“Guyland” & “Angry White Men”: An Interview With Prof. Michael Kimmel

After my interview with Dr. Helen Smith (which proved to be highly successful, I am very pleased to report!), I really wanted to get the chance to chat a bit with Prof. Michael Kimmel, since Dr. Helen and I did discuss him and his work a bit during our exchange. I am very pleased to announce that I was able to reach Prof. Kimmel, and he agreed to sitdown for an e-interview!

Prof. Kimmel is considered by some as one of, if not the foremost, authority when it comes to Gender Issues as they relate to Men in our time. He has written more than half a dozen books, including his most recent, “Guyland” and “Angry White Men”, both of which we discuss in the following interview. He is the Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies and the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University. Though I find myself in strong disargeement with Prof. Kimmel at varying points in his works, I am nevertheless grateful that he is contributing to the “conversation” on Gender and Sexual Politics issues in our time, and most thankful that he has agreed to chat with the J4G audience. It has always been my view, that in order for a Democracy to survive, Debate and the Free Exchange of Ideas MUST be allowed to thrive; Good People CAN Disagree.

OK, so with all that out of the way, I bring you Prof. Michael Kimmel!

Ten Questions For Prof. Michael Kimmel

1. First, let’s start with you – how and why did you want to get into the whole “gender thing”? What prompted you to go there, why do you think it’s important particularly for Men, and what do you hope to accomplish?

PROF. MICHAEL KIMMEL: Gee, let’s start off with the easy question, huh? Well the short answer is that I had two parents who were both nurturing and both ambitious in their careers. So it always seemed to me that those divisions between male=career, ambition, competence and female=loving and kind and nurturing were fictions. These were all human traits, and it seemed wrong to divide them up by biological sex.

But the real answer to your question is not “why am I so different from other men?” but rather how am I so similar to other men? I grew up breathing the same air, and drinking the same water as you did. I believe firmly in the ideals of American democracy, and so I feel compelled as a citizen to speak out against inequality and injustice. Supporting gender equality is right, fair, and patriotically American.

There’s an old story about Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, both of whom opposed usurious taxation in the 1840s. Thoreau refused to pay his taxes, and went to jail. When Emerson went to visit him, he is said to have said “Henry, what are you doing in jail?” Thoreau is said to have replied, “Why Ralph, what are you doing out?”

So the answer to your question about why I support feminism, Obsidian, is another question to you: since we know that women and men are not equal in our society, that women still face enormous discrimination, how can you not be a feminist?

2. In my interview with Dr. Helen Smith, I specifically referenced you and your works “Guyland” and “Angry White Men”; I’d like to get your reaction to what she said about you, in response to my questions posed to her:

“I am familiar with Michael Kimmel and I do not care much for “Guyland” as it seeks to make men look like overly- indulged frat boys who do nothing but fart and act in immature ways that must be curbed by society. I care even less for his premise in “Angry White Men.” I must admit that I have not read the full book but if it is as biased as “Guyland” and from the book description, it seems to be–then I have to say that this man is a hater of men, an “Uncle Tim” type who gets his kicks in the academic world by kicking men to the curb and making women feel good about themselves. His books get in libraries and probably get used as a textbook because it tells those in academia what they want to hear: men suck and he can tell them how and why.”

“I think that what Kimmel is attempting to do and what many anti -men’s rights types want to do is make the MRM look like a bunch of nasty racists who do not include others and some of them might even be (gasp) Republicans! It is a way of marginalizing the MRM even further. This is a mind-hit being used to make the MRM seem out of the mainstream and weird. It is anything but. Millions of men and some women across the US believe that men are entitled to reproductive rights, due process and liberty just as women are.”

“I think that the MRM can cut across all demographic groups because as you mention, Men of Color have much to add and many of them have encountered severe sexism in the form of domestic abuse charges and jail time for lack of child support payments for kids that are not even their own. Many Men of Color in the NFL and sports world are keenly aware that women can falsely accuse them of rape and paternity fraud is so rampant that Kanye West has a whole song written about it. I have come across many Men of Color in my work who have been treated unfairly by the legal system in domestic disputes, so much so that they have a sense of learned helplessness about such issues. I would hope that all men would be welcome in the MRM.”

Your response? Also, are you familiar with her work, “Men on Strike” and if so, what do you make of it and her arguments?

PROF. KIMMEL: There are many people who misread my work, some deliberately, and others because they are misled in how to read it. Given what Helen Smith says about my work, it’s clear she hasn’t read it. It is not about those farting frat boys, as she seems to think. It is a compassionate look at the lives of young men, and especially the things that those young me are being asked to do – by other guys – to prove their manhood. And the argument of the book is that proving masculinity becomes a sort of relentless test for guys, and that THAT is what we have to pay attention to. The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.

Serious reviewers of Angry White Men have also commented that the book is empathic towards men, compassionate about their plight. I do believe that men have been screwed over by the system. I simply argue that in their anguish about being screwed over, they are being misled to blame their plight on immigrants or women or LGBT people. Their anger is real, but their mail is being delivered to the wrong address. It’s not immigrants who offered them predatory loans; it’s not feminists who caused climate change; it’s not LGBT people who downsized their corporations or outsourced their jobs.

The research I did in Angry White Men brought me to men’s rights groups and father rights groups all over the country. They are among the whitest and straightest places I’ve ever seen. Rarely, if ever, was there a black man in the fatherhood group. Never a gay father. This is empirical, not ideological (as you note below).

Anyone who thinks I hate men, or that I am somehow “anti-male” hasn’t read my work. I think men are wonderful, and wonderfully capable of being whole human beings: ambitious and assertive and loving and nurturing. I consider it male bashing to suggest that men are biologically driven by testosterone to be aggressive jerks. That’s not what I say; it’s what anti-feminists say.

Oh, and Helen Smith’s comments above about how men of color are in crisis because she’s met one or two who have been falsely accused of being fathers when they aren’t, or athletes are accused of sexual assault and Kanye wrote a whole entire song about it — this is indicative of her methodology. The crisis among boys of color is a little more, uh, systematic, than that. Let’s start with stop and frisk. Let’s talk about Trayvon Martin. Talk about Jordan Davis. These are boys — and for those of you who care about boys, we have to stand up for them. Racism makes us “see” young black men as violent monsters. Fear them. They should not be asked, as Helen does, to join the Men’s Rights movement. As white people, as white men, we need to stand with them in their struggle for equality, not ask them to join us. Because it’s right, and just and fair.

3. As noted above, I’ve read “Guyland” and “Angry White Men” and the while both books were interesting reads, the latter in particular resonated with me for a number of reasons; most notably your argument that the “Manosphere”, such as it is, seems to be a bit, shall we say, “monochromatic” – in other words, primarily made up of White, middle-class and straight Men. Given that I’ve been in the Manosphere space as a blogger and writer for some five years at this point, I must say that you do indeed make a point. Do you feel that the Manosphere Project, as it were, is seriously compromising itself by not being as “diverse” as it could be, or not, and why?

PROF. KIMMEL: I started to answer this question above with my response about race.

In AWM, I listed the Top 10 issues raised by the men’s rights movement — as recounted by a survey of those men themselves. (This isn’t what I said; it’s what they said.) I was shocked that among these 10 things there was not one mention of the crisis of young black males in America, not a word about HIV (actually not a word about men’s health, about getting men to screenings, about how ideas about masculinity – stoic, never expresses emotion- is often an impediment to health), and not a word about supporting gay men as men, as fathers, as their brothers. No wonder the message fails to resonate outside a certain demographic. (Editor’s Note: Please see my post “How & Why The Men’s Rights Agenda Is Important To Black Men” for more on all of this, published on Jul 29, 2013)

With notable exceptions (i.e. you) the manosphere project looks like its clientele. Middle class, middle aged, white. That’s not, in itself, bad. It just means that claims about “men” seem sort of hollow when you only speak about a specific subset of men.

As I show in the book, African-American men are vitally concerned with fatherhood issues. But to approach them with a rhetoric of “rights” will miss their experience entirely. Serious work with African-American men talks about “responsibility.”

4. I’d like to stay with some of the themes you developed and pursued in your book “Angry White Men”. Another of your arguments is that (White) Men who are involved in the Men’s Rights Movement seem to “lean” even more to the Right sociopolitically, even when it is against their own best interests to do so, and you cite the fictional character of Tom Joad as a model of what you think (White) Men in our time should be more like. My problem with your argument quite frankly, is that I see little evidence that the “Professional Left”, as former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs once put it, actually wants to partner and make common cause with disaffected White Males; indeed, if anything, they seem to hold them in contempt. Would you mind expounding a bit on this idea/argument of yours?

PROF. KIMMEL: I think you are conflating two distinct chapters in the book. Yes, the chapter on the White Nationalists, based on interviews with them, does make the case that they turn to the right because they blame women, people of color or immigrants, orJews, for their plight — and not those in power who have actually dealt them a very bad hand. The chapter on the MR movement, though, doesn’t address their positions in electoral politics; my guess is that many vote democratic, though many more used to vote democratic than do today. I cite Tom Joad or Bruce Springsteen not as MR activists but in contrast to the White Nationalists. They see the plight of America’s white working man in CLASS terms, not in race or gender terms. I think they’re right, as I said above.

5. Going back to “Angry White Men” again – you also make the case that, when it comes to the “Father’s Rights” movement, Black and Gay Men are making headway in what you refer to as the “Responsibility” movement – a kind of variation on the numerous “Man Up!” campaigns that we hear of in our time. As a Black Man, I take a different view of your position, and find myself much more in alignment with outfits like “Fathers For Justice” which was founded in the UK, and which you discussed in your book. To be sure, I support the right of dads to be involved in the lives of their children (which would begin with Shared Custody); but I also support full Reproductive Justice for Men – which would include both Mandatory Paternity Testing, solid legal protections for Men against Paternity Fraud (and stiff legal penalties for Women who engage in it) and of course, Roe For Men. What are your views of this? Also, are you familiar with the work of Kathryn Edin and Tim Nelson, “Doing The Best I Can”, and if so, what is your take of it in relation to the arguments you made in “Angry White Men” as per above?

PROF. KIMMEL: Well, I make the case that the Fathers Rights Movement has some valid concerns. Many fathers are “new” fathers – in that they are spending more time with their children than ever before. This is not ideological, but empirical. But the courts treat these guys as if they were Don Drapers, as if the only nurturing they did was with their wallets. So the courts are about 25 years behind reality — which is fairly typical, actually. (Think about same-sex marriage; they’re just getting around to it.) So many fathers are, indeed, aggrieved, rightly, by a court system that operates on archaic views of fathers participation.

Since I agree with them, I’m waiting now to see the legions of these new involved fathers campaigning for onsite childcare, for flex time, for parental leave for men. These are not women’s issues, after all; they’re parents’ issues! I want to see men campaigning as parents. I want to see hordes of fathers campaigning for adequate comprehensive sex education and birth control, so that all reproductive choices can be made with greater freedom and autonomy.

Since you agree with these Father Rights groups, will you do that? Will you make your active engaged fatherhood “political” before the divorce? Because if you do, I think it will have a lot more credibility after the divorce.

6. You also discuss the role(s) of Women in the various iterations of Men’s Rights Movements in your book, “Angry White Men”; I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but there has been quite a robust debate on the role, if any, of Women in the Manosphere, and there is no one “official” stance or position on the matter. For example, Pickup and travel blogger RooshV, has instituted a “No Women Allowed” policy over at his blogging collective Return of Kings; while Paul Elam and Dean Esmay over at A Voice For Men are quite amenable to the active involvement of Women, with quite a few on their editorial board, etc. Do you see the involvement of Women in the Manosphere as something that is good and essential for the Men’s Rights Movement, or no, and why?

PROF. KIMMEL: I regard the Manosphere as a virtual locker room, a place of refuge for men who feel that they are constantly being harangued and are walking on eggshells in every arena of their lives. Once upon a time, the entire public sphere was a locker room — the corporate board room, the hospital operating theatre, the law firm, the military, the university. Now not even the locker room is a locker room! There are women everywhere. So there is a defensive circling of the wagons, a sense that men need a place where they can go, and hang out, and not worry about being politically incorrect, and just chill, relax, exhale. I think of the Manosphere like that. A virtual man cave.

About women — well, I have no position on it. It’s not the world in which I travel.

7. Throughout your body of work as best I understand it, you seem to emphasize not only the idea of Men and Women, boys and girls, being platonic friends, but also that, per your arguments, they are becoming so at increasing rates in more recent years. While I don’t have any problem in the least with this from a “freedom of association” sense, I DO take objection to the meme in our time that if I, as a (Black) Man, do not wish to make platonic friends with Women, I am somehow retrograde or chauvanistic or sexist or misogynistic. Whatever happened to again, the right to freedom of association? Must I befriend everyone I meet, in the service of some supposedly higher social goal? Isn’t such a thing, a tyranny of its own kind, to be coerced in such a fashion?

PROF. KIMMEL: You miss my point. I’m not being normative; I’m being descriptive. Women and men are more capable of cross-sex friendship than ever in our history. That’s not normative — it doesn’t mean you have to be friends with anyone you don’t want to be friends with. I’m interested in how this is playing out in our society — that women and men are easily able to be friends. I think, frankly, it’s a revolutionary change, because we make friends with people whom we consider our equals, our peers. It means that young women and men are more comfortable with day-to-day gender equality in their personal relationships than any generation ever. It’s what is. You can do what you like.

8. In your book, again, “Angry White Men”, you scoff at the argument put forth by the MRM, that domestic violence can be in any way “equal” – in other words, that Women can be just as violent toward Men as the other way around, and your expend quite a bit of energy debunking such arguments. In light of that, I’d like to ask if you were familiar with Hip-Hop/R&B “Queen” Mary J. Blige’s flagrant act of violence when she suckerpunched her husband in full view of onlookers at a NYC niteclub – following up with the question, “Whatcha gonna do – “Chris Brown” me?”. Would you consider that a legitimate case of spousal abuse and assault, however aberrational, or would you consider it something that, in the overall scheme of things, as just not that important?

PROF. KIMMEL: There are two levels to your question. The first is: do I think it reprehensible when one person is violent to another, regardless of gender. Answer: of course. It’s wrong. And in her case, as well as his, it comes from the same sense of entitlement: I do it because I can get away with doing it. Of course it’s wrong. And we have to be compassionate towards all those who are victims of violence done by a partner, an ex-partner, or a spouse.

The second question is empirical. It’s not based on anecdote. The research that seems to prove gender symmetry is crafted in such a way as to ensure that result. It’s just empirically demonstrably false. If you include the following variables, the gender asymmetry is clear: severity, frequency, initiation defensive or offensive, in front of children or not, including sexual assault. If you include ex-partners or spouses, it skews enormously. If you include stalking or harassing after divorce or breakup, it’s even more asymmetrical. The empirical research on tis is very clear and very persuasive.

Claims about gender symmetry are also contradictory. The same people who claim, suddenly, that in intimate partner violence women are just as likely as men to hit their partners also often make the argument that biological males are far more aggressive because of testosterone and that therefore women’s shouldn’t be police officers or serve in the military. How can it be that men are biologically programmed to be more violent, except around women, while women are biologically programmed to not be violent except in relationship with men. It’s kind of hard to understand, doncha think?

9. From what I’ve gathered of your writings, most notably “Guyland” you do not seem to have a very high opinion of the Pickup/Seduction community – and to be sure, they have made quite a stir in the wider culture since the publication of Neil “Style” Strauss’ NYT bestselling book “The Game” came out nearly a decade ago. Could you explain exactly what you see as problematic with Game, and where Men could go for a more Feminist-friendly source for dating/mating advice?

PROF. KIMMEL: What’s “wrong” with the pickup seduction manuals is not so much that they treat women as objects, the means to get laid, notches on belts etc., and not as whole people. That’s pretty silly in the modern era. But what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. So they male-bash. They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women. I have a much more sanguine view of men than that. I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.

10. I think we can both agree that these are historic times in many ways for Men; one that presents big challenges but also big opportunities. As we move forward from here in early 2014, what do you see as some of the biggest challenges Men in the United States currently face, and will face in the near future? What do you see as some of the biggest opportunities?

PROF. KIMMEL: The United States has never been more gender equal. We’ve never been more sexually equal. We’ve never been more racially equal. Sure, on each front, we have a long way to go for full equality. There is still lots of discrimination against women, LGBT people, and people of color. But we have never been more equal. And we will be more equal tomorrow than we are today. And I’m happy to report that we are not going to go forward into the past. Women are not going to have some V8 moment in which they say “Oh, yeah, this equality stuff sucks, I hate voting, and driving, and serving on juries, and having a job, and having my own bank account, and having orgasms.” Let’s go back the way it used to be on Mad Men.

So the question for men, in my view, is simple: we can be dragged kicking and screaming into that more equal future, or we can walk courageously into that future, knowing that our lives, as men, will, be better for it, that the more equal we are, the better our relationships with our friends, our wives and partners, our children will be. Gender equality is not a zero-sum game; it’s a win-win. I support gender equality not only because it’s right and fair and just and patriotically American – which it is – but because I also know it is in my interests to do so.

Thank you so much Prof. Kimmel for your time, and while again I do not agree with everything you’ve said in your books, I nevertheless am thankful to you for contributing to the ongoing conversation surrounding Gender, Sexual Politics and Masculinity issues in our time. Much appreciated!

So, there you have it, folks. Now is the time for you to have your say: what do you make of Prof. Kimmel’s remarks? For that matter, what do you make of my questions?

What sayeth you?

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

311 thoughts on ““Guyland” & “Angry White Men”: An Interview With Prof. Michael Kimmel

  1. 1
    Tarrou says:

    “I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.”

    That looks a lot like a testable hypothesis, Professor.

    The question is, if the result contradicts your hypothesis, will that change your view?

  2. 2
    Sumo says:

    Haven’t read his books, and after reading this interview, I have no desire to. I find myself agreeing with Dr. Smith. This gentleman’s answers appear to be fueled by a massive superiority complex – “Oh, look at me, I’m so enlightened and I know better than the rest of you Neanderthals”.

  3. 3
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Tarrou

    That looks a lot like a testable hypothesis, Professor.

    The question is, if the result contradicts your hypothesis, will that change your view?

    Exactly. The hypothesis has already been tested and debunked by countless men.

  4. 4
    Badger says:

    Wow, this guy is a champion shoveler. Good on Obsidian for getting him to engage at all and for putting up with it. I’m with Sumo, this guy just sounds completely divorced from reality on the ground – which tbh is not unusual with social science academics, who see both biased data sets that confirm their preconceptions and data at such a big-picture level that it’s difficult to understand how people actually interact on the ground.

    I love how he glosses over legal reform by saying the court system is simply out of date, completely denying the hardcore feminist lobby that keeps things as they are while mocking men for organizing themselves.

    And the bit about game:

    “But what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. So they male-bash. They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women. I have a much more sanguine view of men than that. I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.”

    I LOL’d at this one. Recognizing that a man is getting very bad results in the SMP and that by adopting a new mindset and new behaviors he can get better – by this process one is “male-bashing?” This is just one step removed from JBY, and another brick in the inner-game wall – “you have the magic inside you to be an interesting, attractive guy – just get in touch with yourself and you won’t need this awful game!”

    It’s just a very feminine, Oprah-fied outlook. Reminds me of the Yoda spoof Yogurt in “Spaceballs.”

    Something I’ve found among people with this criticism of game is that they tend to be terrified of the idea – the fact, really – that women can be effectively seduced with “inauthentic” emotion and a painted-on kind of shtick. The more overheated they get about how game isn’t “authentic” the more I know they know it works.

  5. 5
    Tilikum says:

    ouch.

    somebody needs to hang out closer to the ground eh?

  6. 6
    Badger says:

    “somebody needs to hang out closer to the ground eh?”

    You got me dude. I used the same metaphor twice so my comment should be discounted.

  7. 7
    ray says:

    Hey what a coincidence, I’m also looking to interview the esteemed Professor Kimmel. Please do let him know I’m looking forward to getting ahold of him. Thanks!

  8. 8

    Nice that O. got this guy to say controversial things. Smith was right on in her criticism of Kimmel.

    This guy follows the leftist metanarrative pretty closely, so it shouldn’t surprise us that he generally supports the FI.

    When Kimmel talks about “gender equality,” that speaks loads about his basic mindset–men must act like women so that they can achieve the goal of being nurturing and compassionate human beings. Very typical of feminists. Trying to force men to act like women.

    I like the notion that men and women have different roles–men provide and protect, while women nurture. Feminists attempt to blur these roles and they cause problems.

  9. 9
    Höllenhund says:

    “The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.”

    That’s a curious list right there. I doubt that the average, single American man is dismissed as a pussified loser by his male peers if he does NOT fap to porn and does NOT play video games. And with respect to binge drinking – well, I’m sure it depends on the social context. Do you usually binge-drink in all-male company, most of whom are beta chumps, or in the company of both men and women, women you have a reasonable chance to bang after getting drunk? If it’s the former, I doubt you’ll be seen as a masculine he-man.

  10. 10
    Monad says:

    Sumo says:
    April 28, 2014 at 1:38 am:

    “Oh, look at me, I’m so enlightened and I know better than the rest of you Neanderthals”.

    That is in essence, what I thought about other guys who didn’t follow the narrative of the current left-wing zeitgeist, before I woke up to myself and realised I was a pawn being used to further the predominate ideology of the Occident and as such, was actually no different to them.

    I reckon Micheal Kimmel is not in anyway dissimilar from my previous incarnation, albeit a much more sophisticated example thereof.

  11. 11
    CrisisEraDynamo says:

    Kimmel’s views sound typical; men are in “crisis” because they have to prove themselves worthy in some way, and forcing them to act like neutered dogs will “free” them from confining gender roles.

    However, this “freeing” often takes the form of hectoring them to always include women in their private social groupings (and change everything to suit her), haranguing them for wanting to relate sexually with women, medicating them while in school, and punishing them when their play is too rough.

    There’s nothing “freeing” about that. And then he says that feminism has nothing to do with the problems the Manosphere points out when every other moment someone is denouncing males for something while praising females to the sky.

  12. 12
    Höllenhund says:

    Thanks for the interview, by the way. Is there a chance Kimmel will comment here?

  13. 13
    CrisisEraDynamo says:

    These places where he says that men and women “interact as equals” — they don’t. Workplace rules about “sexual harassment” color every interaction with a woman with the threat of firing, the military lets women on with lowered PT standards, and the universities vigorously punish any man who doesn’t kowtow to the feminist view, in addition to the stuff I mentioned in my previous post.

    Also, keep in mind that he and others like him view masculinity and heterosexuality almost like a mental illness. He sees “male” and “female” as deleterious conditions, not as part and parcel of who we are.

  14. 14
    SfcTon says:

    Typical progressive ass hattery from the professor. america was never supposed to be a democracy and I cannot take anyone who believes in amercian democracy serious. Wrong at the 1st principle.

  15. 15
    Wes Carr says:

    America was supposed to be a Constitutional Republic with limited government, which is not what we have today. The mistake Kimmel and Feminists make is buying into the same bogus system that we did. Men have been taught our whole lives to be appliances, ATMs or cannon fodder. Except for the politicians and CEOs at the top of the pyramid. Unless you are at that level, you are just a small cog in a very large machine. Men are realizing this and dropping out as a matter of survival.

  16. 16
    jf12 says:

    Kimmel posits that the way forward for men is to become more like women. There is no meeting in the middle, no concession at all to men’s concerns, none.

    Typical is his response to question 5, in which he insists the only way he will take fathers’ issues seriously is if fathers act EXACTLY like mothers act.

  17. 17
    jf12 says:

    #9 “Oh c’mon you guys, I’m tired of you forcing me to play Halo. Let’s drop our controllers along with our macho masks and hold hands and tell each other how we really feel about each other.”

  18. 18
    jf12 says:

    #1 Tarrou nothing but net! Hypothesis testing would be a great idea for a social “scientist”, of which Kimmel is not one. He’s a parrot on a leash, forced to say things his masters tell him to.

  19. 19
    jf12 says:

    Why is it so important, to whoever is in charge, to promote ideas that FORCE men into roles and relationships that will make it less likely for men to reproduce?

  20. 20

    Why does Kimmel emphasize including homosexuals? Are they a large percentage of men? How do they figure into other problems that men have which involve women, like divorce, reproduction, having offspring, etc.?

    I think that Kimmel is trying to undermine the natural, healthy repulsion that most men have to homosexuality. Like that will ever fly.

  21. 21

    “since we know that women and men are not equal in our society”

    Why should we think that women and men ever can be equal? Certainly not in child-bearing, lactating, sex drive, testosterone and estrogen levels, physical strength, intellectual distribution. See Ferrum Itzal’s post for a refutation of Kimmel’s thesis.

    In what context does Kimmel see equality.

    “that women still face enormous discrimination”

    Weak point, pound pulpit. Women have enormous legal and cultural advantages over men. Men are disrespected by the culture and we’ve already discussed Cash & Prizes.

  22. 22
    Höllenhund says:

    #11

    I think it was Novaseeker who once commented that when feminists say men should be freed from masculine expectations and “rigid gender roles”, what they really mean is that men should strive to become SAHDs in order to help their wives’ careers. Simple as that. After all, if the common man is no longer needed as the sole breadwinner of the family, as a soldier, as a manual laborer, what roles are left for him to fill that are acceptable to society? He can become a SAHD, or a chump with a part-time job caring for his children 4-6 hours a day, or maybe a male prostitute. And most men want none of that, because such men are treated as sexual and social losers, by both men and women.

  23. 23
    En-Sigma says:

    All articles of this length have a multitude of points that could be addressed. I only have a few that I am willing to address at this point for space-saving reasons.

    First, I always feel that tang of trepidation when considering whether is should read or not when I see titles of books and articles that say things like “Angry White Men.” Being a white man, I have come to the knowledge that these titles always contain the invisible, “Are Huge Babies And Should Kill Themselves…”

    Second, men (even white men) have always shown that we can carve out a place to live wherever we need to. Nothing but wilderness open to us? We’ll cut some trees for a house, pull the stumps in order to make crop and pasture land, find a woman, make a family, and voila – life is made in the wilderness that was supposed to be a punishment. So, as the world at large decides that men (and here we see it is Angry White Men ) should be marginalized and pushed aside, we look forward to building our lives in whatever wasteland we will be exiled to.

    Yes, I do note that it will be less easy to have the family part when the females don’t join us, but that problem might be solved by a segment of the female population that would be willing to throw off the yolk of this society.

    As with other comments, I have noticed that the good Professor is missing a whole host of causes and the relationship to each other. It seems that each reason for the existence of Angry White Men stands on its own and has no correlation. Odd.

  24. 24
    BuenaVista says:

    Do Kimmel’s theses work if they are not yoked to mandatory social controls? IOW, if the sort of rule-making that is conventional on the contemporary campus is not extended to society at large, do his opinions have any throw-weight?

    I don’t think so. His opinions find purchase *because* we then practice discriminatory law in regard to divorce and parental alienation; in regard to all the emerging punji sticks of intersexual relations (“rape culture”, “street harassment”, “triggering”, “unequal pay”); again, this is all just noise until these fringe notions are implicated in law. Then they’re very dangerous. And that is the status quo.

    Since his theses are only popular with the cognitive elite and prog feminists, despite his throwing about the rhetoric of inequality like so much candy at Halloween, we have to ask: Who really cares?

    Well, again we all should, because these “ideas” are reflected in law and other social controls. They only survive, these ideas, if they are enforced by the State and other institutions (the academy). They generate no spontaneous support in society. I will take his equalitarian rhetoric more seriously when he and people like him do more than pay lip service to, for example, an obsolete family law system. There’s nothing compassionate or humanist in advancing policies that destroy lives, all in the service of equalitarian rhetoric. It becomes appalling when a guy like this cites “obvious sex discrimination” and touts his superior moral posture, while the current system destroys the childhood of 50% of marriages. His books and this interview appear to be very helpful, however, as he appears to be the go-to guy to understand what the American intelligentsia wishes to do to lingering male agency and rights under law.

  25. 25
    rotten says:

    After reading this interview, I’m with Dr Helen.

    This guy is not on the side of men, and is either blue pill or (more likely) feminist. This guy wouldn’t go to war for any of us, and only piggybacks onto manoshere issues when it’s beneficial to him.

  26. 26
    CaptDMO says:

    Wow. Astonishingly civil.
    With no need to re debunk Mr. Kimmel’s positions points, as enough “credentialed” folk have already done so, I can only see
    thesis from someone who has learned from Dr. Hugo Schweizer’s
    catering gaffes.
    I imagine (ie)reformed social observer David Mamet would say
    “Here’s your pellet…”
    Can we look at exactly WHO “developed” the Sociology and Gender Studies at the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University, who “hired” him as Executive Director, and who “awarded him Distinguished Professor “credentials?

  27. 27
    Joe blow says:

    Anyone else notice the good professor’s use of the oh-so-hipster term “biological male”? That made me chuckle.

  28. 28
    jf12 says:

    Kimmel’s position on all matters is head-in-sand; he ignores all facts contrary to his thesis women-good-men-bad. Presumably he has major major mommy issues. He could discuss them here to his benefit, if he wanted to benefit.

  29. 29
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Kimmel touches on some good points, though obviously from a liberal narrative. A lot of our old gender roles have eroded in the Brave New World, which has left a lot of men lost and confused. It’s not surprising a lot of men are chasing a new “Masculine Identity” that harms them and the people around them. Frat-boy culture? Sort of.
    However, pressures to grow into a man are an essential part of growing up, and extremely useful. Why would we want to throw that out? In my experience, Upper Middle Class families have no problems putting extreme levels of pressure on their kids: you have to play an instrument. You have to play a sport. You have to attend these AP classes. You have to go to a good college. You have to get a white collar job. Etc.
    To me this is a lot of hand-wringing over young men choosing to embrace a masculinity that does not conform to SWPL norms. It is not a rejection of social pressure, because that’s the tool used to kick out the Mozilla CEO or bend the Clippers owner.
    Kimmel doesn’t touch on this, but he does show what a lot of people think of us: angry entitled white man out of touch with reality. *shrug* Growing credibility does require acknowleding that, and branding ourselves, so to speak.
    Certainly the “angry conservative white man” label does not apply to me. Most of my friends are immigrants or immigrants, my future wife makes more money and I don’t have a problem with it, I enjoy cooking and I am more adamant about a clean household than the fiance is. There’s no extreme patriarchal oppression in my household.
    I simply have observed numerous relationships where the women calls the shots, and the men adhere to a “happy wife, happy life” philosophy, and all these relationships are disasters. I can observe that, in my own relationship, my fiance appreciates a solid rock and a strong sense of direction. I can observe that if she makes plans and decisions and is allowed to call the shots, my relationship becomes a disaster just like all those other relationships, in the span of a day or less.
    She can see it too, and made a comment just to that effect yesterday morning. She’s seen her parents yell at each other far too many times, and has seen her mother essentially run her father into the ground with endless, pointless “plans.”
    I don’t blame folks like Kimmel for not getting guys like us. They just see so damn few.

  30. 30

    @ jf12

    Kimmel posits that the way forward for men is to become more like women. here is no meeting in the middle, no concession at all to men’s concerns, none.

    How is any “meeting in the middle” ever going to happen? It’s exclusively red pill or blue pill, isn’t it?

    Ton’s philosophical instincts are sound. Maybe Kimmel might have something helpful to say on selected topics as O. thinks, but I don’t see any long term alliance with him being possible. Kimmel and Tucker Max look to be two prongs aimed at weakening the Manosphere–Kimmel from an academic judas goat perspective and Tucker Max from a financial/economic perspective. Both espouse many blue pill ideas.

    The comments here are all first rate and all add something unique. Glad to be a part of J4G, if only as a commenter.

  31. 31
    Höllenhund says:

    #29

    “In my experience, Upper Middle Class families have no problems putting extreme levels of pressure on their kids”

    That pressure is gender-neutral, though. It doesn’t have much to do with masculinity.

  32. 32
    SfcTon says:

    @ 19 Men like Kimmel (progressives) are basicaly women. It is much eassier for them to tear down tradtional masculinity instead of building themselves up into a man. I am impressed how Kimmel can champion so many progressive ideas in so few words

    @23… Preach on brother

  33. 33

    @ADBG

    “my fiance appreciates a solid rock and a strong sense of direction”

    You touch on an issue with which I have been grappling–leadership by men. The narrative that I see all throughout red-pilldom and blue-pilldom is that men are supposed to be leaders. This is heavy in the orthosphere and the idea that men must always be strong leaders ends up blaming men when there are problems. This idea misses the point that women have an obligation to submit in marriage whether their men are strong or not. I’ve seen instances where job loss, bankruptcy, severe back injury, a personal-business failure and the like have crippled men–especially older men–and the red pill narrative has no solution to help men with severe life problems. Of course, the blue pill narrative has no solution either.

    Marriage vows: “for richer, for richer, for better, for better, in health and in health.” Deti pointed out over on Cail’s site the hedonistic view that most women take to marriage–but it’s something that some of those in the manosphere have a problem with, too. We can’t give wives a pass on submitting themselves to their husbands no matter what. We can’t afford to blame marital problems on men’s lack of leadership–scripture never teaches that from what I’ve seen.

    Funny how when wives are in the habit of submitting to their husbands, they find that they enjoy sex a whole lot more.

  34. 34

    @Joe

    “biological male”

    As opposed to trannie “male?”

    @ Höllenhund 31

    Very perceptive. I missed that.

  35. 35
    Joe blow says:

    @theasdgamer:

    Actually I believe he is referring to folks identifying themselves as male gene as opposed to having a penis and testiscles. Can’t offend people that don’t have them, ya know. I suspect you knew this though…

  36. 36
    Joe blow says:

    *gender not ‘gene’ gah I hate autocorrect…

  37. 37
    jf12 says:

    Kimmel et al. assume that men have already lost the sexual revolution and that they are empowered to speak for men in the terms of surrender.

    Guess what, though. The majority of men are never going to agree with a lot of what he puts forth.

  38. 38

    […] “genderless” movement continued for many years, and can still be found here and there. Years after hearing the tale of baby “X” the story came back to me when watching the […]

  39. 39
    jf12 says:

    Does Kimmel bother explaining why women shun a man whom the women perceive to be “off”, regardless of that man’s acceptance by other men?

    Would Kimmel be approving of a “scared un-straight” program in which his teenaged boy is FORCED to participate in classroom skits where he crossdresses and tries to pick up men for sex, in order for him to better empathize? Why or why not?

  40. 40
  41. 41
    Obsidian says:

    Tagging…

    O.

  42. 42
    Obsidian says:

    Hey everyone,
    I kinda figured you all would like this one! :) Oh, and by the way, on Mon, May 26, 2014, I’ll be interviewing Ms. Janet “JudgyBitch” Bloomfield herself, right before she’s due to make her grand appearance at A Voice For Men’s First International Men’s Conference out in Detroit in June! If you thought THIS interview was something, just wait’ll you see THAT one. Whew!

    I’m working on getting some other major players and “big names” insofar as the “conversation” on Sexual Politics is concerned; for example, I’m trying to nail down an interview with Feminist Annie Theriault, who’s had some choice words for the Manosphere recently, and Suzanne Venker is on the horizon (she’s already agreed to do an interview!) – as it turns out, she’s something of a stan for J4G.

    Good stuff – so, definitely stay tuned for alla dat.

    In the meantime though, I’m a bit pressed for time today, but I’ll be back to comment a bit more and answer some of the questions Prof. Kimmel put to me. Also, I’ll alert him that the interview is up right now and that he is invited to participate in conversation with the J4G audience.

    Let’s keep chatting!

    O.

  43. 43
    jf12 says:

    Keep in mind that the complaint of the majority of (complaining) men is NOT that they feel that traditional masculinity isn’t working for them, but that they felt forced to participate in the feminization of men entailed by the great social experiment following the sexual revolution. And that this feminization is what isn’t working for them. Where’s the room for that view in the structure you’ve built, Kimmel? Where is the room for the view that you are causing the problem?

  44. 44
    jf12 says:

    The men who are deeply unsatisfied by the current sociosexual constructs fall into several categories.

    First and foremost are those men who wished things could have been more like they know they should be, i.e. married young for life and raising kids in a nice neighborhood in which moms bake cookies and darn socks. These married men are deeply deeply disappointed in their lives of being continually browbeaten by their shrewish wives, supposedly being unable to load forks into the dishwasher without major instructions, and having their opinions summarily dismissed by everyone else. Kimmel has made a career out of mocking these men. These men are suffering as a result of too MUCH feminism in their lives.

    Second are the involuntary celibates, about which Kimmel et al have nothing to say. No kind words. Nothing. Kimmel pretends, and wishes, involuntary celibates did not exist. The vast majority of these unwanted men bought into their feminist indoctrination, to no avail. These men are suffering as a result of too MUCH feminism in their lives.

    Third are of course divorced men, especially fathers, whose lives have been deliberately destroyed by a system designed to promote women’s interests.

  45. 45
    CrisisEraDynamo says:

    #43 jf12

    Seconded. I’d like to see Kimmel address this.

  46. 46
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    To say something positive, it’s a good thing that a feminist has chosen to engage in a discussion with us. A few years ago, this would not be happening.
    There’s a lot of power in the internet. As a force for change, it’s right up there with the printing press.

  47. 47
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ jf12

    Why is it so important, to whoever is in charge, to promote ideas that FORCE men into roles and relationships that will make it less likely for men to reproduce?

    It’s part of the whole anti-overpopulation agenda that the liberal elites have. Hence they force young men into becoming unattractive so that they won’t reproduce. At the same time, they force young women into careers so they don’t have time to reproduce (and insurance-paid birth control and easy access to abortion helps with this).

    Of course, the underclass doesn’t pay any attention. Which is why one of the CS professors at UT Austin advocates making it illegal to have children if, among other things, the household income is too low. The reaction to that talk was rather telling. Turns out that most liberal folks are all about reproductive rights when we’re talking about the right for women to **not** to have children, but they’re much less keen on the right to have children.

  48. 48
    Fred Flange, O.B.E. says:

    If the Professor wants us men to be more sensitive to gay culture, that’s just groovalicious. Let’s do it. When we do we find that Game principles, derided as Rape Culture (TM) and Patriarchal Oppression (TM) when straight guys practice them, are validated beyond cavil in gay culture, especially gay male culture. And the beautiful thing is that academic types are not allowed to say anything about the propriety of what gays do. If they did they would not be properly intersectionalist and they will be declared forever Unforgiven.

    Maybe we can test the Professor on his outlook about this: look at the gay SMP, and observe how gay alphas and betas behave. Tell us how is that any different than what we see in the hetero SMP? Look at how gay folk parent as couples, where we universally see one partner acts more nurturing (feminine/maternal) while the other is more commanding/firm (masculine/paternal), naturally, without voting on it or even thinking about it. Are these behaviors natural? Or are they only better when gay folk do them but not straights? Or are they all just as misguidedly patriarchal because of Oppressive Social Cultural Constructs? And if so, and the gays are Thinking Incorrectly and Exercising Male Privilege, how does he propose to fix them? Make them pray it away? Re-educate them via the Toronto Gender Studies program? Send them to Room 101?

    I commend to everyone Rollo’s very nuanced and high-minded discussion of the intersection of homosexuality and Game as we know it on his Rational Male site. His point, and the point here, is not whether one approves or disapproves. The point is, as gay life becomes less “exotic” and more sociological data becomes available about it, we see gender roles and SMP behavior EXACTLY like the rest of us see in the SMP populated by the 95% straight population -a big kick in the unmentionables to “gender fluidity” and “gender as social construct” advocates, whose theses are political, not scientific, and therefore no better than Soviet-era Lysenko-ism.

    And yes, the good professor’s hyopthesis that men can succeed in the SMP as “authentic nice guys” is easily testable, and as we already know, already well-debunked by researchers like Martie Haselton and Dr. Robert Glover and even all those modern pieces in Psychology Today which scientifically and empirically show that Chicks Dig Jerks, and no one likes Nice Guys (TM), who anyway we know aren’t really Nice Guys at all.

  49. 49
    Fred Flange, O.B.E. says:

    Oh yes here’s the link to Rollo:

    http://therationalmale.com/2014/04/20/homosexuality/

  50. 50
    Sir Nemesis says:

    Rollo is right on the mark once again.

  51. 51
    SfcTon says:

    @ 30 if I have any philosophical instincts they are based on ine simple fact; all this bullshit is the continuation of war by other means.

    However I thank you for the kind words

  52. 52
    Bloom says:

    I agree, it would be interesting to hear a response to the questions posed in #43.

  53. 53
    BuenaVista says:

    I’m sure Kimmel would have a tortured explanation of the following phenomenon, something along the lines of “men honoring false idols”, not to mention their quaint preference to live in their own homes while nurturing their own children (how retrograde). Does noting this make me an “angry white man”? Certainly not. As an intellectual I know that a few broken eggs are required lest one not be able to make an omelette. I’m just another volunteer at Volgograd, happy to rush the ramparts (unarmed) in order to catch my share of bullets. Such role being necessary if we are to remake the world in a better form:

    Divorced men 9.7x more likely to blow their brains out than divorced women:

    http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/12/993.full

    Or. Increasingly, I believe that engagement with people like Kimmel is a fool’s errand, and that all of one’s efforts should engage the challenge of personal sovereignty and agentic peace. Kimmel avers the suicide of men (actually, or in effect, by means acceptable to the cognitive elite), under the mantle of necessary social progress. Live your life, do your thing, what we are transcribing at such venues as this is samizdat.

  54. 54
    Larry J says:

    “PROF. KIMMEL: There are many people who misread my work, some deliberately, and others because they are misled in how to read it. ”

    “PROF. KIMMEL: You miss my point. I’m not being normative; I’m being descriptive. ”

    For a professor, he seems to have a great deal of difficulty getting people to understand his points. In basic communications theory, there are the sender, the message and the receiver. It’s the burden of the sender to tailor the message so the receiver can understand it. If he can’t, he’s a failure as a communicator, at least to a non-academic, non-feminist audience.

  55. 55
    jf12 says:

    Keep in mind Kimmel was a big support of Hugo Schwyzer, and of course Anthony Weiner.

  56. 56
    jf12 says:

    Dalrcok had a nice series of articles outlining the way that Kimmel et al have been severely disappointed by the way men reacted to the overarching feminist soteriology they constructed in the 1970s onward “Feminism is the salvation of the world” etc. Kimmel pretends he cannot understand why men don’t buy what he’s selling, and instead of upgrading his product he doubles down.

  57. 57
    jf12 says:

    A couple of recent Dalrock posts
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/why-arent-men-responding-to-economic-signals/
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/progress/
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/why-men-are-withdrawing-from-courtship/

    Why aren’t men doing what they have been urged to do, trained to do, forced to do, by the social constructs of Kimmel et al.? Why, oh why?

  58. 58
    Badpainter says:

    I always wonder if the likes of Kimmel really believe the things they say or if they simply running a con game, or trying hard to fit in with “in crowd.”

    Either way this person has nothing of value, or interest to say beyond serving as a warning for how intellectually bankrupt American universities have become. Sadly, he’s not even as amusing as a Ward Churchill.

    I can’t decide which is more disheartening: the laziness, the deceit, of stupidity.

  59. 59
    jf12 says:

    “Free to be … anything except the old way.”

  60. 60
  61. 61
    Martel says:

    I haven’t read all the comments yet so I could be repeating somebody else’s point, but I find Kimmel’s “concern troll” perspective illuminating. He feels free to rip into men because he feels sorry for them. His “sympathy” gives his condescension moral legitimacy.

    He feels sorry for the guys who are afraid of feeling like pussies, and so do I. However, I recognize that there are hard-wired aspects of being a man, that no matter what we see on sitcoms or are told in sensitivity seminars, unless we learn how to master masculinity, we’re going to feel inadequate. Men today have far too little guidance on how to not be a pussy. If anything, they’re trained to be pussies. They act like pussies but feel like crap about it because they know deep down that something’s very WRONG.

    Kimmel’s gender equal-slatism implies that masculinity is nothing but a myth, a set of BS standards that some reactionariy neanderthals hold over boys just to make them feel bad. His “sympathy” is merely a thinly disguised contempt for fathers hoping to train their sons to not vaguely feel like unfulfilled wimps their entire lives.

    The more prominent Kimmel’s brand of sympathy for men, the more boys will grow up to feel like nothing more than cheap copies of girls. His is the “caring” of all Anointed assholes who drag others down into his crap so that they can feel grateful to him for how much he feels their pain. He knows nothing about men, probably even less about women, but he’s got moralist sanctimony down pat.

  62. 62
    Badpainter says:

    jf12,

    You can’t refute Kimmel’s position with facts, arguments, or logic. Only good intentions can succeed, and since he has already staked out that moral high ground the only refutation is surrender to his form of social justice.

    Now get back to work and be a good little Kulak, and please stop with reactionary statements or they’ll have re-educate you.

  63. 63
    Badpainter says:

    What bugs me most about poseurs like Kimmel is that he they/all come off as poor imitations of the fictional Ellsworth Toohey from The Fountainhead.

    They are parasites that exist only to claim their own dignity by destroying the dignity of others. This whole class of monsters has zero interest in making the world a better place or genuinely helping people they only seek to manage the misery such that they are forever needed to manage the misery. They are cultural equivalent of idiots that go about breaking windows so that the glazers might have more work.

  64. 64
    jf12 says:

    Since the first large officially organized Men and Masculinities conference in 1976, the constant focus and constant drumbeat has been Women and Femininities: how men can be best utilized in service of the feminine imperative. Check out the topics.
    http://www.nomas.org/conferences/mm32

    Prior to calling itself NOMAS, these guys called themselves the National Organization for Changing Men. Through four whole decades of trying, they still can’t understand why men haven’t changed to their satisfaction.

  65. 65

    I’m probably just going to be rehashing what I’m sure anyone in the ‘poor misguided manosphere’ will pick up on within the first 2 questions here, but since “angry manosphereans” is the topic du jour at Aunt Giggles’ echo-chamber I’ll riff a little on what I think is the esteemed Professors’ most glaring problem.

    But the real answer to your question is not “why am I so different from other men?” but rather how am I so similar to other men? I grew up breathing the same air, and drinking the same water as you did. I believe firmly in the ideals of American democracy, and so I feel compelled as a citizen to speak out against inequality and injustice. Supporting gender equality is right, fair, and patriotically American.

    He is correct, he’s JUST like the majority of ‘other’ men – suffering from a thorough lifetime of social feminization conditioning to become the champion of feminine-identification Game. His Beta mindset is easily recognizable, but his Game is still the same ‘like attracts like’ mentality that’s characteristic of a solid insaturation in blank slate equalism. Hugo Schwyzer left a vacuum, Kimmel is just stepping into it. Be more ‘like’ a woman and they’ll appreciate your efforts in supporting and understanding them, and you’ll be rewarded with reciprocal sexual interest.

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/02/beta-game/
    http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/04/identity-crisis-2/
    http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/15/the-lesson-of-hugo/

    It is a compassionate look at the lives of young men, and especially the things that those young me are being asked to do – by other guys – to prove their manhood. And the argument of the book is that proving masculinity becomes a sort of relentless test for guys, and that THAT is what we have to pay attention to. The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.

    This is the hallmark of a feminized Beta mindset – to believe that “guys being guys” is inherently aberrant. I could go into detail about how men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective, but this will only grate against his ‘gender-as-social-construct’ belief.

    This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual attention. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity.

    Kimmel, presumes that men don’t want to participate in this vetting, but as always, want’s got nothing to do with it. It’s easy to characterize this vetting in the context of Bro Culture, but the fact of the matter is that it exists in every masculine subdomain from Frat Brothers and the football team to coders, gamers and 4Chan /b/rothers.

    What’s “wrong” with the pickup seduction manuals is not so much that they treat women as objects, the means to get laid, notches on belts etc., and not as whole people. That’s pretty silly in the modern era.

    Apparently Kimmel’s has yet to discover Tindr in this modern era.

    But what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. So they male-bash. They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women. I have a much more sanguine view of men than that. I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.

    What if these pathetic losers could become ‘authentic’ Men by learning how women actually relate to them on every level; from sociological to psychological, from evolutionary perspectives to the underlying biology that motivates women’s behaviors not only sexually, but emotionally, pragmatically and sympathetically? Would they still be pathetic losers?

    What if these men could be ‘authentic’ in their understanding the nature of women and how women solipsistically and often subconsciously institute their own Game socially and psychologically to ensure optimizing hypergamy to their best benefit?

    What if these men could “Just Get It” and leverage that understanding not only to improve their own lives, but also the lives of the women they involve themselves with? Would they be pathetic losers then?

    What if these men’s genuineness in, honesty, conversation and emotion were the result of red pill truth and having the blinders removed that a feminized acculturation has taught them for the better part of a lifetime? The nature of that honesty, conversation and emotion might be something quite different than what your own feminine conditioning would have you envision Professor Kimmel. So are they pathetic losers because their genuineness derives from the red pill, or are they genuine because they buy into what you and a feminine-centric culture tells them they need to adopt and internalize in order for women to love them? In other words, what are you selling that’s any different?

    I agree, if men could be honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships, but how a guy comes to being honest with himself after shedding his blue pill programming, how he learns women ‘actually’ communicate, and how he becomes ‘authentic’ after having internalized Game-awareness and red pill truths is a far different process than telling men to just be themselves and trust in the alleged rationalness, equalism and zero-sum goodness inherent in ‘most’ women today.

  66. 66
    Martel says:

    @ Badpainter: Say what you will about Rand’s philosophy or ouvre, Touhy was the perfect depiction of the mindset you describe.

    Kimmel, Harry Reid, Noam Chomsky, and others aren’t actual real people, they are Ellsworth Touhy clones, the warped embodiment of a supposedly fictional villain.

  67. 67
    Martel says:

    @ Rollo: “These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity.”

    Manboobs like to juxtapose this behavior with a more “caring” feminized mindset in which we all hold hands to lend “support” and feel each other’s pain.

    But sometimes the most “caring” thing you can do for another guy is to get in his face and bark “Jackass! You’re doing it wrong!!”

    This is yet another example of how the female way of doing things is now supposed to be the “right” way of doing things. A guy’s a lot more likely to get his ass in gear in a harsh masculine environment than in the midst of a big group hug. Without masculine forms of reinforcement, we become neutered.

    Maybe that’s the point.

  68. 68
    jf12 says:

    #65 Beta Game as identifying with women is an outstanding concept. The crucial question, then, for Kimmel et al is “How’s that Beta Game workin’ for ya?” How much sexual attention do women give you because of your Beta Game? How much respect does your me-too-ism garner from women? How much resources do women give you?

  69. 69

    @Obsidian, you needed my address from the last thread, rollotomassi@charter.net

  70. 70

    I always wonder if the likes of Kimmel really believe the things they say or if they simply running a con game, or trying hard to fit in with “in crowd.”

    So did I,… then came Hugo Schwyzer.

  71. 71

    @Rollo 65

    “Apparently Kimmel’s has yet to discover Tindr in this modern era.”

    Your point is subtle–that Kimmel fails to understand the sexual nature of women–who are a substantial percentage of the people on Tinder. I’m very aware of the hypergamy of women as I’m out ‘catting several nights a week dancing and keeping my eyes open.

  72. 72
    bluejohn says:

    Kimmel is not empirically based, and is making statements about empirical data which lack merit. He is on the qual side of the quant/qual wars in sociology. His methodology is essentially multiple biased anecdotes, and his conclusions are pre-determined. I don’t think that Springsteen or Tom Joad would like his conclusions very much.

  73. 73
    Richard Aubrey says:

    You’ll note the requisite connection to racism in his mention of “Trayvon”. The Right Sort of People are supposed to pretend to believe Zimmerman, half hispanic and blacker than Homer Plessey but an honorary white man for the nonce, stalked and murdered Martin. Kimmel thinks everybody believes that.
    He mentions climate change, as if nobody knows it’s a rent-seeking scam.
    Thinks our knees will jerk as do his students’. They have to pretend in order to get a grade. This promotes a habit of bullshitting even to adults not dependent on pretending to believe in order to get a grade.

  74. 74

    @Martel, #67, If my goal is to get stronger, be better, reach a new level of performance, stop wishing it were easier and start wishing I were better,…

    Lets just say Professor Kimmel wouldn’t be the guy I’d ask to spot me when I’m benching 315 lbs.

  75. 75

    A Definite Beta Guy: “A lot of our old gender roles have eroded in the Brave New World, which has left a lot of men lost and confused. It’s not surprising a lot of men are chasing a new “Masculine Identity” that harms them and the people around them. Frat-boy culture? Sort of.
    However, pressures to grow into a man are an essential part of growing up, and extremely useful. Why would we want to throw that out? In my experience, Upper Middle Class families have no problems putting extreme levels of pressure on their kids”

    This explains a lot. The culture did change. Now you can no longer get a wife simply by having a degree and a job, they all have degrees and jobs. You have to try much harder to impress them. Combined with threats of sexual harassment accusations for looking at someone wrong, I can see how many men wouldn’t come up with any acceptable ways of being masculine and different from women in an attractive way. So it’s not surprising many turn to antisocial methods, or stop trying.

    Masculinity and trying to be different from women (and exceptional among other men) isn’t bad, squeezing masculine energy out of constructive routes is bad. Our society isn’t the most aligned to getting the best out of everyone.

  76. 76
    Badpainter says:

    “Our society isn’t the most aligned to getting the best out of everyone.”

    Quite the opposite in fact. Our society is designed to distribute the best to everyone, unearned, without consideration for where the best comes from in the first place.

  77. 77
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Michael Kimmel is a feminist. For those of you who would wish him ill, consider this, should he put his foot in his mouth, his collegues will drop him faster than a hot potato. They are bereft of loyalty.
    Something may yet happen to change his position, perhaps seeing a close friend suffering in the clutches of a BPD wife. Warren Farrell used to be a feminist.

  78. 78
  79. 79
    Badpainter says:

    “For those of you who would wish him ill….”

    Ill doesn’t come close to describing what I wish for him and his kind.

  80. 80

    Badpainter,

    That’s what I was saying. Society isn’t structured in a way that gives us incentive to do our best in many ways. Sorry if the sentence was unclear.
    (Of course, we’re all responsible for our actions, but it’s not rational to think surroundings don’t affect an individual’s choices, and don’t do the same for huge chunks of the population.)

  81. 81
    Badpainter says:

    Emma,

    You were very clear. I was agreeing, and expanding (perhaps badly) on your point.

  82. 82

    Team, I have a copy of “Guyland”, but have only skimmed it. Can someone familiar with Prof Kimmel’s material encapsulate his core thesis for those of us who are not up to speed…?

    Obsidian, props for a very civilized interview and props to the professor for agreeing to participate (he had to know that he would be facing a fairly critical reception). I have really been enjoying your series of talks with these provocative gender-politics figures.

  83. 83

    From The Lesson of Hugo (which I emphatically suggest Professor Kimmel read):
    http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/15/the-lesson-of-hugo/

    The End Result

    However, after all his singular sense of feminized purpose, Hugo got exactly what he wanted; he became, and in his personal destruction still is, the male feminist. He became the male representative of the gynosphere, the go-to guy, the man you sought out if you wanted to better identify with the feminine purpose. Hugo became, and is, the model of the man the feminine imperative would ultimately have any man become – a man so thoroughly invested in the likeness it created for him that it would grant him exclusive access to its most powerful media voice (Jezebel, BlogHer, Xojane, The Atlantic). It’s their game, and Hugo was the only man the feminine imperative was comfortable in legitimizing; he was one of the select few men to be allowed to be take seriously.

    Whenever you see one of these pathetic parodies of a man self-identifying as a ‘male feminist’ and holding some hand-scribbled placard with the words, “I need feminism because,…” understand that Hugo Schwyzer is the man the feminine imperative would ultimately have them become. The man at the end of that process, after 47 years of identifying with the feminine, after an utterly destroyed career based on obsessively denigrating his own gender, the end result is what Hugo is today.

    For every guy who’s convinced himself of ‘correctness’ of gender equalism, much less feminine-primacy, understand that Hugo’s example is the logical extreme of repressing your gender-purpose in favor of the feminine. For every blue-pill guy on the cusp of taking the red pill and accepting the harsh truths it demands in dispelling your blissful ignorance, understand that if you don’t, the face you’ll see in the future’s mirror will be Hugo’s.

    I don’t have any sympathy for Hugo, nor do I have any pity for him. He’s only a year older than myself, so I imagine that he and I share a similar cultural upbringing and life experience. Obviously we differ in experience when it comes to waking up to the Matrix, but here’s a man who, not unlike myself, also had his run-ins with a BPD woman (if not more than one). Hugo, like most men, wanted to get laid, maybe worse than most men, so he built up a Game around identifying with them, only he took this identification to such an extreme that he became a woman, he embodied their expectations, but still retained the liabilities of being a man. Hugo is a living paradox and his destruction viscerally illustrates that even feminists won’t tolerate a perfected feminized man. They don’t want what they want.

    For all of Hugo’s blue-pill, male feminism, he was still a man and prone to the desires men innately have.

    How many blue-pill men have sought out the manosphere because their similar delusions simply never bore fruit with women, or they were burned by them? At some point Hugo was not all that unlike most guys seeking answers in the manosphere, but at some point he made his decision to remain firmly implanted in his blue-pill existence and cope with his maleness the best way he knew how – an extreme, life investment in what would become the identity crisis he’s experiencing today. Hugo is what is waiting for any man who thinks they can become a better fe-male – they become Gollum, corrupted parodies of their original form, but still accountable to their real nature.

  84. 84

    With regard to question #2, another post Kimmel needs to read:
    Boys will be Boys

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/11/27/boys-will-be-boys/

    There is an interesting subset of men that has evolved in our feminized social environment over the past 60+ years. I can’t quite refer to them as Betas since that seems too broad, and though Roissy’s initial coining of the term “Herb” (as in ‘herbivorous’) seems useful, these ‘men’ are something belonging to that set, but actively embracing and advocating for the feminine imperative. “Vichy Males” is probably a good starting point; men who are so invested in the conditioning of the feminine imperative that, unaware of how it affects their own interests as men, actively collaborate with and promote the feminine imperative’s social reengineering of masculinity.

    These ‘men’ are not the oblivious blue-pill guys that the manosphere takes efforts to unplug from the feminine Matrix. They are the advocates of gender realignment, the male feminists, the men whose perspective it is that a more “equal” society is one in which masculinity is redefined to better convenience the feminine imperative. These are the ‘men’ who emphatically define “healthy masculinity” in a feminine framework where the results of testosterone and all of the innate traits that make one male are character flaws that disturb a feminine defined ‘equality’.

  85. 85

    Badpainter,

    Oops. I see now :)

  86. 86

    My take on Schwyzer: I think Hugo S. found, perhaps by trial-and-error, an SMP niche in which a relatively attractive, metro/bisexual, well-rated professor at a California community college was able to have any number of behind-closed-door intrigues and to fuck any number of female students 15-20 years younger than himself.

    His game combined the classic, extremely powerful Hank Moody “hot professor” storyline with the ability to tell women what they wanted to hear, to “agree and amplify” regarding the aspects of the 3rd Wave feminist platform that best fit his personal strategic agenda, and to be seen as the guy who gets it, the guy other men should strive to be more like. Put this guy in front of a 60/40 or 70/30 gender bias classroom filled with tanned California co-eds wearing microskirts, now add a cocaine/Provigil cocktail or whatever he was using, and of course all hell was going to break loose.

    It’s one of those zany White Knighting stories straight out of a Manosphere caricature, complete with the recent DUI arrest. In his defense, the “oh, Hugo, you’re the perfect guy!” praise and the sex were probably as addictive as the drugs.

    Obs: I wonder if you could Hugo to do an interview. That would be just fascinating.

  87. 87
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ jf12

    #65 Beta Game as identifying with women is an outstanding concept. The crucial question, then, for Kimmel et al is “How’s that Beta Game workin’ for ya?” How much sexual attention do women give you because of your Beta Game? How much respect does your me-too-ism garner from women? How much resources do women give you?

    I’d imagine he is doing the old Hugo Schwyzer thing of advocating beta behavior while personally practicing alpha behavior.

  88. 88
    Martel says:

    @ Bastiat: You seem to be describing beta game in the only way it can sort of work–if you’re totally schizo about it.

    There’s a fair amount of lefty Alphas out there who spout all the platitudes about “choice”, “gender equality”, “fair pay”, encourage men to be more feminine, etc. However, they practice the complete opposite of what they preach, creating something of a “I’ve courageously declared you as my equal and ripped into your last boyfriend for being a misogynist, so now you get on your knees and suck it, BITCH!”

    Think Bill Clinton and John Edwards, opponents of masculine privilege for all men except themselves.

  89. 89
    FraudSquad says:

    For Reference: Misusing Data to Promote Ideology

    In a 2006 analysis on the politics of domestic violence scholarship, psychologists Donald Dutton of the University of British Columbia and Kenneth Corvo of Syracuse University bluntly accuse him of misusing data “in a direction favoring activist ideology” and trying to “manufacture” desired conclusions.

    Thus, in critiquing studies based on the “Conflict Tactics Scale” questionnaire, which usually find similar rates of family violence by women and men, Kimmel invokes the 1998 National Violence Against Women Survey in which both women and men were asked about experiences of victimization: “The NVAW found that in 1998, men physically assaulted their partners at three times the rate at which women assaulted their partners.” But that disparity was for reports of lifetime assault; for the past year, men reported such assaults at about two-thirds the rate of women. (Men may be more likely to forget them over time for various reasons–including, perhaps, lack of cultural support in the victim role.)

    Kimmel also cites leading family violence researchers Richard Gelles and Murray Straus as saying that “nearly three-fourths of the violence committed by women is done in self-defense.” But he omits the crucial fact that Straus later repudiated this claim as based on his own mistaken assumption that mutual violence was always male-initiated.

    http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/a-classic-text-on-gender-and-its-all-wrong-or-michael-kimmel-is-a-fraud/

  90. 90
    Martel says:

    @ FraudSquad: Of course, Kimmel and his cohorts assume that no woman being asked about abuse in a survey would EVER EVER EVER lie and say that they’ve never hit a man when they had.

    And guys would NEVER lie by saying they’ve never been hit to preserve their pride.

    In other news, maybe we won’t have to hear anyone tell us to Man Up! again. They’re trying to ban it like “bossy”:

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/17212/

  91. 91

    Read through the FraudSquad link, I wonder if the SJWs on the Blue Pill subreddits would be as ready to run Kimmel up the ‘Bad Science’ flagpole as they were with my SMV graph?

  92. 92
    OffTheCuff says:

    I wonder under what conditions where full equality would be achieved, since it’s so important that we work to get there.

    I’m no activist, but I imagine it would go something like… “when 51% of CEOs and politicians are women, and the total earnings of women equal the total earnings of men”. Which is fair enough, but it always seems to leave out the places where women have the upper hand. How about life expectancy? Suicide and incarceration rate? Time off work? Do we have a “freedom gap”? Maybe a “time off work gap”?

    So, we have this curious form of “equality” which seems to mean “when group A the same advantages as B, but without any extra disadvantages”. Now, usually equality means that if A equals B, then also B equals A… but this is no such thing. A equals B, but B doesn’t equal A, in this nutty form of one-way, good-stuff-only equality.

    Lest I come off like an MRA, I don’t particularly care, as I’m not suggesting we change any laws, or we have a rotten deal. It’s good to be a man, I don’t feel oppressed… however and I am going to take advantage what I have, as much as any feminist takes advantage of her situation.

  93. 93
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ OTC

    In mathematics, equality (or even more generally equivalence) must be both commutative and transitive.

    These properties do not hold in liberal arts.

  94. 94
    Badpainter says:

    Maybe this will get us to Kimmel’s “equality.” Which as we all know has not to do with due process.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/us/tougher-battle-on-sex-assault-on-campus-urged.html?hp&_r=0

    “The report emphasizes that universities need to do a better job to make sure that sexual assault reports remain confidential. Sometimes fears that reports will become public can discourage victims from coming forward.”

    Because anonymous accusations= justice because the right to face your accuser makes sad, and sad=injustice.

  95. 95

    […] this morning, Obsidian at Just Four Guys had an excellent 10 question interview of Professor Michael Kimmel who has been so concerned about the male anger simmering in the manosphere that he was distracted […]

  96. 96
    YOHAMI says:

    What a nice crowd we have here.

  97. 97
    Eric says:

    Jack Donovan captures Kimmel’s ilk in a nutshell.
    “A man who is more concerned with being a good man than being good at being a man makes a very well-behaved slave.”
    http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/

  98. 98
    Rocket says:

    Mr. O,

    I hate to say it but I couldn’t even finish your interview with Kimmel. Jesus Christ what a bunch of delusional garbage.

    Him and the other “elitist”, left wing, liberal, democrat, socialist, progressives or whatever they are currently using to disguise the lies they spew, are the very people who created the mess we are in. Well to be precise, him, his ilk … AND the enforcers: the political establishment, the thugs who run our “Justice” system, and the media who rams this garbage down the public’s throat 24/7 … is what caused this. Others here are blaming academia and such … and sure there is some truth in that. Like the lie of global warming and the untold trillions they have stolen from the future to transfer to the present to pay themselves and their friends in the media who publish their lies. Its the biggest swindle in the history of human kind.

    But I’m not bitter. Not at my situation. Not at all. Frankly I don’t care much about the Global Warming swindle. I figure everything is gonna collapse anyway and when they don’t get their money nobody will is either.

    Hmmm, I had a whole rant written here but deleted it. Telling the truth about the criminals who run are political system is now a crime dealt with by a SWAT teams, corrupt Judges and soon to be drones. Drones killing unarmed civilians just like Obama orders the murder of civilians abroad. He ran on a campaign of eliminating this and other “abuses” yet increased it 10x fold. And who rules it all legal to do ? Yeah, you got it. The same judges who would OK them killing me, my kids, my wife, my co-workers, my neighbors and anyone who has ever met me. What lengths will they go to to cover up their crimes ? Did you just read my works on an internet blog … well, the NSA is now tracking every website you visit and every keystroke you make, so guess what ? Your next.

    Got a question for you. Wanna tell the truth about what you REALLY feel is going on in our society right now ? Really ? Cause I honestly wanna know ? So do you feel safe saying what you really think? How many innocent men do the criminals running our country have to kill or imprison before you do ? Which is what it comes down to. Its a choice.

    Some pretty ugly questions, don’t you think ?

    Mgtow is looking better and better ever day. Convert 20 of single males to MGTOW and we will get collapse withn 3 years.

    Lets do this.

  99. 99
    Desiderius says:

    For some reason Kimmel’s attitude reminds me of Rudolf Hess arriving in Scotland in May 1941, expecting to be welcomed by the people with open arms…

  100. 100
    Rick says:

    Kimmel has been caught making up a study that supposedly found boys would rather kill themselves than be a girl and he used his own imaginary study to slander boys. He referenced his made up study in his books for years until he was caught in the lie. How much compassion do you think he really has for men?

    http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/05/a_classic_text_on_genderand_it.html

    Here is a review of Kimmels Guyland. He gets slaughtered and called out on presenting normal men as close to psychopaths:

    http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/93

  101. 101
  102. 102
    Rick says:

    Kimmel can look forward to his lives work and his dear feminism going down the drain in the next 5 years. I`m sure he has noticed that Christina Hoff Sommers and others have been on the war path with regards to debunking the wage gap myth and they have been highly successful, persuading lots of people in the media that it is made up, even forcing the White House to admit it misrepresented the issue. This is a new trend. In a similar way, Sommers, Cathy Young and many others have been fighting the rape culture myth and also there feminists are now loosing, exemplified by RAIN taking a stand against the rape culture nonsense:

    http://www.rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape

    In a similar manner more and more people are waking up to the arguments of the male rights movement and the attitudes in the comment fields are changing radically and surprisingly MRA friendly articles are popping up more and more. MRA sites are also growing at an almost exponential rate and unlike what Kimmel says to slander them they are made up largely not of older men but younger men. They also have quite a lot of female support and counts women such as Karen Straughn and Allison Tiedman amongst its most important members. The MRA also have important women as prominent sympathizers: http://womenformen.org

    The mens rights subbreddit has lots of gay commentators and more and more transgendered people are swapping from feminism to the MRA because they feel mistreated by feminism and better treated by the MRA. The many gay men that come to the MRA say they think feminism ignores mens issues and although it has focused on gay rights, being men they feel mistreated by feminism as men. Things are changing fast and in a few years time more and more MRA arguments will be creeping into newspaper articles, like they have in recent times concerning the wage gap myth and rape culture nonsense and that will eventually kill of feminism. Kimmels scholarship is so virulently anti male he is going to be amongst those held up as examples of anti male attitudes and his scholarship and articles will be picked apart in public more frequently like in the Cathy Young article. Enjoy the future Kimmel.

  103. 103
    jf12 says:

    #78 After correcting for gender effects, the effects of gender were mitigated.
    “men … reported higher sociosexuality than women …; therefore, scores were centered within sex prior to analyses”
    “Sociosexuality significantly predicted casual sex engagement after controlling for demographics …; the interaction with gender was not significant”

  104. 104
    jf12 says:

    #102 Kudo to RAINN for realizing that their previous shotgun approach wasn’t merely untargeted but targeted the wrong people. What would be an appropriate term for considering the “top” 3% of a population as somehow representative or characteristic of the other 97%? Would it be considered abusive of me if I suggested “apex fallacy”?

  105. 105
    CriticalEye says:

    Thanks, Obsidian!

    This is one of the most important blog posts this year. Too often, a blog “conversation” is an echo chamber. By presenting ideas that challenge us, you’re sharpening our understanding. I hope the quality of some of these responses demonstrates this.

    I particularly enjoyed the response to #8 – “if we define what women do as ‘not domestic violence’, and focus on typical behavior of male domestic violence perpetrators, we can clearly see that domestic violence is something done by men.” The second paragraph is just as bad. I have never heard the straw man he presents. It is clear however, that society insists that “it’s never alright to hit a women” but that women are not accountable for their actions.

  106. 106
    jf12 says:

    Theme song “If loving feminism is wrong, I don’t want to be right.”

  107. 107
    Liz says:

    Briefly back from my hiatus because I saw a movie I just have to review here. I truly need the catharsis (caution, spoilers ahead….can’t unsee ‘em):

    Watched ‘The Other Woman’ a couple of nights ago. The previews looked funny, and I have a soft spot for Kate Upton since that video…she just seems like such a sweet girl, though a bit meaty these days. I also like Leslie Mann…she’s funny, and plays age appropriate parts. She kind of reminds me of me.

    So I thought the movie would be entertaining at least…the concept of a wife and two mistresses finding each other and becoming friends has some great comedic potential. ‘A Guide for the Married Man’ did it right (and watching one and then the other is an interesting study for how far our culture has slid).
    Link here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061736/

    There were actually some funny parts in Other Woman, which I did enjoy. The screenplay actually seemed to be written by two independent writers, with completely different comedic depths. The slow one was stuck in the slapstick and toilet humor phase of development. The slow one decided to make the husband cartoonesquely evil. There could just be a couple of mistresses…no, he’s getting it left/right/sideways while telling his wife she’s the moon and stars. He had to embezzle money in a scheme that was destined to make him rich and land his wife in prison. And, of course, all his best business ideas came from his lovely wife who was left in a position of total dependency on him (hint, hint, nudge, nudge…“don’t let it happen to you gurlfrenz!”). In the end he was left bleeding and screaming after faceplanting himself twice into a glass wall. The wife, who had no job skilz up until this point of course became the CEO of many multi-million dollar companies with her mad uber-clever ideas.

    I’ve missed my calling, I think. I have an idea that’s bound to be comedic gold. It starts with a cuckolded husband of fifteen years who finds out his wife has been cheating on him and the kids aren’t his. He befriends the two gentlemen and this little cast of motley characters have a bunch of capers, but eventually get her back. At the end, after being surreptitiously fed testosterone and exlax, she walks in front of a bus while screaming, craps herself, and everyone can have a good laugh.

    Whew. Per the topic? [sarcasm] Oh, yeah, woman are really discriminated against. [/sarcasm]

  108. 108
    Höllenhund says:

    #42

    Anne Theriault is either a flaming idiot or a disgusting charlatan, as evidenced here:

    “You’re both young guys, and maybe this is your first taste of not having your opinion automatically valued simply because of who you are.”

    “In the context of social justice, lived experience trumps everything else every time. When you are speaking, you are not speaking from a place of knowing or understanding, and that means that your arguments, no matter how well-crafted, do not count for as much as the arguments of someone who has experienced oppression and marginalization firsthand.”

    “The sad truth is that it’s only when privileged groups realize that their voices can no longer fully dominate the discourse that we begin to see real change. Otherwise, if marginalized people continue to “make room” for the privileged, if they continue to stroke their egos and promise them that their thoughts are valued — in part because too much time is spent licking the master’s boots to actually get anything done, and also because if privileged voices are given free reign in a discussion about marginalizing forces, then they will almost always take over.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-theriault-/mansplaining_b_5150321.html

    I’m not even making this up. She has actually written all this. She actually believes that the opinions of all young men are automatically valued simply because of who they are, that men’s rights activists fully dominate discourse. Read the rest of her nonsense and see it for yourself. The fact that a human brain can come up with such utter idiocy, the fact that such journalists even exist, is proof that the human race is one of mutants, prone to completely aberrant, disordered and insane behavior. The fact that I belong to the same species as this creature fills me with disgust.

  109. 109
    jf12 says:

    #108 The cognitive dissonance, it burns.
    “you have cast yourselves as allies and yet are doing far more to hurt the causes that you claim to believe in than you are doing to help them.”
    “Instead, you used it to castigate … groups for not participating in activism in the way you think they should”

  110. 110
    BuenaVista says:

    In regard to the dialogue problem (Kimmel’s ethic would not permit open dialogue on campus), I just learned I’m banned on HUS. I discovered this when one of my posts here was quoted there yesterday, and I attempted a comment.

    Two weeks ago I was still socially acceptable over there, though I have not posted since the reboot. For context, as some of you know, I have defended Susan from some of the ‘little white girl’ labels here, and in fact, I encouraged her last summer to add a moderator filter to her blog, if she was tired of our participation. All very puzzling, yes? We beat on, boats against the current. Show, never tell.

  111. 111
    YOHAMI says:

    Welcome to the club.

    “I have defended Susan”

    You’re going to find out you were her enemy since the beginning.

  112. 112
    YOHAMI says:

    Höllenhund #108

    Manhug.

  113. 113
    Morpheus says:

    In regard to the dialogue problem (Kimmel’s ethic would not permit open dialogue on campus), I just learned I’m banned on HUS.

    You are in good company with all us other “mentally disordered” guys.

    I discovered this when one of my posts here was quoted there yesterday, and I attempted a comment.

    Time for some real dope here.

    J, you are a pathetic coward. If you had any of that “confidence” you think you have, you would take on the arguments here. You are not banned, and we don’t censor or delete here. Instead, you lift entire passages from comments here, and snark at them from the safety of the HUS moat. F*** you.

    Megaman, you despicable wretch of a man. Get your nose out of Susan’s @$$hole for awhile to smell the actual air in the world.

    As far as Susan and HUS, and I’m addressing some earlier comments, the only “mission” is to serve her ego, and to validate her “goodness” and “smarts” from a bunch of sycophants. A woman who sleeps with an engaged man is the type of woman who needs a lot of external validation telling her what a good person she is.

  114. 114
    BuenaVista says:

    Well, I don’t have a problem defending anyone from throwaway dismissals based on racial or class characterizations. But if someone as restrained and respectful as I have been (I fully respect her authority to run her web publication in any way that she wishes, and in our private dialogue I have encouraged her to do so) is fit to quote, but not engage, then yes, I suppose we are enemies. I’m not afraid of people who disagree with me. Obviously that doesn’t happen here.

  115. 115
    jf12 says:

    #107 I’m not quite as up on modern media as I could be, but I believe the male characters you describe, in which the multiple fathers of a baby momma are besties, have been embodied in numerous Rug Rats and some other children’s cartoon. The distinction is that the remarried mom lives happily ever after.

  116. 116
    Morpheus says:

    Well, I don’t have a problem defending anyone from throwaway dismissals based on racial or class characterizations. But if someone as restrained and respectful as I have been (I fully respect her authority to run her web publication in any way that she wishes, and in our private dialogue I have encouraged her to do so) is fit to quote, but not engage, then yes, I suppose we are enemies. I’m not afraid of people who disagree with me. Obviously that doesn’t happen here.

    The issue is it is all a crock of horseshit. Ever since her “divorce” from the manosphere and the purge, probably half the posts in some way are connected to the sphere/Red Pill. If you want a divorce from the Sphere, then for God’s sake, shut the f*ck already about the sphere. She claims such a high intelligence, but apparently is too stupid to understand that Tinder is a hook-up app, and not Eharmony.

    Meanwhile, she wants separation but she continually allows J to post excerpts. If she were sincere, then she’d delete those comments and tell J to stop injecting that into the discussion about what is supposed to be about “young women finding meaningful relationships”. But she wants to be part of it, comment on it, but just not have anyone who can actually respond in disagreement.

  117. 117
    deti says:

    @ BV:

    “For context, as some of you know, I have defended Susan from some of the ‘little white girl’ labels here”

    Join the club. I was banned for defending Susan at Dalrock’s. All water under the bridge. It’s her place, and she can have whatever commenters she wants there. Not puzzling at all, really.

  118. 118
    YOHAMI says:

    BuenaVista,

    You’re trying to be her ally, defend her, etc, therefore she’s gonna spit on your face and call you evil in classing BPD fashion. You were allowed to get in, then she shows you where your place is, that is always a little more down in the ladder, till you swear unconditional loyalty (she’ll still push you from time to time to see we’re you’re at) or she kicks you out, in which case “you were always the enemy” and you were playing “wolf in sheep clothes”.

    Takers take from givers. You probably got a nice gift and welcoming which made you give a lot initially. Thyen as long as you give she takes, and when you stop giving or attempt to make it fair/balanced you get punished so you go back to giving. This is just a game and the goal is to squeeze you. Dont expect anything better.

  119. 119
    YOHAMI says:

    *in classic BPD fashion

  120. 120
    Höllenhund says:

    #110

    Pfff. Are you telling me you were actually surprised? According to her own account, she has already banned around 160 male commenters. She banned 78 immediately during the reboot, and she later stated she has banned an equal number since then. She’s a female inquisitor.

  121. 121
    deti says:

    “Tinder is a hook-up app, and not Eharmony.”

    Good point. Classic tactic of holding up the very worst of male behavior (men posting crude sexual propositions to women they don’t even know), painting all men with that brush, and then condemning it.

    Even PUAs have more finesse than that.

    The vast majority of manosphere men don’t sext pictures of their genitals to women. They don’t send crude sexual propositions to women on social media sites. And they don’t publicly insult unattractive women. Hell, they don’t catcall women from construction sites; and they don’t chase their secretaries around their desks. If they did, they’d lose their jobs. They’d be IN JAIL.

    Some people are having a lot of difficulty distinguishing between the very worst of feral male behavior and masculine behavior.

  122. 122
    YOHAMI says:

    “Some people are having a lot of difficulty distinguishing between the very worst of feral male behavior and masculine behavior.”

    Because feral male behavior is masculine and they like it.

  123. 123
    jf12 says:

    #121 what is the ratio of men sending pictures of their genitals to women sending pictures of theirs? Is it as high as 1%, or is it closer to 0.1%?

  124. 124
    YOHAMI says:

    If we count boobs as genitals then women do most of the sexual spamming everywhere.

  125. 125
    Höllenhund says:

    #117

    The fact that I failed to realize from the beginning that she’s an enemy actually makes me rather embarassed of myself.

  126. 126
    deti says:

    “Because feral male behavior is masculine and they like it.”

    Not exactly, Yohami. Sending photos of your dick to a girl is just being a prick. So is sending crude sexual propositions to women you don’t even know. So is publicly insulting unattractive women.

    But yet, there are women who sleep with these men. Women who sleep with them created these social retards and puerile idiots.

    It’s not the manosphere’s fault that these men exist.

  127. 127
    YOHAMI says:

    Women like puerile. Look at their behavior and what they put their attention on. Complaining about something is different than wanting that something to actually go away.

    Lots of women send their genitalia to attractive enough men.

  128. 128
    jf12 says:

    #119 It seems all of the most classic BPD diagnoses can be made strictly on frequent boredom (“housewife syndrome”) and irrational impotent rages (“stamping her little foot”). How can it be that most women aren’t classified as BPD?

  129. 129
    YOHAMI says:

    The only reason why this is less puerile than a guy taking and posting the same picture

    http://37.media.tumblr.com/b939d09a0eeb615acbbe3631635221f2/tumblr_n4shfkUwOU1ruy5opo4_1280.jpg

    Is because bias discrimination against male parts.

  130. 130
    jf12 says:

    #126 “It’s not the manosphere’s fault that these men exist.” Can’t be said often enough. We’re just posting the autopsy of this dead horse; we aren’t the perps.

  131. 131
    deti says:

    Not to put too fine a point on it:

    Women sleep with men who sext photos of their genitals.

    Women sleep with men who send crude, unsolicited sexual propositions to women they don’t know on social media sites.

    Women sleep with men who publicly insult unattractive men.

    So who exactly is to blame for the existence of the men these women are complaining about?

    It isn’t me. It isn’t this site, or ones like it. It isn’t the manosphere.

    It’s the women who encourage, endorse, and reward the behavior. Full stop. If women stopped encouraging, endorsing and rewarding that conduct, it would cease TOMORROW.

  132. 132
    BuenaVista says:

    Yohami, it’s not important, but I don’t really think I have defended her, because she speaks for herself. I just dislike ad hominem in discussion, and defended that principle a couple of times. Anyway, the outcome is the same, absolutely. We drive on.

  133. 133

    Surprised this hasn’t made an appearance yet:

  134. 134
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ HH

    The fact that I failed to realize from the beginning that she’s an enemy actually makes me rather embarassed of myself.

    Typical experience. Don’t think Yohami has linked this yet: http://yohami.com/blog/2012/05/29/my-hus-love-story/

  135. 135
    Jason773 says:

    I’m subscribing to the “show me your real credentials” methodology when it comes to an interview with a mangina like this Michael Kimmel. A street-cred pre-interview question set (which he would never answer, for obvious reasons) would contain the questions…

    1) How many female sexual partners have you had in your life? Were the sexual relationships of the one-night, short-term or long-term variety?

    2) Of (any) short-term and long-term relationships that did not last, whom broke up with who?

    3) Under what types of circumstances were you introduced to individuals who eventually became a sexual partner?

    4) Are or were you married? If divorced, under what circumstances was the divorce filed?

    5) Have you ever been (knowingly) cheated on by a significant other?

    These questions would give us more insight into his beta mindset than anything else one could ask. Without knowing much at all about the guy, my guess to these questions would be the following…

    1) ~5, all long-term.

    2) All broke up with him, unless he managed to get an aging feminist to marry him (see question 4).

    3) All through school/work, most likely due to the influence of mutual friends.

    4) Probably married, otherwise a lot of his literature would be undermined, but most likely married late to an aging woman. Not sure about kids.

    5) Yes.

    After he answers these, we’d have a perfect understanding of if we should either listen to the guy or drown out the shit coming from his mouth. Not to say that having an N=5 or being married automatically discounts a guy from being alpha, but we understand the law of averages here, and if it walks and quacks like a duck, I’m pretty god damn sure it’s a duck.

  136. 136
    TarzanWannaBe says:

    ..and as I watched him on the stage, my hands were clenched in fists of rage.

  137. 137
    deti says:

    “Ever since her “divorce” from the manosphere and the purge, probably half the posts in some way are connected to the sphere/Red Pill. If you want a divorce from the Sphere, then for God’s sake, shut the f*ck already about the sphere. ”

    And most of the posts/comments about the manosphere/Red Pill are directed at J4G and its commenters. J4G is just the villain du jour.

    Look, the folks at the old watering hole spent all of 2012 lobbing virtual Molotov cocktails at Dalrock after he got the better of SW in an argument over frivorce. Put simply, Dalrock won the argument and SW lost. Then in April 2013 she set her sights on 3rd Millenium Man. Now the old place has to try to tear down this place in order to build itself up. Look at the tactic: Manospherians endorse sexting girls unsolicited! They approve of sending crude online sexual propositions on Tinder! They’re A-OK with publicly insulting unattractive women!

    She tried bashing Dalrock and it didn’t work. It won’t work on us either.

  138. 138
    Bloom says:

    I hate to break it to you, but you are all rapists and abusers. Yep. http://notesfromaredpillgirl.com/2014/04/29/all-sex-is-rape/

  139. 139
    Jimmy says:

    I think calling Susan an enemy is really giving her too much credit. Lawmakers, academics, media, etc. that actually have power and influence are enemies.

    Susan’s just a lady who runs a personal blog with a small circle of commenters. Nothing really worth getting worked up about.

    We have all the pluses and none of the minuses of the old watering hole here at J4H, so in my mind it’s best to just move on.

  140. 140

    The fact that I failed to realize from the beginning that she’s an enemy actually makes me rather embarassed of myself.

    Not me, I called her on her shit from day one.

  141. 141
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    TarzanWannaBe at 137,
    I know where that quote came from.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U

    I’ve kept silent on this thread. How constructive can it be to go after a philosophical opponent promoting what we consider to be a bankrupt ideology?

  142. 142
    Fred Flange, O.B.E. says:

    @136 – Just a bit of fun really, we know SuperBeta mindsets are not dependent on relationship history or lack thereof. Hell, aren’t most of us brought up to be SuperBetas here in our Modern Age while still virgins? Which is kinda what started all this Brouhaha? (ha ha ha)

    As long as we’re speculating, I would suspect he’s not a dad. Yes I know of a few “dads who try to be moms” types but even they get testy about being labeled as utterly useless, since they are doing so much more Good Parenting than the “bad dads”. The Dads Are Useless speech is something most often done by the unchilded (academic or otherwise, of whatever Heinz 57 Gender tab you like), or by single moms.

  143. 143
    YOHAMI says:

    BuenaVista

    It’s not that she’s your enemy or that you’re actually her enemy, it’s that the game works by portraying you as an enemy. To add drama she first befriends / brings people close, so people get invested and have stacks on her, then she pulls the axe and demands your balls or your head.

    At least she doesnt demand some dick (that Im aware of).

  144. 144
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Jason773

    I’m subscribing to the “show me your real credentials” methodology when it comes to an interview with a mangina like this Michael Kimmel. A street-cred pre-interview question set (which he would never answer, for obvious reasons) would contain the questions…

    Yeah, he’ll probably fall rather short when it comes down to it.

    On the other hand, Hugo Schwyzer has slept with countless of his students (including a foursome on a trip he was chaperoning), and has cuckolded another guy. The classic apex alpha sabotaging guys by telling them to act beta so that he can have all the women for himself.

  145. 145
    Badpainter says:

    “How constructive can it be to go after a philosophical opponent promoting what we consider to be a bankrupt ideology?”

    While the context of Kimmel’s work is gender issues, the subtext is all Marxism. Until the world puts Marx in the museum next to the Divine Right of Kings, National Socialism, and Italian Fascism it will be necessary to fight it where ever it exists, and in whatever disguise it is wearing.

    As for why this particular discussion is valuable I’d say that no matter how “bankrupt” the ideology may be I see few signs of its imminent collapse. Instead I see the adherents of the ideology reacting in the strongest possible terms to what is only the beginning of resistance movement. It’s only going to get worse, they haven’t resorted to overt violence yet.

  146. 146
    deti says:

    “The classic apex alpha sabotaging guys by telling them to act beta so that he can have all the women for himself.”

    Sounds a bit like certain women telling younger, less attractive women to go ahead and get that short pixie cut ’cause it will look soooooo cuuuuuute.

  147. 147

    […] hier gelesen. Ein männlicher Feminist schreibt etwas über […]

  148. 148

    Giggles is site traffic whore.

    HUS 1.0 used to be about her personal catharsis as she was ‘worried’ about the SMP her daughters would be entering (perhaps due to her own history during her party year phase), but it was an effort in rationalization gymnastics for her to reconcile that with the Beta she’s been married to for 30 years. And that was the mission of HUS 1.0, Build a Better Beta – extrinsically for the sake of her hypergamous daughters, but also intrinsically to build her husband into the mental model of a not quite an Alpha (that was impossible) but rather to justify her settlement on him and build him into a superior Beta.

    HUS 2.0 conveniently began right after her first online video interview with the Huffington Post. In July of 2013 Giggles killed all commenting on HUS in preparation for her selling out to the HuffPo conglomerate of affiliated blogs. Then conveniently 3 weeks after this HuffPo interview on whether hook ups could lead to LTR / Marriage (something she was against before she was for it) the heavily censored comments came on after updating to Disqus, and banning every red pill commenter who might actually challenge ANY future assertion she might make.

    The problem is that HUS 1.0’s brand was built around the traffic generated by her engagement with, and antagonizing of, the red pill commenters she used to build that old model. The advertising from the HuffPo, http://fem.mgid.com and various pop-up web banners increased, but the traffic decreased due to her unwillingness to allow anything that might challenge her for fear that the HuffPo or her advertisers would cast a negative eye on her now very commercialized blog.

    So Susie’s in a bit of a pickle. Gone are the days of the 1K+ comment threads and traffic that sold HUS 1.0 to the HuffPo because she simply won’t allow more than the 7 or 8 commenters she knows will reliably gloss the c&p’d Top 10 lists she lifts from Cosmo and Marie Claire or the pop-psych ‘studies’ she caters to her message that constitute her posts now. The message is sanitized, but the traffic drops, what do?

    Throw rocks at the manosphere and the old red pill commenters who made HUS 1.0 marketable in the hopes they’ll link to her and her bullshit studies (which she’s too chickens hit to engage in any real critique of) and hope they’ll give her the 2nd hand play she needs to eke by on just enough traffic to keep the ad checks coming in.

    A while back I was going to write a response to one of her red pill agit-prop posts, but Morpheus and Han talked me out of it. If Aunt Giggles actually believes in her message, she knows where to find me, but she’s not and has never been interested in an honest discourse.

  149. 149
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Badpainter,
    I have heard about links to old time communists. When Janice Fiamengo tried to give her last talk, she was disrupted. While they were pathetically few, what they were singing came through.

  150. 150
    navian says:

    A mangina in sheep’s clothing, glosses over and minimizes injustice towards men.Then uses terms like massive discrimination against women. Where?
    The court system? Domestic or criminal? Health care? Higher education? Oh yeah I forgot,he will trot out some biased, debunked wage gap myth and ignore more academically sound and truthful statistics. He basically danced around the double standard presented with the Hip-Hop Queens assault. More MSM smoke and mirrors. I am however in the minority here in that I think he has some legitimate points about male on male bullying and the tendency to sink to the lowest common denominator in some small group interactions.

  151. 151
    jf12 says:

    #139 Yes, dear.

  152. 152

    @ Rollo 133

    What a gaggle of toady, feminist, new age losers! What should be done with those gender traitors? Physical castration? Obviously, they are already castrated emotionally.

    Maybe a cartoon showing that they have castrated themselves?

  153. 153

    @ Rick

    Thanks so much for the links! All new to me!

  154. 154
    Badpainter says:

    “I think he has some legitimate points about male on male bullying and the tendency to sink to the lowest common denominator in some small group interactions.”

    That’s a red herring.

    Whilst his observation may be valid his analysis is pure crap. It comes down to using that as wedge to divide men. He is saying that masculine men are holding REAL MEN* down because masculinity breeds evil. He doesn’t give a shit for the victims of bullying. If he did he’d advocate old fashioned schoolyard justice. Nothing builds character and sense of community like getting several beta boys together for the common purpose of beating the living hell out of a bully.

    Kimmel’s solution for all injustice is to level the playing field by reducing all players on that field to the lowest common denominator, and putting in place enforcement regimes that will ensure swift punishment to any who dare raise their heads or their voices outside of the designated two minutes of hate.

    *REAL MEN- Men who despite the presence of testicles are highly feminized and piss siting down. Sensitive, new-age, soft, weak, bitchy and gossipy, useless.

  155. 155

    @ Bloom

    Maybe we could dance sometime. Maybe there are other dancers here who’d like to meet up for dancing, too. You know how to contact me.

  156. 156
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    While I haven’t read that much of Susan Walsh, I have spent a lot of time on Sunshine Mary’s blog. Both had long running comments from both men and women. One of the things that SSM had to deal with were complaints from women about the tone of the comments from the guys. The complainers would write SSM directly through email. From time to time, this would leak to the threads and SSM would say something like “women have put these guys through the wringer and they are being remarkably civil.”
    Now, Susan has her echo chamber. How is that working out for her?

  157. 157
    Fred Flange, O.B.E. says:

    Hold da phone – what the flying motherfuck does Kimmel know about bullying, period? It’s only boys who do it and they’re blinded into it by Das Patriamalarkey?? Really? Suck me raw with a crazy straw.

    Now nice of him to mansplain to sociologists like Rachel Simmons about how the only bullying problem is Boy Bullying, but no such thing as Mean Girl bullying, all girl-on-girl action, not a man in sight, about which she’s written two books?

  158. 158
    deti says:

    Morpheus:

    SW, J, MegaMan, et al. know they can comment here anytime they wish if they ever want to engage in good faith the arguments and positions we set out here. They know we won’t censor their comments or moderate unless in the most egregious cases.

  159. 159
    nekros says:

    This woman at HUS is horrible. Just putting every guy that didn’t “get it” by age 10 on blast repeatedly. What the hell? She even goes so far as to say ” how did these guys approach the women they were interested in differently? With confidence and ease.”

    No shit sherlock! Ever happen to think that that confidence and ease comes from be preselected by the vast majority of women and they had the advantage of winning a genetic lottery, being the best at whatever was popular at the time, or whatever, helped them tremendously in their interactions with women?

    Honestly, I’m sick and tired of everyone worshipping at the idol of confidence. Funny how those with confidence are usually the type of guy that is hot and is preselected. In other words, this Walsh woman is a big supporter of the rich get richer while the vast majority starve. And she talks about guys have a low EQ. Haha that’s rich

  160. 160
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ nekros

    Confidence comes directly from outcome independence. There are two ways of achieving outcome independence.

    One is to be preselected and know you have plenty of options available. This is the abundance mentality.

    The other is to objectify women so you just consider any woman you approach one to be just another walking pair of tits and ass – one of many you can hit on. It also helps to be combative so that instead of taking the rejection (whether nuclear or polite) personally, you simply think of the woman as a bitch. This is the asshole mentality.

  161. 161
    jf12 says:

    Maybe now is the time to reveal the secret plot twist: that Kimmel is a white man who is angry at white men. Oh wait, I guess that was obvious from the start.

  162. 162
    YOHAMI says:

    Confidence comes from experience. A confident man is a womanizer.

  163. 163
    nekros says:

    Thank you for that. I will keep it in mind. I just hate how people are told to have confidence when really, the only way to get the kind of confidence women are attracted too is to already be preselected.

    I know there are other ways/forms of confidence, and they vary greatly depending on the individual. But the type of confidence women want is usually the kind that comes from being preselected in the first place. Sorry to sound so salty, that site put me in a very bad mood

  164. 164
    Bloom says:

    @theadsgamer absolutely! If we are ever in the same room, I would be happy to dance with you. :) Sounds like fun.

    (And there you guys go again, with all the non-stop sexual advances… lol!)

  165. 165
    Badpainter says:

    @161

    “The other is to objectify women so you just consider any woman you approach one to be just another walking pair of tits and ass – one of many you can hit on. It also helps to be combative so that instead of taking the rejection (whether nuclear or polite) personally, you simply think of the woman as a bitch. This is the asshole mentality.”

    The problem with that is sex becomes a dehumanizing experience, dehumanizing for me that is. No part of the effort from approach to orgasm is rewarding or enjoyable. I end resenting the desire, the woman, and the very act as having been a huge waste of time, and dignity. Self abuse is preferable.

  166. 166
    SfcTon says:

    A bully plays and ugly but vital role in the development of boys. Our efforts in combating bullying should focused on creating dangerous young men out of effeminate boys vs interfering with the bully. Beta boys gathering in strength is a good example of creating dangerous young men.

  167. 167
    Opus says:

    Anyone who consistently uses the word Gender when they mean Sex is (for me) instantly suspect.

    Professor Kimmel maybe a distinguished academic but in his case we normally spell it M-A-N-G-I-N-A.

  168. 168
    Morpheus says:

    SW, J, MegaMan, et al. know they can comment here anytime they wish if they ever want to engage in good faith the arguments and positions we set out here. They know we won’t censor their comments or moderate unless in the most egregious cases.

    That is my point exactly. If you have an issue with something stated here, then address it here, where the ability to respond exists. There is just something quite contemptible about being the snarky ankle-biter quoting entire passages of comments here, and responding to them elsewhere where a petty tyrant and her Robespierran henchwoman ban/delete anyone/anything that dissents.

    Jimmy is right though.

  169. 169
    Morpheus says:

    Confidence comes from experience. A confident man is a womanizer.

    Well said. That’s the thing, confidence has to come from actual tangible measurable success. Difficult to just manufacture it as an artificial state of mind.

  170. 170
    Höllenhund says:

    Tagging…

  171. 171
    Morpheus says:

    Anyone who consistently uses the word Gender when they mean Sex is (for me) instantly suspect.

    Yup. It is one of those horseshit words. Look, either you have a dick or a pussy (99.999% of the population). Why do we need to invent a new word? Because of PC run amok. It is an artificial construction to disassociate the biological plumbing from everything else connected.

  172. 172
    Höllenhund says:

    My comments get eaten.

  173. 173
    Opus says:

    Well done to Obsidian however (and for remaining cool and objective through a lot of Feminist and thus Misandrist BS).

  174. 174

    @ nekros

    “the only way to get the kind of confidence women are attracted too is to already be preselected.”

    Back when I was a lad, I was a dorky STEM type. I had to keep approaching and getting shot down some. Of course, I hadn’t been programmed with a lot of those annoying beta traits and am autistic, so being a jerk was natural–but so was being socially inept. I would say that anyone who avoids just doing stupid beta stuff has a decent chance at some success in approaching women. Start approaching with the idea of talking with women first. It doesn’t hurt to take ballroom or country dance lessons as a step towards a normal social life.

  175. 175

    @Hoellenhund 173

    Chomp, chomp, chomp. Oh! Sorry.

  176. 176

    @Bloom

    “@theadsgamer absolutely! If we are ever in the same room, I would be happy to dance with you. :) Sounds like fun.”

    Yep.

    “(And there you guys go again, with all the non-stop sexual advances… lol!)”

    Back atcha. ;)

  177. 177

    @Nemesis 161

    In my college communication class, the prof recommended imagining the audience sitting in their underwear in order to help manage the fear of public speaking. That might have an additional helpful effect when approaching women.

    Take a little success as evidence that women like you. Then remind yourself of that over and over. “Women like me.”

    It also helps to remember that women also want sex. A lot. Almost as much as you do.

  178. 178

    Put on your guy makeup–a “knowing” smile. Women get turned on by that as evidence that you “just get it.”

  179. 179
    deti says:

    Nekros:

    One of the main things Susan Walsh believes is that there really aren’t any disparities in the sexual and marriage marketplaces. It’s commonly understood at least around these parts that the top 20% or so, roughly, of men are the most attractive to women. This top 20% are the men that most other women want, and are the men having most of the sex with most of the women. (I’ll admit I don’t have studies; it’s based on observation. You can assess what I’ve said here (I’m not the only one saying it), and you can compare and contrast it with what others say, and draw your own conclusions.) Now, I don’t believe necessarily it’s the old “Pareto principle” of “20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women”. I would venture a guess that it’s more like 20% of the men are having sex with around 50%, with another 20% or so “watching” and hoping to attract one of those 20% of men, and going without when they can’t.

    So the way it really works out, in my view, are “80% of the women ARE ATTRACTED TO the top 20% of the men”. And so most women simply go without, or settle for occasionally getting with a “top 20-percenter”. If it were otherwise, we probably wouldn’t have a veritable plethora of women waiting until the very last possible minute to marry, and then only settling for “beta bucks” because that’s all that’s left in the marriage pool by the time she finally gets serious about finding a husband.

    Susan doesn’t believe that’s how it works. She believes the promiscuous 20% of men AND women, the “unrestricted” men and women, are having sex mostly with each other. That means the other 80% of both sexes are “left out”. So to her way of thinking, it’s just a matter of helping these 80% find each other. What she doesn’t really address, though, are a couple of things.

    First, it’s questionable that it really is just 20% of both sexes being promiscuous with each other. The presumption rests on two pillars in my understanding. The first pillar is studies comprised mainly of self-reported sexual history surveys. One of the prime reasons for questioning how much can really be known from these self reported surveys is that men fudge their Ns up; and women fudge theirs down. What reliable conclusions can really be drawn from data of questionable accuracy? How do we know women are accurately and reliably reporting their own sexual histories to researchers?

    The second pillar Susan constructs is a presumption that there’s no such thing as AF/BB. In other words, according to Susan, women never, ever “change lanes”. Women never, ever have sex with a parade of attractive men, then settle for an unattractive man when she proves unable to lock down one of those attractive men for marriage. There’s just a literal mountain range of anecdotal evidence which destroys that pillar.

    Second, even with self-improvement, there’s really not too much most of these men can do to get themselves into the top- 20% of attractive men, i.e. a “man with options”. The remaining 80% of men whom she addresses at HUS aren’t going to be attractive to most women no matter what they do. So essentially what she says is the “unattractive” 80% of men and the “nonpromiscuous” 80% of women should settle for each other. In today’s MMP premised wholly on hedonic marriage, that’s not a recipe for marriages that stay together. It’s a recipe for frivorce. Yes, it’s the way most men and women get together. But in today’s legal and cultural climate, it’s an unrealistic, unworkable solution for both sexes. And I don’t have the answer, other than a return to a more traditional view of marriage, which isn’t likely to return in our lifetimes.

    Another thing you have to realize is the bias at work. Susan herself is an extremely well educated, affluent, East Coast, probably politically moderate to liberal, middle aged approaching senior citizenhood, upper class married white woman with two grown children. She has lived for years in the Boston metro area, in one of the most politically liberal states (if not THE most politically liberal state) in the entire country. She lived for a while near Los Angeles as a teenager (in California, also a politically liberal state) and returned to the East Coast as an adult. She holds an MBA from one of the world’s top business schools. Susan writes her blog for middle class and up women, mostly white, college educated or in college, and working. The women she writes for are moderns through and through. They are feminist or feminist-leaning, unmarried, mostly sexually active or considering becoming sexually active outside marriage, and mostly unsuccessful at obtaining long-term relationships with the top 20% of men they’re seeking.

  180. 180
    jf12 says:

    Re: gendermarrying. Supposedly, feminist theorists promoted the use of the word gender instead of sex in order to highlight the distinction between dirty biology and clean psychology. Also, a gender theorist didn’t want the constant hassle by all (so many!) frat guys thinking they had a clever pickup line “So you’re a sex theorist, eh? How about a little practicum?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
    But now, partly because of the victory of feminism, gender is supposedly over-used euphemistically. The blow back is ironic.
    “While the spread of the word in science publications can be attributed to the influence of feminism, its use as a euphemism for sex is attributed to the failure to grasp the distinction made in feminist theory, and the distinction has sometimes become blurred with the theory itself.”

  181. 181
    deti says:

    Another thing to consider is that the blog’s name is “Hooking Up Smart”. If the goal really were long-lasting relationships, perhaps it might have been called, as Dalrock suggested at one point, “Marrying Right and Smart” (MRS) (see what he did there?). But apparently, the (stated) goal is hooking up.

  182. 182
    deti says:

    And if you don’t believe it’s around 50% of the women having sex with around the top 20% of men, consider this:

    How many times have you seen Susie Sunday School Teacher turn down a date with Eddie Steadyman, then get on the back of Harley McBadboy’s bike?

    How many times have you seen Sally Secretary turn down dates with “good men” left and right; then hook up with F**kbuddy Rockbanddrummer after his Friday night show at the dive bar?

    How many times has Good Christian Girl told you “I want to do it the right way this time”, then six months later she turns up pregnant at the church altar call? Or making out with Frank Fratboy at the house party?

  183. 183

    “80% of the women ARE ATTRACTED TO the top 20% of the men”

    You don’t need stats for that Deti, we can just go ask the fitness model boyfriend of Aunt Giggle’s daughter to confirm that for us.

  184. 184

    Roosh was right – How is a post-menopausal mother married to a provider Beta who got ‘lucky’ on an ONS 30+ years ago is relevant to anyone not old enough to have an AARP card?

    I mean really,…
    http://auntgiggles.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/susan-walsh-hooking-up-smart-women-for-men-rollo-tomassi-says-if-can-will-she-her-do-women-about-me-pm-what-was-more-so-one-like-all-men-by-just-from-get-their-who-there-fat-market-singl.jpg

  185. 185
    Opus says:

    Indeed , one of the effects of using the word Gender where what is meant is Sex is to imply that it has nothing to do with Biology and everything to do with two different though identical types of human: in fact of course they then go on to invent more types than two – such as TGBL and the like. Gender is thus a social construct and you can be what you want. Thus, you have Kimmel above asserting that men and women can be friends without sex entering into the equation; as if I were to suggest that Nazis and Jews could hang out together in peace and harmony – its true because I fantasize it as true. I defy any hot-blooded man to be friends with a woman he finds attractive without sex getting in the way. If he does not fancy her, the chances are that she will then be offended ‘as a woman’. Of course if she is an old Lady that is different but you don’t hang out with old ladies, so you ain’t friends. There are only two sorts of friendship (as we learn from Aristotle: normal buddies and friends of convenience, such as your Plumber) and Aristotle does not include women in either of those two classes. When I am being friends with a woman, I am metaphorically castrating myself so as not to invade her female space. Being friends with a woman is what you do when you want to be near her but she does not fancy you: you thus hang on in forlorn hope. That is not friendship – but deceit.

    Politeness should not be mistaken for friendship.

  186. 186
    jf12 says:

    #184 Tinder swipe stats would settle all of this once and for all. Then again, Russell Clark settled it four decades ago.
    http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/04/would_you_have_sex_with_an_attractive_stranger_.html

  187. 187
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Badpainter

    The problem with that is sex becomes a dehumanizing experience, dehumanizing for me that is. No part of the effort from approach to orgasm is rewarding or enjoyable. I end resenting the desire, the woman, and the very act as having been a huge waste of time, and dignity. Self abuse is preferable.

    Supposedly it creates enough preselection that you can then dispense with the asshole mentality and simply use the abundance mentality.

  188. 188
    Bloom says:

    @ opus are you saying a guy is only friends w a gal bc he wants to shag her? All guys? Just curious, not being confrontational. Bc women can be w a guy.

  189. 189
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Tinder swipe stats would settle this but, a glance at STI stats does show, consistantly, that women are twice as likely to be infected. Those numbers can’t be fudged and thay can be extrapolated to the SMP as a whole.

    Nekros,
    It does sound as if you are stuck in the Catch-22 feedback loop with respect to confidence. You need some successful experience. While you may have some moral qualms about this, Ian Ironwood of the Red Pill Room recommends hiring an escort to short circuit the feedback. The right one would want to see you succeed as this would enhance her reputation in that niche.

  190. 190
  191. 191
    Bloom says:

    Fuzzie giving game advice??? Interesting… Hire an escort???? Wha??? Nekros I will go with you, no escorts! We can pretend you are my mild cougar cub. ;)

  192. 192
    Bloom says:

    Oops milf! Lol

  193. 193
    Sumo says:

    @Bloom

    I’d have to agree with Opus, based solely on personal experience.

    http://www.justfourguys.com/j4g-guest-post-tuesday-but-for-him-it-was-tuesday-by-adbg/#comment-21760

    Refer to Case Study #2 in the above comment.

  194. 194
    Sumo says:

    Wait, I misunderstood the question – I thought you were wondering if “just plain friends” was a bad idea.

    Yes, I’m a moron.

  195. 195
    OffTheCuff says:

    BV: “In regard to the dialogue problem, I just learned I’m banned on HUS. I discovered this when one of my posts here was quoted there yesterday, and I attempted a comment. Two weeks ago I was still socially acceptable over there, though I have not posted since the reboot. For context, as some of you know, I have defended Susan from some of the ‘little white girl’ labels here, and in fact, I encouraged her last summer to add a moderator filter to her blog, if she was tired of our participation. All very puzzling, yes? We beat on, boats against the current. Show, never tell.”

    Not puzzled at all – same thing happened to me last fall, when I finally bothered to register with Disqus. Rollo and Yohami did indeed correctly call it from the beginning. Merely advocating for your own interests is a banworthy offense.

  196. 196
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom,
    If there weren’t already enough on your plate, you could go into business as a wingwoman. I can just imagine all the stories you’s be telling your charge’s erstwhile targets when he absents himself.
    Something like that could really get the ball rolling for Nekros.

  197. 197
    Morpheus says:

    Merely advocating for your own interests is a banworthy offense.

    OTC,

    The role of the man/male is to simply step into either the role of dutiful boyfriend or dutiful provider husband/drafthorse when it fits into the script of the smart, educated woman. His job is not to advocate for or communicate his interests, desires, wants, but merely to fulfill hers. He is to provide “emotional intimacy” as defined by her from her superior female POV. If he has any particular sexual preferences or turn-ons such as say hair length, those are utterly irrelevant. No woman should have to spend more than 2 minutes and 30 seconds on her hair in order to try and please her husband. Of course, he shouldn’t act in any way that could possibly be a sexual turn-off. His job is to make her haaaaappppy. What makes him happy is of secondary importance. And if you disagree, you are just a bitter, small-dicked loser. And you….you are not even a real member of the monogamy club. Get out of there and go hang out with those dirty, filthy “unrestricteds”. And never mind that the primary accuser was a dirty unrestricted as well.

  198. 198
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Rollo,
    That photo of Aunt Giggles was not all that flattering. However, there is a positive aspect to her appearance. She is not threatening to her target audience.
    Another observation, lean women in her age group are not the norm, from what can be seen on OkCupid. However, they are more likely to be found in major urban settings, i.e. Chicago, New York City.

  199. 199
    Morpheus says:

    On topic,

    I do want to commend Obsidian for a excellent interview with probing questions.

    Nothing in his answers shocked me, he is a proponent of the prevailing orthodoxy. This notion that women are still suffering from massive discrimination though takes more and more chutzpah and Orwellian gobbedly-gook to make plausible. Where? Women have more college graduates. Male sports programs get cancelled to meet the arbitrary federal regulations. I don’t see it in my workplace where women hold all sorts of higher level positions. It is true that they are still not represented equally at the top executive levels or top government levels (Senators for example), but there is more driving that than just simply discrimination.

  200. 200
    OffTheCuff says:

    K: “It is a compassionate look at the lives of young men, and especially the things that those young me are being asked to do – by other guys – to prove their manhood. And the argument of the book is that proving masculinity becomes a sort of relentless test for guys, and that THAT is what we have to pay attention to. The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.”

    Which men?

    This is the Ozymandias (sex-pos poly feminist) refrain: “I love men! They’re victims too! I am soooo sympathetic to every boy who longed to wear a pink tutu and was mocked because of it. I won’t rest until any form of traditional masculine expectations are eradicated, whether they like it or not!”

    You know how I had to prove *my* manhood? None of that shit. Get an education. Earn my own living. Support the family I created.

    Being forced to drink and play sports against me will isn’t anywhere on my list. So I wonder what the Prof’s sampling criteria is. Statistically random, right?

    Heck, doing a bit of drinking was my own idea, never felt presured into it, and it was fun… I even met my wife at a party I threw. (One of a few hundred…)

  201. 201
    Bloom says:

    @ fuzzie why I would be bragging how great he was in bed and saying how all the women want him, and that they give him their numbers behind my back all the time, those hussies! Then when he got back I would go to the ladies room. Then he would sit there grinning like a sly dog. Done! ;) I should start another biz!

  202. 202
    Bloom says:

    I might lecture him not to talk to any ladies while I am gone, wag my finger at him like a naughty boy, then walk off, just for good measure!

  203. 203
    nekros says:

    Lol yeah, not quite willing to go the escort route, although it has crossed by mind. I think I need a wardrobe update. I may get a better reception if I dressed better. Hopefully if I can continue training for a 5k, I’ll feel good enough to try again.

    Thank you all for the advice. It is well received

  204. 204
    nekros says:

    And bloom, that sounds like a fantastic business idea!

  205. 205
    Morpheus says:

    Lol yeah, not quite willing to go the escort route, although it has crossed by mind.

    This may sound odd, but a sort of halfway measure might be to go to strip clubs. I actually went to strip clubs a lot right after college, and I think it was actually kind of helpful. There is something to be said for simply having repeated exposure to hot girls, and simply practicing talking to them. Now with a strip club, you have to realize it is all bullshit, they are just trying to get your money, but you have girls approaching you rather than vice versa, and then you can practice simply having short conversations.

  206. 206
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom,
    We’re on to something here. While I would reccommend being more subtle, maybe there are times to bring out the sledgehammer.

    Nekros,
    Hire Bloom!

  207. 207
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Morpheus,
    After reading your comment at 198, I hope that you were limiting yourself to describing HUSsies. If this applies to women at large, they’re unfit to live with a man. Their egos would be so big that Tom Mix’s ten gallon hat wouldn’t fit.
    Come to think of it, hats for women have gone out of fashion with the advent of feminism. Correlation?

  208. 208
    Bloom says:

    And just for fun we could make sure we run into snap chat queen and I will be sure to whisper to her that he’s a social media company millionaire! Who rocks it in the sack! Then post her picture on fb!

    Let’s do it nekros! ;)

  209. 209
    nekros says:

    Lol I’m all for it. Sounds like fun

  210. 210
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Nekros and Bloom,
    We’ll want a full report.

  211. 211
    Sir Nemesis says:

    So Han, how do you feel about all the weight Leia has put on?

    http://mashable.com/2014/04/29/star-wars-episode-vii-cast-announced/

  212. 212
    Bloom says:

    We could video it and put it on YouTube! How to handle a nuclear rejector! Sweet!

  213. 213
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ OTC

    Heck, doing a bit of drinking was my own idea, never felt presured into it, and it was fun… I even met my wife at a party I threw. (One of a few hundred…)

    One of a few hundred wives? ;)

  214. 214
    OffTheCuff says:

    Escorts? Only in extereme cases of abject, unfixable dorkiness. Strip clubs? Counterproductive, I think.

    No, the solution is usually a little bit of alcohol, lower your standards a bit temporarily, loosen up, don’t be so serious, look for “fun”.

  215. 215
    Bloom says:

    (Hangs out the shingle: Bloom Inc, professional wing woman!)

  216. 216
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom,
    I am having a lot of fun thinking about what you could do with this.
    *Orson Wells laughter*

  217. 217
    Bloom says:

    Oh I know! Helps to have a writer’s imagination when playing wing woman. Picking out the beachfront vacation home I will buy with the earnings from my satisfied customers right now…. Nekros your outing, of course, is on the house! Booking now for summer 2014.

  218. 218

    A bit off-topic, but I read this link: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/05/a_classic_text_on_genderand_it.html

    In short, it’s a criticism of Micheal Kimmel’s book, where he states most guys would rather kill themselves than live as a girl (while girls have no problem being guys, I guess?…). Cathy Young shows his sources weren’t a proper study and this statement is not based on anything.

    Anyway, this is an interesting topic to me, because I have some personal understanding of this kind of misogyny. I don’t have evidence, but I have seen it so many times. When a woman is convinced women are eternal victims, weak, useless and are only there to do jobs men find beneath them, she might become a misogynist. She might think “I wish I was a man, they have it so much better with their high status careers, physical strength, and instant respect just because they’re men”. Of course, that kind of view on men either comes from feminism, or ignorance of what it’s really like to be an average man/subsequent envy. And I can tell you, there was once a time when I thought this way, but then I met the manosphere and realized being female is just as good as being male (in some ways better or worse, but that’s how it is).

    So, am I misandric if I would find life very hard if I suddenly became male? I would try to live instead of killing myself, but it would be a blow. And I think anyone who isn’t stricken by envy or gender dysmorphia would say the same.

    However, I still don’t entirely understand why women around me are willing to say “I wish I was of the opposite sex”, but men never say the same, no matter how much they are disadvantaged. And disadvantages are there in plain view. Are women just the “whinier” sex?

  219. 219
    YOHAMI says:

    “Are women just the “whinier” sex?”

    The whinier gender ;-)

  220. 220

    I wonder if this happens in places and times where feminism doesn’t/didn’t exist, and can’t/couldn’t stir up envy.

  221. 221
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Emma the Emo,
    You came within an inch of answering your own question. While there is a long standing joke about how women are only jealous of men when it’s time to pee in the woods, you are on to something. What these women are jealous of is agency. Feminism has convinced them that they, as women, don’t have it and that men do. The purpose is to promote women as victims and men as aggressors. There’s only one problem, it’s fiction. Like Dorothy’s three companions, the Tin Man, Scarecrow, and the Cowardly Lion, who already possessed the qualities they sought after in abundance, women have agency.

  222. 222
    Bloom says:

    Still waiting to hear the answer to the question about the guy friends…. Anyone? ;)

  223. 223

    FuzzieWuzzie,

    Thanks for the answer. I remember Martel made a similar point on his site, but about welfare recipients. No matter how much is done for women or welfare recipients, victim mentality is still toxic for them. Their handouts and external help depend on appearing like a victim, always blaming the circumstances, essentially admitting they can do nothing to help themselves. Only the unscrupulous can act like a victim, take take take, and not internalize their own act. I suppose it must be similar to what women feel under feminist influence – lack of agency.

  224. 224
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Ok Bloom, I’ll bite. If she has a significant other, yes, we can be friends. That puts her “off limits” for consideration. If we’re both unattached and I feel attraction, there’s a problem. If the attraction is not reciprocal, distance is a good idea.

  225. 225

    @ Bloom

    You could save a lot of time and do what was done in Legally Blonde–Slap your client who is chatting up a girl and say, “We had such a glorious night. Why didn’t you call me later?”

  226. 226

    @ Bloom

    I am friends with several women. Not a problem for married autists, typically. There is chemistry with a few and it’s fun and no big deal.

  227. 227
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Emma the Emo,
    Karen Straughan, Girl Writes What, goes into in depth in one of her older videos, one dealing with the hyperagency of men and the hypoagency of women. In the video, she goes to the core of why feminism is so destructive for women.
    It might be this one

  228. 228

    @ nekros

    Gonna try to persuade you to take up dancing. Here’s a couple of dance stories for you from recent times. Went to a new bar on a Tues night and didn’t know a soul. The place was dead–no one except me was couples dancing. Danced with maybe five women. Danced with one chick. Much later she asked me over to talk to her and her friend. They asked me if I was a player or swinger. I said “no” to both questions. That was a double hit–maybe for a 3-some. Both women were very attractive. I dance well now, but I started with two left feet and took group lessons.

    Went to the same bar on a Sat. Danced with maybe twenty different women–lots were attractive. I had fun dancing and there was some chemistry with a few. Finally got close to midnight and I see this curvy, beautiful woman in a low-cut strapless gown–huge tracts of land poured into her gown. I imagine that all the women are telling their men not to even think of asking this woman to dance. She wasn’t getting a lot of requests to dance. So I go up and ask her to dance. She enthusiastically says, “Ok.” Maybe she saw me dancing before, Idk. So we dance one dance. She hugs me enthusiastically. I’m enthused. I ask her to dance again. She beams, “Sure!” So we dance and I’ve got a 5h1t-eating grin on my face as I look around the edge of the dance floor–catching the gaze of some of the men and women. At the end of the second dance this woman hugs me enthusiastically again. She says, “You make me look good.” (She was a nice accessory for me, too.) I walk her back to her spot. She hugs me a third time. I probably could have locked lips with her, etc. After all, it was around midnight.

    Then she moves from her spot to the center of my field of vision for a line dance and dances very sexily, smiling at me and holding my gaze from time to time.

    Stuff like this happens to me…all…the…time. I don’t even chat women up, generally.

    Yeah, then I left after dancing with a beauty in her early twenties. She had two drunk left feet, lol. I did my best to make her look Ok.

    Dancing can help you approach women successfully, build confidence, etc. It takes perseverance.

  229. 229
    ferrum says:

    After this little tidbit – “… since we know that women and men are not equal in our society, that women still face enormous discrimination, how can you not be a feminist?” – there can be no doubt as to the writer’s bias.

    Key Indicators always give you away if you’re not careful, and he showed his hand. Note that he didn’t say women were simply discriminated against, but that the the discrimination was “enormous”. That’s quite the adjective to attach and I would challenge the fellow to show a list of the top ten enormous ways women are discriminated against. He won’t because he can’t. He could cherry-pick data points and create a false argument that sounds good, but reality will bite him in the ass every time.

    Simply put, after that entry sentence everything else he had to say was irrelevant. His bias was put out there for all to see and it cannot help but color the rest of his work.

  230. 230
  231. 231
    Höllenhund says:

    My comments still get eaten.

  232. 232
    Höllenhund says:

    #164

    Well, duh. In order to get a girlfriend, you need to have a girlfriend. In order to get a job, you need to have a job. In order to make money, you need to have money. Didn’t you get the memo?

  233. 233
    Sir Nemesis says:

    You guys have any advice for this guy? http://intjforum.com/showpost.php?p=4117277&postcount=1

    I’m a 22 year old male INTJ and I’ve been having a lot of trouble dating since the age of 15. I’m just wondering if more experienced INTJ have any advice. After I failed with girls for a couple years in high school I looked into some PUA stuff. There are a lot of details about how to carry out the advice, but basically it comes down to treating women like small children. And that’s the only thing I’ve ever found to work. Women assume that you must want to care and provide for them just because they exist, and they expect you to do everything for them without having to do anything in return, exactly like children. Their idea of fun is to make up drama and to play silly fantasy games. And they expect the man to make all decisions for them no matter how trivial. Taking a woman out on a date is like trying to entertain a small child. The problem I have is that I am demisexual, so when women just sit there and let you come after them, I feel no attraction. I go months at a time without feeling any sort of arousal at all. And playing all these games with women is exhausting. Women say they want you to care about their personality, but they are all liars. If you check out any woman’s dating profile, every single one of them says she likes her family and she likes to travel. Every female dating profile is interchangeable with every other one. If women actually wanted men to care about something other than their pussy, they’d advertise it, but they don’t. I’ve tried dozens of different things (periodically going back to acting like myself), but the only thing that has ever worked for me is treating women like children. It drives me nuts. In order to flirt properly I have to pretend like all I care about is getting ass, so I’ve gotten into awkward situations before where I conquered the woman, but I wasn’t able to get an erection because I didn’t know a thing about her. I’m just wondering if there’s some other way of getting women to like you. Or if there exists somewhere some woman who is willing to meet a man halfway. I’m getting to the point where I’m just planning on being celibate for the rest of my life because women have nothing to offer me.

  234. 234
    Höllenhund says:

    #180

    „That means the other 80% of both sexes are “left out”. So to her way of thinking, it’s just a matter of helping these 80% find each other.”

    And she firmly believes, of course, that it’s mostly men who need this help because this situation is mostly their fault anyway. In fact, this is the consensus among Western women. In their minds, many average betas refuse to ask out plain-looking girls on dates because they’re cynical wannabe manwhores looking for the kind of no-strings-attached sex the alpha thugs are having. Other men have no success in dating because, you know, they are constantly shooting out of their league. In the female mind, any average beta chump who wants to have a relationship, let alone sex, with anyone more attractive than a chain-smoking, drug-abusing, unemployed, obese, hairy, ageing single mother with a mustache is instantly dismissed as a deluded, sexist asshole with a sense of entitlement. And, of course, many young men don’t show romantic interest in their female peers because their minds are completely warped by porn addiction. Hell, they can’t even produce erections for women that aren’t bombshells, right? So yeah, it’s their fault, and the result is that plain-looking, cute, „restricted” girls with hearts of gold are left without the relationships they want. The horror…

  235. 235
    Badpainter says:

    @ 234

    Sadly, I think he’s fucked.

    That almost could have been written by me. We share the same problem in wanting something that doesn’t exist.

    But give him ten years and he’ll find way to connect in order to get laid. Even if the connection is a shared opinion about a TV show, or something equally banal.

  236. 236
    SfcTon says:

    @ 223
    The way I reckon things is, if a man finds himself with platonic female friends, he ought to reconsider his position in the hierarchy of men. Is she singularly masculine or is he excessively drawn to feminine pursuits?

  237. 237
    Sumo says:

    @234

    Obviously, he needs to Man Up……in more ways than one.

  238. 238
    YOHAMI says:

    “I’m just wondering if there’s some other way of getting women to like you.”

    Be rich handsome dangerous dominant and have fun on your own terms.

    “Or if there exists somewhere some woman who is willing to meet a man halfway.”

    She’ll go way farther than halfway.

  239. 239
    ChristpherB says:

    @Fuzzie and Emma.

    Good Points. I’d also add that in addition to the agency differential, feminism is also based on the fallacy that apex men are able to avoid responsibility.

  240. 240
    deti says:

    Hollenhund 235:

    Yep. As I was thinking over this and reading your comment and perusing HUS, I found Susan saying yesterday or the day before that well, she used to advise women not to chase cads and players but she doesn’t do that anymore because by and large, women don’t do that. Only the sluts do that. The cads/players and sluts are all sleeping with each other, in her world.

    That means that she believes the SMP/MMP is all the fault of MEN. She believes women, in the main, are doing NOTHING wrong in this SMP. In her world, if a man is failing in the SMP/MMP, it’s because he’s not attractive enough. In her world, if a woman is failing, it’s because men are not attractive enough.

    She really does believe the same thing as Amanda Marcotte: “Men just need to be more attractive”.

    Susan, are you and your commenters willing to concede, at least, that maybe, just maybe, part of the problem in the SMP could be because there is a sizable proportion of the “nonpromiscuous” 80% of women who, knowingly or not, display prominently one of the following:

    1. Are physically unattractive because of ways they choose to present themselves to the world (hair, makeup, dress)

    2. Are physically unattractive due to lifestyle choices (smoking, heavy drinking, drug use, overeating)

    3. Are unkind, nasty bitches

    4. Have poor character and integrity (dishonesty, cheating, can’t manage money, etc.)

    5. Are shallow and superficial (obsession with celebrity culture; self-absorption, insane materialism, Bridezillas, etc.)

    6. Make poor choices in the men and women they associate with

    7. Knowingly and willingly choose to sleep with cads/players

    8. Are obese, slovenly, have poor hygiene, or are otherwise in poor health

    9. Have not even the slightest domestic skills

    10. Are “career” driven to the exclusion of everything else in their lives

    11. Are completely unrealistic about the type and caliber of man they can attract for the long haul

  241. 241
    jf12 says:

    #219 On wishing one were the opposite sex. Of course we all should know there are more than an order of magnitude more men literally trying to be women (male-to-female trans) than there are women trying to be men. Naturally, or unnaturally, these are biased samples due to self-selection, but the larger points apply more widely.

    Uniformly the female-to-male trans, basically 100% with long term girlfriends, initially report being surprised but extremely happy with the better energy, strength, mood and much much much higher libido from all the testosterone. Uniformly, basically 100% lose their girlfriends *after* the transition, and uniformly basically 100% cannot understand why it’s so difficult to pick up women for a man, since being a man is so cool in itself. And so eventually virtually 100% are extremely unhappy sexually living as a man in our society, without ltr and without str, because women are so difficult towards men.

    In complete contrast, male-to-female trans initially report being unsurprised and saddened by the loss of energy, strength, mood, and libido from blocking all that testosterone. But socio-sexually they are extremely pleased by all the new male attention, both direct sexual attention and the other attentions that females get. Many get a new ltr after the trans, but many choose to run around with as many men as they can handle. And so eventually virtually 100% are extremely happy sexually living as a woman in our society, with ltr and with str, because men are so easy towards women.

  242. 242
    jf12 says:

    #223 Bloom, most men are sexually attracted *enough* to most women. Don’t dispute the fact, let it wash over you. The vast majority of us strictly physically recognize most every random woman walking down the street as a good *enough* potential sexual partner, and have since the first minute of the first hour fo the first day of puberty. We are so used to NOT acting on our sexual desires that it is a constant surprise when we get to do so.

  243. 243
    jf12 says:

    #234 His problem is being uninterested sexually in compliant women. We don’t have a behavioral cure for that, although it ought to be easy enough for him to seek out a mean woman to verbally abuse him if that’s what he’s into.

  244. 244
    YOHAMI says:

    “Men just need to be more attractive”.

    While at the same time women need to be loved just as they are, warts and all – no matter if they are physically unappealing, fat, boring, dumb, immature, entitled, shallow, dumb, emotional wrecks, unreliable or slutty.

    Nice try.

  245. 245
    FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Sir Nemesis at 234,
    The ITNJ has a problem with the relative maturity of the women he’s dating. It’s not with him so, his changing won’t affect the issue. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, his dating cohorts will grow out of being “Daddy’s little girl”. The only advice to be offered is to apply patience.
    His lament does go to pointing out a larger problem that does affect all of us. A lot of them don’t grow out of it. They don’t have to.

  246. 246
    deti says:

    “And never mind that the primary accuser was a dirty unrestricted as well.”

    Indeed. “Dirty” or not, there was unrestricted behavior in Susan’s past when she was a single woman, by her own description.

    –had “pity sex” with a man
    –acknowledged sexual arousal when a man kissed her and spit wine into her mouth
    –had sex with a man engaged to another woman, yet disavows any moral responsibility for same
    –parlayed a ONS into marriage to her husband

    I’m not making any of this up. All this is her own behavior, which she has described on her own blog.

  247. 247
    buenaVista says:

    #241: “… advise women not to chase cads and players but she doesn’t do that anymore because by and large, women don’t do that. Only the sluts do that.” Since the 80/80 rule is true, we are informed, there can be no broad popular market for these bestsellers (only sluts read erotic romance novels):

    http://www.sheknows.com/love-and-sex/articles/981239/12-must-read-erotic-novels

    It continues to amaze me how feminism denies that behavior exists within — always — a market context. But no, as an ideology feminism denies the information-building and sorting function of efficient markets, just as socialists deny incentives in other forms of human decisionmaking. I’m tempted to paraphrase George Will, and label feminism “back-door socialism” but a) this gives rise to too many obvious double-entendres; and b) there’s nothing subtle or indirect about feminism’s purposes.

  248. 248
    Jason773 says:

    #187 “Tinder swipe stats would settle this”

    This is totally correct. I’m an upper level SMV guy, and in six months of using Tinder in two major American cities, I have had 1000+ matches. Keep in mind that I keep my radius to ~8mi (the distance I’m willing to travel), and I only swipe right for ~35% of women on the app, as I don’t want matches that I wouldn’t even consider banging.

    When speaking to other guys (read: beta and average) regarding Tinder, in the same time period they are happy with 50-100 matches, while their search radius is larger and most indiscriminantly swipe right on everything, thus matching with lower SMV women, in order to time manage more effectively.

    This doesn’t even take into account the number of women I have met up with post-matching. 80% of women go for 15-20% of men. Hypergamy at it’s finest.

  249. 249
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Nemesis,

    Your INTJ commenter did not ask for help. He posted a 1-paragraph word-vomit.
    There’s nothing wrong with that, but you don’t respond to a poet’s lament with a 10-item “how to improve your life” article.
    My $.02
    If he wants actual advice:
    INTJs are in a world of hurt. They are introverted, and they tend towards the intellectual, which limits what they “get” from interacting with people. Given the Information Age offers them substantial substitutes for their times, INTJs face a uniquely high opportunity cost for any time-sink, and socializing does not usually meet this threshold.
    So his problem is not unique to women. It should apply to all people. There are specifics to handling women, and specifics to handling each “class” of women, but INTJs face this dilemma with practically all people, IME.

    WRT to the HUS:
    Their stated ideology rests on the SocioSexuality hypothesis, with the Sexual Strategies framework considered irrelevant. The “unrestricted” 20% have wrested control of the social narrative to create dating norms that suit themselves. The “restricted” do not generally associate with the unrestricted, and whatever cross-over is trivial (and therefore not worth talking about).
    However, the “restricted” lack a script to make dating work for them: they are the equivelant of job-seekers who snail-mail resumes everywhere. The solution to this is getting the restricteds up to speed on modern dating techniques and re-creating some old scripts and norms, to enable the restricteds to date each other.
    This is the intellectual framework, divorced from any value-judgement and loaded words.

    Male dating issues are generally unacknowledged and the poor female dating stock also goes unacknowledged. Most young men have an extreme sex drive and almost no attractiveness at all to young women, and have received crap-tacular advice their entire lives. Some people say they want to go back to college: you could not pay me enough to go back.
    This generally goes unacknowledged because it’s assumed PRIGs (plain, restricted, introverted girls) have the same issue. IME, hell no. PRIGs are picky. Young Beta men are unwanted. Totally different.

    The second issue, of low-quality women, has NEVER been acknowledged. See HH’s Luther-esque 10 Theses above. Young men today are facing the most entitled and narcissistic generation of women in history. Additionally, they are the most educated and most career-oriented (which sounds good, unless it means putting men on the back-burner and raising their standards to incredibly high levels).
    Anecdotally, women of this generation possess uniquely poor domestic skills, and are uniquely absorbed in their phones and social media. I am struck that in virtually every couple of my generation, the cooking ability and cleaning ethic of the male VASTLY outmatches the female. This is limited to the women and men in my particular social circle, of course, but it amazes me that the female solution to cleaning is shoving everything in a room and closing a door, and “I’ll worry about the dishes tomorrow,” and “how do you know how to saute chicken” and “what do you mean I can’t put cast iron in the dishwasher”?
    Women often look at men and see nothing but Peter Pans and frat-boys. We look at women and see wanna-be Mean Girls and actual Mean Girls.

  250. 250
    Fred Flange, PsyChoD. says:

    I would be hard-pressed to dispute the “80% of women go for 20% of men” paradigm, having seen it up close and personal as all of you have for years and years. But I think we can allow for a little nuance. There are, among the 80% of women, more than a few who might be plain-pretty or such, but have their own shyness, artistic temperament or other social hesitancy so they never get on the 20% of alpha men’s radars. They can be found, they can be approached, they can be gamed. Though such gaming would probably have to be done along what Deti describes as “Path 2″ in the most recent post, so you as the Gamer would have to carefully observe and set a fixed limit so as not to waste your time and hers if nothing’s developing.

    Part of INTJ’s problem is his hard-wiring: he’s only attracted when a woman shows him she’s into him as opposed to being just compliant. Agreed, no cure for that, just like there’s no “cure” for guys who are boob-men, or women who like a military-type physique in a man. This whole “demisexual” thing is one of those made-up terms to create some kind of syndrome out of what is just a limited sex drive – it’s not a problem unless you make it one. (Like “asexual” people who complain about their sexual encounters. If you’re having sex YOU’RE NOT ASEXUAL, you just don’t enjoy it, and I won’t take your statement that you are asexual seriously. I know people who truly are, and they don’t victim-puke on the Web or elsewhere. They live out their existences, just leaving out the fucking part).

    From INTJ guy’s question I am reminded of the end of “Carnal Knowledge”, wherein Jack Nicholson’s character can only get a hard-on if the hooker says a particular ego-boosting speech in a particular way each time without variation. An extreme but pungent example.

  251. 251
    Bloom says:

    @ nemisis it looks like Intj is a rare and interesting personality type:
    http://www.16personalities.com/mobile/intj-personality.html

    But has lots of trouble w dating:
    http://www.16personalities.com/mobile/intj-relationships-dating.html

  252. 252
    jf12 says:

    #250 I agree it wasn’t really a request for help, more like wanting sympathy or something.

  253. 253
    Sir Nemesis says:

    This reads like it was written by Anne Gus: http://elitedaily.com/dating/why-men-dont-have-balls-anymore/

  254. 254
    jf12 says:

    #254 “What ever happened to a guy going after a girl until she agreed to give him a chance?” That is Path 2. Nice to see that women think that men who are forced to do Path 2 have some shred of masculinity remaining, despite women working overtime specifically to shred the masculinities of Path 2 men.

  255. 255
    BuenaVista says:

    @JF12, I think women have a native understanding of optionality (presuming their free call options on male companionship) that outstrips that of men. We may acquire an attitude of abundance; they appear to have it ingrained by age 18 or so, younger if they are early-maturing foxes. It reaches full flower by the time lane-changing is in order.

  256. 256
    jf12 says:

    #256 I like to think of myself as having been turned down so much that it didn’t hurt any more (Some kind of perverse pride in being authentically miserable? what is THAT called in German?), but actually there were very few women who I (that was a capital I there) decided were worth pursuing and asking out a second time. In that, I suppose I was actually operating out of an abundance mentality: there was no shortage of other women I was willing to ask out even presuming they would probably turn me down.

  257. 257
    Bloom says:

    I have been advised by a male admirer that I should not talk to you guys because you might be a bunch of stalker creeps. And that maybe I should stop blogging, too. Hummm.
    Not sure what to make of that. Protective? Possessive?

    P.s. If any of you are stalker creeps, I am not interested in stalker creeps. Stalker creeps have zero chance w Bloom.

  258. 258
    Bloom says:

    Oh and I am to inform him immediately at the first sign of any stalker creeping. Huh.

    So far, no signs of that…none!

  259. 259
    jf12 says:

    #258 He’s trying to compete with us, but he’s doing it wrong by trying to limit your interactions with other men already even though clearly there is no commitment yet. It’s similar to a guy you just met in a bar telling you to stay away from the good looking guy who’s winking at you. He should dhv instead.

  260. 260
    Liz says:

    #258: Protective!
    He likes you molto, Bloom. :-)

  261. 261
    Höllenhund says:

    #254

    Yep. She totally nailed it. The main problem today with the average downbeaten, emasculated, demoralized Western beta is that he refuses to shed his pride. Seems legit.

    The mainstream media is becoming so delusional it’s not even that funny anymore.

  262. 262
    Badpainter says:

    @ 258

    Beta White Knight game at its finest.

    “Stalker creeps have zero chance w Bloom.”

    You say that but is creepy stalker has a pet dragon? What then?

  263. 263
    Liz says:

    #263: Oh, come on Badpainter. He isn’t grabbing his lance and charging in here for the maiden fair. He just expressed a concern.
    Few people outside these forums understand them…there’s a lot of misconceptions in public at large, and it’s reasonable for him to show concern. I think it’s a good sign.

  264. 264
    Liz says:

    Unless he’s from HUS or something…

  265. 265
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Bloom

    I have been advised by a male admirer that I should not talk to you guys because you might be a bunch of stalker creeps.

    Nah that would be Santa Claus.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5Pmtmq-Iwvo/TQ_tiOPI2rI/AAAAAAAAAIg/5dmepy3x78c/s400/stalker.jpg

  266. 266
    Sir Nemesis says:

    Yeah to the average non-red-piller, this place is going to seem extremely creepy.

  267. 267
    BuenaVista says:

    I guess I could be accused this week of white-knighting, which is what this “concerned” man is doing with Bloom. I took an ex-gf to the game on Saturday, and she was running jealousy game on me, describing her latest bf, their Caribbean vacation, double-dates with a Congressman, etc. (I dropped her and she has been checking in every few months. I have no interest in rekindling anything romantic, but she’s got some alpha widow feelings.)

    Anyway, she said that he had recently informed her that “they are not dating” though she goes out with him and they sleep together, etc. I said, “You know what that means, right? He’s seeing other people and he wants to salve his conscience by having you agree that you are just FWB. You might be careful.” After a few of her denials and non-denial denials (“oh, I know he sees other people”) I shrugged, having completed my job as big brother. “That’s just my assessment. You might be careful, but of course it’s a free country YMMV blah blah blah next subject, please.” After the game we visited her country club for a drink, but then she had a freakout as we were walking to the grill, realizing that the help would see her with a new guy, so it was a good moment to for me to head home. (Hers was not the behavior of someone in an open relationship.)

    Bloom, I suppose “protective” is good, but “jealous, man-shaming and protective” exemplifies your knight’s weakness and fear of competition. But … that’s just my assessment, based on your anecdote. Of course, when people criticize (“watch out for dirty rotten STALKERS!) they may simply be projecting. Which makes him a stalker YMMV it’s a free country etc.

  268. 268
    Badger says:

    I noted before that Kimmel’s patterns of thinking appear to be quite feminized, with his muted paeans to “just get it” and whatnot. Rereading the discussion I noticed a particular manifestation of this charge that is quite common to see.

    Kimmel floats the idea that men are doing whatever it is he thinks men are doing – drinking, taking drugs, playing video games, “hooking up” (the term is such a self-caricature now anyway) – because of some kind of pervasive adult male peer pressure. The quotation is “It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.”

    Sure, there’s some male locker room peer pressure, but I’ve never seen it to the degree that Kimmel and others think it operates at. Think about a guy saying “you know I don’t really like casual sex, I just do it because I feel I have to fit in, like the guys would ostracize me if I didn’t bang those sluts” or “it’s like if I don’t watch porn the other guys will say I’m not a real man.” It sounds ridiculous to me to imagine a man saying such things out loud. Saying you are “forced” to do something by social pressure sounds much more like something a woman would say, and in fact we’ve seen that kind of rhetoric on these very threads.

    And that’s when it hit me – this hand-wringing over “real man anxiety” is projected thinking from female social models. From both my study and experience, peer/herd pressure and the amorphous “I have to do what’s expected of me” is a much stronger cup of tea in female social groups. Read about why women get tarted up to go to the club – “we don’t dress up for guys, we dress up to impress each other!” Some of this is dissembling, of course they are trying to get male attention, but there’s more than a kernel of truth in that women are playing a much more sophisticated social game against each other than men play with other men. One of the funny ironies about the idea of the sociable alpha male is that such a guy is usually operating on a more female social level, playing other people off each other in very intricate ways.

    Feminist-tinged analysis of male behavior almost always carries some element of this projection, that the psychosocial motivations of men are subject to the highly synthetic and tactical social fogs in which women surround themselves. My guess is that when feminists began analyzing male behavior, they simply projected their own socially-based behavior motivations onto male social groups. This itself goes hand in hand with their dubious concept that gender is a social construct and that men feel pride and shame for certain things because society (i.e. parents, teachers, older brothers, ministers, magazines, IOW a whole host of daddy-issue items) told them to.

    In some cases the projection is astronomical, like their bogus idea that “men feel threatened when their mates make more than them” which is not really true and a mirror of the much more true statement that women feel contemptuous of mates who make less than they do.

    What’s funny, but no surprising, is how feminist “scholars” and activists will denounce male peer pressure as a destructive outgrowth of toxic masculinity (because as they see it it causes men to do things that don’t fit female interests) but openly encourage female peer pressure structures like normalizing sexual license (anti-“slut shaming”).

  269. 269
    Badpainter says:

    @264

    “I should not talk to you guys because you might be a bunch of stalker creeps. And that maybe I should stop blogging, too.”

    That’s significantly different from “Be careful lots of wackos on the intertubes.” The suggestion to remove herself from the conversation is very problematic, even if well intended.

  270. 270
    Liz says:

    #267: This place is pretty tame. :-)
    I remember my first impression of Heartiste. Lol! Good Lord.
    I told my husband a few of the comments and he told me to get out of there. I did of course…but fortunately Judgybitch started posting there at the same time so I just went over to her site.
    I’m betting Bloom’s fellow isn’t familiar with any red pill sites, only the rumors.
    In fact, my husband had to renew his security clearance recently. He told me to just make sure when I’m perusing forums that I don’t go anywhere that might get him in trouble (who knows what the NSA is looking into…I worry about my sons looking up information on homemade pyrotechics). I said I don’t, and he said he could imagine it would be hard to explain that his wife is the one actually looking at the pua sites. :-P

  271. 271
    Liz says:

    #270: I suppose that’s true.

  272. 272
    jf12 says:

    #269 good stuff. The very idea that a man’s sexual interactions with women is predicated primarily on the opinions of other men, is an idea that only a woman-gendered-person-thing could think. A man interacts sexually because he wants sex.

  273. 273
    Retrenched says:

    If a baseball team finishes last in its division, no one will tell them to just keep doing everything the same way, and that if they do so, they eventually will win. No, everyone will tell them that they need to fill the holes in their lineup and pitching staff, maybe get a new manager, pitching coach or GM. Drastic change will be advised for a team that loses often enough to finish last.

    But if a young man finishes last in the game of love, everyone tells him to just keep doing what he’s doing — and eventually he will win, find ‘the one’, whatever. No one tells him to learn from the men who are already winning, to become more like them so that he can win too.

    If a young man wants to be a doctor, he will be told to go to medical school and learn from people who have been practicing medicine for years. If he wants to learn karate he will be told to go to a dojo and learn from a black belt. If he wants to learn C# he will be told to enroll at a school whose teachers have years of experience writing good, stable code.

    But if he wants to learn how to meet, approach and attract women, I guess instinct is all he needs, right?

  274. 274
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Retrenched

    If he wants to learn C# he will be told to enroll at a school whose teachers have years of experience writing good, stable code

    ORLY?

    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/02/tory-boss-of-government-coding-education-initiative-cant-code-lottie-dexter/

  275. 275
    Badpainter says:

    @274

    “…if he wants to learn how to meet, approach and attract women, I guess instinct is all he needs, right?”

    In some ways that is right. If left to our instincts we could all figure this out because it is largely hard wired. However, society, and culture have done as much as possible to repress those instincts as being evil, wrong headed, and anti-social, and regressive.

    Bluepill existence is mostly about trying to reconcile evil thoughts and desires with the equally strong desire to be a good man. Kimmel’s philosophy is that life is miserable and men are evil, and only be by submitting to the FI can a man find self worth, and self respect by virtue of having self emasculated.

  276. 276
    Bloom says:

    @badpainter a dragon or a kracken? ;) just kidding! Apparent I need to lock myself in a tower wrapped in a stalker creep eating dragon! Surrounded by a moat with krackens…

  277. 277
    Bloom says:

    I agree w badger, female projection that “all these guys don’t want to be just guys but their friends talked them into it…”

  278. 278
    jf12 says:

    #277 and if (IF! hah!) female-women-persons’ pickers are so broken that they need dragons etc to discern who’s a threat, then what are the chances that dragons’ pickers for male-men-persons can be trusted? “Oh no! You roasted and ate my date for tonight!”

  279. 279
    BuenaVista says:

    Badger FTW. I confess to reading Kimmel and asking myself, “Where does he get this shit?” I think this is a highly intuitive explanation.

    I’ve never known a single man who bemoaned his being subjected to “peer pressure” to behave like a sloppy PUA, much less acted on it. Perhaps Kimmel would say we are all victims of a ‘false consciousness’, so beaten down by masculinity-distorting lies that we are just wreckage. That’s one way to dismiss analysis or ignore evidence.

  280. 280

    @ Badpainter

    Seconded. Even my prudish, extra-cautious wife didn’t go so far as to say that I should stop blogging. Her white-knight looks to be taking normal caution and using it as an excuse to mate-guard her.

    @ liz

    lol x 2 about u visiting pua sites

    Also hilarious–u white-knighting Bloom’s white knight

  281. 281

    […] read with interest (and a bit of disgust) an interview with Michael Kimmel, author of books such as “Guyland” and “Angry White Men” over at Just Four […]

  282. 282
    Badpainter says:

    @277

    My interest is more in the realm of historical defenses and their application to the impending Zombie Apocalypse, so I can’t be much help.

  283. 283
    Bloom says:

    White knighting… I will have to look this up…

  284. 284
    Sumo says:

    I have been advised by a male admirer that I should not talk to you guys because you might be a bunch of stalker creeps.

    Well, that’s just rude.

    We may be a bunch of stalkers, but we’re certainly not CREEPY about it.

  285. 285
    Sumo says:

    @Bloom

    White knighting refers to the tendency to defend another person’s bad behaviour and poor choices.

    Usually out of the misplaced hope of getting in their pants.

  286. 286
    AnObserver says:

    1. “Women are not going to have some V8 moment in which they say “Oh, yeah, this equality stuff sucks, I hate voting, and driving, and serving on juries, and having a job, and having my own bank account, and having orgasms.” Let’s go back the way it used to be on Mad Men.” – Yes. They are going to have that moment.

    2. “…or we can walk courageously into that future, knowing that our lives, as men, will, be better for it, that the more equal we are, the better our relationships with our friends, our wives and partners, our children will be. Gender equality is not a zero-sum game; it’s a win-win.” – We won’t be better and it’s not win-win.

    3. “So it always seemed to me that those divisions between male=career, ambition, competence and female=loving and kind and nurturing were fictions. These were all human traits, and it seemed wrong to divide them up by biological sex.” – Fictions according to whom? Divided up by whom?

    I’m always struck by how casually central planners and social engineers dismiss nature and the lessons of the past. It’s as if they consider themselves apart from all of it.

  287. 287
    Liz says:

    theadsgamer: “Also hilarious–u white-knighting Bloom’s white knight”

    Hm. Wouldn’t that be white wenching? :-P

  288. 288
    jf12 says:

    #288 White knighting, to me, means pretending to a higher virtue than the blackguards from which yon fair maiden needs rescuing. So he can have a clearer path for himself.

    Whiter knighting, which tasdg mentioned, then means a white knight who is protecting against those *pretend* white knights who are merely pretending so they can have clearer paths for themselves.

  289. 289
    SFC Ton says:

    @ Bloom, #258
    Cyber stalking? How lame. When a real man a stalks a girl he does it through a 42mm scope from a terrain feature away…..

    Peer pressure plays a huge part in my professional and personal life, yet I never witness it being a negative. It’s of the man up and ignore fear, pain, fatigue variety. My last platoon had two men who didn’t drink or chase girls for religious reasons. No one gave them any shit about it. Same for a couple guys who placed beer and call of duty over girls, who refused to get serious about single moms etc. Now this is an all male environment, where the men decided jumping out of planes etc and getting shot at is a viable career option. Same for the guys I do power lifting and strongman. Lot of butch the f#ck up Nancy pants when we lift, but nary a word when a guy wants to go home to his wife etc vs grab a drink. Any rate all that to ask…. is it fair to assume the more negative kind of peer pressure comes from feminine sources/ effeminate men?

    NSA, clearances and th interwebz; if what I regularly read and post on the interwebz doesn’t interfere with my clearance I cannot imagine what would.

  290. 290
    jf12 says:

    #290 I’d like for Kimmel to come here and tell us what specifically he didn’t like about having to butch up himself (since he did, in fact), AND what aspects of butching up he felt were particularly not working for him with women.

  291. 291
    Random Angeleno says:

    INTJ? Take up social partner dancing. All you have to do is dress well and show up with a slight smile. Now that I’m a decent salsa dancer, I often don’t have to verbalize the whole “hi there, I’m Random, would you like to dance with me?” introduction, I just tap her on the shoulder, hold my hand out and say “dance?” Sometimes I can move directly in front of where she’s seated and do the simple “come here” wave. Works most of the time. Some guys will talk to their partners, I rarely do this unless I know her well or I want to give her direction about a particular move. Over time, I’ve gotten some interest. But not sociable enough to really do much more than get phone numbers and go out once or twice.

    Have to say social dancing gets me out of the house and keeps me out of trouble. Also keeps me from drinking too much. Sloppy leads are not a good thing for a guy who doesn’t have much sociability going for him.

  292. 292
    Sumo says:

    is it fair to assume the more negative kind of peer pressure comes from feminine sources/ effeminate men?

    I would say – yes. Dudes who know that they can handle their shit and the guys around them are equally capable have no need to engage in any negative bullshit. Good natured ribbing is another matter, obviously.

  293. 293
    jf12 says:

    re: “is it fair to assume the more negative kind of peer pressure comes from feminine sources/ effeminate men?” Oh come on, you guys! Really? You had to do that? I’m SOOO impressed, NOT! (stamps foot)

  294. 294
    Jay says:

    “Women are not going to have some V8 moment in which they say “Oh, yeah, this equality stuff sucks, I hate voting, and driving, and serving on juries, and having a job, and having my own bank account, and having orgasms.” Let’s go back the way it used to be on Mad Men.”

    Um, women had all those things in the sixties.
    Also, Mad Men is not a documentary.

    (From the admiration for Don Draper’s alpha male masculinity I read at various websites, I think many modern feminists would like to go back to the sixties if an alpha male like Don Draper could fuck the hell out of them.)

  295. 295
    Areos says:

    Kimmel is an arrogant windbag who maintains his position in the feminist hierarchy by mischaracterizing men. That’s about the extent of it.

    I’m not sure of the truth that he fabricates studies and the like, but google the issue. I wouldn’t put it past him.

    What is really disturbing to me is that these pandering types can do so well in society. Hugo Schwyzer was another jerk like that – I think the cognitive dissonance eventually got to him, though.

  296. 296
    Bloom says:

    @sfcton if I did not know what you do for a living, your comment might seem a bit stalker-ish! Lol.

    I am curious what “from a terrain feature away” means though, just in case ;)

  297. 297
    Sumo says:

    @Bloom

    Think “sniper”. ;)

  298. 298
    jf12 says:

    #297 For mission planning purposes a terrain feature is anything worth remembering on a terrain map of the target region. On an individual i.e. sniper scale this is not likely to be things like “the mighty Columbia River”, more like “the ditch just north of the Smith’s house”. An approach route will be made via a specific sequence of terrain features, operating much like waypoints “There’s that hill over there, and the creek bend is up ahead, so we’re still good.”

    It works the same, mentally, in non-map situations. Taking into account field of view issues and cover, it’s probable your observer is located just below the crest of the nearest hillock (nearest in either direction, not necessarily nearest nearest) in the densest patch of vegetation. One area of mental neglect is outbuildings. People assume observers will necessarily not be situated on terrain features behind outbuildings, erroneously thinking that the outbuilding provides some kind of protection.

  299. 299
    Szia says:

    Kimmel is an advocate posing as a scientist.

    A scientist wants to get to the bottom of things and find out the truth. He will change his mind if discovered facts are contrary to his view of reality.

    An advocate is trying to push across his point of view. He will manipulate facts, ignore facts, exaggerate facts and otherwise work solely towards making his point of view seem right. He doesn’t care what the ultimate truth is.

    Kimmel is a pure advocate who seems to want to smear men and gain favor with women (or a certain group of women). He constantly claims to be “misunderstood”. He knows the current buzzwords and academic words, but he has a lot of trouble in the logical-thinking department.

    In short, an irritating, arrogant twit.

  300. 300
    jf12 says:

    #300 “He will change his mind if discovered facts are contrary to his view of reality.” Yes, and he’s HOPING to discover new facts that would alter his views. This is the quest.

  301. 301

    […] read with interest (and quite frankly, disgust) an interview with Michael Kimmel, author of books such as Guyland and Angry White Men over at Just Four Guys blog. It made me […]

  302. 302
    Richard Aubrey says:

    sfcton.
    Get the book yet?
    One of the characteristics of men in dedicated groups–sports teams, fraternities, military units–is to use their specialized vocab and concepts to describe the rest of life. Going off post in the military is “outside the wire”, implying an unease at being surrounded by sillyvilians.
    It’s humorous and you get points for creatively doing better at it.
    Laxers will do a “baltimore clear” -defense fires the ball as far as possible down the field instead of setting up a play–when leaving on a trip, or just leaving some place.
    All fun and nothing meant by it.
    And it’s a bonding thing.
    Approaching a woman might be “approach to contact” for a soldier.

    Ref Path 2. How about Path 3, or 2.1? Put yourself in front of women doing something–dance, sport, civic activities, employment, wine tasting– and do it well. Little or no effort to approach is necessary, in order to preserve the appearance of abundance. You have to be someplace so it may as well be in the company of women. Look for IOI. Worked for me.

  303. 303
    Bloom says:

    @ jf12 so should I contract sfcton to identify such possible locations, or maybe I should just trust you all are not creepy stalkers?

  304. 304
    jf12 says:

    Re: observation post counterintel. First step, just look up. Raise your head, and from your front porch (and back porch) look up from the horizon to where local topography meets the sky. How many good patches of veg are just below that skyline, with a good straight view of you (i.e. unblocked by trees in front or other clutter; they literally can’t see you if you literally can’t see them), and within a half-mile? probably not many. Note them, and walk toward each one, and investigate.

    Mapping is easy. Besides Google Maps et al., the good old quadrangles are fine to start.
    http://nationalmap.gov/ustopo/
    You can fill in local features better with boots on the ground. Good exercises in several ways for you and your children. Trust maps, but verify. Also, play some war games (local boys are naturally good at this) and note where the good hiding places are.

  305. 305
    jf12 says:

    #304 A good man patrols, btw. I am intimately familiar with just about every square meter within a mile of my house, and similarly at my workplace. The patrollotism is as habitual and automatic to me as a dog turning around before sleeping.

  306. 306
    Bloom says:

    @jf12 I will have a look at this. I have to say, thinking in this way is not a female mindset. Sort of like when there was an arctic blast and I only realized after the pipes in my laundry room burst when things warmed up that perhaps I should think about these things! Thanks for the advice. :)

  307. 307
  308. 308
    SfcTon says:

    I have not Richard. I am struggling through two books right now, one on nutrition and one on injury prevention in athletic training. Sometimes being self taught is a huge liability and I have been ignoring nutrition for years….. I cannot even say the words correctly in my head while reading. A cranky Ton is not fun.

  309. 309
    Tom says:

    If MRAs don`t care about gay mens situation then why do they post stuff like this:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/24v2rf/brunei_is_introducing_legislation_which_would/

  310. 310

    […] And, of course, then there are the angry men. Men who understand gender and sexual politics issues in our time are painted as inveterate […]

  311. 311

    […] cultural forces acting to constrain its expression in boys and men.  Powerful institutions in the academy, the media, and the government are devoted to critiquing and punishing male privilege and […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>