Roosh V, Pro-Rape Pick Up Artist, Announces Worldwide 'Tribal Meetings'

[irf520]

i agree, that kind of thing (plus how men can be denied access to their kids on no evidence at all) is not going to help.
That telegraph article goes over into proper MRA hyperbole though don't you think, with the 'witch hunt against all men' stuff.

Maybe "witch hunt against men" isn't quite right. More a case of in the "calculus of oppression" the first rule is "A woman is more worthy than a man." Or, from another article by the same author (so I guess it can be dismissed out of hand...) "There is a feeling ‘they have been the oppressors, and now it’s our turn’".

Shitty misogynist articles in the Telegraph written by the editor of Loaded (and friend of Milo Yiannopoulos) explicitly promoting MRAs may certainly create more of them.

Don't like the message, shoot (or discredit) the messenger.

Jesus. Just read a couple of other pieces by him, they belong on a Roosh-type forum not in a popular newspaper.

Which ones?

 

[panpete]

I can't think of anyone who thinks that rape is a good idea.
Surely a load of men, gathering to gether to glorify rape is going to attract other anti-rape men who will kick their heads in?

 

[Spymaster]

bourgeois

Parochial.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Dilettante

 

[campanula]

shitrag

 

[DaveCinzano]

Sesquipedalian

 

[Pickman's model]

nefandous

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's exactly what he did.

He taught people that sex was an end in itself, that physical pleasure was the highest aim of life, that hedonism knows no morality, that it is legitimate for the strong to exploit the weak, and basically the whole gamut of the sub-Nietzschean pseudo-philosophy to which you proudly adhere.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

So should you.
Crowley didn't teach people that "sex was an end in itself". On the contrary, he taught that sex should always have a purpose, and that it could be used as the means to an end. Nowadays we might think using "the Great Rite" to fuel self-change somewhat trite, but the principle - activating self-change through ritual means - is still widely used, by religions, cults, psychologists and psychiatric workers. The only variation is the nature of the ritual.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You don't seem to be able to see what you are saying: that the absence of a father is likely to make a child more susceptible to the Rooshes of this world. Ergo that a mother cannot adequately raise a child on her own. It's palpable nonsense as any of us who know single mothers can attest.

There's a lot of bullshit in circulation even in academe about the effect of a lack of a father/male role model/father figure for male children.
Interestingly,dwyer's position that the lack would make kids more susceptible to this sort of anti-woman shite, echoes the sort of opinions that the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists he supposedly dislikes, hold on child development.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's a lot of bullshit in circulation even in academe about the effect of a lack of a father/male role model/father figure for male children.
Interestingly,dwyer's position that the lack would make kids more susceptible to this sort of anti-woman shite, echoes the sort of opinions that the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists he supposedly dislikes, hold on child development.

Also, this is clearly testable. Dwyer dismisses even the possibility of evidence, but he is making an empirical statement - a simple gathering together of a bunch of Roosh supporters and counting the number of parents in their household growing up would do it. Dwyer has this figure of 38 percent single-parent households in the US from somewhere - well if Roosh supporters are from significantly more than that 38 percent (or an adjusted figure for the percentage at the time of their childhoods), that's evidence in his favour. If not, that's evidence against.

My money's on 'no significant difference from the general population'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ooh, you liar!

Your admiration for Crowley is all over the boards. You even recommend him as reading for young boys:



Why did you do that, Pickers? What benefit do you imagine a lad might reap from his encounter with The Beast?

Wank fodder, quite obviously.
What's up, phil? Did you have to make do with your mother's copy of "Forever Amber"?

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Maybe "witch hunt against men" isn't quite right. More a case of in the "calculus of oppression" the first rule is "A woman is more worthy than a man." Or, from another article by the same author (so I guess it can be dismissed out of hand...) "There is a feeling ‘they have been the oppressors, and now it’s our turn’".



Don't like the message, shoot (or discredit) the messenger.



Which ones?

 

[Pickman's model]

Also, this is clearly testable. Dwyer dismisses even the possibility of evidence, but he is making an empirical statement - a simple gathering together of a bunch of Roosh supporters and counting the number of parents in their household growing up would do it. Dwyer has this figure of 38 percent single-parent households in the US from somewhere - well if Roosh supporters are from significantly more than that 38 percent (or an adjusted figure for the percentage at the time of their childhoods), that's evidence in his favour. If not, that's evidence against.

My money's on 'no significant difference from the general population'.

one third of us families without father The number of US children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled in 50 years: Census data (2013)

 

[Pickman's model]

Ooh, you liar!

Your admiration for Crowley is all over the boards. You even recommend him as reading for young boys:



Why did you do that, Pickers? What benefit do you imagine a lad might reap from his encounter with The Beast?

tbh all of this is a little late. if you were really interested in my views you would have asked me some time ago. perhaps 2005. as it is your interest seems to me affected, your knowledge is clearly deficient, and intended less as a genuine enquiry than your usual let's drag this thread down the toilet tactic.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The thing is dwyer, the Rooshy problem doesn't start with teenage sexuality. It starts when children are raised by whatever parent without a due regard for other human beings. It starts when they are toddlers. And it won't start at all with decent parenting, which can be provided by one or two parents of any gender. Unless of course the child has some sort of neurological problem which makes empathy impossible.

You could argue that it begins even earlier, and has developmental effects in infants and toddlers. IIRC Piaget (or one of his students) drew some (very) broad conclusions of developmental effects regarding largely-absent/absent fathers, although that was with reference to soldier fathers, I think.

 

[phildwyer]

So should you.
Crowley didn't teach people that "sex was an end in itself". On the contrary, he taught that sex should always have a purpose, and that it could be used as the means to an end. Nowadays we might think using "the Great Rite" to fuel self-change somewhat trite, but the principle - activating self-change through ritual means - is still widely used, by religions, cults, psychologists and psychiatric workers. The only variation is the nature of the ritual.

But the problem with manipulating the psyche through ritual is that it by-passes reason. It assumes a materialist view of the self. The logical conclusion of such a view is that sensual pleasure is the highest good. Crowley's biography certainly suggests that he believed precisely that.

Once one is convinced that sensual pleasure is the highest good (and I'd argue that this is the "default position" of most people in the C21st West), there is no moral obstacle to exploiting people for one's own pleasure. That's pretty much what Crowley did, and advocated. Today the popularity of Roosh indicates that such views are now a very serious problem.

 

[panpete]

My Dad was a mysogynist, but I thought men like this were a dying breed. My Dad is dead now, but if he were alive he would be 74, and it's men in their 60's and 70's who I thought mainly held old fashioned views on women, but I was talking to a bloke about the bad influence of violent porn, and he said that really bad porn is commonly watched now. I said "Like bukkake and gonzo porn" and he said that these were tame to what is all the rage now/
It doesn't bear thinking of what passes for porn now.
I dunno if I am a delicate little flower, but when I have seen pictures of bukkake and gag sex etc, I just find it mentally disturbing.
I can't see the appeal of something that is mentally disturbing, and I find it hard to link 'sexy' and 'mentally disturbing' together.
Is it because modern porn finds it sexy to cause long term damage to victims, and is it sexy to think of all the further damage these damaged victims could do to further victims?
I thought sex was supposed to be about love not about hate.
what gives?

 

[phildwyer]

one third of us families without father The number of US children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled in 50 years: Census data (2013)

Anyone who denies that such a fundamental alteration in the family structure is havinng a profoundly deleterious effect on the young male psyche is bonkers.

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyone who denies that such a fundamental alteration in the family structure does not have a profoundly deleterious effect on the young male psyche is bonkers.

yeh women just don't have it in them do they phil if you want a job done properly then give it to a man change the fucking record, it's getting rather dull

 

[Athos]

Anyone who denies that such a fundamental alteration in the family structure does not have a profoundly deleterious effect on the young male psyche is bonkers.

You might well be right. But can you cite ant evidence in support of the proposition that the absence of a father is likely to result in an increased tendency towards a Rooshesque view of women.

 

[phildwyer]

There's a lot of bullshit in circulation even in academe about the effect of a lack of a father/male role model/father figure for male children.
Interestingly,dwyer's position that the lack would make kids more susceptible to this sort of anti-woman shite, echoes the sort of opinions that the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists he supposedly dislikes, hold on child development.

It echoes everyone's opinion.

Obviously something is making people susceptible to Roosh and the like. Young men growing up without sympathetic male guidance is clearly the most likely candidate. If they can't get guidance from someone with their best interest at heart, they'll take it from those who only wish to exploit them for financial gain.

 

[phildwyer]

You might well be right. But can you cite ant evidence in support of the proposition that the absence of a father is likely to result in an increased tendency towards a Rooshesque view of women.

Call it a hunch.

 

[phildwyer]

yeh women just don't have it in them do they phil if you want a job done properly then give it to a man change the fucking record, it's getting rather dull

Go back to your magick Pickers.

 

[Pickman's model]

Go back to your magick Pickers.

ooh i see i've touched a nerve.

 

[Pickman's model]

Call it a hunch.

there's surely evidence out there to prove or disprove your point. your unwillingness to produce it suggests it's the latter.

 

[phildwyer]

Yeah, I'd definitely agree . That " you did this to me !!" howl made that pretty clear . Also seems to have a pretty fragile ego . I just wish he'd stop inflicting his obvious issues onto the whole flipping world.

His issues are widely shared, unfortunately.

 

[Pickman's model]

It echoes everyone's opinion.

Obviously something is making people susceptible to Roosh and the like. Young men growing up without sympathetic male guidance is clearly the most likely candidate. If they can't get guidance from someone with their best interest at heart, they'll take it from those who only wish to exploit them for financial gain.

so what happened in your youth to produce the man we see today?

 

[Athos]

Call it a hunch.

Or, in other words: no, you can't cite any evidence.

That's fine, but, when considering your anecdata, give some thought to the attitudes towards women that are prevalent in some of the world's most partiarchal societies, which are built around concepts of men at the head of families and where there are few absent fathers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Call it a hunch.

And my hunch is that you're wrong.

So here we all are.

 

[phildwyer]

Or, in other words: no, you can't cite any evidence.

That's fine, but, when considering your anecdata, give some thought to the attitudes towards women that are prevalent in some of the world's most partiarchal societies, which are built around concepts of men at the head of families and where there are few absent fathers.

And in which the kind of vitriolic contempt for women that we see in Roosh's writings is considered completely illegitimate.

You might argue that old-style patriarchy oppresses women, and you'd be right. But it doesn't hate them in the way that Roosh does. That's a new thing, at least on this scale.

Tbh it beats me why he spends so much time chasing women since they evidently disgust him so much.