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

[camouflage]

You can appropriate anything so long as you don't mind being mocked.

whitesplaining/blacksplaining/mansplaining/womansplaining/heterosplaining/homosplaining/rightsplaining/leftsplaining (it's just not economical to have scissors that work for both hands you see).

which one would it not be appropriation for me to use, please splainsplain it to me.

 

[Vintage Paw]

whitesplaining/blacksplaining/mansplaining/womansplaining/heterosplaining/homosplaining/rightsplaining/leftsplaining (it's just not economical to have scissors that work for both hands you see).

which one would it not be appropriation for me to use, please splainsplain it to me.

Power relationships.

'splainin' is done by those who hold the upper hand in a structural power relationship, against those who do not.

HTH.

 

[Miss Caphat]

The whole cook, clean, hostess thing isn't an autonomous thing though is it. It's about how useful that woman is to the man who might marry her. Not about whether she has a fulfilling life in her own right. The difference is that rooshcanoe openly centres sex, whereas previously that was an implied given (see also: how rape within marriage wasn't until recently considered legally possible).

I think we're thinking of autonomous differently...I just mean it's an action vs. the absence of any action, but yes, I agree and certainly didn't mean to imply that was any better, just that the Roosh philosophy is potentially even more disturbing

 

[camouflage]

Power relationships.

'splainin' is done by those who hold the upper hand in a structural power relationship, against those who do not.

HTH.

Ok, but why can't we just stick with the good old words like... opinion, argument, ideology, debate etc. hashtagsplain that then cleverclogs.

eta: I like this actually, I can see the potential...

banksplaining, torysplaining, yanksplaining, agesplaining...

 

[Athos]

this would be the crowley bullshit where i pulled dwyer up on other lies he was telling? or the crowley bullshit i introduced to the thread? the latter doesn't exist btw. i'm not defensive about any of this and i don't see why i should be when much of what i've said seems to have the sympathy or support of a number of other posters. i'll see what i can do to make you one of them.

But why engage with it? It just prolongs things. I have every sympathy with you, and have found myself drawn into similar spats before, but I don't think threads are any better for it. That's all.

 

[Miss Caphat]

From the comments sections, it seems the site is now being trolled by Stormfront and other racists. lol. They're perfect for each other. It's really funny that the Rooshies don't see the irony

 

[Pickman's model]

But why engage with it? It just prolongs things. I have every sympathy with you, and have found myself drawn into similar spats before, but I don't think threads are any better for it. That's all.

i suppose i will have to raise my game

 

[Vintage Paw]

Ok, but why can't we just stick with the good old words like... opinion, argument, ideology, debate etc. hashtagsplain that then cleverclogs.

Language evolves in certain contexts. Women have created the word mansplain to succinctly describe a specific action. If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't mansplain to women why they can't use certain words that they created because you don't like them.

Thanks.

 

[bimble]

this would be the crowley bullshit where i pulled dwyer up on other lies he was telling? or the crowley bullshit i introduced to the thread? the latter doesn't exist btw. i'm not defensive about any of this and i don't see why i should be when much of what i've said seems to have the sympathy or support of a number of other posters. i'll see what i can do to make you one of them.

The whole Crowley diversion looked like a stupidness to me & I just thought that sooner or later the roosh will probably read this thread cos he googles his name, and will be gratified by the comparison.
But there may be something there: Both were teaching about how you can transform reality through concentrated exertion of will via ritual ( I mean the PUA tactics, which are not far from magic) but yeah, can we leave it now, because roosh does not warrant the comparison, whatever you think of Crowley & his shit poetry.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Power relationships.

'splainin' is done by those who hold the upper hand in a structural power relationship, against those who do not.

HTH.

And how is that relevant on this thread? phildwyer 'splains' to everyone, male and female. How is it helpful to put him in the box 'men' and have a go at him in that context?

 

[bluescreen]

whitesplaining/blacksplaining/mansplaining/womansplaining/heterosplaining/homosplaining/rightsplaining/leftsplaining (it's just not economical to have scissors that work for both hands you see).

which one would it not be appropriation for me to use, please splainsplain it to me.

You probably know that Rebecca Solnit's essay Men Explain Things to Me is where the notion of mansplaining started. Tomgram: Rebecca Solnit, The Archipelago of Arrogance | TomDispatch

 

[camouflage]

Language evolves in certain contexts. Women have created the word mansplain to succinctly describe a specific action. If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't mansplain to women why they can't use certain words that they created because you don't like them.

Thanks.

That's the trap I was wary of... I ask questions about the use of a word and suddenly I'm mansplaining why women can't use them (I did no such thing by the way).

What's to stop anyone from saying something and being dismissed by sticking 'splaining' on the end of some aspect of whoever they are? That was the crux for me. Storm on.

 

[camouflage]

You probably know that Rebecca Solnit's essay Men Explain Things to Me is where the notion of mansplaining started. Tomgram: Rebecca Solnit, The Archipelago of Arrogance | TomDispatch

nope, didn't. thanks.

 

[bluescreen]

And how is that relevant on this thread? phildwyer 'splains' to everyone, male and female. How is it helpful to put him in the box 'men' and have a go at him in that context?

I suspect it's because earlier in the thread he was at great pains to explain women's sexuality to them.

 

[phildwyer]

i'm not defensive about any of this

Si claro.

For me, the most sinister aspect of the PUA/MRA/incel lot is their advocacy of evolutionary psychology. It provides them with a fig-leaf of intellectual credibility, and it enables them to rationalize their psychopathology. Many of them quote Dawkins with approval, he is their "wingman" so to speak. Without such pseudo-scientific precursors they'd be exposed as mere nutters.

This passage from the excellent article posted above gets it about right:

"It’s unsurprising that Mystery’s approach is deeply rooted in evolutionary theory; the preface to Mystery’s book begins, “Nature will unapologetically weed your genes out of existence if you don’t take action and learn how to attract women now.” Pretty harsh. Darwin’s theory of sexual selection as a combination of female choosiness and male competition is uncontested in the Community. The social Darwinism of the pub and club can therefore be approached like a science."

Cockblocked by Redistribution: A Pick-up Artist in Denmark | Dissent Magazine

 

[Pickman's model]

The whole Crowley diversion looked like a stupidness to me & I just thought that sooner or later the roosh will probably read this thread cos he googles his name, and will be gratified by the comparison.
But there may be something there: Both were teaching about how you can transform reality through concentrated exertion of will via ritual etc ( I mean the PUA tactics, which are not far from magic) but yeah, can we leave it now, because roosh does not warrant the comparison, whatever you think of Crowley & his poetry.

as ever i am interested in your opinion, debateable tho it is. if you wish to pursue this i suggest you pm me.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I think we're thinking of autonomous differently...I just mean it's an action vs. the absence of any action, but yes, I agree and certainly didn't mean to imply that was any better, just that the Roosh philosophy is potentially even more disturbing

I understand.

It's interesting, because the harm done by silent and unquestioning adherence to traditional gender roles is arguably far more wide reaching and of more impact and influence than the extreme few like rooshcanoe. While their rhetoric feeds into a very toxic environment in subtle ways, in isolation it can be challenged directly. But the roles and behaviours traditionally prescribed and proscribed like the ones discussed above are far more pernicious and are still deeply embedded in a lot of orthodoxy. They are far harder to challenge. They contribute to a whole vein of unseen shit that can't even be tackled because it's just accepted as the norm. The way things are. It takes more energy, harder work, to deal with that.

 

[bimble]

I suspect it's because earlier in the thread he was at great pains to explain women's sexuality to them.

I gotta say, when I made an 'aggressive' / unladylike post here the other day the reaction was to accuse me of 'mansplaining', which I am physically incapable of. Me personally i don't like the word and have never felt the need to use it but do see why it got born, it's definitely a thing that happens.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I understand.

It's interesting, because the harm done by silent and unquestioning adherence to traditional gender roles is arguably far more wide reaching and of more impact and influence than the extreme few like rooshcanoe. While their rhetoric feeds into a very toxic environment in subtle ways, in isolation it can be challenged directly. But the roles and behaviours traditionally prescribed and proscribed like the ones discussed above are far more pernicious and are still deeply embedded in a lot of orthodoxy. They are far harder to challenge. They contribute to a whole vein of unseen shit that can't even be tackled because it's just accepted as the norm. The way things are. It takes more energy, harder work, to deal with that.

very true.
One thing that perplexes me, is that while I see a lot of equality in the hetero relationships around me, I don't for the life of me get the way men talk to (especially the way older men talk to younger men) each other about sexuality, as if it's a given that all young men are simply after sex and that this is just the way it is. The truth is that young men and women for the most part are flooded with hormones, etc, that prompt them to seek out sexual experience. But why is one gender still being patted on the back for it and almost encouraged to isolate sex from emotions and connection and the other being sort of left alone about it altogether (which also may have negative repercussions) but for the most part being free from the idea that sex is empty and exploitative?

Because I feel like this is a big part of how some guys end up like this. If you tell someone that something they want is exploitative, and that they have to be conniving to some degree to get it, of course that's how they're going to end up seeing themselves (and of course they're going to end up seeing others as there to be exploited to some degree)

I'm sort of rambling, but it's like this: Two people are invited to a party. There will be cake there. Both like cake, they both want cake. One is given encouragement about going to the party "Oh, how exciting, you're going to get dressed up & see your friends and have a great time!" and the other is told "Hope you get some cake! Too bad you have to take a bath, put on stuffy clothes, and pretend you're having fun just to get some cake"

Both people end up getting cake. But the way they feel about cake, the way they think of themselves in relation to cake, and the way they think about those who supplied the cake (and the party) ends up being vastly different.

I don't know. Mm, cake. Maybe I'm just hungry?

 

[Athos]

Next on 'The Great British Rape Off' Roosh V.

 

[Pickman's model]

Next on 'The Great British Rape Off' Roosh V.

wouldn't want to see his showstopper

 

[Athos]

wouldn't want to see his showstopper

All women are tartes tatin.

 

[bimble]

very true.
One thing that perplexes me, is that while I see a lot of equality in the hetero relationships around me, I don't for the life of me get the way men talk to (especially the way older men talk to younger men) each other about sexuality, as if it's a given that all young men are simply after sex and that this is just the way it is. The truth is that young men and women for the most part are flooded with hormones, etc, that prompt them to seek out sexual experience. But why is one gender still being patted on the back for it and almost encouraged to isolate sex from emotions and connection and the other being sort of left alone about it altogether (which also may have negative repercussions) but for the most part being free from the idea that sex is empty and exploitative?

Because I feel like this is a big part of how some guys end up like this. If you tell someone that something they want is exploitative, and that they have to be conniving to some degree to get it, of course that's how they're going to end up seeing themselves (and of course they're going to end up seeing others as there to be exploited to some degree)

Maybe we're looking at different cakes but.. I *think* I agree with you. It's just that.. in my experience (which is related to me being a girl) I've been mostly aware of women talking all sorts of bollocks about 'what men are like', as in, men are afraid of/ incapable of commitment, men just want sex whilst we women want deep meaningful emotional connection with a ring on and so on.
I just mean that if there's a failure to enjoy cake going on it's not all men's fault, at all.

 

[Miss Caphat]

Maybe we're looking at different cakes but.. I *think* I agree with you. It's just that.. in my experience (which is related to me being a girl) I've been mostly aware of women talking all sorts of bollocks about 'what men are like', as in, men are afraid of/ incapable of commitment, men just want sex whilst we women want deep meaningful emotional connection with a ring on and so on.
I just mean that if there's a failure to enjoy cake going on it's not all men's fault, at all.

Well there's that too, but I think the messages we get are less harmful to the way we think about ourselves. When I was younger there were times when my behavior could have certainly been perceived as "just wanting sex," however I didn't end up thinking of myself as a scumbag somehow and feel that I maintained a pretty positive view of both needs.

My observations about men talking to other men are based on what I've seen, but didn't want to see. I didn't grow up with brothers, so this is mostly stuff I've overheard and witnessed later on. I did grow up in the US, and I think there may be a slight difference in how men are socialized in our similar yet slightly different societies.

I agree that the notions you mention about men are also pushed on women, but it doesn't mean they aren't pushed on young men as well.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well there's that too, but I think the messages we get are less harmful to the way we think about ourselves. When I was younger there were times when my behavior could have certainly been perceived as "just wanting sex," however I didn't end up thinking of myself as a scumbag somehow and feel that I maintained a pretty positive view of both needs.

My observations about men talking to other men are based on what I've seen, but didn't want to see. I didn't grow up with brothers, so this is mostly stuff I've overheard and witnessed later on. I did grow up in the US, and I think there may be a slight difference in how men are socialized in our similar yet slightly different societies.

I agree that the notions you mention about men are also pushed on women, but it doesn't mean they aren't pushed on young men as well.

Problem is overgeneralisation, I think. There is no 'men' here. I can think of lots of men I've known over the years who have at least put across a front of 'just wanting sex'. And I can think of lots of men who have never thought like that. A function of getting older, I think, is that I no longer knock around with anyone like that. It would be tiresome in the extreme - it was tiresome when I was younger, too, but I was less able to articulate why.

 

[bimble]

I agree that the notions you mention about men are also pushed on women, but it doesn't mean they aren't pushed on young men as well.

Yep. We're all in it together .
But seriously, yes, I reckon if there's a way out of this shit, a way out of the crossed purposes and mutual incomprehension that feeds the likes of the PUAs then it's not going to be achieved by just shouting at men that they need to change. I have heard it for years, women saying stuff about how 'men' are like this or like that, and it's all bollocks far as I can tell, from my little bit of lived experience.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep. We're all in it together .
But seriously, yes, I reckon if there's a way out of this shit, a way out of the crossed purposes and mutual incomprehension that feeds the likes of the PUAs then it's not going to be achieved by just shouting at men that they need to change. I have heard it for years, women saying stuff about how 'men' are like this or like that, and it's all bollocks far as I can tell, from my little bit of lived experience.

It's horribly reductionist - and yes, just plain wrong. It's surely the flip side of the coin where men say 'women' are like this or like that, which is equal bollocks.

It is a shame dwyer ruined this thread for a while with his grand pronouncements. There is definitely a more nuanced, interesting and constructive conversation to be had.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I suspect it's because earlier in the thread he was at great pains to explain women's sexuality to them.

But how does it help to generalise a point about 'men' from dwyer being a dick? I really don't see that it does.

 

[bimble]

It's horribly reductionist - and yes, just plain wrong. It's surely the flip side of the coin where men say 'women' are like this or like that, which is equal bollocks.

yep. exactly. is why I'm going to read 'the rules' (bestseller for years , a guide to how to snag mr right, forever) just after I've finished 'the game', which will tell me what the PUAs teach.
I'm expecting, at the end of that, a feeling of total abject despair of any heterosexual people who have read their respective 'how to' guides ever meeting, as actual people, ever again.

 

[bluescreen]

But how does it help to generalise a point about 'men' from dwyer being a dick? I really don't see that it does.

I don't think it does. It's divisive. I was just trying to answer a question about semantics. I can't remember who introduced the term here.