DevilWithaHalo said:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nature of your criticism throughout the rest of your post, but it doesn't read like devils advocacy at all. It reads more as simple disagreement. Which is fine, but it's always bothered me when people misuse this turn of phrase.
The most? Possibly. What I find interesting is the hyper focus on this specific element of the ideology over, oh I don't know, its psychological manipulation.
Probably because psychological manipulation is just a tool they use, though I think you'll find plenty of criticism of that aspect alone.
More so that sex(with women) is the goal. I would say a more apt metaphor would be trying to make the goal passed a goalie and the techniques you'd use to achieve said goal.
From what I've seen, this isn't the case, though really, your analogy doesn't paint them in a better light by any real stretch.
It teaches basic principles, but requires a contextual awareness and mastery of reading body language to succeed. I'd hardly call it "formulaic". Any more so then driving a car is "formulaic" when you compare a Beetle to a Ferrari.
It is in nature formulaic. 'Use these lines, it'll work on any woman!' 'Do X, and if she counters with Y, say Z.' 'Here's one weird trick to get any woman you want!' It's funny though that you think pick up artists have any sort of 'mastery' in reading body language, when 'kino escalation' seems to be a pua's response to anything. 'If she doesn't seem into you, use these 6 steps of kino to get through to her!'
What I find most fascinating with this perception is that it seems to be "more" of an issue in the PUA as opposed to when women do it regularly to other women. The bottom line being it isn't a monopoly found in anything beyond human's need to shame things they disagree with when they're on the receiving end.
I don't really know of any women that try to shame other women for not sleeping with other guys.
Formulaic, no need to repeat ourselves.
Snark aside, if you just read a few words further, you might have intuited that I was speaking about the nature being abusive and manipulative. This thread has been pretty civil so far, let's not start needling each other now please.
Every book written on the subject (OK, not all, but damn near the majority) are abusive and manipulative. From "The Rules" to "girls like emotional guys"; it's pretty much all full of advice that people would only give themselves in a perfect scenario, while ignoring the realities of the situation they find themselves in.
Not just talking about the books here, but rather the nature of the techniques. I've seen PUAs advocate the use of the duluth model as an extension of their 'game', which frankly is pretty sickening.
Err? That seemed to be a pretty large jump in conclusion. Especially when you've used basic social manipulation and social psychology as the basis for toxicity when utilized by a specific group of people. Even further reading of your replies in this thread seem devoid of legitimate and consistent definition. The only common theme I find you using is 'Toxic Masculinity = when guys do things I don't like'.
Where do you feel I've been inconsistent? I'm pretty sure the definition I linked from geek feminism is a decent one, and not contradictory with anything else I've said on the subject.
Because they clearly aren't. You may has well assert that the basis of Feminism is hating women merely because the various sects don't like each other.
An incongruent analogy. I've already laid out my argument for misandric thinking in the first post. Saying 'nuh uh' isn't an argument.
Because they are asserting that women treat men like accessories? How is it misogynistic to point out the obvious? You may as well call me a misogynist because I'll say women have tits.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. It's misogynistic because it makes the
assumption that all women are like this, where really Roosh, and others that share this line of thinking, are mostly just projecting. Can women treat men like accessories? Yes. But when you make that unsubstantiated leap that this is the status quo, you've just reinforcing my point.
Treating someone like a goal is different than treating them like an hand bag. Subtle distinction sure, but are we talking about apples and oranges?
Considering how fast he seems to get bored with women and move on to the next, I would say this reinforces my point that he treats them more like objects to be won and used rather than some sort of compeitition.
That he pities the way they are treated by women; clearly.
And how are they treated by women? The guys worldview is incredibly twisted, I have a hard time accepting anything he says about the nature of women, considering his approach to them. I would venture that by saying 'we're not men, we're clowns', that doesn't really say anything about how women treat men, but rather how he feels men must be in order to get women.
By your own argument earlier, that isn't his goal. Why should he reject that line of thinking?
Because it seems to be causing him a great deal of distress. I find that when you approach life with an unhealthy outlook, you'll have more luck gaining satisfaction from life by changing ones own unhealthy ways of thinking, rather than trying to impose them on everyone else.
What was his premise then? He's remained quite consistent from the start.
Consistency isn't truth value. And his premise was that men need to act like clowns in order to be successful with women.
Accepting his reality more so.
Again, going back to unhealthy ways of thinking. If I'm depressed, is it accepting my reality to continue to buy into the idea that I'm worthless? Or would accepting my reality being that I come to terms with my unhealthy and self destructive thinking patterns and behaviors, and work to change my own outlook?
It supports the theory of PUA; playing the game in a way which allows them to achieve their goals.
It's a flawed theory.
I did not see where he either disrespected himself or men or even women. Clearly his conclusion is the acceptance that men and women no longer need each other in any sense so the basis for our social connections is purely entertainment value. I can't say I'm rushing to argue with him because the primary motivation beyond procreation is intimacy and companionship. Companionship less so now that we've interconnected ourselves to such a degree we can find it with a push of a button. Intimacy? Merely a fulfillment of our basic instincts. And as PUA will educate you on, there's no amount of social programming or higher learning that will control people's base, and often twisted and contradictory, desires.
I would say that you have a very unhealthy idea of what respect is if you can't see how disrespectful he's being to both men and women. And his conclusion is based on years of a really fucked up dynamic with women, not supported by any sort of truth. If you agree with him that the basis for social connections is purely entertainment value, it's unfortunate, but I think that's more of a reflection of yourself than society at large.
One of the primary differences between PUA and Feminism is the notion of personal accountability. PUA accepts the system is rigged and women won't change, so you need to change yourselves in order to achieve your goal (however shallow you think it is). Feminism seeks to change society, as it reasons there is no reason to change yourself to suit the needs of others, in the effort to achieve their personal goals. Generally the same goal, but two different ways of achieving it. I find one more realistic. Care to wager
I'm going to need a big ole citation on that bolded part. I don't know a single feminist that doesn't think they're apart from, or influenced by, society, and that they are magically immune from needing to change along with society.
