're coming at this from a "you guys pushed me into the arms of the Red Pillers by not accepting all of my views" standpoint, then I'd say it might be time to head back to whatever your usual forum is. I don't think there are many people here who will sign onto the idea that men need to be given free passes for saying toxic or sexist things lest they become frustrated with the criticism and find environments that accept and affirm those thoughts.
@Eselle28.
I know from experience how hard it can be when this site denies stuff that you see every day in real life. That's not an excuse for hate or toxic stuff and it doesn't mean the experiences of people here are wrong. Just that in real life, a lot of stuff happens. I see the good looking guys who don't care about women consistently being successful with women where other guys who don't act like that aren't successful.
Of course that's a biased perspective on my part. Of course it's not going to match the experiences of a lot of people here. But it happens.
Having your beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions challenged is uncomfortable. I cosign what eselle28 says about maybe in the future reflecting on why toxic statements about women are OK with you but having your own attitudes questioned gets your back up. Now is not the time, but maybe one day think about why you cling to beliefs that made you so unhappy in the past that you sought us out in the first place
Well, I thought about it. After reading more of TRP, I can't bring myself to go there anymore. They have so much hate for women and people of color that I started to dread reading their stuff, so I unsubscribed. And while I found women frustrating to deal with, I never hated them or saw them as subhumans.
So I don't think DNL is the place for me, but I don't intend to go back to TRP.
That said, I am disappointed (but not surprised) with DNL for opposing #GamerGate so strongly. And I don't expect to change anyone's mind here on the matter, so I won't go into the reasons I decided to support #GamerGate. But I will say that nothing filled me with more pride than talking to my fellow nerds and geeks on /r/kotakuinaction.
I suppose it might be comforting to associate with people whose views are more hateful and vile than yours ever were, because you get to feel like a decent person by comparison. Sadly I think most people are shaped by the communities they choose, and given the trajectory between when we last saw you and now? I don't think there'll be much of a discrepancy for long.
Just try not to rape anyone while you're at it.
Christ.
If Meyer is equally uncomfortable with my comment, then awesome! Maybe he'll understand why the way he talks about women is so disgusting. If he doesn't like being told what he "really" wants or how he'll "really" behave, or being judged by the worst individuals of his gender, then perhaps he'll stop doing it to others.
… nah, probably not.
So this is some sort of socially acceptable negging?
Interesting stuff.
Well, mostly I'd rather he didn't end up being the guy in the story. Getting him to reflect on his own behavior would be a bonus.
Not that I think he's likely to take anything I say into account, what with me being female.
It seems strange that you'd go down the victim route and claim you're being nice when you posted about looking forward to the hilarity when said person goes to "try to form a loving, lasting relationship." an hour ago.
How is she taking the victim route? How is she claiming she's being nice to Meyer? Words have meanings.
"Not that I think he's likely to take anything I say into account, what with me being female."
Classic victim mentality.
Yeah, bored of you now. Bye! Hopefully you'll be banned by the time I get back.
She's not victimized by that, nor do I think she's claiming to be. It's not as if not being listened to by someone she doesn't like on a message board does her harm. It's a sarcastic jab at the contrast between his views and the fact that he's trying to talk about them with women, a group of people whose opinions he gives little credit to.
"I hope you don't commit a crime, traumatize an innocent human being, and compromise yourself morally" is nice? Okay then. I guess I was being nice.
I'm pretty sure kleenestar's not trying to date Meyer. Also, my understanding of negging is that it's supposed to involve an ostensible compliment, so you may need to revisit your PUA vocabulary list.
Do "I can't believe how disgusting and upsetting this is, coming from someone I previously rather liked." and "You know, there was a time I respected his struggle and his honesty." not fall into that?
Those statements are your idea of compliments?
Liking and respecting them? Yeah, probably.
"I used to like you, but now I don't," is not a compliment. It's one of the harshest things that could be said to someone. If you don't get that, there's a lot about human interaction you don't get.
I'm done now as well, and will revert to hoping you continue to "go your own way" somewhere other than here.
Oh, little troll, you are adorable. Keep trying! Perhaps someday you will understand how human beings speak to each other!
"I got sick of having people tell me that I had toxic and horrible attitudes about women when I didn't. "
So…you went out and got some?
Seriously, dude, just because you don't want to believe that you have some seriously toxic attitudes towards women and dating doesn't mean you don't. Sorry if that hurts to hear, but you still do. It's horrifying.
Meyer used to insist that all women are racist (preferring the whiter the better) BTW. Not sure if he still believes that, but that was one of the reasons people got on his case.
I actually think that Meyer is trying to describe something true – we all grow up in a stew of messages that whiteness is both the most desirable and the norm. This is shitty and needs to be dismantled! But I'm not willing to accept toxic ideas like "let's blame all women" and "all women react to these messages in the exact same way" and "women do this but men somehow don't" as the price of admission. I know plenty of feminists who do anti-racist work who don't expect me to put up with awful, toxic beliefs as the price of entry.
This is a good point. I think in some of those conversations, there was also a bit of not distinguishing whether we're talking about "whiteness is the most desirable" as the message that we all receive and are likely to all be influenced by in some ways, or as a fact (or at least as a message that all people or all women accept as truth without variance).
I feel like he was using that as much or more as an excuse to not examine himself as he was merely stating an extra challenge he will have to deal with.
Um, Meyer, you were making vast generalizations about how women are unwilling to consider guys who aren't white, muscular, party animals, etc. from your very first comments here and in the forums. Just because you hadn't heard of The Red Pill at that time doesn't make those kinds of comments/attitudes not toxic, or mean people were being unfair to call you out on them.
I wish I had a winning Mega-Millions ticket. It's nice to wish for things. Issues surrounding the geek community – especially in the way women are treated – are directly related to dating issues. A fundamental inability to understand or empathize with women and the attitude that women are your opponents is a strong indicator of why people have issues in their social lives.(Act like a dick, don't be surprised when people don't want to spend naked time with you.)
@DrNerdlove.
Except, that's not always how it works. Plenty of people I know are complete dicks to women and end up being very popular with women. Of course that's not all women or how it works always. But why is discussion of it when it does happen so easily dismissed?
The guys I see, in my experience, being successful with women don't view them as the enemy. But they don't sympathize with them either and they are certainly not feminist in nature. Why then do they succeed so much? Why do they often end up being not just popular with women but the most popular with women out of a social group?
Women are not a monolith and everyone is an individual with their own likes and boundaries. It's just that many of us (myself included) see these guys being successful with women and we wonder why. You're obviously the person who decides what gets discussed here and what doesn't so are we allowed to discuss why these guys who treat women like crap often end up being so successful with them?
Why is it that you only hang out with guys that treat women like jerks? How is it that you do not know a single man who is successful with women without being jerks?
I know men who treat women like jerks and are successful with some women and others that treat women like jerks and fail with women. I know men who treat women as peers and friends who are successful with women and others who are not. I also know women who fit into all the above categories.
How is it that you have such a narrow range of experience where you are the only non-jerk, especially at your age?
@rebootl730.
Because life is life. We have different lives. I've rarely met anyone who treats women really well who is successful dating women. In fact it tends to be the other way around. Most of the guys I know who treat women well are single and have been for a while. It's not a narrow range of experience either. I've moved around a lot and met many people. It's unpleasant but this is life. My life anyway.
Given what you have said here about Emma Watson and Matt Jenney it seems like any couple you see where the guy is attractive you assume he is a cocky boor who treats women badly. I wonder how much you know about the couples that you see since you seem to prejudge the men's behavior based on their looks.
You have presented 1-2 examples of men who you know treat women and you badly , what about all the other couples you know? Please detail specific behaviors of men other than the guy who calls you fat and the other guy who dated your friend where they treat their partners badly?
I feel that you are tarring all attractive men with the jerk/cocky brush because of your experience with bullies.
@rebootl730.
It's natural to default to previous experience until presented with further information.
Good looking guys tend to be the ones who treat women badly. Not always the case of course. It's a trend not a universal and usually it's safe to assume that since it happens so often. Same with men.
I am privy to some other examples and this will look like an excuse to some but most of those were told to me in confidence and I don't feel I can openly repeat them here.
@rebootl730 Actually, I think Trixnix's attitude is extremely toxic and I'd be surprised if women aren't picking up on it. When I first started reading here I thought he seemed like a respectful sort of person that I'd be happy to date – now, not so much.
I have absolutely no doubt that that's a huge factor. There's no way he can have these kind of views (and not just have this kind of views, but constantly insist that they're not disrespectful at all), and interact with a woman in anything even leading up to a dating scenario and she doesn't pick up on it.
*Seriously*! What the F#CK has happened with him?? He first seemed respectful, friendly, engaging and actually open to discussion (instead of insisting his personal experiences are clearly the universal truth and NO he does NOT have cognitive biases in how he perceives and interprets things and he'll now prove that to us by giving us textbook examples of his cognitive biases) (and also use some of the most illogical "logic" I've ever seen).
It's been like a slow motion train wreck here with Trixnix's inner Edward Hyde apparently coming out to play.
Because, I suspect, you are looking at only specific groups of women and ignoring all those who don't fit either your dating criteria or your bias.
Not all women are feminists. Some women actually have quite an aversion to it. So, men who are not feminists would be more successful with them. Same for jerks: there are women jerks. Women jerks aren't scared off or grossed out by men jerks; they are in fact compatible. If you are only looking at women-jerks or anti-feminist women, then no wonder you're going to find that men-jerks and anti-feminist men do well with them. It's like me complaining that all the men in my Young Republicans student group only go out with women who are anti-abortion.
You also seem to, if I may speak frankly, model your dating ideas off a much younger crowd. Younger women date far more jerks than older women do. Why is that? Because younger women are far more easily manipulated, bamboozled and inexperienced, thus making them easy prey for jerks.
I say this having been a young woman myself, and it's fairly common knowledge. Women, because of gender socialization/gender roles/inexperience, are much less likely to be able to spot jerks, and know to steer clear of them. We're raised on a culture of thinking jerks are just wounded, sensitive souls deep down, and they just need to love and acceptance to be healed… love and acceptance that you, Young Woman, are expected socially to provide. (Because the woman's job is care giver, the "better angels" of morality.)
Honestly a whole book could be dedicated to this topic (and is; self-help dating books aimed at women are filled with tips and long advice pieces pointing this out), but at the end of the day, you're still demonstrating enormous bias by demanding to discuss it, instead of trying to examine and wonder if your belief holds up in all scenarios.
You say that you believe women aren't a monolith, but then turn around and say "But clearly good looking* jerks do better." You don't examine why that might be beyond "Good looking" (aka women are shallow) and "Guys are jerks" (without actually examining what "jerk" actually means in the contexts you're observing it.)
I said this in an earlier thread; RP points out over and over that "jerks" do better with women than "nice guys." But their definition of what is a Jerk and what is a Nice Guy seem completely alien from how the rest of us would describe someone. A guy being assertive and actually asking out women is a Jerk in RedPill land, when in Regular Personland, that just makes him… a guy who asks people out. So when you say you see "jerks" succeeding with women, please be very, very specific about HOW you see them being a jerk, because what you label "jerky" behavior may actually just be normal.
I'm going to throw this out there then walk away, kind of like a hand grenade:
let's take it as read that being a dick or not is immaterial to your dating success. That is to say that being a dick works and so does not being a dick. Which kind of person would you rather be, a dick or not? Which kind of girlfriend would you rather end up with, one who's attracted to dicks or not?
Can you at least be specific? The women YOU want are the ones to whom status and power matter. The women who YOU find attractive and judge to be worth pursuing are the ones who are attracted to that. Please, please stop laying that at the feet of the rest of us.
There are some of us-I'd even say plenty of us-to whom "status and power" matter not a drop, and THAT'S what makes RedPill so damn insulting… that it assumes negative, shallow, horrible traits about all of us because they decide to laser-focus on a select few women that they deem to be representatives of us all.
This. I can't decide whether I'm more insulted that Meyer thinks he knows that I want status and power, or that I don't count as a woman. Either way, it's a severe dick move.
In certain circles status and power matter to some women just as youth and beauty matter to some of the men in those circles. Those seem to be the circles you identify with and like, so if it works…. Besides, those are the markers you need to cultivate to have a good arranged marriage (which you are still planning, right?). Status and wealth tend to weigh heavily in those negotiations in my experience.
Like Marty, I just wish it wasn't extended to all of us.
Oh me too. But over the years I have learned that arguing with fanatics and the holders of bugfuck stupid beliefs has a threshold of utility that once I pass it just raises my blood pressure.
We are essentially arguing with people who believe us to be liars and manipulative, so nothing we say even registers. We just get to win the argument in the end because the evolution of gender relations is with us and against them
What's hilarious is that the best research study I've seen (national sample, large data set, etc.) says that people tend to pair up with people of similar levels of status, wealth, and power. In other words this whole business of "women want status and power" is a delusion. Men and women alike tend to date people who are similar to themselves in this way. What shifts is that during the course of a marriage, male resources grow and female resources shrink, so after a while it looks unequal. But when people choose partners, men and women want the same things.
I do think there's something people are seeing when they say that. The cheerleader goes to prom with the quarterback. The actress dates the athlete. The investment banker marries the fashion writer, who is only able to be a fashion writer because her parents could pay Manhattan rent while she was doing unpaid internships at magazines.
I think what they're missing is that it's not hypergamy. They're focusing on women who are themselves very high status, generally because power and status are things that matter a great deal to them. In some ways it seems like a handy way of outsourcing your own values by attributing them to the other gender as a whole.
Also it's the invisibility of female status. If it doesn't look like their assumed-male norm, then status doesn't count.
Oh, you know, that's true. Though it seems like status gets denied either way. The fashion writer and the actress aren't assigned status because it doesn't look like the assumed-male norm, and I think that's a general social invisibility of status. But when I see people with the hypergamy views, they both ignore that sort of status and don't give any credit to the status of women who have traits associated with high status men – women who work as doctors or CEOs or who are aggressive and ambitious are told these traits are irrelevant or unattractive to men and that men of similar status would rather be dating 19-year-old students. (I'm not saying these things are true, but that's the message that comes from these sources, and I'm wondering if it's either a purposeful or a subliminal attempt to deny women the possibility of having status).
I'm really sorry to hear this (not the part that you're happier and have more friendships, I'm glad of that). There's another world out there that, from what I knew of you on the forum, I think you would like, even though it would mean changing some beliefs that you have decided you'd prefer not to change.
But how does TRP affect your actions and attitudes? Outside of the dramatic "we have lost another one", what concrete changes have appeared in how you treat chicks? What have you done that this community would frown upon other than embrace a paradigm that conforms with your social circle and thrown out generalizations we consider sexist and problematic?
Heh, it doesn't really affect my actions, I think. It has motivated me to increase my efforts in my work and in the gym, but that's about it.
But it does affect my attitudes, I guess. It matches up with what I saw IRL. I like the idea that good attitudes and respect make a difference with women, but it just doesn't fit with my experience. And that's essentially what TRP is: how to get laid. Let me quote some people from the thread:
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: TRP isn't about changing women or the world. It's not even about criticizing women. It's about understanding them.
If women were out there fucking the pasty-white math nerds, then every thread on TRP would be about how to learn calculus.
I honestly don't care if women like tall guys or short guys or confident guys or shy guys or smart guys or dumb guys. Women can like whatever they want. But having learned that women like tall, confident, alpha, badboys – I resolve to change my behavior. I am conscious of my posture so that I look at tall and confident as possible. And I exhibit other behaviors that make me more attractive."
And regarding the Emma Watson affair, I'm a bit annoyed at people strawmanning what I had to say about her. Taken from the thread, it sums it up better than I can.
"The point of this post is that WHILE she dates alphas, she is also being disingenuous in telling men that "being alpha doesn't matter! let down your guard!"
Many inexperienced guys fall prey to this; they think that by becoming "supportive allies" and by following what women say (speeches such as this), that women will respond to them and like them.
However, reality is that women TELL men to be vulnerable and to "redefine masculinity" because that maintains womens' beta orbiters. Then they go on to date the same alphas they would in the first place."
Jetset's gonna jetset, but assholes don't score on assholishness alone, and the dating market place, as you define it, isn't a single shop. Hell, redefined masculinity and not being an asshole don't have to overlap. Just look at some of the nastier self-defeating snark thrown around by the Schwyzer/Clymer types, and see how it fits the paradigm of alpha domination.
I mean, you can be a supportive ally while being a cheeky dick. Listen, then snark at the source of the problem(see how that shit happens in this very thread when it isn't simply condemning you?). If you do a favour, toss in some teasing and calculate how she can make it up to you in a manner that she likes(loves to cook? Bribe me with food! likes to dance? Let her show you around the best venues etcetera. Needs to complain about an ex? Great, now let her winggirl whenever you like a dudette). Take charge, observe your surroundings, and above all, be adaptable in your framework(read different dating philosophies and pick 'n mix).
But women are out there fucking all kinds of different guys, not just tall jocks and they are doing so for all kinds of different reasons. Hell, most of the hot women I know have never slept with an "alpha" type and I work with show girls and dancers. And who says that personality-wise Emma Watson's boyfriend anywhere near TRP misogyny? He might be the sweetest, most respectful, submissive guy ever, we don't know either way.
Seriously, you're using TRP as an excuse to hate on women. DNL offers the same type of advice in terms of presentation, but you pooh-pooh it because it comes coated in respect instead of scorn.
The only positive thing I picked up on in my brief time browsing various "Red Pill" forums and Facebook pages is the concept of ghosting.
It is definitely the only community that I've come across that even gives an idea or concept like that the time of day, nevermind actively discusses it.
I'll probably regret this, but I'm curious, and Urban dictionary gives so many definitions I can't even begin to guess which one you're talking about. What is ghosting?
The near-complete withdrawal from society. I just find the concept fascinating, particularly the cross-section of people participating in it and their reasons for doing so.
That definition's got a lot of others competing for the word – I didn't even see that definition before I gave up, if it's on there. I think the Japanese term, hikikkomori, is clearer, although I'm not sure if ghosting has the shame 'shut-in' connotations or not.
"Shut-in" is probably the closest insult in regards to ghosting. Unfortunately for the person using it, most "ghosts" aren't around to hear or read it so nobody gets offended or emotionally hurt.
Whoops, sorry, typo, I actually meant it doesn't have the same connotations, not shame – comparing the nuances of the two words, not whether one is more or less insulting than the other.
The broader concept is one that's often treated rather less than kindly, but I wouldn't say that any of the three terms are necessarily an insult so much as neutral labels for a situation that some people would look down on.
I heard someone use the term "ghosting" in a dating context. The way she used it, it seemed to mean suddenly disappearing from the person you were dating without a trace. Which sounds similar to "flaking." Not completely sure what the difference is, or if there is one.
http://www.xojane.com/sex/how-getting-ghosted-fin…
Meyer, I agree that you should look at what people do not just what they say. The trick is to look at what people do from their point of view rather than projecting your own fears or desires on their actions. Everyone has the natural inclination to judge others on what they do but to want to be judged on their own intentions. So if someone says they really want to spend time together then doesn't return your texts for a few days they might not have been interested, they might be trying to keep the power in the relationship, they might have just been really busy.
I'll also say that I do pay attention to what people do and that paying attention and understanding those people is often why what they are doing is me.
I'm quite worried that, for a site that supposedly focuses on helping socially-awkward men, that the issue of the emotional abuse this woman's father is put under by her mother is not being addressed.
Because if anyone here fits the profile for a victim of domestic and emotional violence by one's couple, it's precisely this group of people, who don't have the emotional maturity nor social skills to fend off for themselves.
It seems that you are a little bit too worried about the damage they can do, and ignoring the possibility of damage being done to them by their potential couples… this being a glaring example of sweeping the issue under the rug.
The LW asked about helping her brother. That's what we're focused on. Several people have pointed out that the parental situation is abusive, but the odds of either of them addressing that are slim. My goal is to help them both walk away from it with the healthiest possible futures (and the fewest number of rapes committed).
And for the brother to seek therapy to address the bad effects of growing up in an abusive household.
If the dad wrote in we would talk about abuse.
I've got to admit I was a bit disappointed the problematic thinking behind "our father allows my mother [to] abuse and manipulate him" was not called out by the Doc. I mean, I can just taste the toxic belief men allow themselves to be abused instead of being "real" victims.
I personally would have made a footnote or something pointing that out, since I do recognize it was off topic, and I do recognize that there was enough stuff about red pill to write about to fill an entire bookcase, and some stuff had to be cut.
But hey, I'm not the doc (spoilers!)
It's not only that: I have seen no articles, no posts, no comments made about men in abusive relationships in this blog, unless they are the abusers (or potential abusers).
Though this is my personal experience, the men I know have been in abusive relationships on the receiving end of the abuse do fit the socially awkward profile, and in the three cases they were their first girlfriends.
It’s like people don’t know that the search function exists.<p style=”color:#000;”>
Please, refer me to the article because I honestly didn't find anything of the sort.
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2014/06/men-in-abus…
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/relationshi…
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/06/post-mortem…
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/ask-nerdlov…
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/boundaries-…
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2014/02/ask-dr-nerd…
I got all of this by plunking "abuse" in the search bar. Did you even do that?
"My goal is to help them both walk away from it "
"Both"? Who are "both"? The siblings? What about the father? Is he lost forever? Is he where he's supposed to be?
If you're concerned about the father, I think it's justified, but that it's also one of the things that the LW has the least power to change. It's difficult to help other people change their relationship dynamics, more difficult when the person being advised hasn't sought help, and getting close to impossible when it's a child trying to advise a parent. The brother is a relative peer who seems to be looking for guidance, making it far more possible to help him. This isn't a gender thing. It would be equally difficult for a child to try to persuade his or her mother to end a relationship – I know this, because I know people who've tried.
If you're concerned about whether the brother is currently being emotionally harmed by his parents, I would agree that his sister should see if that's still happening and if there are ways it can be minimized. That part is hard to address specifically, though, because we don't know how old these siblings are or their living circumstances. For instance, if the brother's living at home, it would probably be best for him to work on finding other housing. It's hard to give those recommendations if we don't know whether the brother is a 17-year-old student who can't move out, a 21-year-old who could, or a 30-year-old living on the other side of the country from his parents.
This site hasn't focused on helping socially awkward men for a while now, as 90% of the commenter and reader base is made up of people who aren't (at least one of) those two elements.
Are we now going to delve into some minute "I'm more socially awkward than you are" competition where people try to explain why they count but other people don't? It's bad enough when we get into nerdier-than-thou fights.
No interest in that whatsoever.
And yet here you are.
I don't follow in the slightest.
Last I saw I was replying directly to a question by eselle28. What did I do to warrant the presence and acknowledgement of Dear Leader?
You commented on his blog, dumbass.
Oh wait is this douche gone? oops.
Hi! I'm a socially awkward man, and I find most of the stuff on this site — even recent stuff — useful in some way, even if it's, at times, a somewhat indirect way.
Really Wisp?! How can you possibly benefit from things that aren't 100% about you, catering to your potential hurt feelings and blaming everyone but you? </snark>
I'm not really sure what you expect us to do about that. The sister was the one who wrote in, not the Dad and while I think it would be a good idea if he got a divorce that's not something we, or the LW have any control over. If the LW has a good relationship with him she could recommend he go to therapy, but once again she can't force him, and even a therapist can't help him if he doesn't want to be helped.
Address the issue of emotional abuse where men are in the receiving end? I thought it was pretty obvious from my original post that I was refering to this blog's content and their readers, not to whatever you can do for that person in particular.
Also worrying in this thread, it's that whatever reference to the father are mentioned, it's to the potential damage to the brother of the writer. As though as he was already gone, or didn't matter. Now, I'm sure that for many in the readership he doesn't, but, again, if this is a blog that is supposed to be about guiding men in relationships, and specially those without a backbone nor social skills (like this father), this seems like a good occassion to aboard the subject.
Again, if that was what this blog was about
eselle28 made a post listing several articles focusing on men in abusive relationship. You can find these articles by using the search fuction.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. The blog is trying to help guys, the blog does do give advice to men in abusive relationships. Saying that it doesn't is, well a lie.
And what do you expect us to do about the father? We can't force him to leave his relationship, we can't force him to get help. Heck the brother getting might inspire the father to do the same, but in the end he's the only one who can choose to end his relationship, no one can make the choice for him.
The one reason that that didn't strike me as out of place is that it isn't up to kids to fix their parents' relationship issues. That sounds callous, but I've found that it ends up uncomfortable for everyone. LW's parents have been married for years (presumably) and the dynamic has been set. The amount of damage that has been done is probably way beyond the scope of a blog to deal with. LW is better addressing her own issues and helping her brother with his nascent issues than she is getting between two people who have chosen to stay in something toxic for so long.
Good to see this place hasn't changed too much.
Well, this whole thing has left me thoroughly exhausted.
Adherents of this RP bullshit: you are going to choke on that red pill, and when you do no one will be around to perform the Heimlich.
It’s a path that will leave you emotionally asphyxiated in a desert wasteland.
You are not fooling anyone. You think you are brave and strong; but you actually scared and very weak. And boring.
You’re like that poor bloke at the casino slot machine who thinks he has a “system”. Except your words and ideas are so…inhuman.
Luckily, many (most?) people around you are far stronger, light years more intelligent and will see you coming from a mile away and will know well enough to STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM YOU.
That sounds awfully childish and not helpful at all. If you start with the premise that you want to help people steer off from things like that, insulting them and antagonizing them isn't going to get anywhere.
This is kind of disappointing.
First, my post disappeared before I had the chance to edit; I meant perpetuators, as opposed to adherents.
Otherwise, I stand by what I said, rant-y as it may be. I would say something very to similar to holocaust deniers.
You can't change the world. If assholes won't change, I can at least clear them out of my circle of influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNc45FTenhg
Nada Surf – Popular. Kinda sums the whole thing up…
I was reading the red pill manifesto thing that was linked and while most of it made me roll my eyes, some of it made me overtly laugh. Like the fact that education is "now" mostly controlled by women, as if teaching hasn't been "women's work" since we've had an organised school system. My older male colleagues tell me about the teasing they went through when they chose their profession. People laughed at them wanting to be "schoolmarms". I teach high school, not elementary. It doesn't matter, teaching is a woman's job, unless, maybe, it's physical education or unless nothing else has panned out for your much more manly literature or science degree… Also, that manifesto quoted a study that said that women getting an education created more social inequality. I'd be interested in knowing how they figured that out. Because sure, it makes sense saying that high-earning women only marry high earning men, but how do you compare this data to the time before women were allowed on the workforce? I'm pretty sure that women from well-off families didn't marry the hired help any more than they do now, only now they themselves are the one earning the paycheck, not their daddies. In fact I'm pretty sure that since women now have the capacity to be more self-sufficient and not have to rely on their husband's income for survival, they can actually afford to broaden their romantic horizons towards the bottom…
Ugh, the old "women controlled fields" always drives me up a wall (a coworker at my old library used to go on about that). It's like…dude, you know that system wasn't put into place by women? That we didn't choose to make this a "women's only" field, it was just one of the few places that we were allowed to be, and so social perception became: "This is a woman's job." That's STILL the result of regular old sexism and not misandry, and if you want to do something about it, then you need to change social attitudes in MEN.
In an elementary school classroom, the person who has all the power most certainly isn't a man. Nor is it that way in most teacher training programs. I'm not sure I see the men who are running this system.
Beyond that, it sounds suspiciously like saying "our sexism doesn't stink because we're women and someone on the school board is still a man". Our boys are having more trouble in education than our girls. And, it's women who seem to have the most power of that.
Well, I think she's saying that women didn't actively choose to "control" these fields, and in an equal society probably wouldn't. Her comment doesn't necessarily entail that there is absolutely nothing bad about these fields being so saturated with women for, say, male children.
My mom's an elementary school teacher and every principal she's ever had has been a man. So has every super. My ex who was a teacher is now an AP and on track to be a principal. I think it's a bit facetious to say that elementary ed is controlled by women.
I certainly think that education would be improved by having more men on the ground level teaching, but I don't think the need for it is matriarchy in action. It's stereotypical patriarchy, with women as lower level employees and a few men as management.
…that isn't even sort of what I said.
Okay, first of all, the person running the elementary school classroom doesn't have as much power as you'd think. Most of the power goes to the school administrators and maybe the schoolboard. Who…are usually men. And yeah, sorry, the school board has WAY more power than individual classrooms.
But again, that's not the point. The individual classrooms aren't the point. I don't know if you really did just miss it or what, but let's try again:
There are certain jobs like teachers (but only through high school), librarians, and nurses that are perceived as being "girl jobs." That is not because the women shut men out of those jobs the same way men shut women out of STEM jobs. It's because until a few decades ago, those were among the few jobs ALLOWED to women. So those field had a lot of women in them, because where else could they go.
Now it's socially acceptable for women to pursue any career (technically. Certain fields have their own way of discouraging women). Which means those fields are starting to lose the "women only" status that society gave them. But there's still a stigma on men being nurses and elementary school teachers. That's not because women are trying to shut men out of their fields, or trying to make those fields a "girls club." It's because socially, those are both considered low-status jobs that only women would take, and it's "weird" for a man to "lower himself" to a woman's job, like childcare or nursing.
THAT is a product of sexism, and of the system that's been in place since the early 1900's (at least) when men decreed that those were suitable jobs for women (therefore unsuitable for a man). THAT isn't something that women control. It's an attitude deeply entrenched in our society, that is largely reinforced by men.
An individual teacher has far more power to shape his or her student's lives than any faceless administrator does. And, I seem to remember most faceless administrators being women too.
The 'War on Boys', as Christina Hoff Sommers puts it, is very real. This is one of the causes thereof.
Yes, right now it's primarily women running the teacher's colleges, influencing who is accepted to provide childcare and setting the agenda here. And, yes, there is a fair amount of pressure against men in these spaces based on the idea that men have an interest and ability in the area are potential pedophiles or abusers or otherwise unsuitable.
Jog my memory again, is this "the methods of teaching have shifted to ones that disadvantage boys" argument?
More or less, yes.
I always thought that was an interesting argument because it is mostly about having to stay sitting, lack of hands on learning, etc. favors girls and hurts boys, but, unless all my older male relatives from two generations who went to school from 1900-1961 were lying (always a possibility in my family), schools used to be much, much more "Stay in your seat!", rote memorization with no hands on anything, and no talking in class under threat of being hit. That was also the time period that boys outperformed girls in school. It was also a time when almost every teacher was a woman, so to me something else must be going on here.
Personal theory: kids do not have recess or the chance to walk to school and run around on school grounds before and after school in unsupervised play that they had at least until I was in school and inability to burn off that nervous energy during the school day hurts boys more than girls. I base this on my one data point from being a camp counselor so take it for what it is worth.
You also forget the fact that girls are now also widely encouraged to go to school and perform academically whereas it was socially frowned upon for women to try and be ambitious and smart before they were allowed to have careers… It's the same way that comparing the dropout rates from when my granddad was in school to dropout rates now is dumb. Sure, they had less formal dropouts then. But only 25% of the population even tried to go to school past the elementary level. Mandatory education until age 16 wasn't imposed until the mid-60s, so there were no "dropouts" and the classes were much, much more homogeneous (male, white, relatively privileged in terms of social status and finances) and therefore easier to deal with.
Yep. A bunch of my relatives stopped going to school at 16 because they could get jobs working in the copper mine, which was where they were going to work anyway, with or without a HS degree. Why not get a jump on the seniority ladder in the union rather than finishing school?
And women were told that their being in school was useless anyway, because they were just going to be homemakers, so it didn't matter if they couldn't do long division or outline a paper properly. If she went to school past high school, it was only to try and find a husband.
It's an interesting phenomenon in that it is present in pretty much every developed nation in the world.
You have more than a few conveniently selective perceptions of people and things around you. Might not be a bad idea to spend some time examining the reasons for that.
My teacher's college was run by men. Most of my professors were men…
Anyway, my point is that it makes absolutely no sense to take issue with education being "run by women" now, since it always has been and actually we're seeing more men join us and being actively encouraged to do so. As thatthat said, it used to be one of the few professions women were allowed to practice and men were discouraged from doing so at all unless they were priests and/or working at the older high school level, so obviously women have been dominating that field for a very long time. It doesn't make sense to blame modern-day society's problems on this, calling it a new "problem".
Also, I saw no unfair pressures against the men in my classroom, quite the opposite. They are seriously trying to attract more men into the profession.
" Christina Hoff Sommers"
Well THERE'S your problem. Sommers is, as eloquently as I can put this, full of crap. She's some kind of weird anti-feminist, holding up the banner, but also claiming that women are horrible if they don't put men first. She's also a huge espouser of the toxic "boys will be boys" attitude. The idea that there's some kind of "anti-male agenda" in the classroom is utterly recockulous.
You've got a citation on that "teacher's college" other than Sommers? Because I don't buy anything she says as something other than extraordinarily biased. And it's interesting that you remember all the school admins as female, because every single principal I've ever had was a man. Our schoolboard is overwhelmingly male. The people designing the textbooks and curriculum? Largely male.
As to the social pressure–that's not something that the women are enforcing. That attitude exists because it's still perceived as "weird" for a man to go into a "woman's field." Which means he's gotta be doing it "for a reason."
Reboot and Reine take care of the rest.
"Christina Hoff Sommers" Haha, wow. That certainly explains a few things.
Note to Sommers: throwing other women under the bus to make boys like you only works in the short-term. Eventually, the kind of men who would be impressed by this will turn on you too.
To be fair, I've worked for a lot of female principals. The direct school administration seems, to me at least, to be fairly equally representative, with both men and women serving as principals and vice-principals. However in classrooms, we still have mostly women, which means that the proportion of male teachers who go on to administrative positions is higher than the percentage of female teachers who do the same. Because being ambitious in that way is still discouraged in women and encouraged in men, even in female fields. The same pressure is exerted even when choosing your specialisation. Men here vastly choose to teach the older high school classes. Primary schools are nearly exclusively female still, because women are supposed to be maternal and caring and patient and good with little kids and men are supposed to be above such things. Men who want to work with younger kids are often ridiculed, though not within our profession, mind you. The ridicule comes from their families and their social circles. Inside the school system, we welcome men with open arms because we want young boys to have good, positive male models in their lives. The school system is only "run by women" because the same people who sneer at that also sneer at the men who want to teach as being weak. Those of us who do it every day know how exhausting and difficult corralling 25 7-year-olds and trying to give them some basic knowledge is and we applaud anyone who does it well.
University education departments are marketing towards men the same way the engineering departments are marketing towards women, trying to get more men in the door. The school environment is extremely friendly and egalitarian. Male teachers get the same benefits we women do, including paternity and parental leave (6 weeks paternity that is all theirs, then the year parental leave we get can be taken by one or the other of the parents, so a woman can go back to work and a guy can stay at home with the baby if that's what they choose).
" The ridicule comes from their families and their social circles. Inside the school system, we welcome men with open arms because we want young boys to have good, positive male models in their lives"
I'm so glad someone else has also seen this to be the case. I have never heard of schools or really, of any 'women's work' profession that does not welcome men with open arms. If anything, what I've heard and seen (my brother's a teacher) is that fellow teachers to administrators to parents to students will give male teachers preferential treatment because *clearly* they are paragons of virtue who buck the system. The bias toward male authority is alive and strong in every level of society.
Incidentally, I also had a female principle in elementary school, but 1) the prevailing theory on the school ground was that she'd gotten the job because the only male teacher had turned it down (which, in retrospect, was a pretty horrible thing to assume, I mean we really had no reason to believe this), and 2) I've come to see that that was something of an anomaly.
As a guy who is in university, studying education. The two paths when you study education are either teaching or getting a doctorate after the undergraduate degree and going on to do research. I have thought about teaching, don't know if it is my thing yet, but the one insecurity that I do have about teaching and being male is that teachers, in my country are paid decently, but not paid very well in comparison to other professions. The maximum salary for a teacher is close to six figures but not quite there. I have to admit I have felt insecure about it because men are supposed to be seen as extremely successful and competent and being a teachers dosen't fit in with society's definition of I guess conventional male success i.e "six figure salary job, owns a successful business, careers that are seen as successful like being a architect, actuary, lawyer".
Teachers are rarely paid well (mainly because it's considered women's work, although with pay equity here that actually was balanced) and that's another reason it's seen as a vocation and not a real profession. But to be fair, researchers here are not paid a whole lot either. The only reason to choose that over teaching would be to not deal with the kids.
If Sommers isn't a feminist, does this mean that the label 'feminist' has some litmus test besides 'supports gender equality'?
If Sommers isn't a feminist, than what feminist gives a half a damn about the graduation gap, about the gap in who is diagnosed with a 'learning disability', the gap of who's in special ed, the gap of who goes to college, and the gap of who gets disciplinary suspensions? If our schools aren't anti-male, why was there an two more rows of young women than young men at my high school graduation? Why is 'Women in engineering field X' so much more important than this?
The individual teacher has more influence over her student's lives than any administrator, any member of the school board, any one who writes a textbook. The people that made several parts of growing up far harder than they had to be, the people who used the system to bully me… They were teachers, not administrators of members of the school board or author of textbooks. And they were nearly all women.
The people who squawk about how a male elementary school teacher, babysitter or childcare provider is a potential threat to children usually are not men.
Actually, I've heard a lot of men make very rude comments about my male colleagues, particularly those who work at the elementary level. They make all kinds of insinuations about their personal lives, sexuality, get super offended that they're around small kids… Just as many as with women. You should hear parent-teacher nights…
The individual teacher has the most apparent influence. I teach history and by and large, our textbooks neglect to mention what women were doing at any given point in time. That has a great influence on kids, since it reinforces that the only people who ever do anything in history are men. The principal who decides who does or doesn't get kicked out or which services to students are cut has a tremendous influence. The principal who fields conflicts between teachers and students has a big influence. It's the principal who is the one who makes sure we have funds for programs that help boys stay in school (because yes, we have those, plenty of them). So yeah, what a kid will remember is a harried teacher who's working with too few ressources who scared them. So sure. Blame the messager. We're used to it by now.
When you demand that that parents drug their child into submission, you are a participant, not just a messenger. When you look the other way when a teacher's son is bullying a student, you are a participant, not a messenger. When you support said teacher bringing charges against the person who was being bullied, you are a participant, not a messenger. When you treat your students as being less than human, as a problem to be eliminated, you are a participant, not a messenger.
Quit making excuses for bad behavior from the people who are supposed to be adults.
I'm sorry that those things happened to you. They are horrible and shouldn't happen to anyone.
That said, your personal experience doesn't mean that all teachers are like that or that all female teachers are like that or even better, as this discussion started, that the school system is unfairly biased against male children because of female teachers. It is your personal experience. I had male teachers physically beating or picking up and shaking students in front of the class when I was in elementary. I know that that's my experience, though, and I don't tar my male colleagues with the same brush as those men.
Just an interesting historical point since, yanno, history teacher and all that, but in very many countries, education and healthcare were not just relegated to women, they were specifically relegated to religious women. Occasionally, and this was the case mainly with higher education, it was confined to religious men. None of whom were actually paid for what they did. They are jobs that are still seen as "vocations" rather than professions because the only people who would do them have to "have a calling". I've never seen anyone say that a kid "had a calling" to be a lawyer or a banker from a young age. Nooo. They have talents. Or aptitudes.
Because you don,t need talent to be a teacher or a nurse. Nooooo. You just need your "natural mothering instincts". Which men don't have so why would men be teachers? Or nurses? Unless there's something… funny about them.
Of course it depends on the time period you're looking at. I highly doubt there were many female teachers in the Roman Empire.
Or many teachers period for that matter or schools at all. Wealthy people had tutors for specific skills and group military training but the whole kids in a classroom thing came about 1800s maybe? And not for all classes until mid centuryish?
I'm talking about mass education, not special tutoring. That I'm lumping in with higher education. When education was offered massively rather than specifically, it was generally something given over to women and religious figures who were not paid for that time.
http://thecodelesscode.com/case/139
In the education profession, at least in my country, although the majority of the people in this field are women, men by quite a large amount get most of the leadership positions and promotions (such as principals).
In the interests of not "de railing anything" or annoying anyone, here's how best to talk to someone who is in a mindset/belief that you don't understand or share:
1) Do not logically argue with them. Beliefs do not work on logic. And they get stronger when presented with counter evidence. All that will do is lead people further into an idea or way of thinking.
2) Find something they say you can agree on. It's much easier to talk to someone within an agreement frame.
3) If possible, limit their time on the internet. It's where people get radicalized the most these days. Encourage them to go out and experience life without feeling under pressure to challenge their beliefs.
4) Entertain the idea of seeing a mental health professional for advice or get your brother to see one.
5) Find out who the person listens to the most and find out was to discredit them. This can back fire massively so be careful.
6) Talk about values. Does the brother in this story's values really reflect the red pill ideas or is he just looking for something?
7) Work on getting rid of the feeling of anger. It's the most powerful emotion when it comes to be radicalized or accepting angry viewpoints.
8)Work on the feeling of anxiety. Anxiety over time leads to depression and anger and frustration. Working on anxiety stops all that from starting.
Hope that helps.
In short: how to get people out of the red pill mindset or reduce anger or hate.
I've read a looked at much from the Red Pill and MGTOW circles, and while I think self-improvement is a wonderful thing, I don't particularly think vilifying women is a healthy means to do that.
A long time ago, I had been frustrated with my own dating life. I was originally the "nice guy" who pretty much struck out all over, but some grounding/growing had improved my dating into my 30s. However, I was still meeting many women with baggage or women who just didn't really know what they wanted in life. Whatever way you slice it, they were girls who were not right for me or any healthy relationship.
After one big failure, I grew distressed and decided to try MGTOW for a while. At the time, no one called it "MGTOW", and I simply termed it as putting dating on the back burner and focusing on me. So I did. I mapped out a potential life for myself on the notion that I'd grow old alone, but I'd enjoy my life over agonizing.
The big difference in my thinking versus the logic of Red Pill/MGTOW is I chose not to hate women. I accepted that I picked way too many bad people to try to date, and took responsibility for my bad decisions. I could not hate women because my mom is a woman, and I had female friends who I loved and respected.
I've never understood how that community can seemingly vilify women the way they do. I feel like if one is trying to "get over women" or rethink their lives, carrying on day after day about how "evil" women are isn't going to help one heal and grow. It just nurtures the problems one should try to remove.
Like it or not, there are good women and there are bad women, just like they're are good men and bad men. When one finds real clarity, they are able to see the good from the bad. So I'll have met gorgeous women whom I could see are "bad" mainly by their personalities and lifestyles…and I found a bonna-fide "good woman" who I married.
SadSister's brother could look at his Red Pill experience as a boost to rethink his life, but now he should further that and examine what kind of a life he wants to lead. He needs to ask himself what he really wants out of the female gender, and recognize what he's done in his past that made it difficult to get from Point A to B. He should also stop making dating a priority in his life, and instead focus on his own personal happiness while maintaining a respect for all genders. That's what I did, and it's why I found the clarity that eventually led me to the right woman.
I can't help but feel like even if I bought into the Red Pill thing, I'd still rather be a beta.
I don't know, something about being such a terrible, abusive douchebag makes me think I'd rather be used or alone.
Of course, it's all horseshit anyway, but you know how Groupthink is. Stepping on a LEGO brick is worse than being interned in Auschwitz, and women are evil, lying succubi.
" They feel that women have somehow gained an unfair advantage in the world, making it virtually impossible for a heterosexual, cisgendered *white* man to get a break."
It's not just white men who swallow this toxicity whole.
/source: lady who has dated several ethnicites
ugggghhhhh.
I was intrigued by the Doc's in-depth description of "Red Pill" and figured I should visit the reddit to see for myself.
I fled after reading a couple posts. That place IS toxic. It made me feel dirty just reading it. Every post is bashing on women (like generally, as if they are a separate species that preys on men and conspire together). They use so many absolutist terms–it's no wonder they get called out. Nothing they say can be true when they say it in such an absolute fashion.
I mean, do they even talk to women? I've been to university and am now going for my PhD. I meet so many brilliantly smart, logical, and sensical women. I mean, I guess I understand feeling victimized if you get turned down repeatedly by people you are attracted too, but haven't they made any female friends they respect at least? It's not as if women are only for dating. It amazes me that these guys can say these things with such conviction when I see counterexamples pretty much every day.
Anyway, I recognize that this is generally pretty stereotyped these days as well, but I grew up in Christian home that actually was pretty healthy. My parents taught open communication skills, respect, and collaboration. They advocated that I date to learn about myself and experience and appreciate interactions. They also taught monogamy which I know a lot of you don't agree with, but honestly, I think taking the focus off of sex helped me. I'm never going to buy into some argument that says women control the world because they are gatekeepers to sex, because the point of my life is not sex. Sure I want it, but life and relationships have far more to offer than sex, and I don't come at friendships or relationships with women with that as a goal. This has helped me to focus on compatibility, appreciating who people are as people, and helps me to more clearly see things that might be clouded otherwise. I understand sexuality is important and I read this blog for perspective off and on, but if we make sex the centerpoint of everything it is so easy to miss out on the other, better things that make relationships wonderful.
I for one am glad the Doctor's articles take such a holistic approach. I for one want to be a better person, not just learn how to fake it. I suspect the best faker will find that world eventually crashing down around him and it is so much more stress and effort than just working on who you are and improving yourself. You'll be happier, and people, not to mention women, will like you better too if you learn the skills the Dr. preaches.
Please help. Violent, unstable, and abusive relationships are all I've ever known. I have been physically assaulted with a weapon, barricaded a door while recovering from extensive surgery, watched on as a loved one self-destructed by attempting to violently slit her wrists in front of me, and my birther is a severely ill person with a disordered mind; someone who has threatened me with homelessness beginning as I was a prepubescent child. My father would spoon feed me this redpill dogma at a time when the internet was utilized by the military alone. My default stance towards dating and relationships are adversarial at best. My opinion of women isn't a view of hatred of scorn. I view women as a source of immeasurable suffering – With good reason!
I'm not a depressed, anxious, or somehow closed off. I view each day as an opportunity to challenge my belief systems and be pleasantly surprised when I am not somehow slighted. Fleeting moments of kind and considerate behavior from others is something I cherish. Each day I look forward to the new opportunity to grow, learn, and enjoy new experiences. I work in a clinical setting helping others in need. I have received bewildered glances with the question of why a person like me is single. I occasionally enjoy the look of joy within someones eyes when I ask them out…
…Only to be 'playfully' punched while my date was laughing hysterically at my jokes. I was left with a lasting bruise for three weeks, placing me at a high occupational risk for MRSA infection. Only for a date to reluctantly and apologetically admit she was using me, along with other men, to grab free meals on occasion. Only for another date to openly express she viewed me more as a 'rare commodity' and not a person. Only for a date to play myself, and many other men, as she was trying to secretly be intimate with as many people as possible. Only for a date and brief spouse to fuck her own manager and develop 'part-time lovers' with coworkers. I can challenge my belief systems. But I cannot twist my reality into being something that it is not. I feel that unless I can stop my misogynistic views of women, that I will die utterly alone, just as I've witnessed occur for others. I do not want to die alone.
What else can I possibly do differently?
I certainly wish I had an answer better than "stop dating assholes" but I'm afraid anything I say is going to boil down to that. I might also say "be open about what you expect and make sure honesty and communication are part of what you exspect" followed by "ruthlessly prune out of your life anyone who takes advantage of you".
It's not easy to turn a guy who's gone so far off the end. Likely he's in a huge turmoil and you can't just have him adopt all of the guilt and fess up all at once. More likely than not he has a need to hate, so if he's not going to be a misogynist anymore, you must present him with another target for his hate, because he's not going to stop just like that.
And it's not a solution for him to carry the whole burden all at once. Supposing he's even receptible for that, what could happen is he shifts to self-hate, and the next thing you know he's going to grab a rope.
It sounds like his mother should partially serve as a "hate catcher".
He can lay a little blame on her for leading him on this path at the same time he owns up to adopting a ludicrous ideology and almost victimizing a young girl. He can be made to accept that there are lots of women who aren't at all like his mother. Ideally, he can also distribute some hate on the RP community for leading him astray.
When somewhat on the right path, he'll need to go into "exile" to cool off. Move to another town, study abroad or something like that. People who know him for the asshole he's become may subconsiously keep him fixed in that role, and not see or accept it if he starts to change for the better. With time, his hate can subside and then he can choose to come back, or not.
This is how I would approach a problem like this.
I've been reading the comments and bits and pieces of this article – as someone who's hung out a while on a particular redpill pick-up blog, I have to say that I don't quite understand why going in to the dating world with certain expectations about the other sex is really such a bad thing.
Now, obviously, there are some generalizations and expectations that are neither accurate nor helpful, but I'm talking strictly about the set of social skills that the writer I follow encourages based on his experience with approaching women, not about the cesspool of filth that I see coming from reddit or from the twitterverse.
It's like saying, well, you can't generalize most English-speaking people as finding "hello" more acceptable than "ghsagn! gragglespack! BLORK!" and then vomiting all over them. I mean, it's conceivable that you could find some people who find one set of advances more attractive than another, but insisting that there's no value in experience-based approaches that some in the redpill pickup sphere have used seems premature also.
If I can ever find a Redpiller who isn't a huge douchecannon, I'll be more likely to consider their ideas. So far, many useless conversations with many different douchecannons later, no dice.
A fair charge. If I weren't a huge douchecannon, I probably wouldn't need dating/attraction advice.
That being said – and if you're still reading – I think even douchecannons can offer valid opinions. It depends on the basis. For instance, my personal experience, and the experience of some of these writers, is that the most attractive males are the ones that are generally difficult to sway emotionally, that are unafraid, and that are unreactive. Internalized confidence manifesting itself as a stoic fearlessness.
The notion of "alpha male" that Nerdlove brings up in one of his articles, citing Donald Trump and Bill O' Reilly, as the models of "traditional masculinity", are actually not what the writer I follow espouses or even characterizes as "alpha males".
Those writers reach the same conclusion that he does, which is that alpha males, or at least males that are most likely to succeed with the most attractive women they could hope for, given their genes, are (as a baseline) inwardly strong and reflect it in their behavior: Not fearful, not finding it necessary to react quickly, harshly, or energetically, and just generally being unflappable and not clearly compensating for character flaws. High emotional inertia, cool as cucumbers; picture James Woods pausing to light a cigarette while someone's pointing a gun at him.
This is just a single idea of many that I think are valid and that the mainstream also accepts in some capacity or another. Are there communities that offer generally healthier outlooks? Absolutely. When you have people like Roosh saying that "all women have a genetic capability to destroy foolish men" or Heartiste advocating male anhedonia as the basis for attraction, it sort of defeats the purpose of being successful with women in the first place unless the only thing you're looking for at all is nookie.
I just don't see advice from other communities being as helpful as some of the advice coming from people who zero in on their approaches and explain what they took away from their experiences.
Well doc, you sure helped me understand the movement. I stumbled upon the Red Pill yesterday although I knew about it for a few months now and I always thought nonsense of it. But I started reading because I'm desperate; I'm a 21 years old male that never in my life had any sort of romantic relationship. The whole concept of manipulating to get what I want goes against my core ideology, the non-interference rule I've set upon myself long time ago. But evidence shows that I'm wrong. Obviously, I can't go head first into a life changing concept such as the Red Pill so I started to read opinions. I read one article praising the Red Pill and one stomping on it.
Then I read this article and it influenced me the most. So much that I made a sort of anonymous account and started to write this comment. After reading this, the Red Pill seems to be a way when in past I had none. It seems to be working but for all the wrong reasons. The only thing that I have in mind now is that I found a philosophy that works. Sure, it will change my personality and I really REALLY like myself the way I am now but I AM getting more desperate by the day and if this will turn me into a monster then so be it.
Unless there is another way I'm not aware of yet my fate is sealed.
I'd like to share a relevant story. I grew up in an abusive home, with my mother being the abuser, my dad was far from submissive, he was a CEO of an international company, well-liked, rich, respected, but my mom would switch between being really loving to being horrible towards him and us kids, she wounded up in alcoholism and prescription drug abuse, eventually stabbed my dad with a knife and tried to commit suicide. After her suicide attempt (Which I brutally had to witness too), she was diagnosed with serve bipolar disorder as well as clinical psychotic depression. After intensive therapy, it turns out she was abused in her childhood by her father, and her own mother committed suicide. She was traumatized by her youth but had no clue that it was what caused her to be so mentally ill and unstable.
So I was a very awkward, silent, insecure teenager, obviously affected by my home life. When I got into the dating life, I had a difficult time approaching girls, I'd be very nice to girls, but I wouldn't ever make my intentions very clear to them out of some fear which I thought back then was respect. As a resort, I picked up on girls who didn't seem to mind my weirdness, my first gf was a compulsive liar and didn't treat me very well, my second girlfriend was even more abusive, and when I fell in love with her, she kind of used my love and kindness and then left me when I was depressed and vulnerable, then it happened yet again.
I was depressed as hell after this, and I admit that during this weak stage, I could have very easily bought into the whole Red Pill thing, until I realized something. None of my friends had the experiences with women that I'd have, they had stable, loving relationships, their girlfriends genuinely did nice things for them and both treated each other with respect. Sometimes they argued, but it was from both ends. I also had friends who's parents had been married and happy for years, and neither one of them was domineering or controlling.
I went to get therapy, and as it turns out after reevaluation. It wasn't the flaw in women, it was my trauma and unstable upbringing, that had made me drawn to unstable women. Subconsciously, it was me who was over and over again going after the characteristics in women that I had witnessed in my mom. All I knew was manipulation and power dynamics, I was chasing girls that were wrong for me. Secretly, part of me thought if I cold be better than my father, I could "change" these women and make them respectful for me, just because "I'm so nice and respectful". Later on, I found out that my ex-girlfriends all had either bipolar or Borderline personality disorder, all of them were depressed and suicidal too.
I suddenly started to look for other qualities in women, I started to respect myself and take care of my own self-esteem issues, I began to workout and take care of my looks a lot more too, but without being an ass about it, I got more confident. Before I knew it, I found the the sweetest, intelligent, non-controlling woman to be with. I've been happy with her for many years now. We do things for each other all the time, it's give and take, and no one tries to be the "boss" of the other. I seriously am glad I dud not stumble on that red pill site, or who knows what kind of horrible person I might have become, blaming women for the rest of my life and having superficial relationships and still suffering from my deep rooted esteem issues. Sounds like I would have become the kind of abusive character my mom was in that situation. This is how abusive characters are born, from generally being abused yourselves. These men need serious help with themselves, and need to reconsider what they have bought in to
Therapy is designed by feminists. I too went to therapy, when they I told them I was facing I was facing misandry they didnt know what that meant ( yup a thearapist had not Idea what that meant) next day he comes back telling me he had to look up the word. Then after that he tells me well the pendulum will be swinging the other way. Moron. I have become kinder to myself thanks to the red pill.
Yes. Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. Notorious radfems. Frequently held up as pillars of feminist theory alongside McKinnon and Dworkin.
Uh oh Doc, looks like you got an infestation going on.
Eh they crop up every once in a while after a quiet period.Kinda like herpes, really.<p style=”color:#000;”>
Does it affect your bookselling and tshirt selling business?
Read up on evolutionary psych a little, educate yourself with science
The post where I told everyone that I was raped, no one commented (it was down voted). It is this kind of apathy from this feminist world that drives TRP
You posted a context-less comment on a thread that hasn't been touched in half a year. I can't believe no one chose to comment on that!
Also, evo psych is mostly junk science.
I took the classes on Evolutionary Psychology, feminists detest it for it goes against their dogma. It is evidence based. Read a book or two on it. Don't comment on something you don't understand.
It's heavily questioned by both scientists and psychologists, so you acting like it's The Way Things Are isn't going to fly.
Here's just one criticism I found within 2 seconds of googling: "While EP offers a valuable way of thinking about psychological development and life in the preshistoric environments, many of the most prominent voices in the field are less scientists than political philosophers. They choose some aspect of modern life and construct elaborate justifications located in an inaccessible ancient environment. Often, the fact that their story seems to make sense is the only evidence they offer. For them, it may be enough, but it isn't enough if you're aspiring to be taken seriously as a science."
(https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200906/evolutionary-psychology-deserves-criticism)
I too can find "evidence" to support my arguments.
Examples include language acquisition modules, incest avoidance mechanisms, cheater detection mechanisms, intelligence and sex-specific mating preferences, foraging mechanisms, alliance-tracking mechanisms, agent detection mechanisms, and so on.
Evolutionary psychology has roots in cognitive psychology and evolutionary biology.
It also draws on behavioral ecology, artificial intelligence, genetics, ethology, anthropology, archaeology, biology, and zoology.
Its a lot more complicated than the blog your quoted, use primary sources
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evolutiona…
Your "primary source" quotes heavily from Wikipedia, btw.
Might wanna work on your "evidence"
Ya’ll remember last week when you asked me what the definition of “irony” was?
I've started working on a website like yours too. Ill sell books, t shirts, cups, mugs, write blogs, etc. Ill help
This feminist is annoyed by evo-psych because people on the Internet use it to justify their whining and inaccurate ideas about men and women.
I'm also annoyed by red pillers who show up to loudly announce that they have no use for feminists or women in general–"Did you guys hear me say that I don't like you? Cause I don't like you?! Did you hear me?!?!?"
Go back to your little corner of the Internet. The grownups are bored of you.
Feminists tell me they are about equal rights and opportunity. I make two posts, one is about my rape experience. no one shows any consideration. This is a red pill moment. no one inquired once how I feel about what happened or how it happened. The corner you are telling me to go in is not that little, it has over half a million folks and growing. Red pill point proven. I rest my case.
Frankly, I don't believe you're interested in having an actual conversation about sexaul assault so I have no interest in engaging you there. Feel free to put me on your list of feminists who were mean to you, thus proving that you are totally justified in your "movement."
If you actually did, you wouldn't have started off on a months-old article that has nothing to do with rape (especially when DNL has written much more relevant articles). Nah, you're here to whine that we have been mean to RPers–which seems to be extent of your "movement's" activism so I'm no so concerned that you supposedly have half a million other little children agreeing with ya.
For my part, I did not process your post as being about your rape experience. I processed it as being about how feminists suck, with your rape experience as evidence. I'm not really interested in engaging in that conversation, so as I said below, I chose not to reply because I respect your need to heal in whatever way you need to, even if your chosen healing strategy is an attack on me as a self-defined feminist.
Here's the thing. This article is about the issues with Red Pill philosophy and how it encourages men to think of women as objects and enemies. And you posted that no, it's not all women, it's just feminists, with a comment about your experience as "evidence" of this.
I can pretty much guarantee that if you had come to this crowd in an appropriate setting to talk about your experience, you would have gotten sympathy and understanding. Instead, you used it as a weapon against us. Not commenting back to argue with you was our way of being respectful of your experience. We didn't tell you it didn't happen. We didn't say it was impossible.
For my part, I read your comment when you posted it, and I thought, "You know what? This guy has clearly had some bad experiences, and I'm not going to reply to a post in which a rape survivor talks about his experiences to tell him he's processing it wrong. But I don't agree with his interpretation of reality, so I'm just not going to say anything."
I'm glad you've found something that helped you heal. But I wish it was something whose rhetoric doesn't make me out to be the enemy.
My therapist was a well-educated man and said he dealt with many young men who had had abusive mothers, turn hostile and bitter towards women, the same with women who had abusive fathers turn hostile towards men. He didn't say anything feminist to me, he just helped me realize on my own that my own problems with women were rooted in my desire to fix my childhood situation. As soon as I let go of that, and started to avoid the kinds of women I had been drawn to before, I found myself in a happy relationship. I don't think that's a coincidence.
I am a new red piller.
History: I grew up with feminists throughout my teens and early twenties, single mother, abusive father. I later found out that I was raped by three different women, who made me feel bad about it. I got into relationships where I was cheated on and financially abused then was left.
I took the red pill 4 months ago. It was the most empowering philosophy I have ever come across.
hanging out with feminists made me feel bad about myself, they made me subjugate myself while using the "equality" argument. I did it for a decade, no results. I was the nice guy. Nothing.
Like the red pill Feminism has its' radical branch AKA dyke feminism, suggesting men are less intelligent, they should be castrated, they should be used for labour.
Did the red pill help me improve myself? Yes
Did feminism? No
Did feminists believe me when I told them I was raped? No
Did red pillers? Yes
When I spoke with feminists about my problems, did they help? No
Did red pillers? Yes
Have I stopped putting women on a pedestal? Yes
Did the red pill help? Yes
I see women as just as good and bad as men. THey manipulate differently when they can't use force. It's important to know that. I was used and manipulated.
Am I against violence against women? Yes
Am I for the equality? Yes
Does feminism address the higher levels of homelessness, mental illness, suicide rates, death at work? NO!
Does it address men's issues under the banner of gender eqaulity? Nope
Does it have its own form of double standard? Yup
TRP all the way.
What do you describe as 'self improvement'? You see, I disagree with many of the Red Pill crowd's stated values and goals. I don't want to be an 'Alpha Male' , and I feel so strongly about that as to say that I would gladly die alone over playing that sort of status game, at least as the Red Pill crowd has broadly defined it. I don't want to have lots meaningless sex, and I do want to get married some day. Why would advice aimed at folks who want the opposite of what I want be of any use to me?
I think all your criticisms of 'feminism' are fair on some level. I also think that they are a red haring when it comes discussing the value of the Red Pill crowd's philosophy. Lots of people who are not at all associated with anything that is at all Red Pill criticize feminism. Many also criticize Red Pill-ish viewpoints as well. This is a false dichotomy: One can oppose elements of both Red Pill philosophy and feminist philosophy.