2009 October 08 Thursday
Feminists Who Go Crazy For Don Draper

It has taken years for me to come to terms with the full extent to which people claim to hold beliefs and desires that are in conflict with their real behavior and true selves. This isn't just a case of people lying for their economic advancement or to avoid punishment. This phenomenon shows up in supposed experts on human nature and those who pose as moral leaders demanding that we live according to a moral code that they promote. Most notably you can't take self-proclaimed feminists at face value. Writing for Newsweek Katie Baker tries to explain why feminist women pine for Jon Hamm who plays the sexist alpha character Don Draper in Mad Men. Women fall for guys whose values the women claim to detest.

Why are we so wild for Draper? By any measure, the character's a cad. He constantly cheats on his wife. He skips town for weeks and won't write or call. He doesn't talk much, and anesthetizes any feelings with copious amounts of booze. He's an enigma, a locked box of a man who resists, maddeningly, easy explanation. And yet he excites an attraction among women—particularly ones my age, women in their late '20s and '30s who were born after the era that Mad Men portrays—that seems unmatched by any leading man on television today, with the possible exception of Lost's con artist, Saywer (another strapping scoundrel with a deeply troubled soul). We describe our obsession in words that, like the show itself, are somewhat retro. "He is a straight-up man. He makes me feel like a woman via the TV." "He's a throwback to a time when men were men. "It's the thickness of his body." "Shoulders to cry on and a jaw that causes women to swoon."

So get this: Women who encourage men to act like all sensitive and unmasculine aren't really serious. Given a sufficiently alpha male suddenly the claimed rules, ideals, and expectations about men do not apply. Look around. Double standards are the norm.

So what is feminism all about. Roissy sees feminist as a test for men to filter out the guys who are foolish enough to take it at face value. There's some truth in this theory.

I propose, as an extension to this theory, that the absurdity of mid-20th to early 21st century feminism and all its adjuncts are better understood as progressively sophisticated emergent sexual selection strategies which act as social obstacles to filter out men who aren’t able to successfully navigate them. In essence, feminism is an advanced biocomputational Turing test; a giant social subcommunication roadblock devised and embraced by women and, at least in principle if not in practice, by alpha males intended to ensure the continuation of the hypergamous weeding out of lesser men who don’t possess the savvy to play by ever-shifting sexual market rules. Feminism is only superficially about female equality; at its core it is a ginanomicon of secrets to which only socially adroit men are privy.

What I wonder: Do our intellectuals promote more lie-myths than intellectuals did in previous eras? Or is the same amount of lying going on but with changing objectives?

Some people are sincere but self-deceived. Their emotions make them irrational in ways that they do not want to notice. The most earnestly sincere ones are the worst because their sincerity makes them more believable. To kids growing up the sincerity can be harmfully deceiving.

Update: I doubt that feminism was developed in order for women to test men. However, the rhetoric of feminism has effectively become a test of men. Do you believe it? In very important ways many self-styled feminists behave contrary to their stated feminist beliefs - especially when choosing mates. If you take what women say at face value then you won't do as well with women as you will do if you also take into consideration their instinctive drives.

In the comments of Roissy's post a commenter named Canada Dry gets to the heart of the matter.

A huge part of the PUA community are guys that exist in that above average to barely subgenius spectrum (many of us are nerds) that have acknowledged that their intelligence is not important to women in sexual selection, and that it is actually an active hindrance in getting laid. Engaging women intellectually is a losing strategy. Displaying ‘intelligence’ is simply a (shitty) DHV and has nothing to do with actually being ‘intelligent’ (social ‘intelligence’ and quick wit are not intelligence of any kind; everyone probably knows someone that is witty but also as dumb as a rock. Those two things commonly hand in hand actually). Displaying value (ie resourcefulness) by grabbing a women by her hind-brain by winning in a battle of conflicting realities and proving intelligence by engaging her on an intellectual plain are not at all the same thing.

If you are engaging anyone on an intellectual level, you are engaging a part of their brain that has really nothing at all to do with sex. To use that part of their brain they have to temporarily sequester their sexual motivators. No one is getting hot and bothered while doing a math-proof, men or women. To get sex you need to shut down the thinking mind and ‘think’ with the hind-brain. Being smart (and actively using your intelligence) and getting laid are literally at odds with each other. A truly massive part of Game is about shutting down internal dialog. The smarter you are, the harder this is to do. Inner calm is a learned skill for smart people, and a natural state of being for the stupid. Stupid wins in sexual selection because their state of mind is ripe for sex.

Women do not like smart men. They backward rationalize the men they select as being ’smart’. In truth they like ‘resourceful’ men, which is a totally nebulous concept. ‘Resourcefulness’ often just means a man that is pretty much literally thinking with his dick. Displaying value =/= being intelligent.

Now, some genetic outlier women have preferences that run toward general smartness. But guys who are leaders, good salesmen, and talented in handling other people do far better with women than geeky smart guys.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2009 October 08 11:38 PM  Human Nature


Comments
MaryJ said at October 9, 2009 7:11 AM:

Oh no, not this blog too -- please don't bring the hateful, misogynist Roissyites over here! Please go back to economics and world affairs!

Nice Alpha said at October 9, 2009 8:50 AM:

C'mon. Is this really surprising to you? Didn't you go to high school and college. I figured this out at around age 15, and I'm no social genius.

Women (girls in high school) would always say that they just wanted a "nice" guy. What happened? They'd date a nice guy treat him like crap - though they would sometimes reward him sexually - and then sleep with the jerk. And I'm not saying this out of bitterness. I was that jerk sometimes. (Luckily, I was good enough to play sports, which helps with the women - again, they can see you in a very masculine way.) I was also the nice guy sometimes. (Being a jock doesn't always make you a jerk, at least not all the time.) Being on both sides really drove the lesson home.

But the Roissy route - just be an alpha bastard - doesn't really work either, at least not in the long term. If you want something more than one-night stands (which while nice in your 20s don't substitute for a long-term relationship and kids, i.e. a family life) or you're simply not a a-hole, you have to find a middle ground between alpha-bastard and beta-wimp. That's where it gets hard.

I'm married now, and I have to walk a fine line between those two worlds to make it work. My wife actually likes it when I spend a night or even a weekend out with the boys. It shows that I'm a guy. She also would eventually lose respect for me if I didn't occassionally lay down the hammer about something, basically, showing that the world won't walk all over me. On the other hand, I can't go out every night or treat her or the kids with disrespect.

As far as a I can tell, most women want an alph-beta hybrid. Pure alphas get a lot of action but rarely have good marriages/families or they have a wife that's so docile that she's incredibly annoying even to the alpha. Beta's don't do much better. Their marriages last longer, but the wife eventually comes to hate the guy because he's such a wimp. Of course, he became a wimp by being the "nice" guy that everyone says that he should be.

Obviously, I have no idea if things were easier or harder 40 years ago. But navigating the waters these days seems fairly tough, and goodness knows, that you won't be helped by listening to feminists.

omega man said at October 9, 2009 9:35 AM:
I'm married now, and I have to walk a fine line between those two worlds to make it work. My wife actually likes it when I spend a night or even a weekend out with the boys. It shows that I'm a guy. She also would eventually lose respect for me if I didn't occassionally lay down the hammer about something, basically, showing that the world won't walk all over me. On the other hand, I can't go out every night or treat her or the kids with disrespect.

It must be very lonely, indeed, not to be able to communicate one's principles in words and touch and direct action, and instead be forced to strut with the pack to feel admired.

KevinF said at October 9, 2009 12:11 PM:

I don't think people are really trying to deceive each other. It's just that explaining human behavior requires a combination of genetic and cultural factors. On the cultural side, we've recently started to care about political and social equality - regardless of race, religion, or gender.
But the genetic, biological side is slow. It'll take at least a few hundred years to catch up, if not thousands. In the meantime, most women are stuck with wanting equal treatment but also a tough, masculine man.
Men have the same problem. We want a woman who can be a partner, who we can share our hopes and dreams with, but we also want a slut, a woman to shut up, fuck, and leave.
It's the human condition. OP, the lie-myths you talk about are the ways we try to break free of our genetic programming. If you don't think it's right that women are attracted to abusive men, then goddamn it, stop with the feminist-bashing and help!

omega man said at October 9, 2009 4:24 PM:
but we also want a slut, a woman to shut up, fuck, and leave.

A trend that strikes me in this is that people assume their private desires are not cultural and also apply to all (healthy) members of their gender. This is not the case.

MaryJ said at October 9, 2009 6:53 PM:

As far as a I can tell, most women want an alph-beta hybrid.
--------
That's probably true, and I don't see anything wrong with that. PS -- Women don't get the hots for abusive men for very long; the one time when I was in an abusive relationship, I became totally turned off of this person after a few months. It took me a few more months to get out of it, because I was afraid of him, but I stopped sleeping with him long before I left him. BTW, it's 16 years later, but I still remember all the hurtful insults he hurled my way, which just goes to say that "negging" isn't all that great of a strategy in the long term.

---------------
My wife actually likes it when I spend a night or even a weekend out with the boys.
----
I like it when my husband goes out too, but that's because I'm an extreme introvert and I need my "alone" time.

Thes are more intelligent posts than I thought this entry would attract -- I'm relieved!

KevinF said at October 9, 2009 8:19 PM:

"A trend that strikes me in this is that people assume their private desires are not cultural and also apply to all (healthy) members of their gender. This is not the case."

My apologies, omega man, I didn't mean to exclude you. I wasn't expressing personal desires, and I assumed the "most women" part would make it clear I was generalizing about men as well. I certainly hope I didn't come across as endorsing gender stereotypes. I think of human sexuality as a multi-dimensional spectrum, not a simple dichotomy. Naturally there's a lot of variation in the kinds of people we find attractive. My point was that Social Darwinism like Roissy's isn't a mandate - we still get to choose what kind of social and sexual behavior we're going to censure as a culture, and what kind we'll support.

----
MaryJ - thanks for sharing. I'm glad you got out of that relationship alright. It made me wonder... can short-sighted behavior - like having the hots for abusive men, or like PUA negging - can be avoided through education? Or do people have to learn those kind of lessons by experience?

Eric Johnson said at October 9, 2009 11:17 PM:

Even though I basically like him I would admit Roissy can be rather misogynist. However, there's still a big difference between negging a la Roissy, and just being a huge jerk. Mostly he just describes making fun of someone for wearing cheap sandals, stuff like that. Pretty light hearted.

Truth said at October 9, 2009 11:36 PM:

This is not correct.

Women do not want an "alpha-beta" hybrid.

They want an alpha male who will commit and settle for them. They want a "master of the universe" or "biker-gang leader" who can also enjoy cooking, stay at home when asked and not chase skirts.

That is wildly different from what you say.

Wall Jumper said at October 9, 2009 11:57 PM:

Since we're at the 20th aniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I'm put in mind of an article I read several years AFTER that event, describing the surprise that many properly indoctrinated, socially progressive West German men felt when they discovered that West German women frequently preferred the retrograde, unreconstructed East German men, even if such men were alcoholic, unemployed, and occasionally violent.

The veneer of civilization is painfully thin.

MaryJ said at October 10, 2009 9:08 AM:

It made me wonder... can short-sighted behavior - like having the hots for abusive men, or like PUA negging - can be avoided through education? Or do people have to learn those kind of lessons by experience?
--
Well, my guy wasn't abusive at first, he hid his "special qualities" very well, behind a gentlemanly exterior. So I wasn't attracted to him for his abusiveness, I was attracted to the faux gentlemanliness. He was very good-looking and athletic, and fun to be with when he wasn't being abusive -- those were his positive qualities. It was only after I got into the relationship that he showed his true face. But yeah, the education I received was quite useful. Later on I read a Dear Abby column that listed the "15 Signs of an Abusive Man" and this guy had 14 out of 15. The only one he didn't meet was "doesn't want his wife or girlfriend to work": mine DID want me to work because I made more money than he did and he wanted me to spend it on him! Quite a prince, wasn't he?
--
Even though I basically like him I would admit Roissy can be rather misogynist.
--
Are you kidding me? He's not "lighthearted", he's cruel and hateful to the extreme. And so are most of his groupies. That thread that Randall linked to is full of stupid, creepy comments and people screaming "fag" at each other. BTW, I was hurt very badly by a "gamer" when I was a teen-ager, and I'll bear the emotional scars of that relationship forever -- much worse than from Mr. Abuser.
--
That is wildly different from what you say.
-
No, that's exactly what he said.

Nice Alpha said at October 10, 2009 11:46 AM:

"It must be very lonely, indeed, not to be able to communicate one's principles in words and touch and direct action, and instead be forced to strut with the pack to feel admired."

Omega Man. I honestly haven't a clue what you're talking about - something that doesn't surprise you I'm sure. We're not all the furtive loner trying to mask our sensitivities by drinking beers with the guys. Some of us actually just have friends and enjoy playing a game of hoops and, yes, having a beer with them. Try it sometime.
-------------
"That is wildly different from what you say."

As MaryJ said, no, that's exactly what I said.
-------------
Look, I'm only saying that the Roissy strategy of tricking women into making them believe that a beta is an alpha is fine, but at some point, either you're going to want something more or by chance you'll meet a particular woman who makes you want something more. And, ta-da, you're going to be in a long-term relationship, maybe even get married. When that happens, Roissy games won't help. You can't play a game for the rest of your life. If you're a beta, you'd better find your inner-alpha, because from what I've seen, you're going to need it.

As others have pointed out, that's not surprising. A female's inner-cave woman demands a man who can protect her and provide for the kids. Speaking of kids, she also wants children who will be strong enough when they grow up to manage in the world, so some alpha genes wouldn't hurt those odds. However, their 20th century, liberated, financially-independent side demands that they not get treated like dirt.

Is that fair? Who knows. It doesn't matter anyway, because that's the way it is.

If a woman goes bar-hopping, she wants an alpha. But for the long haul, she wants both. So pretending to be an alpha only takes you so far.

Eric Johnson said at October 10, 2009 12:38 PM:

Well, I agree, an army of seducers unleashed on the nation is not exactly a desideratum for the common good. It is also not all that much in harmony with most men's natures, I suspect. I've criticized him on Overcoming Bias for having that ethos. To his credit he does make a point of showing how his ideas also apply in monogamy, but I wouldn't try to deny that he does promote a seducer ethos overall. Like everyone, he thinks he himself is a good model for everyone else... I wouldn't try to tell him he ought to get married, and I think it's too bad that he tells everyone else in the world not to.

I didn't say he was thoroughly lighthearted overall, just that all or nearly all his examples of negs were. Many of the anti-female notes he hits in his online philosophizing are not very light, or are just too plain harsh (and false), and go sour. But overall you have to admit there's a touch of Gallic silliness and histrionics that lightens most of his "savaging" of various people and types - not invariably, but mostly.

You have to understand, to see my perspective, that the whole radically anti-nationalist and anti-conflict, pro self-criticism ideology of the post-bellum nuclear age inevitably strains human nature a little - and always stands in danger of being kind of anti-vigor. In particular, it can be counter-masculine. To crib from Nietzsche, vigorous life is naturally a little chauvinistic, undaunted, expansionist, and biased in its own favor - masculine. I'm not totally against this fundamentally anti-war ideaplex of our time, I just recognize its dangers. Unlike Roissy I think this general culture is just as important in creating the modern "herb" as feminism proper is. Its effect on the median male is quite tolerable; like any engineered solution it can't be optimized perfectly for everyone and the effect on the more inhibited, neurotic type male is not so wonderful. In other words, National Public Radio was mildly toxic for a certain subset such as, well, me, who by nature stood a greater risk of herbification. So I'll always have a soft spot and a sense of mild revelation regarding Roissy, particularly as someone who converted from left to right.

omega man said at October 10, 2009 3:29 PM:

It's just that I'm surprised the reductionist hook sinks so deep.

This isn't to say that these "games" don't explain something, just that they don't explain it well, and so many defenses of it happily skip to a further reduced scenario of cave women and Ugg-the-missing-link-the-victor getting action in a social Darwinist's scene, all humping the betas and slapping the female missing link and binging on fermented peaches. It's not to say that's impossible, but rather than I don't care and I take care not to associate myself with people with that view of the world, whether they like it or not.

MaryJ said at October 10, 2009 5:09 PM:

I think we can agree that reductionism doesn't help in the long run. If your spouse can't perform the minimum requirements of being a decent spouse, you are going to end up despising them no matter how "hot" you thought they were when you married them. And if bio-reductionism and the supposed values of the "sexual marketplace" were true in all cases, Prince Charles never would have dumped Diana for Camilla Parker Bowles (who wasn't even all that attractive when she was young), and Charles' great uncle never would have given up a throne and a billion dollar fortune for a 40-year-old double divorcee.

Randall Parker said at October 10, 2009 5:15 PM:

KevinF,

Social change and genetic change lagging: I think this is a common misconception. Where are the selective pressures to cause human instincts to align more closely with what we are told we should believe and value?

Actually, Audacious Epigone has examined this question in one way: Religious people have higher fertility and less promiscuous people have more babies too.

So maybe religiosity is being selected for and perhaps alphas are being selected against. On the other hand, illegitimate births continue to rise as a percentage of the total in the United States.

MaryJ said at October 10, 2009 6:29 PM:

"Where are the selective pressures to cause human instincts to align more closely with what we are told we should believe and value?" -

Longer life spans, for one thing. It made sense for my mother to marry in her early 20s and have her first child at 23. The average life expectancy for women when she was born was 55. Mine is 80 and my daughter's is nearly 100.

You forget that much of the change in family life in the past century is not due just to feminism, but to longer life expectancy. Women won't see marriage and child-rearing as their primary life's goal when they have a life expectancy of 110, which is where we are headed. That's why I laugh when I hear the bio-reductionists talk about "used up" women of 30 or 35 -- when a 30 year old woman in the near future will have 60, 70, 80 years still left to go at that age, she is not going to consider herself "too old" no matter how many roissy-ites scream it in her face. Even most religious women won't feel that way.

Later and later marriages will continue, there will be more technological advances that will extend women's fertility spans, there will be more older women hooking up with younger men. All of which will fly in the face of bio-reductionism. Biology isn't really destiny for women anymore, at least not in technologically advanced nations.

not anon or anonymous said at October 11, 2009 4:37 AM:

Longer life spans, for one thing. It made sense for my mother to marry in her early 20s and have her first child at 23. The average life expectancy for women when she was born was 55. Mine is 80 and my daughter's is nearly 100.

I agree with this. And we'll probably see bio-rejuvenation therapies in the near future as well - so 80-year old women in the future may well be as healthy and attractive as 30 or 40 year old women are today. Heck, anti-aging skin creams are a billion-dollar market already, and even Roissy supports bio-rejuvenation.

MaryJ said at October 11, 2009 11:17 AM:

And we'll probably see bio-rejuvenation therapies in the near future as well - so 80-year old women in the future may well be as healthy and attractive as 30 or 40 year old women are today.
---
And the poster called "Whiskey" will still be whining that the world is coming to an end because the hot 80 year old chicks don't wanna go home with him!LOL!

JustAnotherMisogynist said at October 12, 2009 3:00 AM:

MaryJ:

BTW, it's 16 years later, but I still remember all the hurtful insults he hurled my way, which just goes to say that "negging" isn't all that great of a strategy in the long term.

The fact that you think negging means to say "hurtful insults" proves that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

BTW, I was hurt very badly by a "gamer" when I was a teen-ager, and I'll bear the emotional scars of that relationship forever -- much worse than from Mr. Abuser.

And yet you still ended up in Mr. Abuser's bed even after you supposedly learned your lesson. Why is that?

You forget that much of the change in family life in the past century is not due just to feminism, but to longer life expectancy...That's why I laugh when I hear the bio-reductionists talk about "used up" women of 30 or 35

Reproductively speaking, they are used up by that time. Fertility starts to decline in the late 20's and the risk of birth defects greatly increases. Misrepresenting these things does a huge disservice to young women.

when a 30 year old woman in the near future will have 60, 70, 80 years still left to go at that age, she is not going to consider herself "too old" no matter how many roissy-ites scream it in her face

That a woman doesn't consider herself "too old" is irrelevant if the man she is trying to attract does.

Later and later marriages will continue,

I agree; people will continue to get married at later and later ages. However, if you haven't noticed, the marriage rate has plummeted. The marriage rate is now half of what it was just a few decades ago. So there will be later and later marriages and much fewer of them. Until the new institution of Marriage 2.0 is reformed to be decidedly less anti-male, you can expect this trend to continue.

there will be more technological advances that will extend women's fertility spans, there will be more older women hooking up with younger men. All of which will fly in the face of bio-reductionism.

And just about then, sexbots will be arriving on the market and providing every man with his own personal supermodel. That idea is about as likely as yours.

Younger men (almost always betas) have sex with older women because it's easy sex, especially for guys who are left out of the dating scene (again, betas). It rarely results in anything other than commitment-free sex for reasons that are easily explained if you read some MRA/PUA blogs. But why do that when you can keep believing in Pretty Lies?

MaryJ said at October 12, 2009 7:29 AM:

The fact that you think negging means to say "hurtful insults" proves that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

What are insults except hurtful? I'm quite familiar with the idea of making yourself seem
"more valuable" by making your target feel "less valuable." What is that except hurtful? Not all women are into that sort of thing. I was quite shy and very sensitive, still am, and insults about even the smallest things just made be feel depressed. If someone had made fun of me for wearing cheap shoes (example given by Eric above as "lighthearted" "negging") I would have been deeply wounded, because I grew up dirt poor and was always teased as a child about not having nice things.

And yet you still ended up in Mr. Abuser's bed even after you supposedly learned your lesson. Why is that?
As I explained before, he wasn't abusive when I first met him. When I found out he was, I ditched him. It took me awhile to say goodbye because I wanted to get away with my head intact. Maybe you should try a reading comprehension course? I hear they are cheap.

Tell that to my mother-in-law who had three kids after age 34, and my own mother who had four kids after age 30, including me. Long before the age of IVF, BTW. Regardless, reproductive technology will continue to make advances. Nothing you can do about that -- and it angers you to think about it because you know it will cause a further decline in the "power" of creeps like you in the "sexual marketplace." Tough toasties.

It rarely results in anything other than commitment-free sex for reasons that are easily explained if you read some MRA/PUA blogs.


Rarely results in anything other than commitment-free sex? Really? Check recent marriage statistics lately? I am married to a younger man and so is my best friend, my husband's best friend, and my sister-in-law. All of these are long term marriages of 15+ years duration. We are all happily married parents, BTW, something that you obviously are not. So who's the winner here in the "sexual marketplace?" Me or you? I have two children and a happy marriage and am a Girl Scout mom. You're probably stuck reading sick pick-up blogs while going home to an empty house every evening, and no one's ever going to invite you to lead a Cub Scout troop (just a hunch here). Fatherhood is a long way off for you -- maybe never. Who is really the one here who believes in all the "Pretty Lies?".

MaryJ said at October 12, 2009 7:35 AM:

Just another typical roissy-bot who thinks he has the world all figured out. You don't, not by a long shot. Now go target some poor 18-year-old with some stupid "negging" and moan that you can't find a decent woman to bring your precious "seed" into the world.

JustAnotherMisogynist said at October 12, 2009 11:41 PM:

I'm quite familiar with the idea of making yourself seem "more valuable" by making your target feel "less valuable." What is that except hurtful?

If you are like most women, you have never asked out a guy before. So you likely have no idea the type of bad attitudes men routinely get when they approach women. Negs should be used (sparingly) in these cases. Negs are playful teases, not insults.

Not all women are into that sort of thing. I was quite shy and very sensitive, still am, and insults about even the smallest things just made be feel depressed.

Again, if you are truly that way then there is no need to neg you at all. A neg on someone like you would hurt more than help. The mistake you make is thinking that just because you are polite that every woman is. Any guy who approaches women knows that is the most definitely not the case.

Tell that to my mother-in-law who had three kids after age 34, and my own mother who had four kids after age 30, including me. Long before the age of IVF, BTW.

It is definitely possible to have children at those ages and I never said otherwise. But if you want to have a family, it is foolish for women to wait until their 30's to do so (for reasons I have already touched on).

I am married to a younger man and so is my best friend, my husband's best friend, and my sister-in-law. All of these are long term marriages of 15+ years duration. We are all happily married parents

The vast majority of men do not want older women. The vast majority of women do not want younger men. You and some women you know being married to younger men does not change these facts.

Men are hardwired to be attracted to youth and beauty. As these decline with age, so does a woman's value in the sexual marketplace. You seem to think I am a jerk for saying this but I'm not trying to be insulting. Instead of shooting the messenger, you should encourage women to heed my advice: Find a mate when your physical attractiveness is the highest it will ever be (mid to late 20's). Otherwise, your options will decline the older you get.

Just another typical roissy-bot who thinks he has the world all figured out. You don't, not by a long shot. Now go target some poor 18-year-old with some stupid "negging" and moan that you can't find a decent woman to bring your precious "seed" into the world.

Allow me to interpret the subtext of your quote: I have no facts, can only back up my my assertions with personal anecdotes, and I am forced to resort to personal attacks. In other words, I've lost the argument.

MaryJ said at October 13, 2009 8:06 AM:

If you are like most women, you have never asked out a guy before. So you likely have no idea the type of bad attitudes men routinely get when they approach women. Negs should be used (sparingly) in these cases. Negs are playful teases, not insults.
Okay since you have replied to me in a more temperate tone, I'll reply to you in a like manner. Why should women not give men "bad attitudes?" I remember well my college years. I went to a school that was at the top of a steep hill. It was an art school and you had to carry a lot of heavy things up that hill. If you're a girl that's kind of hard. The old men, i.e. guys in their 40s, would wait at the bottom of the hill and start walking up the hill if they saw a young female college student struggling to get up that hill, then they would harass us. This happened to me many times. Why should any woman have to put up with that? Why would any man expect to be treated politely in that case? Believe me I wish that I had been rude(r) to those men who made my college life so hard.

It is definitely possible to have children at those ages and I never said otherwise. But if you want to have a family, it is foolish for women to wait until their 30's to do so (for reasons I have already touched on).

As I said before, you're not really interested in whether or not women can have children. You're interested in using their fertility or lack thereof as a weapon in the "sexual marketplace." Reproductive technology is already taking care of the issue somewhat and will continue to evolve in that way. Women don't like personal issues being weaponized in this manner

The vast majority of men do not want older women. The vast majority of women do not want younger men. You and some women you know being married to younger men does not change these facts.

The vast majority of men are used to dying in resource wars before they are 25. The vast majority of "old" women are used to dying giving birth to their 8th child at 35. That's not happening anymore, so society will have to, gee, what's that word again? evolve to the new reality. We have never had in our history a world where the average person expects to live to 100. Yes, there will be many social changes, and they are already happening. People are getting married later because, no matter how great marriage is, no one wants to be married for 75+ years. That's one reason why reproductive technology is evolving.

Men are hardwired to be attracted to youth and beauty. As these decline with age, so does a woman's value in the sexual marketplace.

As I said before, technology and longer life spans are changing our social mores; so what men are "hardwired" to want may be a factor, but it's not the only one. QA 25-year-old woman is "old" to a Stone Age African tribe with a lifespan of 45. PS, If you chose your spouse by their "value" in the "sexual marketplace" then don't complain about "anti-male marriage laws." Men who chose their wives intelligently, like my husband, don't have problems with "anti-male" marriage laws. PS why should you care if young men hook up with older women? Doesn't that lessen the competition for the more "valuable" women for those super-valuable, super-wonderful studs who deserve them, like yourself?

Find a mate when your physical attractiveness is the highest it will ever be (mid to late 20's). Otherwise, your options will decline the older you get.

Who would marry a man who is only interested in you for your "high market value"? If that's the case what's to stop them from running off when you lose your "high market value?" Better to marry a decent man who values you for character, loyalty, accomplishment etc. As I said before, sexual reductionism flies out the window when your spouse can't be trusted to do the minimum of being a good spouse. That goes for men and women. When that super-hottie you think you "deserve" as a mate can't be trusted with the credit cards or continually forgets to pick up the kids from the orthodontist, her "hotness" won't be factor at all in a few years, believe me.

Allow me to interpret the subtext of your quote: I have no facts, can only back up my my assertions with personal anecdotes, and I am forced to resort to personal attacks. In other words, I've lost the argument.

Your comments were rude and hateful; please show me the "facts" you presented in your own "argument"? There were none, just dogmatic assertions based on jargon you picked up at "PUA-MRA" websites. I replied in a like manner, because rude people deserve rude replies. And at the end of the day, you're still going home to an empty house, while I'm going home to a happy family and marriage. So maybe I know something that you don't? Just a thought.


Tom said at October 16, 2009 8:14 PM:

Please save us from the Roissy-ites that have decided that the 10% of the young women *they* choose to associate with must be the pattern for all women everywhere. What a joy to see a theory that starts with the axiom of "I don't get as much sex as I want" and leaps onward with evo-bio "theories" so weak they make the Intelligent-Design types look like they're rocket scienctists, manage to find fertile ground here.

Talk about describing the elephant when you're holding the tail. Small wonder they're bitter about being covered in manure.

Bob Badour said at October 17, 2009 1:25 PM:

MaryJ,

You managed to reproduce. Congratulations! You managed to do something billions of mosquitoes accomplish every year. With all due respect, I don't see how you are the least bit different from Roissy, himself.

MaryJ said at October 17, 2009 3:43 PM:

You managed to reproduce. Congratulations! You managed to do something billions of mosquitoes accomplish every year.
-
You're not understanding the context here. Part of the whining of the bio-reductionists is that they say they will never have children and families because there are not enough "hot" young women to go around for all the men, like Just Another Misogynist, who think they deserve them (they would never consider marrying a so-so-looking woman, or god forbid, a woman their own age or older, in order to have children and a family). So yes they think reproduction is a very big deal indeed. My point is that there are plenty of good women out there for them to reproduce with, they just let their obsession with the "sexual marketplace" get in the way. They want a mate with "high sexual marketplace value", not a high-quality mate; the two are not necessarily one in the same. I didn't have "high sexual marketplace value" according to their ideas when I married but I still have children, a house in the suburbs, and a decent marriage.

not anon or anonymous said at October 17, 2009 5:04 PM:

"You're not understanding the context here."

Yes. But my guess is that what you're seeing is a weird rationalization for these guys' dating preferences. Roissy-ite ideology can be strange indeed.

At least the seduction community takes a goal-directed approach to the "how do I get more/better dates" problem. But why expend all that effort when you can just post oversimplified rants on the roissy blog?

MaryJ said at October 17, 2009 5:14 PM:

But why expend all that effort when you can just post oversimplified rants on the roissy blog?

It's kind of sad. They actually think they are "saving the West" by doing so - more so than people like me, who actually are giving birth to and raising children.

not anon or anonymous said at October 17, 2009 6:27 PM:

They actually think they are "saving the West" by doing so

Quite right. And a small minority of commenters can be credited with raising awareness about some fairly important issues--see the comment by Canada Dry cited in the OP--which is why that particular blog occasionally shows up on ParaPundit. Though the vast majority of Roissybots are all about hatin' on dem bitchez and being generally obnoxious.

Randall Parker said at October 17, 2009 8:02 PM:

MaryJ,

I think the "saving the West" sort of rhetoric is meant to shock people into thinking about what's really going on.

not anon or anonymous,

I think the PUA scene is a symptom of a much larger societal change and it is important to look at it. I also think the PUA people, since they are more goal-oriented and have a way to measure their theories, are coming up with some interesting observations about male and female preferences that are at odds with the politically correct nonsense we are taught.

Why is the PUA skill set becoming valuable to men? Women and men are marrying later if at all. When they married younger then everyone paired up and less desirable men and women all found mates. By pairing up later there's a phenomenon where less appealing women all go after the most appealing guys. Guys who previously would have had a chance at getting a comparable girl now have to raise their game to compete against guys they didn't use to have to compete against as much.

Tom said at October 18, 2009 8:20 AM:

And a small minority of commenters can be credited with raising awareness about some fairly important issues--see the comment by Canada Dry cited in the OP

Oh Christ. Save us from "astute" commenters like Canada Dry that "know" what *all* women want or don't want.

This is like Roissy who continually has to dismiss what the actual facts of the matter (for example the GSS) is in favor of his pet theory.

And, of course, all men only want 16-year old dumb blondes with big breasts. After all, suggesting anything else might indicate, I don't know, that that somehow in the last million years human beings acquired a brain?

What a load of hooey. Don't these guys have any pride or self-respect?

I wouldn't even care about this, after all, creationists have their world view as well, but this garbage is beginning to leak into the intelligent parts of the internet. Nobody seems to be looking up and saying "does this hypergamy (or whatever it's called) apply to anyone I actually know?" My mother? No. My sisters? No. My friends? Well, no. My colleagues? No. But I do know someone that's sort-of like that, and it's all over the internet, so it *must* be true.

*sigh*.

I don't see how you are the least bit different from Roissy, himself.

How about the simple one. The total level of happiness in the world will be *higher* when Roissy shuffles off his mortal coil. After all, that's one less sexual predator leaving emotional scars around him. MaryJ is, no doubt, actually loved and valued. Her life had made the world a better place.

Randall Parker said at October 18, 2009 10:14 AM:

Tom,

I think you are attacking a strawman version of what Roissy and Canada Dry say. Only 16 year old dumb blondes with big breasts? That's a really big strawman. Roissy argues that men like variety. You'd have to read what he says in order to attack him effectively.

Hypergamy: It doesn't have to apply to all women to be important. Look at declining marriage rates. Look at delayed marriage. Look at infidelity rates.

As for someone's sisters: Most women who have one night stands do not call up their brothers the next day to tell them about it. Ditto for women who cheat on their husbands. I know women cheat on their husbands because I've been propositioned by married women. You wouldn't know by looking at them. I used to know a guy who slept with lots of married women. What he said about their willingness shocked my then much younger and naive self. Mind you, he was the stereotype of the good looking alpha. The guys who aren't that good looking do not know what a lot of women will do with an alpha.

I used to buy into a more mythologized view of women. A minority of them behave in ways that resemble the mythology. But most don't.

Bob Badour said at October 18, 2009 10:31 AM:
You're not understanding the context here. Part of the whining of the bio-reductionists is...

With all due respect, MaryJ, I addressed your whining. That someone else whines or is judgmental in no way excuses you. Attempting to elevate your social status by putting down others is no different from Roissy.

Bob Badour said at October 18, 2009 10:41 AM:
The total level of happiness in the world will be *higher* when Roissy shuffles off his mortal coil.

The total level of happiness in the world will be much higher when people start accepting the world for what it is and stop making up reasons to be unhappy just so they can find others wanting.

I don't have a lot of sexual conquests under my belt. I don't have a girlfriend, a wife or offspring. I don't think anyone would mistake me for an alpha. And yet, I am one of the happiest people I have ever met. Go figure.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 11:17 AM:
With all due respect, MaryJ, I addressed your whining. That someone else whines or is judgmental in no way excuses you. Attempting to elevate your social status by putting down others is no different from Roissy.

I wasn't whining at all. I was pointing out the flaws in their "sexual marketplace" dogma. In order to do that I did have to reveal something about myself. It may have sounded like bragging to you; obviously I hit a sore spot.

I don't have a lot of sexual conquests under my belt. I don't have a girlfriend, a wife or offspring. I don't think anyone would mistake me for an alpha. And yet, I am one of the happiest people I have ever met. Go figure.

I don't have a problem with people being happily single or not parents or "not alphas". I have a problem with men like "Just Another Misogynist" who insist that the dogma of the "sexual marketplace" somehow means that those women they consider "less valuable" will never marry suitable men, or have children. They show up on blogs and literally taunt women with "hee, hee, your sexual value is declining, you're 27!." I called foul on that idea and still do. As Tom F. pointed out above, a lot of my own life experiences or acquaintances don't reflect the validity of the "sexual marketplace."

The one woman I know who truly "hit the jackpot" in the "sexual marketplace" - to use Roissy-style standards of success - was a woman in her mid-40s, who married rich, not just rich, but stinking, filthy rich. She was no dummy, she had a doctorate in a hard science, and she always had a man in her life, usually a wealthy or at least "successful" one, and this trend continued no matter what her age. She wasn't beautiful, though she was cute in a bubbly cheerleader, Sally Fieldish type of way. What she did have was a "great personality" -- she was fun to be with, outgoing, witty and sparkly. The kind of person, whether they are men or women, who always do well in life no matter what. So no I don't believe that all men only see women as a sack of perishable eggs and a vagina, as the bio-reductionists claim. If that were true, as I pointed out above, my acquaintance wouldn't exist, and the Duke of Windsor never would have given up a throne and a billion dollar fortune for a 40-year-old double divorcee.


Tom said at October 18, 2009 11:20 AM:

My point about all men want 'x' was of course all men *don't* want 'x', and that most men (including Roissy) would think it's incredibly stupid to claim so.

At the same point, according to the Roissy crowd, all women are desperately trying to sleep with alphas, which is why normal guys can't find anyone to partner with.

This is, of course, as trite as the 'all men' assertion, and should be just as easily dismissed.

That there are *some* women like that is beyond doubt, just as there are *some* men obsessed with blondes.

I probably wouldn't pick on the Roissy-ites if the whiners were honest and complained that "I only want someone who is obsessed with her own looks enough to be a 9 or a 10, but it's totally unfair that they're obsessed with *my* looks". It sounds way to much like a serious version of the "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member".

Canada Dry's assertion is both wrong and pernicious. The idea that "women don't value intelligence" is just plain stupid (unless you're talking about intelligence totally divorced from anything relevant to a relationship). Once again, there's the almost autistic need to have all members of a group 'X' fit profile 'Y' despite the facts all around. Again, you lose the moment you say "men/women find x attractive" or "men/women don't find x attractive".

Look at declining marriage rates. Look at delayed marriage. Look at infidelity rates.

Indeed, I'd be very surprised if human society *didn't* adapt to changing environments (i.e. longer life-spans) by changing behaviour. As for infidelity rates, they'll always be some. But 15% (for young women) is not the ground-shaking. My guess over a lifetime, there's probably a 30% rate (just a guess). Does that make all women harlots? Not any more than it makes all women angels.

Either way, the OP is pretty much ridiculous over-generalizations based on a few smidgens of fact.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 11:32 AM:
I think the "saving the West" sort of rhetoric is meant to shock people into thinking about what's really going on.

It's hooey, Randall. Who are these men who are going to "save" the West by learning how to prey on women in bars? What do they do about the real problems facing our demographic? Do they donate money to organizations like Numbers USA? Do they make the calls to their "representatives" to fight the latest illegal immigration amnesty? Do they take the time to learn about Islam and the threat it poses to our civilization? No they do not. On the other hand, I do all of those things. When the last amnesty proposal was in the Senate two years ago, I was on the phone every single morning, calling every Senator in the country to fight it. I was one of the people who helped to break the Senate's phone system 2007, and I'm proud of that fact. So no, I don't consider these PUA airheads to be fighting for my civilization.

When I read this PUA crap, I sometimes wonder why I put forth all the effort. Let the whole thing go down the tubes, if the only way to "save" it is to fashion a world based on their worldview.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 11:39 AM:
I probably wouldn't pick on the Roissy-ites if the whiners were honest and complained that "I only want someone who is obsessed with her own looks enough to be a 9 or a 10, but it's totally unfair that they're obsessed with *my* looks".

They're the mirror images of women who whine that "there are no good men out there," but only want to go out with a combination of Brad Pitt, Albert Schweitzer and Bill Gates! I think Hollywood is more to blame for the dismal dating scene than "hypergamy." After all, every woman gets one of those in the movies.

not anon or anonymous said at October 18, 2009 12:23 PM:
'What she did have was a "great personality" -- she was fun to be with, outgoing, witty and sparkly.'

Yes, that's another thing Roissybots don't really pay attention to. And if having a "great personality" is a trainable skill (I for one hope it is), then women will start learning "game" as much as men do.

'They're the mirror images of women who whine that "there are no good men out there," but only want to go out with a combination of Brad Pitt, Albert Schweitzer and Bill Gates!'

That's what the Roissy-ites mean by 'hypergamy'. Let's disregard all the silly ideologies here: if these inflated expectations are to blame for making the dating scene 'dismal' (at least in part), then Randall Parker is right and PUA is quite important stuff.

Bob Badour said at October 18, 2009 1:00 PM:
I wasn't whining at all.

I respectfully ask that you review everything you wrote in this commentary thread asking yourself whether a disinterested third party might perceive any of it as whining. When I find a disconnect between what I observe a person doing and what the person says they are doing, I go with what I observe them doing and ignore what they say about it.

obviously I hit a sore spot.

Not at all. Knowing I cannot read minds, I avoid getting into people's intentions or motives. When I read something like "And at the end of the day, you're still going home to an empty house, while I'm going home to a happy family and marriage. So maybe I know something that you don't?" I don't see what purpose it could serve--regardless of intention--other than to be a dig at someone or to establish some sort of social or moral high ground.

I am very grateful for my empty house. (Well, not exactly empty with my dogs and cat but...) I am also very grateful to have no (human) children. While I am not particularly sore about it, comments like yours only serve to foster prejudice that I end up paying for. Like I said: I see no difference between you and Roissy in that respect.

Bob Badour said at October 18, 2009 1:13 PM:
Once again, there's the almost autistic need to have all members of a group 'X' fit profile 'Y' despite the facts all around.

As someone who happens to be autistic, I find your notions of us odd to say the least. We are a very diverse group generally overrepresented among all manner of outliers. While I am sure some autistic person out there copes by using such a rigid classification scheme, that would be very much the exception rather than the rule among autistics. Conversely, I find the need you describe almost ubiquitous among the NT population--or at least among the NT population with an IQ less than 115 or so.

Tom said at October 18, 2009 1:27 PM:

if these inflated expectations are to blame for making the dating scene 'dismal' (at least in part), then Randall Parker is right and PUA is quite important stuff.

Or perhaps the dating scene is dismal because looking for a mate first and a person second is unlikely to yield ideal results. (i.e. the dating scene is always and has always been dismal.) Far better to find an interest (perhaps slanted towards interests shared by the opposite sex) that you share with others and build from there.

I am very grateful for my empty house

Honestly, I think that every one here is happy for you. There's certainly no opprobrium in being happily single.

comments like yours only serve to foster prejudice that I end up paying for.

I see your point about why MaryJ's comment was somewhat hurtful, but I strongly suspect that it was meant to wound only JAM, whose previous comments, by any measure of civil human discourse, were obnoxious.

However, were I MaryJ, I'd probably not try to justify throwing the rhetorical glass of water in JAM's face (which he richly deserved), but apologize for hitting all those who were unfortunate enough to be standing behind him. :-). A small lesson in why letting our anger get the better of us can have unfortunate consequences.

Tom said at October 18, 2009 1:36 PM:

As someone who happens to be autistic,

Damn. Hoisted by my own petard.

I should not have generalized from my personal experience (as well as friends with autistic tendencies) to the autistic population as a whole.

My apologies for any offense caused. Please consider my comment ill-considered and withdrawn.

Bob Badour said at October 18, 2009 2:04 PM:

No offense, Tom. I just found it odd.

Although, the prejudices autistics face for being autistic are often far more dangerous and troublesome than the prejudices we face for having different values.

Perhaps you are referring to posts JAM made elsewhere. Of his 2 posts here, I don't see anything he wrote that is particularly obnoxious; although, I do see where he called MaryJ out in a way that would tend to make most people (and most abuse survivors in particular) defensive.

Randall Parker said at October 18, 2009 2:27 PM:

MaryJ,

You say:

It's hooey, Randall. Who are these men who are going to "save" the West by learning how to prey on women in bars? What do they do about the real problems facing our demographic? Do they donate money to organizations like Numbers USA? Do they make the calls to their "representatives" to fight the latest illegal immigration amnesty? Do they take the time to learn about Islam and the threat it poses to our civilization? No they do not.

Roissy writes savage posts about the decline of the West due to immigration. He even has me on his (short) blog roll.

Here's what Roissy had to say about an art show in DC and the state of art in America: Leave aside the fact that he's a PUA he reads like a paleocon decrying the decline of the West.

After a long, semi-hard slog through seven floors of this charade, I have reached a verdict. The state of art in America is:

Clutter.

I’m a man who loves beauty. I love beautiful women, beautiful breasts, beautiful pussies, beautiful scenery, beautiful ideas, beautiful fornication… and beautiful art. If Artomatic is any indication, the art of our nation’s creative class is not beautiful. It is ugly. It is noisome. It is inane. It is a collage of crap.

It is the sewage leak of septic tank-shaped souls.

And none of this is new. Art in America has been on this collision course with retardation for at least the past 40 years, maybe more. We are a long, LONG way from Monet.

He decries the masculinization of American women.

Roissy on Ted Kennedy's passing and the disastrous legacy of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act:

You, Senator Kennedy, are the bloated fermented sack of pestilent traitorous lying filth who helped pass the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that in its effects has been a de facto genocide by another name against America’s majority and soon to be minority native sons and daughters, and from which calamitous effects you have spent a lifetime hypocritically barricading yourself behind the safe gates of lily white oases.

You think collapse might be necessary. Roissy calls for the destruction of the welfare state in order to save civilization. From a post entitled Decivilizing: Human Nature Unleashed:

The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them. The result has been more cougars, more sluts, and more demand for DNA paternity testing. To prevent this edifice from crumbling under its own weight entirely, massive redistributive payments from men to women in the form of welfare, alimony, punitive child support (even from men who aren’t the biological fathers!), female- and child-friendly workplaces, legal injustice (women in general do not give a shit about justice), corporate-sponsored daycare, PC extortion, sexual harassment claims, and divorce theft have had to be ruthlessly administered and enforced by the thugs of the rapidly metastasizing elite-created police state. Remove these security and resource transfers and safety nets and you will see the feminist utopia crumble within one generation.

Many will suffer in the fallout. Their suffering will be necessary. The only alternative is a gradual decivilizing of the West until the hellhounds of human nature have broken their chains and the blood-dimmed tide is loosed.

Roissy gets lots of HBD debates in his comments and the debaters are of both sexes and various races. He did a post Question For Economists And Libertarians:

Hypothetically speaking, if average human population group differences in aptitude, temperament, personality and decision-making exist and are immutable over generational timespans, and those group average differences are greater when the population groups being compared are larger (i.e. ethnicity versus race), would anything change about principal economic theories and concepts (e.g. free trade, externalities, free movement of labor, comparative advantage, public choice theory, opportunity cost, rationality of players, labor force growth)? If so, how would they change?

This guy understands more and communicates far better than you give him credit.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 2:40 PM:
Of his 2 posts here, I don't see anything he wrote that is particularly obnoxious;

His posts were rude and obnoxious to ME. And so was Bob's initial post as well, quite frankly. He wounded me -- as he meant too; I certainly didn't mean to wound him -- I didn't even know he was reading my comments. Please note, I had no problems communicating respectfully with the other men in the thread, and even admitted upthread that "Nice alpha" was right in a lot of what he posted.

I like an empty house myself a lot of the times; I'm not autistic but I'm very introverted. I often experience other peoples' presence as overwhelming so I understand how Bob feels. However, JAM DID imply that he wanted a home and family, only that "anti-male marriage laws" were keeping him from it (or the lack of available hot young women whom he would deign, in all his wonderfulness, to date). If you don't want a family, and you like being alone, then you're not even in the game, so I don't see why such a person would be offended by my comments; they weren't directed at people who don't want families. OTOH, if you are JAM, and if you do want a family, but don't have one, then maybe it's time to sit back and ask youself whether your dogmatic worldview of male-female relationships is all that correct.

That's what the Roissy-ites mean by 'hypergamy'. Let's disregard all the silly ideologies here: if these inflated expectations are to blame for making the dating scene 'dismal' (at least in part), then Randall Parker is right and PUA is quite important stuff.

What I described is not the rude and nasty PUA misogynist types; it was more along the lines of what "Nice Alpha" described as what most women want, a combination of alpha-beta personality traits (note I put the famous humanitarian Albert Schweizter in the mix, along with Brad P and Bill Gates). However, lots of us women grow up and realize that a real man is better than a fantasy man; real sex is better than fantasy sex; real families are better than imagined ones. I suspect that many of the PUAs will find that out someday too.

In the end the "highest value mate" is the one who can be the best spouse for you, and that's what all long-time sucessfully married people know.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 2:55 PM:
This guy understands more and communicates far better than you give him credit.

Randall, I never said anything about Roissy's other type of posts; I don't care about them one way or the other. I just stopped reading anything he said because he's so hateful and vile toward women, and so are most of his moronic followers. I also stopped reading most of the blogs that link to him (this one excepted). And I sincerely doubt if he gives big bucks to the struggle or makes those calls to our "representatives." Women who care about the West aren't going to see this type of person as an ally, period. So he can blog all he can about Western art, big deal. He puts otherwise sympathetic women off our struggle and that bothers me. Geert Wilders gets a lot of attention but if you really knew anything about the mass immigration struggle in the West, you'd know it is women who are doing a lot of the heavy lifting on that score. The first person to sound the alarm on Islam and Europe, nearly a decade ago, was a female politician, Pia Klaarsjard of Denmark, and the first for Australia was also a woman, Pauline Hanson. And why wouldn't we fight for our civilization? Unlike Roissy, we have children to think of.

not anon or anonymous said at October 18, 2009 3:34 PM:
What I described is not the rude and nasty PUA misogynist types; it was more along the lines of what "Nice Alpha" described

Perhaps I was unclear here. The term "PUA" was invented by members of the 'seduction community' (SC), most of whom do strive to model the traits Nice Alpha mentioned; I was not referring to the nasty and weird Roissy stuff.

Yes, real people are better than fantasy people. But note that the SC is quite successful at what it does; lots of guys join it in order to become more successful with women, play the field for a while, and drop out of it once they've found a nice GF. By and large, these people have no reason to be misogynistic. 'Players' also exist, and of course some people become gurus and coaches, but they're a visible minority.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 3:54 PM:
But note that the SC is quite successful at what it does; lots of guys join it in order to become more successful with women, play the field for a while, and drop out of it once they've found a nice GF.

Does not PUA mean "pick-up artist"? That sounds rather misogynistic to me. Regardless, I'm happy for anyone who finds a good mate and a happy marriage in this day and age, and not all that concerned about how they do it, as long as they are sincere. But going by their posts, their attitudes and their blogs, they strike me in general as rather hateful, dogmatic, and rigid. They have a worldview that they support and they don't like any challenges to their dogma; see JAM above. Or whiskey for instance, who constantly asserts the most insane and ridiculous dogma possible about women.

I find it interesting that no one (except the late unlamented JAM) has really posted that much on the issue I brought up initially: that longer life spans would change our societies in many ways, including the way we look at marriage and reproduction. Then again, if our whole civilization is going to collapse due to massive immigration-caused social instability, maybe it doesn't really matter. Scientific progress will halt; and we'll all go back to having a life expectancy of 35-40 years like Zimbabweans -- or 19th century Americans.

Bob Badour said at October 18, 2009 3:57 PM:
His posts were rude and obnoxious to ME. And so was Bob's initial post as well, quite frankly. He wounded me -- as he meant too

You don't stand a chance of being less like Roissy until you realize you cannot read minds. Once you realize that, you will have to let go of the notion that other people's intentions can justify your own misbehaviour because you can never know what another person intends. Your emotions do not measure other people's intent. Your emotions are internally constructed artifacts of your own invention.

If anything, the intensity of your emotional reactions measures the weakness of your position. I meant to reveal the absurdity of the unspoken and nearly universal prejudice at the foundation of your barb. It is such an insidious prejudice it really does require an interrupt to get it out. You feel wounded because my observation regarding the significance of reproduction is compelling which frustrates you and causes you cognitive dissonance possibly exacerbated because you may have chosen to invest your own sense of self-worth in the absurdity.

JAM asking you how you ended up with an abuser is perfectly legitimate. You opened the door to the question by introducing your own history. The reason some men abuse and the reason some women accept the abuse (stockholm syndrome) is both behaviours have been successful reproductive strategies. Anyone with even marginal understanding of human history will understand the reasons why they have been successful reproductive strategies. The specific details of your personal situation may differ, but I bet the abuser you were with has reproduced with some woman or another. The odds would be in my favour.

You were wounded by JAM's question because it was very effective rhetoric to undermine your argument and possibly because you buy into the absurd notion that ending up with an abuser indicates some sort of moral failing.

The less you seek status hierarchies to feel superior to others, the less opportunity you will have to feel wounded.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 4:24 PM:
If anything, the intensity of your emotional reactions measures the weakness of your position. I meant to reveal the absurdity of the unspoken and nearly universal prejudice at the foundation of your barb. It is such an insidious prejudice it really does require an interrupt to get it out. You feel wounded because my observation regarding the significance of reproduction is compelling which frustrates you and causes you cognitive dissonance possibly exacerbated because you may have chosen to invest your own sense of self-worth in the absurdity.

You seem to be rather good at reading minds yourself. And yes I'm proud of being a mother and a Westerner, and of my place in continuing my civilization's place in the world. I don't care if it offends you or anyone else, or if you see that as seeking a "status hierarchy;" I see it differently.

The less you seek status hierarchies to feel superior to others, the less opportunity you will have to feel wounded.

You seem to be rather good at finding opportunities to feel wounded yourself. Otherwise why would you keep bringing up the fact that you are autistic in order to make your points? Isn't that rather like status-seeking, but in the reverse? No one here knew that and no one meant to offend you on that score, but you still felt the need to put both Tom and I on the back foot by bringing up your disability. I have a close relative who was born with a terminal,uncurable disease; frankly I think that autism is getting off lightly, compared to her problem.

You were wounded by JAM's question because it was very effective rhetoric to undermine your argument and possibly because you buy into the absurd notion that ending up with an abuser indicates some sort of moral failing.

I found his entire post obnoxious, not just the stuff about "abuse." He was needlessly confrontational and dogmatic in the way he put forth his arguments, and his assumptions about me and my relationships, so, as a matter of fact, are you. Later on he was a bit more temperate and rational in his commentary, and I replied more temperately in kind. Rude responses get rude responses from me, and that's not "status seeking," it's an eye for an eye.

Frankly, I'm done with you, as your comments to me are getting increasingly dense, bizarre and rather stalkery-like. We're not communicating here on any appreciable level.


not anon or anonymous said at October 18, 2009 4:50 PM:
"Does not PUA mean "pick-up artist"? That sounds rather misogynistic to me."

It's a long story. The SC started out as a secretive organization founded by guys who, by and large, paid little or no attention to these sorts of connotations. Some of the early 'gurus' could even be described as sociopathic. The "community" expanded greatly through the Internet and these early attitudes were discarded, but some legacies of them remained, such as the terms "pickup artist", "seduction community", "target" and the like.

Note that the "community" did not become public until Neil Strauss's expose The Game was published in 2005; as a result, it has undergone further explosive growth and radical change. The Roissy-sphere seems to be one strand; it has developed a very peculiar ideology which conflates MRA activism, HBD, bio-reductionist thought, cynical misanthropism and a whole lot of other stuff. It's becoming quite popular, but I still don't think it's very representative of the SC.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 4:57 PM:
MRA

Thank you for the explanation. I have been married for a long time so I was unaware that all this existed and actually made it into a book. What is MRA?

Randall Parker said at October 18, 2009 7:09 PM:

MaryJ says,

Does not PUA mean "pick-up artist"? That sounds rather misogynistic to me.

Seriously, what's misogynistic about it? If the guys are in city night clubs competing for girls and the girls are willing to go home with the guys and have sex then the PUA techniques by guys do not change what the girls are like. Do you think a girl who is determined to marry as a virgin faces a problem dealing with the Roissys of the world? If so, why?

MaryJ also says,

You seem to be rather good at finding opportunities to feel wounded yourself. Otherwise why would you keep bringing up the fact that you are autistic in order to make your points? Isn't that rather like status-seeking, but in the reverse?

I'm pretty sure Bob revealed this about himself in part to show you that he's not neurotypical and that you are therefore less likely to understand him and he's less likely to understand you. He's not having the same emotional reactions to what you say as you'd expect him to have. He's not saying things for some of the reasons you think are motivating him.

You seem to assume we really all would be made truly happy the same way. Your comment here to Just Another Misogynist reveals an apparent belief that only married people with children are the winners in life:

We are all happily married parents, BTW, something that you obviously are not. So who's the winner here in the "sexual marketplace?" Me or you? I have two children and a happy marriage and am a Girl Scout mom. You're probably stuck reading sick pick-up blogs while going home to an empty house every evening, and no one's ever going to invite you to lead a Cub Scout troop (just a hunch here). Fatherhood is a long way off for you -- maybe never. Who is really the one here who believes in all the "Pretty Lies?".

I know a married woman who feels trapped in a marriage and finds she doesn't like raising kids anywhere near as much as she thought she would. She's sticking it out for the benefit of the kids. But she is not happy. She wouldn't do it if she had to do it all over again.

People really differ quite a bit in terms of what makes them happy. As a bio-reductionist (as distinct from a bio-rejectionist) I do not find this surprising. People differ in assorted innate personality characteristics, sex drive, sexual orientation, types of physical features they find most attractive, intellect, and other cognitive attributes.

I could point you posts I've written on FuturePundit (e.g. see my category archives Brain Innate and Brain Sexuality and Brain Sex Differences) to scientific studies about how human preferences differ and even how various factors in the environment and taken into the body (e.g. birth control pills) change our sexual and other desires. The bio-reductionist scientific researchers have found out a lot about human desires and drives and these results do not point in the direction of a single lifestyle as providing the most satisfaction to everyone.


MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 7:40 PM:
Do you think a girl who is determined to marry as a virgin faces a problem dealing with the Roissys of the world? If so, why?
Yes they probably do. I was badgered by men like that when I was determined to remain celibate myself. Obviously most girls like that don't hang out in bars (I never did) but they are prey in other venues such as public transportation, etc. See my post above about the men who followed me up the hill and harassed me and other college girls when all we were trying to do was get to our classes.
You seem to assume we really all would be made truly happy the same way. Your comment here to Just Another Misogynist reveals an apparent belief that only married people with children are the winners in life.

No, I don't feel that way. My point was to the "evo-psych" crowd. If the whole point of bio-reductionism is reproduction and survival of the species, who then is the more successful (according to their own standards, not necessarily mine?)? One who has actaully reproduced or one who hasn't? That was my point.

People differ in assorted innate personality characteristics, sex drive, sexual orientation, types of physical features they find most attractive, intellect, and other cognitive attributes.

Aren't you arguing against your own bio-reductionist point here? People aren't all the same, they don't have all the same motivations -- we have all been arguing that biology isn't the be-all and end-all of relationships because gosh darn it, people are all different.

I'm pretty sure Bob revealed this about himself in part to show you that he's not neurotypical and that you are therefore less likely to understand him and he's less likely to understand you.

He seems to be rather sure of the fact that he understands me quite well. However I'm not interested in continuing the line of conversation anymore. We don't see eye to eye, it's enough to leave it at that. I've gotten over Bob's comparison of me and my kids to fruit flies.

Randall Parker said at October 18, 2009 8:25 PM:

MaryJ,

No, I don't feel that way. My point was to the "evo-psych" crowd. If the whole point of bio-reductionism is reproduction and survival of the species, who then is the more successful (according to their own standards, not necessarily mine?)? One who has actaully reproduced or one who hasn't? That was my point.

You are confusing a Darwinian description of survival of the reproductively fittest with the normative beliefs of scientists who study human nature. Just because they have a measure of reproductive success does not mean that they personally value reproductive success.

Aren't you arguing against your own bio-reductionist point here? People aren't all the same, they don't have all the same motivations -- we have all been arguing that biology isn't the be-all and end-all of relationships because gosh darn it, people are all different.

You are putting up a straw man version of bio-reductionist viewpoints. Biology is the biggest source of these differences. We have important genetic variations that give us different personality traits.

MaryJ said at October 18, 2009 8:32 PM:
You are confusing a Darwinian description of survival of the reproductively fittest with the normative beliefs of scientists who study human nature. Just because they have a measure of reproductive success does not mean that they personally value reproductive success.

I wasn't talking about the scientists; I was talking about the people who use (or abuse) their findings to hurt and harass women.

You are putting up a straw man version of bio-reductionist viewpoints. Biology is the biggest source of these differences. We have important genetic variations that give us different personality traits.

But people are different by your own admission and therefore remarks about what all men want or what all women want all the time aren't correct, are they?


Randall Parker said at October 18, 2009 9:07 PM:

MaryJ,

If scientists make discoveries that really do help pick-up artists seduce women then that demonstrates the power of the scientific findings. But that doesn't necessarily mean that women are doing things against their will. Some of the pick-up artist techniques are akin to women wearing make-up. Guys learn to act or look in ways that are more like what women want in lovers. One could just as well as say this is men responding to the market just like women do with hairdos, make-up, and clothing.

Who said all women or all men want the same thing? I seriously doubt that Roissy, for example, believes this. I've read a lot of his posts and think he has a very nuanced view. Read his post on how to identify sluts for example. Obviously if he thought all women were sluts he wouldn't write a post like that. Implicit in the post is the belief that some women are promiscuous and some are not. I'm sure there's a continuum and I'm sure he believes the same.

Given that some women really are sluts I see the pick-up phenomenon as mostly about guys competing for the girls who will go to bed with a lot of guys.

Sure, people generalize. But do not confuse imprecise use of the English language with real beliefs.

not anon or anonymous said at October 19, 2009 1:32 AM:
"I was badgered by men like that when I was determined to remain celibate myself."

It should go without saying, but the SC, by and large, does not endorse these ways of approaching women. I'm not disputing that these behaviors exist, but they are best described as bullying, though some men may exhibit them as a sincere attempt to woo women (due to the norms of their culture or subculture). These men need to be shown viable alternatives, and the SC may be able to do this effectively.

There are some special cases, such as the infamous "neg" or "negative hit". It was believed to be practically necessary in order to have a chance of getting attention in clubs, but people were always unhappy about the risks of using it incorrectly, the chances for abuse, etc. Eventually it was discovered that there were ways around this problem, so many gurus have all but deprecated it.

Bob Badour said at October 19, 2009 4:01 PM:
You seem to be rather good at reading minds yourself.

Not at all. I have no delusions regarding that point. It doesn't require mind-reading to observe that people have emotional reactions when someone points out an obvious and compelling flaw in their belief system or position on an issue. People do.

It doesn't require a whole lot of research to figure out the relevant terms for the phenomenon are cognitive dissonance and frustration.

The status-seeking hypothesis remains an hypothesis, and I was careful with my verbiage on that score. While I can certainly see some highly suggestive evidence for the hypothesis in what you write, I am not sure anything could definitively prove the hypothesis. At this point, nothing has falsified it, though.

As a generalization, the status-seeking hypothesis is a valuable one to test on any observed human behaviour. It is an hypothesis that explains a great deal of it.

I don't care if it offends you or anyone else, or if you see that as seeking a "status hierarchy;" I see it differently.

I don't know what you hope to achieve with such a transparent sophistry. I have not been offended by anything written in this commentary thread, and I have not expressed any offense.

You seem to be rather good at finding opportunities to feel wounded yourself. Otherwise why would you keep bringing up the fact that you are autistic in order to make your points?

Tom brought up the issue of autism not me. I mentioned my autism in my reply to Tom because it was directly relevant to his statement and to my perspective on the statement. If you look closely, you may notice some differences between my interaction and yours. I did not tell anyone to ignore everything Tom writes on the grounds that he has an odd notion about autistics nor did I accuse him of hatred for it. I never said or inferred that people with odd notions about autistics are bad or less worthy. I did not project any of my motivations onto Tom or try to hurt him by lashing out at them. I never made an explicit statement that Tom wounded me or that he intended to wound me.

Another useful hypothesis when considering human behaviour is the "projection" hypothesis. It explains much too.

you still felt the need to put both Tom and I on the back foot by bringing up your disability.

Has it ever occurred to you someone might see value in others having an accurate mental model of some identifiable group he or she innately belongs to without it having anything to do with you or your online squabbles?

If one applies the "projection" hypothesis, your imaginings about other people's intent and motivation becomes very revealing. Are you easily wounded? Do you use your sex to put people "on the back foot" (that's a terrific idiom I had never heard before so thank you for that) with respect to women, the female perspective and women's issues?

frankly I think that autism is getting off lightly, compared to her problem

No disagreement here. In fact, I get off lightly compared to most autistics. We are a very diverse group, and in my case, autism comes with more blessings than burdens, which is often not the case.

I found his entire post obnoxious

As I observed previously, JAM's posts were not overtly obnoxious or rude despite your emotional reaction to them, and I see no reason to think they were covertly obnoxious or rude either. Your replies to him, on the other hand, were overtly obnoxious and rude. I see no evidence of a failure on JAM's part to comprehend anything you wrote. It seems reasonable to wonder how you were played by the abuser if you really did learn your lesson from the player you encountered as a teen. Or do you disagree that the abuser played you at first?

an eye for an eye.

Which proves my original thesis: You are no different from hateful misogynists if you act the same way they do for the same purported reasons.

We're not communicating here on any appreciable level.

That is not a surprise to me. I see no evidence you ever intended to communicate here beyond you telling people how to think. I don't know about other commentary threads, but in this one, you made it clear from your first post you had no desire for dialogue of any kind.

See my post above about the men who followed me up the hill and harassed me and other college girls when all we were trying to do was get to our classes.

I am very curious: What constituted harassment? While you say you were harassed, you don't really spell out what anyone did to harass you.

JustAnotherMisogynist said at October 19, 2009 5:37 PM:
[Randall Parker:] Why is the PUA skill set becoming valuable to men? Women and men are marrying later if at all. When they married younger then everyone paired up and less desirable men and women all found mates. By pairing up later there's a phenomenon where less appealing women all go after the most appealing guys. Guys who previously would have had a chance at getting a comparable girl now have to raise their game to compete against guys they didn't use to have to compete against as much.

Great points which cannot be stressed enough. People who have knee-jerk reactions to the evils of "game" (like MaryJ) should pay close attention.

[MaryJ:] I don't have a problem with people being happily single or not parents or "not alphas". I have a problem with men like "Just Another Misogynist" who insist that the dogma of the "sexual marketplace" somehow means that those women they consider "less valuable" will never marry suitable men, or have children.

Your lack of reading comprehension is getting tiresome. Here's exactly what I said: "Find a mate when your physical attractiveness is the highest it will ever be (mid to late 20's). Otherwise, your options will decline the older you get." Did I say women who are older will never marry good men or never have children? It's useless even showing you the quote since you'll just make up whatever you want to anyway.

Who are these men who are going to "save" the West by learning how to prey on women in bars? What do they do about the real problems facing our demographic?

I agree, demographics are a huge problem. So what are you doing to make Marriage 2.0 less anti-male so that men might actually be interested in marriage again? Please explain, as your earlier comments suggested you weren't very concerned.

His posts were rude and obnoxious to ME.

I reject this completely. Other than my personal question asking you about why you repeatedly chose relationships with abusive men (meant to illustrate how your own choices actually validate Roissy's worldview), I did not attack you personally. The fact that I attacked your arguments and you took it as a personal offense just demonstrates your narcissism.

However, JAM DID imply that he wanted a home and family, only that "anti-male marriage laws" were keeping him from it (or the lack of available hot young women whom he would deign, in all his wonderfulness, to date).

Anti-male marriage laws are keeping many men away from marriage-not just me. Or I am the only one who knows a bunch of 30-something women who seem to always complain, "Why won't men commit?"

However, lots of us women grow up and realize that a real man is better than a fantasy man

Unfortunately, most women only realize this after wasting their 20's chasing after Bad Boy Alpha types. Then, when they are in their 30's, NOW they are ready to settle down with the same Beta types they rejected in their 20's. Don't you see the problem with this arrangement?

Nemhain said at November 9, 2009 12:31 PM:

Most all of the physiological and logical arguments have already been made, so I won't waste my time. I will simply add that as a feminist, the behavior of men like Draper have made me make the choice to remain celibate and unmarried for the rest of my life. They reflect very poorly upon the rest of the male gender. I won't argue that there aren't plenty of women who are attracted to that type of man, but I would not consider them feminists in any sense of the word.

Bob Badour said at November 9, 2009 3:30 PM:

Nemhain,

I fail to see how their behaviour reflects at all on the male gender as a whole. However, I find it very clear just exactly how their behaviour reflects on the female gender--if not as a whole at least on average. When it comes right down to it, their "game" involves using scientific empirical measurements of female behaviour to inform their own choices.

If women behaved differently, so would Roissy and his ilk.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©