HUS Accuses me of Deceptive Machinations

I have been accused of engaging in deceptive “machinations” with the intention of making it seem like less rape, attempted rape and sexual assault occur than really do.  However, the basis for this accusation is totally absurd and reveals a profound lack of logical thinking and basic fairness on the part of the accuser.

Just Trying to get at the Truth

As I stated in my post, http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/, my intention was to get at the truth of things so that men wouldn’t be excessively seen by themselves or women as rapists and that women wouldn’t be unnecessarily scared off from the majority of men that are not rapists and assaulters:

Once again, I’ll state that any real rape is too much and said rapists should be locked away but by propagating the highly exaggerated 1 in 4 myth, feminists, scared females and white knight males continue to unfairly scare women, demonize men and aid in diverting more power and legal rights to women while taking them from men.

Susan Accuses me of Deceptive Machinations

Susan Walsh recently wrote a post at HUS called, “The No-Spin Facts on Campus Sexual Assault.”  In the first paragraph she makes this statement,

It is very difficult to acquire good statistics re the prevalence of sexual assault, especially on college campuses. The high incidence of binge drinking muddies the waters considerably. In addition, radical feminists trump deceptively high numbers arrived at by using convoluted definitions of assault and rape. Pickup artists and men’s rights activists engage in similar machinations by focusing on rape rather than all sexual assaults, and by downplaying attempted rapes.

It starts out fine.  Yes, no doubt, good stats are hard to come by.  And binge drinking is a big problem and can certainly muddy the waters.  The next sentence, about radical feminists juicing the numbers by using excessively-inclusive definitions of assault and rape, is one I completely agree with.  And the link under the phrase, “radical feminists trump deceptively high numbers,” is an excellent article by Christina Hoff Sommers:

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

(Or if anyone has trouble loading this link, here’s a google cache version of it.)

In fact, I so loved this Hoff Sommers article that I wrote my post about why the 1 in 4 claim of being a lifetime victim of rape or attempted rape is greatly exaggerated and quote extensively from the Hoff Sommers article since she makes such a powerful argument about how feminists exaggerate the number:

http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/

Then Susan claims that “Pickup artists and men’s rights activists engage in similar machinations by focusing on rape rather than all sexual assaults, and by downplaying attempted rapes.”  She’s accusing PUAs and MRAs of the same kind of deceptive machinations that radfems engage in, though in the opposite direction.

But guess what article she links to as evidence of her claim!

Why, none other than my very own post (http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/)  that heavily uses the very same Hoff Sommers article that Susan cites as evidence to debunk the radfem’s exaggerated claims.

So I just don’t get it.  Why attack me for writing an article using the very same article that she cites as debunking excessive radfem numbers?  And why is she going after me?  I thought the whole reboot thing was to get away from the sphere.  Instead, she launches this and other unfounded attacks.

So, since my post uses the very same Hoff Sommers article that Susan is referencing, she could just as well have used my post to debunk the radfem’s inflated claims (though, of course going straight to the original Hoff Sommers source is better).

Now that we’ve established that my post is in agreement with the Hoff Sommers post (obviously, since I heavily quoted her and didn’t do much original work myself in the data analysis portion of my post), it is easy to point out that it makes no sense whatsoever to use my post as evidence of PUAs and MRAs engaging in deceptive machinations.

I Didn’t Downplay Attempted Rapes and I did Mention Assault Too

Furthermore, saying that my post is evidence of PUAs and MRAs “focusing on rape rather than all sexual assaults, and by downplaying attempted rapes” is completely false.  I will quote from my post and you can all go there to see for yourselves that I write the following (my words here):

Also, looking at the broader question that asks about either rape or sexual assault, it’s about 1 in 14 women ever assaulted (rape or other sexual assault) during their lifetime.

So clearly, I am talking not only about rape or attempted rape but also about other sexual assault.

Now, to be fully clear, the thrust of the Christina Hoff Sommers article, and hence my post, was on completed and attempted rape, since that’s what the original exaggerated radfem 1-in-4 stat was claiming, that 1 in 4 women would be victims of rape or attempted rape during their lifetimes. (And Susan agrees with me that it’s exaggerated since she herself cited Hoff Sommers. Well, that is before she then tries to smear me.)

Here is what I quote from Hoff Sommers:

Koss and her colleagues concluded that 15.4 percent of respondents had been raped, and that 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape.[9] Thus, a total of 27.5 percent of the respondents were determined to have been victims of rape or attempted rape because they gave answers that fit Koss’s criteria for rape

Clearly, I am not downplaying attempted rape since that is part of the data being examined so Susan is wrong in referencing my post as someone who downplays attempted rape.

And the Hoff Sommers article does quote a survey about sexual assault as well, describing a Harris and Associates survey, emphasis added by me,

Among the questions asked of its random sample population of 2,500 women was, “In the last five years, have you been a victim of a rape or sexual assault?” Two percent of the respondents said yes; 98 percent said no.

Notice the words, “sexual assault?”

So, the original 1-in-4 victim-of-rape-or-attempted-rape claim focused on those two categories (rape and attempted rape) and that’s what the Hoff Sommers article focused on and so that’s what I focused on.  To say that I wasn’t focusing on sexual assault is a complete red herring because the original radfem claim of 1 in 4 was only focusing on rape and attempted rape. And though all kinds of sexual assault weren’t the focus of the Hoff Sommers article, used as evidence by Susan of how radfem claims are exaggerated, it does include the Harris survey that asks about both rape and sexual assault.

Susan has Been Debunked

So, there you have it.  Susan has been debunked in using my post as an example of deceptive “machinations.”

If any reader can find examples of a mistake I’ve made in my 1-in-4 post or any other, please point it out and the reason why I’m wrong.  I will welcome any such enlightenment.

But false accusations of dishonest machinations will be met with a clear and logical response, pointing out either the inability to use logic or the worse condition of simply not caring and trying to smear me.  After all, how hard is it to see that the data part of my post was thoroughly based on the approved-by-Susan Hoff Sommers article?

It will be interesting to see if the link to my post will be removed at HUS.  And if it is removed, will it simply vanish with no mention or will an edit acknowledging the error appear as well? As of publication time, the link was still there in all its “glory,” along with this promise by Susan

And I give my word that I will never distort the facts for my own ends.

Never?

 

240 thoughts on “HUS Accuses me of Deceptive Machinations

  1. 1
    YOHAMI says:

    Popcorn. She´s going after you because you deserted her camp, which is the capital offense you can do to a narcissist. Dont try to reason with her about this – as you can see there’s no rationale. Enjoy.

  2. 2
    YOHAMI says:

    *capital offense.

    [I added that word for you above]

  3. 3
    Sir Nemesis says:

    Here is a comment by Susan in her post:

    susanawalsh Mod Kit Johnson • 9 hours ago
    I share your concern about the legal definition of rape – I’ve often made the point that if a woman cannot consent if incapacitated, how can a man intend rape while incapacitated? That said, the sexes’ experience is not similar – and the idea of absolving people of responsibility for criminal actions due to substance abuse is obviously a non-starter. The rape laws apply to both sexes however – an incapacitated male cannot give consent either – if he has sex while drugged, unconscious, asleep, etc. he has been raped. I believe there is a case where a man in a coma was raped by his nurse, for example. So it’s a question of who is the aggressor.

    I did find some interesting statistics about males being raped while I was researching the article:

    From the CDC

    Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives.

    • Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and

    5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence

    other than rape, such as being made to penetrate

    someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted

    sexual contact, or non-contact unwanted sexual

    experiences, in the 12 months prior to the survey.

    • 4.8% of men reported they were made to penetrate

    someone else at some time in their lives.

    • 13% of women and 6% of men reported they

    experienced sexual coercion at some time in their lives.

    • A 2011 survey of high school students found that

    11.8% of girls and 4.5% of boys from grades 9-12

    reported that they were forced to have sexual

    intercourse at some time in their lives.

    • Among male rape victims, perpetrators were

    reported to be acquaintances (52.4%) and

    strangers (15.1%).

    • Among male victims who were made to penetrate

    someone else, perpetrators were reported to be

    intimate partners (44.8%), acquaintances (44.7%)

    and strangers (8.2%)

    I can’t find any data so far on who rapes men – obviously, a significant portion of those rapes are perpetrated by other males.

    So now she is using the debunked feminist CDC paper to claim that the “sexes’ experience [wrt. rape] is not similar”…

  4. 4
    Liz says:

    I doubt she read all of your post, HS. Probably just the title.

  5. 5
    deti says:

    Here’s the money quote from Han’s post summarizing Christina Hoff Sommers’ debunking of the “1 in 4″ myth.

    “*** that is not how the so-called rape victims saw it. Only about a quarter of the women Koss calls rape victims labeled what happened to them as rape. According to Koss, the answers to the follow-up questions revealed that “only 27 percent” of the women she counted as having been raped labeled themselves as rape victims.[10] Of the remainder, 49 percent said it was “miscommunication,” 14 percent said it was a “crime but not rape,” and 11 percent said they “don’t feel victimized.”[11]

    “So only 27% felt that they themselves had been raped. 27% of the 27.5% who were found by Koss to be raped or attempted is 7.4%, much closer to 1 in 14 than 1 in 4 but that wouldn’t fit the desired narrative.”

    So even when the researchers are asking THE WOMEN THEMSELVES who were part of the survey, EVEN 3/4 OF THEM don’t believe they were victims of rape or attempted rape (defined in the study as forcible penetration by penis, finger or object under threat of violent coercion or while intoxicated).

    Aren’t we constantly being told that a big part of whether a woman has been raped is whether she believes she was raped?

  6. 6
    YOHAMI says:

    Deti, sure. If she feels she was raped, she was, whether there was any kind of sexual contact or not. If she doesnt feel she was raped, she probably was, too, but just needs to be lectured about it.

  7. 7
    Han Solo says:

    @Liz

    I’m sure she read more of my post. Otherwise, how could she attempt to claim to know that my post allegedly only focused on rape and tried to downplay attempted rape. Then again, her linking my post to that statement makes no sense no matter how you look at it, unless she’s not able to think logically or simply wants to smear me and JFG and doesn’t care what the facts say. I suspect it’s a bit of both.

  8. 8
    deti says:

    The point is that 1 in 4 is a myth. If it were NOT a myth, we would have a crime epidemic in this nation unlike anything we’ve ever seen. We do not have crime rates on any violent felony which even come close to approaching the ball park of 25%. If the rape/attempted rape rate really were 25%, we’d have police departments and hospitals absolutely inundated with rape complainants. The FBI, the CIA, the National Guard, and INTERPOL would be involved, The UN would condemn the US as a horrible human rights violator.

    This is not to denigrate rape. It’s a horrible crime, it exists, it happens, and it’s traumatic to its victims.

    But forcible penetration by penis, finger or object under threat of violence to force compliance, or due to victim intoxication, just does not happen at anything like the rate of 25% in this country. And that’s what Sommers pointed out.

    The point is to tell women that “Look, it’s just not the case that there are men around every corner who want to rape you. It’s not nearly that unsafe, and not every man is a rapist or potential rapist. In fact, MOST men are NOT rapists.”

  9. 9
    Han Solo says:

    deti #8

    Good point. That is the message dealt with in my post on the Campus Rape Myth:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/the-campus-rape-myth/

  10. 10
    deti says:

    Let’s assume 1 in 4 is true.

    There are about 313 million people in the United States. About 50.8 percent of them are female. That means there are about 158 million females in the US.

    About 23.5% of all persons in the US are under age 18. Extrapolating that figure to the number of female persons, means that 23.5 % of all females in the United States are minors, or are under age 18. Running the numbers, this means about 37,130,000 US females are “girls” under age 18.

    That means that of the 158 million females in the United States, there are 120,870,000 adult females.

    If 1 in 4 is true, this means that 30,217,500 of those women have been or will be victims of rape or attempted rape, defined as forcible and/or coerced penetration by penis, finger or object through violence or threat of violence and/or intoxication.

    Think about that.

    Do we really have on the order of 30 million women raped every year in the US? Reduce that by 90% just for argument’s sake. Do we really have 3 million women in the US who are raped or were victims of attempted rape?

    That’s the population of Chicago. Getting raped or attempted raped. Every. Single. Year.

    If violent sex crimes like this were really happening at these rates, does any rational human being doubt that we’d be hearing about it?

  11. 11
    YOHAMI says:

    Deti, I did the same reasoning at HUS about two years ago. The other part of that reasoning is you need a lot, a LOT of men committing those crimes. You would have a bunch of rapists among your male friends. More rapists than any other possible preference or combination. More rapists than gays, more rapists than whatever. It would be normal – instead or rape having the gut adverse reaction it has.

    At the time mrs HUS agreed and said she was going to use that argument next time she had to debate the issue at her cocktail parties when she heard that nonsense myth again – or something on the like.

    But, you see.

  12. 12
    Morpheus says:

    First, let me get this disclaimer out of the way….NAWALT

    The primary tool of much female based argumentation is rhetoric, appealing to emotions, trying to shame and cast blame. Clear chains of logic, factual accuracy, and technically correct quantitative analysis are all unimportant.

    Again, not all women argue/debate/make their points in that manner…we have commenters here who prove that, but it does seem to be the majority. Heck, I’d bet decent money some of our women commenters here have probably been frustrated by other women who argue/debate without regard to clear logic and facts.

    Good post.

  13. 13

    Just a side question based on a legal definition as expressed: if a drunk male student and a drunk female student agree to have sex and then actually engage in sexual activities, are they guilty of “sexually assaulting” each other…? Or is this meant to be another exclusively female call-option type of deal, like the decision to keep or terminate any child that resulted from the sex?

  14. 14
    Han Solo says:

    @deti 10

    Good points except for saying it’s every year. The original 1-in-4 “stat” was based on the amount of women that had ever been victims of rape or attempted rape (according to the inflated definition of what could count), not just in the most recent year.

    The Harris survey did find that 2% of women surveyed said they had been the victim of rape or sexual assault during the last 5 years (and attempted rape counts as sexual assault). So that would be 0.4% per year. Of course, these are all self-reported so they could be higher or lower than the true value.

  15. 15
    Obsidian says:

    @Han:
    Thank you for posting this; I’ve said this offlist, but it bears repeating here:

    We, here at JFG, have been very careful and deliberate in formulating our “policy” not just with regard to HUS/Ms. Walsh, but with regard to even the wider Manosphere itself; we want to remain above board in how we go about business, because we feel that it is our arguments that can and should, rise and fall on their merits or the lack thereof; therefore, we do not feel it necessary to personally attack others, “flame” them, etc.

    However, we reserve the right to rip to shreds anyone out there online who attempts to smear or libel any one of us here at JFG, and this, in my view, is what Ms. Walsh has attempted to do not just to Han personally, but to JFG as a whole.

    Therefore, Ms. Walsh has mae herself, and HUS, fair game for us here at JFG to beat on her BS arguments like the LAPD beat on Rodney King. In fact, we reserve the right to line up and take turns beating on her BS arguments.

    So with that said – it’s my turn.

    In her post in question, Ms. Walsh says the following:

    “#4 calls to mind an incident last summer that was instrumental in a total overhaul of the HUS commentariat. Several male commenters defended this bit of advice to young men by a pickup artist on Reddit:

    Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.

    With some experience, you will learn to differentiate the “No, we can’t… my parents are in the next room… OMG FUCK ME FUCK ME HARD” from the“SERIOUSLY GET THE FUCK OFF OF ME, YOU CREEP” variety of resistance.

    Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don’t ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick.

    Tell her to suck your dick. Be dominant. Tell her how fucking hot she looks with your dick in her mouth.

    Make her push your hand away as you get closer to her vagina. Fucking ravish her.

    This is precisely the kind of dangerous and fallacious thinking that results in sexual assault. The notion that women should rely on a horny guy’s ability to “differentiate” types of resistance from a stranger is deeply troubling.

    One obvious way of avoiding assault is by avoiding the men most likely to perpetrate it!”

    Clearly, Ms. Walsh is referring to the Kickstarter Pickup Manual controversey earlier this Summer, which had Game writer and teacher Ken Hoinsky at the center; like Han right now, Ken was also smeared and libeled. And I was keen to point out these facts to Ms. Walsh – to such an extent that, as she indicates above, she was forced to hit the reset button, because she wasn’t Woman enough to admit that she was flatout wrong on the facts, which I will take upon myself to post links to over the course of the next few comments by me.

    To be clear: I have not, and will not, take a position on what Ken Hoinsky does or does not advocate, believe, or advise; the whole point of his crowdsourcing campaign, was to get the funds needed to write a complete book on the matter of Pickup. Doing so would allow any of us to fully assess what Mr. Hoinsky’s views are or are not – NOT cherrypicking his statements made in online Internet forums that are obviously wildly taken out of context. In fact, if Ms. Walsh were doing the exact same thing – using Kickstarter to raise money to write a book – and was savagely attacked for cherrypicked writings of hers online, I would defend her the same way I have and will continue to defend Hoinsky. My position, again to be crystal clear and to reiterate what I have said to Ms. Walsh on her “old” blog – Mr. Hoinsky has been deliberately quoted wildly out of context – to the point that even mainline Internet Feminists have agreed with this view. As I’ve done at HUS, I will provide the quotes and links to back up fully what I say.

    More in a moment…

    O.

  16. 16
    YOHAMI says:

    Bastiat,

    “if a drunk male student and a drunk female student agree to have sex and then actually engage in sexual activities, are they guilty of “sexually assaulting” each other…? ”

    No, only the man is guilty.

  17. 17
    Jimmy says:

    @Han

    Then again, her linking my post to that statement makes no sense no matter how you look at it, unless she’s not able to think logically or simply wants to smear me and JFG and doesn’t care what the facts say. I suspect it’s a bit of both.

    Bingo.

    Originally, I was completely cool when she decided to “reboot” the site, and even wished her well in doing it. I get that red pill ideas aren’t exactly good for business when your business revolves around young women. I even get that as a woman, she would have preferred a different kind of tone. All reasonable.

    But it hasn’t been that at all. She and many of the regulars have just proven to be spiteful & catty. So many unprompted insults and ad hominem attacks against people and ideas they supposedly have no interest in. Really just pathetic.

  18. 18
    cynical optimist says:

  19. 19
    Jimmy says:

    @BB

    Just a side question based on a legal definition as expressed: if a drunk male student and a drunk female student agree to have sex and then actually engage in sexual activities, are they guilty of “sexually assaulting” each other…? Or is this meant to be another exclusively female call-option type of deal, like the decision to keep or terminate any child that resulted from the sex?

    Excellent point. In practice, I’m sure it’s the latter… but legally speaking, there might be some there might be ammo for guys. If you just have simple drunken sex, she regrets it and files charges, you should be filing those same charges right back.

  20. 20
    deti says:

    Here’s something else to put this in perspective.

    According to Wikipedia, there are 6,977,000 adults in the criminal justice system in the United States as of 2011. This includes everyone: inmates in federal and state prisons, and county lockups. It includes parolees, probationers, and those on court supervision. It basically includes every adult who is under any kind of supervision because that person was found guilty of, or pleaded guilty to, a criminal offense.

    Let’s round that up to 7 million adults to give us an easy number to work with.

    Let’s include another one million men which I’ll estimate to be registered sex offenders, over and above those who are currently in the system. (Remember, rape and attempted rape are sex crimes and in most states sex offenders must be lifetime registered.)

    That’s 8 million people in the US in the system, including registered sex offenders.

    Now let’s assume that 95% of those people are adult men. That’s 7.6 million men in the criminal justice system for criminal offenses of all types, violent and nonviolent, and those involving sex crimes and not involving sex crimes.

    We know from statistics that a good 20 to 25 percent of these people are in for something involving controlled substances.

    If it’s true that there are 3 million rapes and attempted rapes in the US every year, why are there not more men in the system for rape/attempted rape? There should be a good half a million men across the nation going into the system EVERY YEAR on rape and attempted rape convictions and guilty pleas. In 10 years, the population of men in the system for rape and attempted rape only should be 5 million men. If 1 in 4 were true, we should have hit that 5 million figure around, oh, 1993.

  21. 21
    Han Solo says:

    Bastiat 13

    It is an interesting question, theoretically. Would two equally-drunk people be guilty of rape for having sex with each other? What about the case where the equally-drunk woman gets up on top of the man and sticks his cock inside her and starts riding him?

    I think that in practice there will be a huge amount of favoritism for the woman.

  22. 22
    Obsidian says:

    I begin, by citing my own post on the Hoinsky matter, over at my blog, The Obsidian Files, which I made earlier this Summer: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/134655

    In it, I quote Alyssa Rosenberg, of Slate, who says, in part: “To be fair to Hoinsky, he does suggest that, “If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says ‘STOP,’ or ‘GET AWAY FROM ME,’ or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediately and say this line: ‘No problem. I don’t want you to do anything you aren’t comfortable with.’” But it’s a lone bit of caution in what otherwise sounds like a guide to sexual harassment.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/19/should_kickstarter_have_taken_down_ken_hoinsky_s_above_the_game_a_guide.html

    I have posted this at HUS in my exchange with Ms. Walsh on the matter earlier this Summer before she disengenuously delete them and hit the reset button on her site.

    More such links and quotes, coming up…

    O.

  23. 23
    Liz says:

    #12 Morpheus: “Heck, I’d bet decent money some of our women commenters here have probably been frustrated by other women who argue/debate without regard to clear logic and facts.”

    No, Morpheus. Debating with women is awesome.
    Crushing adversaries with poignant points and admirably sesquipedalian impenetrabilities in their uberloquacious verbiage.

    Always wanted to say that. I’m kidding of course. Debating women usually sucks. Especially if you run into a bipolar.

  24. 24
    Morpheus says:

    Originally, I was completely cool when she decided to “reboot” the site, and even wished her well in doing it. I get that red pill ideas aren’t exactly good for business when your business revolves around young women. I even get that as a woman, she would have preferred a different kind of tone. All reasonable.

    What’s funny is the “sphere” and “red pill” concepts are discussed more then before the “reboot”.

  25. 25
    deti says:

    Han:

    OK. Forget the “every year” part.

    Let’s go with 30 million women in the US who have ever been raped/attempted raped.

    Let’s be conservative and say that there were 15 million men involved in the rapes/attempted rapes.

    Then let’s say that half those men were caught. That’s 7.5 million men caught and reported.

    Then let’s say 90% of those men were convicted and/or pled guilty. That’s 6,750,000 men convicted of completed or attempted “forcible penetration with penis, finger or object through force or threat of force, or through intoxication.

    That means that of the 7.6 million men in the US criminal justice system, about 85% of them, or 6,750,000, are in for one of the two felonies of either rape or attempted rape.

    That’s patently absurd on its face.

  26. 26
    YOHAMI says:

    Bastiat, Han, Jimmy

    I researched this already. In short, a man cant be raped, and feminism is moving the criteria so any sex under the influence is rape, since consent cant be given. So. There’s no ammunition.

    Rape doesnt happen to men, rape is something men do to women. If the woman is drunk or for whatever reason she cannot give consent, or if her consent is given under a pressure of any kind, she’s been raped.

    If the man cannot give consent, or his consent is given under pressure, that’s not rape, because… men cant be raped.

    That’s how they do their math.

    I need several hands to count how many times a girl jumped on me with no prompt and no question, or how many times a girl did threats that she would do something awful unless I fucked her, or waking up in the night with a girl sexing me up… you name it. None of that’s rape because Im a man. Actually it was me raping all of them.

  27. 27
    Jimmy says:

    @Morpheus
    True story.

  28. 28
    Han Solo says:

    @Jimmy

    Originally, I was completely cool when she decided to “reboot” the site, and even wished her well in doing it. I get that red pill ideas aren’t exactly good for business when your business revolves around young women. I even get that as a woman, she would have preferred a different kind of tone. All reasonable.

    But it hasn’t been that at all. She and many of the regulars have just proven to be spiteful & catty. So many unprompted insults and ad hominem attacks against people and ideas they supposedly have no interest in. Really just pathetic.

    Totally agree. If you’re going to have a reboot then don’t go on catty and spiteful rants. Don’t go picking fights (especially, illegitimate ones) with sites and people you no longer want anything to do with. I think that what irked her was that some of us former HUS participants (and others) simply stated how we thought it was a shame that a once-great site for discussion was ruined due to her getting more and more contentious and not being willing to engage in rational conversations. Whenever the facts proved her wrong, she’d obfuscate, shame, threaten to ban and so forth.

    Once she dropped the nuclear ban hammer on dozens of former commenters, it was completely natural for some of us to congregate around the JFG campfire to share our stories and lament the loss of a once great thing.

    She’s just mad that we shared our thoughts and that she can’t extend her ban hammer beyond the protective comment-moderated walls of new-HUS to squash us here. So she feebly tries to fire off her loose cannon and strike us, not realizing that she’s shooting herself in the foot.

  29. 29
    Obsidian says:

    The following is a link to both an article by Maria Bustillo features an interview with Mr. Hoinsky himself: http://www.theawl.com/2013/06/ken-hoinsky-on-rape-culture-women-and-mistakes

    Please note how Ms. Bustillo, who self-identifies as Feminist, makes the case that clearly, Mr. Hoinsky was quoted out of context *deliberately* by one Mr. Casey Malone.

    More in a moment…

    O.

  30. 30
    deti says:

    And it’s absurd because the number of people in the system includes crimes of all types.

    Violent crimes against persons (homicide, robbery, battery, assault, home invasion)

    Property crimes (arson, theft, GTA, burglary)

    Sex crimes (rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, sex with minors)

    Vice (prostitution, drugs, illegal gambling)

    Serious misdemeanors (weapons charges, DUI)

    White collar crime (embezzlement, bribery, official corruption, wire fraud, mail fraud, tax evasion)

  31. 31
    Han Solo says:

    Deti 25

    Yes, the amount of rapists/assaulters that would be in the justice system would be much, much higher than currently are.

    Of course, radfems would love for that to occur.

  32. 32
    Han Solo says:

    Ramble’s over there trying to present some reasonable arguments. We’ll see how long before she or SayWhaat accuse him of being a sphere-lover or something.

  33. 33
    BuenaVista says:

    BB: no, only the drunk girl is at risk of rape. The drunk guy is just an overpowering physical force to be jailed.

    Anyway, tell your sons not to have sex for the first time after 9 p.m. on campus, or after some beer pong bullshit at any time. Every university makes an example of 5 boys per year. I told my son that saying “no” was a seduction technique, which it definitely is, and he graduated unscathed (other than the part about going 110 or something in a 55).

  34. 34
    Obsidian says:

    Here’s a direct quote by Hoinsky himself where he says he was quoted wildly out of context by those who clerly have an agenda, from a roundtable on PUAs featured in the New Yorker Magazine earlier this Summer:

    “My language in certain parts was clearly regrettable. Basically, yeah, when you’re writing for a small community of people who are like-minded and take the time to read the context, things can make sense in that context. When you blow it out of context and put it in front of millions of people, which is what happened to some of the quotes in my book, you get extreme feminists who say that any dating-advice book is inherently wrong because you’re objectifying an entire gender.”

    – See more at: http://nymag.com/news/features/sex/pickup-artists-roundtable-2013-7/index1.html#sthash.OSSs7XjT.dpuf

    O.

  35. 35

    I quit reading HUS because the men were banned and what’s left are whiny women.

  36. 36
    Obsidian says:

    And to wrapup, even Dr. Nerdlove, someone who I’ve actually crossed swords with (at least in terms of his commenters; look it up), has defended Pickup, and by extension, even if he denies it, Hoinsky:

    http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/06/in-defense-of-pick-up/

    O.

  37. 37
    BuenaVista says:

    The problem Susan has is that none of her target audience has the energy, or interest, to post.

    So she asked all of us to leave. In turn, she gained about three older women who post repetitively their anti-male screeds. There still isn’t an outpouring of young women seeking knowledge and sharing experience.

    I should think that it would be obvious that the man-dismissing old women are the very women that her target audience does not wish to become.

  38. 38
    Han Solo says:

    Obsidian, even if you choose not to get into what he said, I am.

    Here’s the link for anyone interested to see for themselves.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A40tT3neK7egJ%3Awww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fseduction%2Fcomments%2F1dvnem%2Fabove_the_game_part_7_physical_escalation_sex

    Notice how he goes through a sequence of escalation, from being on a date, to then going back to your place, making out, then fondling, then fingering her (ideally, to orgasm) and then finally taking out your cock. He could have been more explicit about saying in each new subsection that it builds on the previous subsections. But even without that, any fair-minded person will realize he is not telling guys to just randomly whip out their cock to strangers.

    Also, I can see how some of his advice could come across as being too aggressive but I don’t think he’s saying to do things that the woman doesn’t want. For example, some of his controversial words were

    “Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.
    If you adopt this mindset, you will create opportunities where “going in for the kiss” just feels natural. You’ll have her in close, emotions will be charged, and you’ll know.”

    The part of force her to rebuff could be taken as too aggressive but the context in which he says it, as evidenced by the words just after–that it will feel natural and emotions (presumably of both man and woman) will be charged and you’ll know that you should go for it–tell me more that the woman wants it and the man simply needs to escalate and will know if she wants it or not.

    So, yeah, he does come off as too aggressive to me (though I can see how when you read him in context I don’t think he is on this post; and I do think he was too aggressive in pushing for sex with the Japanese girl that he reported on another thread) but not to the extent that the feminists made him out to be. And the pull out your cock part was taken wildly out of context.

    Anyway, enough of my commentary. You can judge for yourself and see whether his “pull out your cock” statement was taken out of context by feminists claiming it to be some kind of sexual assault. I have bolded the “pull out your cock” part so it’s easier to find.

    Here it is in his own words:

    Physical Escalation
    This scenario happens all the time. A man is on a date with a woman. The man fails to touch the girl and only goes in for the kiss at the end of the night. He goes home alone. His internal dialogue says, “WTF why won’t girls hook up with me? I guess I’m in the friend-zone again.”
    Meanwhile, the woman goes home, confused, wondering if the guy likes her. Her internal dialogue says, “I thought that was a date. I guess he just wants to be friends?”

    ALWAYS BE ESCALATING! That entire miscommunication could have been avoided if the man had just escalated physically. Don’t fall into that trap!

    All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They began touching them immediately, kept great body language and eye contact, and were shameless in their physicality. Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That’s hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.

    Leading with your body

    The concept of “waiting for signs” or “Indicators of Interest” was commonplace in older pickup theory. It is 100% garbage and needs to be erased from the face of the planet.

    Never, ever, ever, wait for a SIGN before you escalate! You will miss out on the vast majority of chances if you sit around waiting for SIGNS. Men are notoriously bad at reading women’s minds and body language. Don’t think that you’re any different. From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished. It’s a difference in mindset that makes champs champs and chumps chumps.

    As stated back in the section on Flirting in Part 5, leading with your body is a very effective form of flirting. It is YOUR JOB, as the man, to lead the interaction. Be playful. Spin her around. Pick her up. Push her away as a tease and then pull her back in.

    Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.

    If you adopt this mindset, you will create opportunities where “going in for the kiss” just feels natural. You’ll have her in close, emotions will be charged, and you’ll know. Then it’s just a matter of manning up and going for the kiss. Even if she rejects your initial advance, you’ll have raised your chance of success in the future.

    IMPORTANT NOTE ON RESISTANCE:
    If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says “STOP,” or “GET AWAY FROM ME,” or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediately and say this line:
    “No problem. I don’t want you to do anything you aren’t comfortable with.”

    Memorize that line. It is your go-to when faced with resistance. Say it genuinely, without presumption. All master seducers are also masters at making women feel comfortable. You’ll be no different. If a woman isn’t comfortable, take a break and try again later.

    All that matters is that you continue to try to escalate physically until she makes it genuinely clear that it’s not happening. She wants to be desired, but the circumstances need to be right. With some experience, you will learn to differentiate the “No, we can’t… my parents are in the next room… OMG FUCK ME FUCK ME HARD” from the “SERIOUSLY GET THE FUCK OFF OF ME, YOU CREEP” variety of resistance.
    Of course if you’re really unclear, back off. Better safe than sorry.

    Stop being afraid to offend. You will go through a period of adjustment as you gain experience, just as a natural did when he was an adolescent. Just because he had a head-start on you doesn’t mean you can’t catch up!

    Now that you have made your intentions abundantly clear to the girl with your body language, touch, and words, you will find yourself in situations where women are very receptive to your advances. Now is the time to ramp up the physical escalation. Hopefully you’ve managed your logistics and can get her into a private, intimate setting for what follows…

    Kissing

    Be bold when you go for kisses. Try early and often. It’s important. Equally important is being a good kisser. Women are substantially more likely to date & sleep with men who are GOOD KISSERS.

    One common mistake men make is waiting until the end of the night to go for the kiss. Doing this raises the awkward quotient substantially until it’s a build up to “this big thing.” That can scare women off. It’s much more effective to sneak a kiss in during the date, at the first opportune moment. It diffuses the awkwardness of sexual tension. Grab her and kiss her. Sneak it in when she least expects it.

    Likewise, when you get a girl home. I highly advise to go for the makeout as soon as possible (In the back of the cab, in the elevator, as you’re opening your front door, etc.) This sets a sexual tone and diffuses awkwardness that can lead to additional resistance.

    The secret to good kissing is using your body and not just your tongue. Don’t slobber all over her like a dog, but don’t peck her lips over and over either. As with everything, it’s a balance. While you’re doing this, grab her by the hips and pull her into you. Press your groin right into hers. Make her feel your erection. Trust me, this turns women on incredibly.

    Softly bite her lower lip. Go Dracula on her neck and kiss it all over. Kiss her collarbone. Softly kiss her ears.

    Fondling

    Let your hands roam free. Squeeze her ass. Rub the side of her breasts. Rub your hands up and down her legs. Make her push your hand away as you get closer to her vagina. Fucking ravish her.

    Grab her hair on the back of her head, by the base of her neck, and pull it back aggressively. Pause and stare her in the eye before going back in.

    After a few minutes, go under her shirt and unsnap her bra. Massage her breasts. Pull her shirt off and suck her nipples. Kiss her breasts all over. Let them melt in your mouth and hands.

    Unbutton her pants, or pull her skirt down. Feel her pussy. Softly caress it. Lick your finger and rub between the lips. It should be sopping wet by now.

    Gently graze her clitoris. (Note: Spend some time researching the female anatomy if you lack sexual experience. You need to know where everything is located, trust me.)

    Insert a finger into her vagina. Then two. (Two is the magic number, unless she’s very petite or very large.) Do a “come hither” motion where you are rubbing the G-spot. She will let you know when you’re doing it right through her body movements and moans.

    Spend some time fingering her. Don’t be shy. A very large percentage of women can achieve orgasm from this sort of stimulation. Your chances of repeat performances goes up tremendously with each orgasm.

    Sounds
    Grunt, moan, tell her how fucking hot she is. Tell her you love her tits. Tell her how fucking hot her pussy is. This is not the time to be shy!

    Sex
    Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don’t ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick.

    Tell her to suck your dick. Be dominant. Tell her how fucking hot she looks with your dick in her mouth.

    Reciprocate and go down on her. Softly finger her while you flick her clitoris with your tongue. Enjoy all of her body movements. Really soak in the passion; this is as good as it gets!
    Be passionate! Passionate sex equals good sex! This is NOT the time to be shy.

    Slip on a condom and fuck her like a champion. Pull her hair, slap her ass, move her around. Fuck her from the back, let her ride you. Experiment with each other! Ask her what her favorite positions are. Touch her everywhere, including her arms, legs, throat, face, and breasts. Make her cum with the force of the hammer of Thor. Rock her fucking world.
    There is no substitute for sexual experience. Anyone can become a sexual master with a little bit of research, applied effort, and healthy experimentation. Learn what YOU enjoy and seek it out in a partner. Genuinely love the act of giving sexual pleasure to another human being. It’s a gift. Embrace it.

  39. 39
    Obsidian says:

    Again, just for the record:

    1. Ms. Walsh is right to say that she hit the “reset button” on her site HUS behind the Hoinsky issue

    2. However, she is NOT being honest as to why she hit said “reset button”

    3. She did so because she made wildly inaccurate claims about Mr. Hoinsky, which she continues to do to this day, per her cherrypicked quotes by Hoinsky currently appearing at her “new and improved” blog

    4. This, after I repeatedly proved to her how and why Hoinsky was being quoted wildly and deliberately out of context, and how even Feminists were defending Hoinsky

    5. Ms. Walsh then attempted to forge a legal argument against Hoinsky, accusing him of being a rapist. Aside from the fact that Ms. Walsh herself is NOT trained in Law and is NOT a criminal lawyer, she made these assertions. I easily batted them aside, noting that should a case ever come to court, there was no way any reasonable judge would convict.

    The issue here isn’t what you think of Mr. Hoinsky; the issue here is that, from the get-go, he was being deliberately misquoted by actors who have a clear agenda against him in particular and Game in general. Nor is this a matter of dispute; it is a matter of fact.

    That Ms. Walsh does the exact same thing to one of my JFG brothers, not even six months after her hitting the “reset button” at HUS, only tells me that she is much more disengenuous than anyone I’ve faced in a long, long time.

    Shame on you, Susan A. Walsh.

    Shame. On. You.

    O.

  40. 40
    Han Solo says:

    Regarding Hoinsky, my main point is simply that his “pull out your cock” statement was totally taken out of context. Whether the rest of his advice is too pushy, and I think some of it is, may be, or could be reasonably understood as such, is largely beside the point.

  41. 41
    Lord Highbrow says:

    This is the second blog post I’ve seen in the last two days pointing out glaring inconsistencies in Susan’s thinking/posting. I’ve never been a fan of her blog, it’s just wall to wall hamstering. I read a few of the posts, but walked away because all they did was give me a headache. What did surprise me however, is that there seemed to be a number of Manosphere heavy hitters who openly supported her and encouraged others to read her blog (that’s how I first came across it many moons ago).

    But in the last six months or so, it all seems to have gone dead quiet on that front. I guess a lot of people woke up to the fact she’s ‘all filler, no killer’.

  42. 42
    Lord Highbrow says:

    Just adding to the last comment, I had a quick look through the comments on her site and not only does she quote the debunked CDC article, she also claims several times that she doesn’t partake in gender politics… Hamsters gonna hamst. Interestingly, there are no posts pointing out that the CDC study was debunked. I don’t know whether that’s because no one pointed it out or if she deleted any references to it being debunked.

    Anyway, she also posted a link to a study (http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/journal/118-abbey.pdf) which, if you read the abstract, you can see the obvious gender politicking, despite that ‘fact’ that Susan ‘doesn’t engage in gender politics’. In fact, it seems to me that she posts almost exclusively ‘feminist approved’ facts… But I will say that I am only using this one post to draw that conclusion.

  43. 43

    “I researched this already. In short, a man cant be raped, and feminism is moving the criteria so any sex under the influence is rape, since consent cant be given. So. There’s no ammunition.”

    Technically, neither can give consent if both are drunk, which poses an interesting question of attribution of fault. In reality, the man will be blamed in most cases, regardless of his state of drunkenness or lack thereof.

    Reading Rollo’s recent post and many of the comments there, it appears that Susan’s reboot has left her trolling in the very Mandrosphere she seems to hate for her blog content. She has become the ignorable (cyclic) coordinate in the solution to the Modern Relationship Problem.

  44. 44

    I’ve written pretty extensively about rape, sexual assault, and false allegations on my own site, and I too have wondered this same thing:

    if a drunk male student and a drunk female student agree to have sex and then actually engage in sexual activities, are they guilty of “sexually assaulting” each other…?

    Back when I was college girl, we called these encounters stupid mistakes. Now it is considered rape but only of the woman. Why the double standard? I never get a satisfactory answer to this question.

  45. 45

    Correction:

    …when I was *a* college girl

  46. 46
    YOHAMI says:

    They define rape is the act of penetrating a someone without their consent.

    Being “made to penetrate” doesnt fit in their definition of rape.

    Since they couldnt find enough rape cases they started playing with the words “penetration” and “consent”. So anything similar to penetration, and anything that might or not look like dubious consent is rape by default.

    As long as a man is involved.

    If a drugged / drunk woman puts a gun on a man’s head and makes him fuck her, she might be able to prosecute him afterwards.

  47. 47
    Han Solo says:

    If both are equally drunk then they should either both be punished or not, but not just the man.

    In sports terms, they should both be sent to the penalty box, like in hockey, or the fouls should be offsetting, like in football.

  48. 48
    YOHAMI says:

    “If both are equally drunk then they should either both be punished or not, but not just the man.”

    What if one of them is 15 years old and the other is 40? the older one is always responsible, right? well, as long as he’s a man.

    They view this and many other things like all men were 40 and all women were 15, or, men are responsible grownups who need to be controlled so they dont abuse their power and girls are irresponsible kids who need mentoring love and support. Whenever there`s a coflict it must the the grown up / responsible / in power fault. The delicate flower cannot possibly have done anything wrong, but if she would, that still falls in the responsibility of the grown up.

    Though.

    I think a large portion of this view is ingrained in our DNA. Even knowing this is the bias, when Im presented with the case of the japanese men and women not having sex with each other, I instintually blame the MEN again. And I dont know anything about them – why do I have a preference already? it could be very well that these women are just pathetic. But, my rationale goes to blame the men again.

    Same for america. Isnt it the men’s fault? even this rape thing. Say you have two friends, one girl and one dude. They go to a bar, get drunk, and have sex. The next morning she’s feeling like shit and tells you he might have raped her. What’s your gut reaction? now reverse the roles, next morning he’s feeling like shit and tells you she might have raped him. What’s your gut reaction?

    In other words, this debate is being screwed by deeper core instincts.

  49. 49
    Han Solo says:

    Yohami, definitely men are expected to act as the responsible “adult” and women are usually given a pass. This shows the lie that most feminists really want women to be empowered and responsible, though a few do.

    And I think it’s natural for many men to be biased against other men since men compete with each other for resources, women and so on. Only upon further thought, or if the man is already considered an ally, will most men then see the man’s side, or at least give it fair treatment.

    That was what stuck out to me in the Japan article, that 45% of young women didn’t want sex while a bit more than 25% of young men didn’t, and yet it’s always the men that get the blame.

    Same thing in western society. It’s always assumed that men are the ones putting off marriage when I think there are many good reasons to argue that it’s more young women that are doing so.

  50. 50
    OffTheCuff says:

    Jimmy: “Originally, I was completely cool when she decided to “reboot” the site, and even wished her well in doing it. I get that red pill ideas aren’t exactly good for business when your business revolves around young women. I even get that as a woman, she would have preferred a different kind of tone. All reasonable.”

    Agreed. I wasn’t asked, but I clearly saw this and agreed.

    jommy: “But it hasn’t been that at all. She and many of the regulars have just proven to be spiteful & catty. So many unprompted insults and ad hominem attacks against people and ideas they supposedly have no interest in. Really just pathetic.”

    Yep. The cattiness started before the reboot, though.

    I’m one of the banned, as I learned a few days ago. Pretty surprised, as I always was nice to everyone (except Plain Jane).

  51. 51
    Han Solo says:

    OTC, guilt by association.

  52. 52
    Candide says:

    “I think a large portion of this view is ingrained in our DNA. Even knowing this is the bias, when Im presented with the case of the japanese men and women not having sex with each other, I instintually blame the MEN again. And I dont know anything about them – why do I have a preference already? it could be very well that these women are just pathetic. But, my rationale goes to blame the men again.

    Same for america. Isnt it the men’s fault? even this rape thing. Say you have two friends, one girl and one dude. They go to a bar, get drunk, and have sex. The next morning she’s feeling like shit and tells you he might have raped her. What’s your gut reaction? now reverse the roles, next morning he’s feeling like shit and tells you she might have raped him. What’s your gut reaction?”

    Your gut is programmed by society. What would be the gut reaction from a Saudi Arabian or Chinese man to the exact same situations? It probably goes like this: “the chick is a whore”. What would be the gut reaction of an American man from the 19th century? Likely the same.

    I do not think it is your instinct to blame men.

  53. 53

    OTC, I was even nice to PJ (when she was on track), I got banned.

    I agree with you and Jimmy (and many others, I’d guess) that I thought that she had the perfect right to clear the decks of men. My immense surprise came from how much rebuilding of the commenter base is being required since then. I’m sure that that process would be accelerated by a happier tone than the one I hear of anecdotally.

    I enjoyed many hours of happy banter on old HUS (a year+ ago, under another name, or two), it was a nice place to hang out and chat with a nice crowd of people. ‘We’ were asked to sling our hooks leave, we left. I really don’t see the need to have anything except a cordial (if distant) relationship. I was originally hoping for more than that when the kerfuffle died down. Now? not so much, but least said, soonest mended, so I’ll leave it there.

    Good discussion on the matter though.

  54. 54

    Sane words on ‘rape culture’ and ‘victim blaming’ by a very solid source (about as good as it gets).

    http://www.cotwa.info/2013/10/louise-pennington-and-others-who-think.html
    (COTWA – Community Of The Wrongly Accused)
    Safe for anywhere, not always safe for the blood-pressure of people who care about both sexes and justice for them.

    Intolerance of rape is a noble and proper impulse. Assuming all “men” are complicit in perpetuating it is worse than the victim blaming this stupid woman screeches about. Rape is not normalized, it is aberrant criminal behavior that is universally detested among all rational people. Rapists, not “men,” rape, and rapists can be either men or women. Pennington would do well to read what Dr. David Lisak says about rape.

    Wouldn’t it be helpful to tell both young women and young men that, as Dr. Lisak points out, the typical rapist is a serial criminal who preys on drunken, unsuspecting women at parties? Or is that “victim blaming”? Wouldn’t it be useful for both young men and young women to be reminded that, as a matter of scientific fact, men and women view casual sex differently? That women feel remorse more than men following one-night stands? Or is that “victim blaming”? A study shows how common remorse is for women following one-night stands: “Overall women’s feelings were more negative than men’s [about one-night stand casual sex]. Eighty per cent of men had overall positive feelings about the experience compared to 54 per cent of women. . . . . The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been ‘used’. Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out. Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships.” See here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625092023.htm Similarly, Amy Bonomi, a professor of human sexuality at OSU specializing in domestic violence and assault, said: “Women tend to feel bad after having a “random hook up,” she said. Typically men are not upset by these occurrences. Bonomi attributed this situation to society’s “gender double standard” that men are expected to be more sexually forward than women.

    Pennington doesn’t want young women to hear any of that. She’s too busy spewing hatred on an entire gender.

    And we would be remiss if we failed to mention that Pennington would discard any semblance of due process any time a woman cries rape. “Rape victims,” she bellows, “should never be required to testify in open court. . . .”

  55. 55
    YOHAMI says:

    Candide, not everything is a social construct http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C46rSIfTum4

  56. 56

    If Aunt Giggles is so confident in her message, and so sure of her genuine purpose to help improve the lives of her readership, rather than be found (again) as the huckster of c&p’d out of context internet studies she or anyone else could’ve googled themselves, and not the site traffic whore she is, now owned by the HuffPo, she should have no problem debating myself, Obsidian, Han, Deti, Dalrock, Morpheus, MikeC, or any other blogger whom she cowardly refuses to honestly engage (as amply proven by her admitted notoriety for censoring any dissenting comments on her own blog) in intellectual discourse with, in a neutral forum of her choosing.

    So here’s the challenge: Susan Walsh, if you are so committed to your purpose and so honestly invested in helping men and women better understand each other through your blog and the effort you put into the validity of ‘your’ ideas, if you are not in fact a coward and a profiteer of people’s insecurities, afraid of earnestly testing this investment of purpose, then you will publicly respond on your blog by selecting a neutral forum of your choosing, where no censorship or moderation will be allowed, where all comments and counterarguments to ‘your’ ideas will be considered without censorship of myself, any of the bloggers I’ve mentioned or any third party commenters, and we will debate the real validity of ‘your’ ideas.

    Until you do so, until you are willing to face critical inquiry and defend ‘your’ premises – the premises your advertisers pay you to post for site traffic – you are nothing more than a dishonest agent and should be denied your right to free speech – the same right you would deny anonymous (and censored by you) dissention to your assertions.

    Furthermore, if you, as a reader of HUS, consider Susan Walsh an honest agent, if you consider her purpose and the efforts she puts forth to be honest, with the intent of bettering people’s lives, and not as the profiteer I accuse her of being, then it is your responsibility to urge her to rise up to the challenge of her convictions and nominate a forum where her assertions can be debated in an open marketplace of ideas. Until you do, as a consumer of her ideas and efforts, know that you are investing and associating yourself in her untested and, by her admitted censorship, cowardly pablum.

    Susan has claimed that anonymity should be grounds for denial of free speech, I claim that admitted and blatant censorship of public, critical inquiry should be grounds for denial of, and disqualification of, premise.

  57. 57

    Why do any of you even waste one word on that vindictive, paranoid, dishonest, lying, nasty, de facto feminist old …? She was never on your side and never will be. She was never Red Pill. The only reason she sought any contact with the ‘sphere was to steal some of its ideas. She’s not interested in honest discussion, and she isn’t imbued with any sense of fairness or justice. This, by the way, applies to the majority of women.

    There’s nothing to accomplish by interacting with her or even discussing her. You might as well start meticulously debunking Jezebel articles. There’s no point to it.

    [Han: removed an excessive slur]

  58. 58

    @hoellenhund2

    I’m guessing that you don’t work in international diplomacy? :0
    If you do, well…I think you might wish to consider a career change.

    However, “There’s no point to it.” is a great point, well made.

    JFG is rapidly climbing the Alexa rankings by posting great material and discussing it in a friendly manner within a growing community, no need to get diverted from that course by being dragged into flame wars where agreement is not possible.

  59. 59
    Liz says:

    For all Susan’s warts (he, he, he) I think she got the last part right. Don’t get drunk.

    The fact is, people get drunk because they desire the anti-inhibition effects it provides. So the women are voluntarily drugging themselves and then claiming victimhood for their own actions when coitus regretus sets in. Once the burden of proving mens rea is eliminated, it opens the door to all sorts of criminal claims. This is only half true in civilian law (where the burden of proof is far higher). But it’s entirely true in military law. Essentially, if the man sees the woman drinking at all (regardless of whether or not a reasonable person would believe she was substantially impaired) it must be assumed that she is substantially impaired and sex with her is illegal.

  60. 60

    Re: 58

    Walsh deserves no diplomatic treatment because she doesn’t dish out any. You won’t gain anything by discussing her “points” or trying to interact with her. There’s no common ground. She consider you enemies, enemies who should be blogging under their real names in order to invite social ostracism, or should be silenced if they refuse to do so.

  61. 61

    @Hh

    I don’t go there any more, I left early this year. I was later told that I was just one of the x-visitors, those who got banned. Didn’t worry me at all because it had already been made plain that the good old days of fun were over. I walked out before I was pushed out.

    I don’t have any hard feelings. It was her blog to decide how the debates were run. As commentators it was our decision on whether to accept those terms. I think that she had to do something over the tone, which was getting increasingly fractious. She made her decision, then we got to make ours. Chaque a son gout.

    If you look back through the old posts some number of months before the break-up, you’ll find me saying that I’d like to see a split. A new blog run by men (less tone control) alongside HUS (being able to soften it’s tone to allow more female participation). Win-win, or so I thought. The gap between the blogs is wider than I’d expected, and the tone between them far from friendly. Not my doing, so…*shrug* that’s the way it seems to be, going forward. It didn’t need to be this way

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YhCE73D3Wc0

    Glad to see you here.

  62. 62

    Re: sexual assault conditions. Well, this clearly presents several problems under current legal guidelines:

    Condition 1. Consent is required in all sexual situations, including when an LTR/marriage is involved (i.e., the law makes it clear that it is possible for a husband or boyfriend to rape or assault his partner).

    Condition 2. An intoxicated woman is incapable of giving consent.

    Thus, a husband and wife who go on a cruise to celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary, get wasted on tequila shots, and then proceed to have sex back in their room are generating a “sexual assault”. If an official of the Sex Police was to be called in to investigate, the man would of course need to be arrested and prosecuted, and any protests from the wife would be void because she was essentially a minor/child at the time of the sex act as far as the law was concerned.

    If the drunk wife then went back to the bar and attempted to drown her sorrows in another glass of wine, apparently she should be denied this because in her incapacitated state she is, like a child, incapable of fully informed consent while under the influence.

    What we obviously have is a situation in which sexual assault is determined on a call option/contingency basis by the woman. If she was drunk at the time and for whatever reason regrets her actions a few days later—perhaps she really was taken advantage of, perhaps her other boyfriend finds out, perhaps the guy she had sex with doesn’t return her calls, perhaps her reputation suffers on campus, perhaps she meets a hot billionaire on the cruise and suddenly wants a divorce from her husband and needs to win a nasty custody battle—she may decide that the tequila-fueled fucking that she participated in was, in retrospect, actually a case of sexual assault.

    I don’t think that this is a frequently observed scenario in the real world and I believe that the law was probably well-intentioned. However, as currently constructed it rapidly leads to absurd conclusions and will have a variety of perverse, unintended downrange consequences.

  63. 63

    “Essentially, if the man sees the woman drinking at all (regardless of whether or not a reasonable person would believe she was substantially impaired) it must be assumed that she is substantially impaired and sex with her is illegal.”

    uh huh, but then she’s exactly the same as a man when boots hit the beach?

    okaaaaay.

    I’m so glad I had a brain-ectomy so that I could get rid of that bad-think I used to get from all that patriarchal logic swirling around my little grey cells. Feminist double-think is double-plus-good when you don’t have ‘reason’, ‘facts’ an’ shit keep tripping you up… ;)

    This guy lays it out…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=d62e1g_V_sI

    I mean, would you want this woman anywhere in the decision chain when it was a danger-close situation? (or even running a piss up in a brewery)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y1AEyaMDkDM

    And SparkyFister lead me to Snakepliskinist (now only available in mirroring channels). Here Snake covers another vid by the hair-dimboid (she’s angry!!!!!!)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6xadssfQiUw

    (and good morning Liz. these vids should raise a wry smile if watched with a rye drink on hand)

  64. 64
    Ted D says:

    For the life of me, I can’t understand why Susan keeps on poking the bear, IF indeed she is trying to distance herself from the ‘sphere…

    OTC – brother, you got banned because you have a penis. And you actually talked to some of us black sheep. SHAME on you!

    HH – we left her alone and had no intention of discussing HUS, right up until she started taking direct shots at our bow. To this day I don’t have any beef with Susan, but I can’t blame Han for feeling attacked, and I don’t blame him for defending himself.

    Rollo – don’t hold your breath…

    Liz – I’ve long believed that the overwhelming reason college women get so drunk is to “get over” the exact filters she has in place to PROTECT her from a P&D situation. I truly don’t have sympathy for any woman (or man) that get shit faced drunk and ends up doing something they regret. Ya know what? When I get shit faced drunk, I do it somewhere safe. I make sure I stay with friends (safety in numbers and all that). AND, I’m not worried about getting raped! You young ladies getting sloshed at frat parties and believing that somehow your “right to be an individual and express yourself however you feel” will protect you from sexual assault are SADLY mistaken. And the worse of you? The ones that will get drunk, have sex, regret it in the morning and call it rape? I hope you realize that you are responsible for slapping real rape victims in the face with your false BS. You are NOT on the same level as a woman that was truly, forcibly raped simply because you can’t hold your liquor. That isn’t rape, its stupidity, and its all on you.

    There’s nothing wrong with having a good time. But even having fun comes with responsibility. (there’s that word again. why is it that most of the West’s ills come back to lack of personal responsibility? In a land so preoccupied with individual rights even…) If you intent to get drunk, plan ahead. Don’t put yourself in a situation where you can be taken advantage of. There is no excuse for sexual assault or rape, but there’s something to be said for simply doing your best to NOT become a victim.

  65. 65

    SS, I agree with your sentiments at #61. I actually agreed with Susan that the confrontational tone which was becoming pervasive over there was probably toxic to the young college women who represent her chosen target demographic, and understood why a mass-culling might have been necessary. I hope that the two boards can co-exist peacefully, but there is of course an inevitable gap between the missions—

    -the HUS mission more or less requires an ample supply of “blue pill” beta-provider men who remain optimistic about relationships, who do not explore the new-found market power created by things like 60/40, who remain relatively chaste, who are prepared to provide emotional and economic support for college-educated young women desiring career/domesticity optionality. All of this requires that the price of sex be kept high as a relationship commitment leverage tool.

    -J4G seems to be promoting “red pill” men who question everything about previous dating and mating models, and who unapologetically identify and pursue their own self-interests with the same aggressiveness and enthusiasm that radical feminists pursue their agenda. The correct intellectual posture for most men would probably be one of cautious, controlled cynicism about the SMP, with an awareness of potentially ruinous downside risks. For at least some men here, hookup culture and a relatively low market value placed on sexual access are tremendously attractive from the standpoint of lifestyle design. Even some of the previously restricted men sound like they are adapting to threats and opportunities by taking up the rapier and becoming swordsmen.

  66. 66
    BuenaVista says:

    BB, three years ago the federal DoE promulgated new rules for managing student sexual assault accusations. These rules deny funding to any institution that does not implement them.

    Among the rules is a requirement that accusers not be required to testify or otherwise be queried or investigated. A mere statement to an administrator is the sum of their responsibility; one statement and they are — by rule — excluded from a prosecutorial process. Two years ago the leading running back (by rushing yardage) in the Big Ten was thrown out of Iowa by the administration. He’d led the conference as a freshman; absent injury, and Iowa’s old-school rushing preference, he was likely a high-round draft choice.

    He’d had sex with a girlfriend, who, in the morning claimed assault. She then immediately retracted her accusation when the police began their criminal investigation of the RB, and asked her for her statement. However, a parallel process had already launched within the university and he was given the choice of leaving the school or being charged in an administrative process in which the regret-sex girl, who now regretted making the regret-sex charge, would have zero responsibilities to articulate her former charges; the charges became an objective fact irrespective of her desire to press them. They got his scalp, he transferred to a lower-level program, and he’ll likely be a lower-round or free agent signee now. This process cost him a few $million, if I am correct. He is a boy scout in nature and probably was the only astrophysics major playing D-I football.

    Valerie Grossman, a self-described career feminist, saw this same procedure invoked against her son and wrote about it in the WS Journal.

    I guess I resist your description of such processes as not “frequently observed.” I would bet that it happens to a handful of boys each year at most campuses. Most of them do not have the benefit of representing a $70mm enterprise that is a major college football team. It now carries more weight than actual law, as any university is more concerned with their revenue sources than the niceties of criminal law. I am very pleased to have gotten my son#1 graduated from university without his getting caught up in something like this. I did take the trouble to have a very explicit discussion with him while dropping him off as a freshman, which I resent morally and emotionally. But young men who trifle with these new rules will be marked for life. Son#1 now lives in another university town and evidence suggests all the girls know his name. We had another uncomfortable discussion about the sexual minefield he still inhabits, last month. I don’t think I’m overreacting or overreaching in my efforts at cautioning him. Perhaps I am, but the “odds are …” approach to this issue seems dangerous when a negative outcome — an accusation — is not some inconvenience but a cliff event.

  67. 67
    Ted D says:

    BB – “Even some of the previously restricted men sound like they are adapting to threats and opportunities by taking up the rapier and becoming swordsmen.”

    For my part, I’m not looking to create more swordsmen. However, I think ALL men should know how to use a sword, and with that knowledge THEY can determine how best utilize it.

    Personally, I’d like to see men with Red Pill knowledge still honor some of the old contract, provided they can get equal compensations somehow. That doesn’t necessarily mean lots of casual sex, or any one thing in particular. It just means that men should at least get what they want and need out of relationships, just as women seem to be doing with little thought or regard for those men. Knowledge is power, and the current SMP isn’t very balanced. So, my goal is to get men knowledge so that they can shift that balance in their own lives. Of course that’s a scary prospect to young college women, and their mothers. It means women will need to start bringing something to the table other than their lady bits and an attitude.

    Metaphorically speaking, I’m all for an educated and armed populace. I certainly hope it never comes to war, but if it does, I’d much rather know that my fellow countrymen can hold their own.

  68. 68
    deti says:

    All I can say regarding the most recent incarnation of HUSsygate is:

    I went there to comment about personal matters and to seek support and bounce ideas off men and women. I find now that my words are being used against me at HUS. Susan and her commenters should simply call me out by internet handle – everyone there at HUS and here at J4G all knows who they are talking about. This from people and from a blog hostess who claimed to want to help, and in many cases did help, both men and women in their relationships.

    I had no beef with HUS and supported its stated mission publicly and privately. I continued that even though I was banned there in January for defending Susan at another site. I wanted to see her reach college women with red pill (or at least purple pill) truth. But now I see in comments and in posts there, for at least the past month, commenters and the host taking shots of a highly personal nature at this site and its proprietors and commenters when nothing was done here to provoke it.

    Finally, I want to point out that Han Solo’s OP above and these comments have been debates on the merits. I, at least, have taken no personal shots at Susan or anyone who comments there. Niether J4G nor its commentariat has in any way made this personal.

  69. 69
    BuenaVista says:

    I’m troubled by the blog war and won’t participate. As I’ve noted previously, I had direct private interactions (email) with Susan and found her to be kind, interesting, thoughtful, etc. I don’t want to recount those exchanges, but I will admit to suggesting to her that she unplug from red pill sites (e.g., request that Vox delist her on his blog roll), hire moderators, and simply block comments that she deemed offensive to the young women she is trying to appeal to. It is, after all, her business. I wasn’t banned but I banned myself from participating. I considered her reboot something any business owner can do, and should do if it meets her proprietary interests: ask certain people not to come back.

    During the brief time I was posting on HUS, I noted a couple of times, in response to some of the more querulous female complaints about all of the guys talking too much, that all of the comments were coming from all of the guys: the guys were the real customers, not the nonparticipating young women. This, of course, was her business problem, and I thought she should sell to the customers she had rather than the customers she wanted to have. However, she stated several times that she just cared about page views and that a comment-count did not depict the true nature of her followers, who were legion. Well, she has the data, I didn’t, so one has to take that statement as providing superior insight to mine.

    However, I still take a look over there from time-to-time and I don’t see any groundswell of freshly unintimidated young female participation. A few older women of questionable thinking ability traffic in predictable attitudes and invective, a few younger girls show up, and some ‘nice guys’ add their careful, self-deprecating remarks. I was disappointed by the post that misuses HS, and misuses reality and statistics (if you were to ask me). But then again, this is really of an order of being butthurt when one’s former bartender says mean things about one. Maybe she’s getting the page-views she needs, but I remain puzzled, if so, because there’s no evidence in the comments. I do suspect that the blog will serve as her bona fides for a “third way” book of some sort. I suggest that we all just let the matter, and the blog, go. (I sympathize with HS’s desire not to be impugned unfairly and I think he has set the record straight properly here.) Markets are pretty efficient.

  70. 70
    Liz says:

    #63: OMG Swithunus, those were great! I laughed out loud, made my morning. Didn’t even need the rye drink. Just my usual green drink with chlorella, spirulina, broccoli, spinach blue green algae, garlic, barley grass ginger and parsley. :-)

    (which, incidentally, I just shared with my husband and realize it makes one’s breath smell strangely like marijuana. He has since sent me the following text: “I just had a salmon sandwich. Between that and the green drink I suppose my breath tells quite a story”)

  71. 71

    @Liz

    Sparky is cool, just a bit slow at posting vids these days (bad Sparky, bad!). Snake gave up when they flagged his channel down. Regarding that which you imbibe…sometimes the Atlantic isn’t wide enough – yuck! Once you drank it, your hubby had little choice, I guess. Kinda like eating garlic.

  72. 72
    Liz says:

    #62: Bastiat, the husband and wife hypothetical to qualify as rape the way current law is interpreted. These conditions satisfy the definition of rape, and the wife/girlfriend/random ho could press charges on those grounds. Past sexual history is considered an irrelevancy. In the past, the law was different and the reasonable person standard applied…that is no longer the case. Furthermore, the military is now placing emphasis on ‘culture’ and attempting to train everyone to look out for random female inebriates and cock-block as needed. I wish I were making this up.

    In fact, Congress is currently pushing to eliminate military article 32 hearings for charges of sexual assault. The Article 32 is to determine whether there is enough evidence, following investigation, for the case to proceed to trial. Eliminating this step would mean that anyone accused of the crime would be immediately charged with the crime, even on no grounds or evidence whatsoever.

  73. 73

    Re: 61

    There’s one small problem: Walsh doesn’t see it as a win-win. She pimps her site as pretty much THE one fantastic place on the Internet where both men and women can get so-called “constructive” advice and engage in so-called “constructive” discussion. She doesn’t believe the ‘sphere has any legitimacy. She basically thinks all Manosphere blogs are harmful for both men and women, and no man should be reading them. That includes JFG. She believes Manosphere readers should just drop dead, OR go over to her site and learn to be, you know, “constructive”, “positive” etc.

  74. 74

    Re: 64

    Defending yourselves won’t achieve anything, in fact it will only give her more attention, which she doesn’t deserve. She’s single-minded. Trying to reason with her is pointless, it just fuels her paranoia and determination. She won’t reconsider anything she said or done. She won’t change any of her views. Just ignore her, and ban her dumb twat commenters if they try to troll this site.

  75. 75

    @BV I gave her the same advice in email.

    @BB yes, I agree with your market analysis. I went there in the hope of exchanging viewpoints across the gender chasm from a personally pretty disinterested viewpoint (older + divorced + MGTOWish / MOOish / MRA-ish). It was fun and friendly. I was called ‘The James Bond of MRAs’ at one point for constructively discussing things. I was absent for a while last year, when I got back the atmosphere had changed. It was more quarrelsome, don’t know what caused it. I’m still suffering a little from sphere burnout that occurred at the same time, this is why I tend to keep it light these days and leave the heavy stuff to others.

    When the four guys here named their blog partially in honour of my old blog commenter name, well, I knew I had a new home. *wipes sentimental tear from eye*

    I very much like what they’ve done with the place.

  76. 76

    If a cougar throws back eleven shots of Grey Goose at the bar, staggers to her Prius, gets behind the wheel, loads up some Rihanna from her playlist and briefly twerks in place, and then has a short, dangerous stint on a state road before being pulled over by Johnny Law, can she be charged with DUI? Or was her driving non-consensual, perhaps even the result of some kind of automotive assault? Can Toyota executives be forced to undergo sensitivity training…?

  77. 77

    Re: 65

    You know what’s actually toxic to HUS readers? Their determined unwillingness to confront the truth. And you know why the tone was controntational? Because her commenters don’t listen. They just resist and resist. They stick their heads in the sand.

  78. 78

    @BB
    get the brain-ectomy, it all makes a lot more sense afterwards.

    Quizzing a femtard about equality will get you a Vicky Pollard response

  79. 79

    Had no problem with Susan rebooting. She said she was down to, I think, one woman commenting, Anacoana. And Ana’s personal history didn’t seem to be sufficiently like others’ to be useful in the stated mission. To think men’s voices crowded out women’s is a big deal. Nobody’s keyboard is supercharged to overrun another’s.
    I did think some guys were taking the discussions in other directions and getting pretty harsh–scolding or challenging–about other commenters.
    Her biz.
    I thought she was pretty fair, considering the mission of convincing women–presumably not that far out of high school–that screwing anybody who asked was not the best way to get through post-adolescence, nor to begin a relationship useful to both partners.
    This, of course, would have the effect of reducing the number of easy lays available to guys, but according to her, the stats of such things on campus were considerably less than generally thought. So the guys were still going to have pretty much the same situation, but more individual women might make choices based on their interests instead of a flawed picture of what they’re suppposed to be doing–because that’s what everybody talks about.
    Having granddaughters, that interested me.
    However, to be going after JFG, which should be irrelevant to her goals, seems kind of odd.

  80. 80
    deti says:

    Richard Aubrey 79:

    Speaking for myself, anyone can disagree all they want. Run one’s blog any way one wants. Reboot to one’s heart’s desires. Use facts and/or evidence to back up one’s assertions. If one misstates facts or evidence, one should expect to be called out on it as Han did in the OP. If all one has is anecdote/observation, then use that and be clear about it.

    But above all, don’t continually claim to have no use for the manosphere as what one claims to be wrong on the stats and the facts; but then in the same breath take personal potshots at it and certain persons therein for the purpose of guffaws and self-congratulatory backslapping,

  81. 81
    the bandit says:

    re: deti #25 et al.

    From what I perceive, the lack of such prison populations is only further proof of a pervasive, systemic rape culture. All authority figures — football coaches, pastors, police, etc. — are part of the culture and have their secret rape-strategy meetings for inculcating a culture of rape, and a key plank in their platform is to sweep all accusations under the rug and prevent charges from ever being filed. After all, we all know someone — several someones, statistically! — in our circle of friends who was raped but didn’t tell anybody (including us!) because they know no one would believe them or do anything to help. The occasional high-profile case demonstrates the pervasive practice of rug-sweeping and an oddity in its failure, never an oddity in rug-sweeping nor demonstration that such attempts pervasively fail.

  82. 82
    Liz says:

    Bandit, that was great satire.

    The part about “lack of prison populations” being “proof of pervasive, systemic rape culture” hits that fake-but-accurate motif succinctly. Lack of evidence means it must be everywhere!!!

    I just worry that some feminist crackpots will take it seriously.

  83. 83
    Morpheus says:

    BV @ 69,

    I actually agree with the spirit of much of what you wrote. Here’s the thing, it is a marketplace of ideas. There is nothing wrong with spirited and intense debate of ideas, but obviously everyone has the right to control their own venue.

    Here’s where it gets problematic though. Let’s say a Communist were going to debate a Laissez-Faire capitalist. We could have a debate about economics, which is most aligned with human nature, which will maximize economic output, which results in the best society. Or the Laissez-Faire guy could just hurl epithets continually pounding his fist that the Communist is an “Evil, Godless, devil worshipper” and the Communist could hurl epithets that the Laissez-Faire guy is a “Tea-Part crackpot, greedy, racist” who wants to see children starve. Most men want to have sex, there is nothing wrong with that. At some point along the line, Susan decided to demonize and create this silly “Sociopathic, Dark Triad” cartoon character who pursues sex outside the boundary lines of what she deems permissible. And that craziness has driven much of her commentary since she adopted this view.

    However, I still take a look over there from time-to-time and I don’t see any groundswell of freshly unintimidated young female participation.

    Well, that’s because the “male presence” was really a red herring with respect to female commentary. There a number of female commenters who have disappeared (Hope, Sassy to name just two). The simple fact of the matter is intellectual discussion of these matters simply is uninteresting for most college aged women, and the truth of the matter as I’ve discussed with a fellow blogger is the women who do show up tend to kind of be the equivalent of omega guys. They reflect a very small minority of young women.

    I suggest that we all just let the matter, and the blog, go. (I sympathize with HS’s desire not to be impugned unfairly and I think he has set the record straight properly here.) Markets are pretty efficient.

    FWIW, SW’s greatest fault IMO is her stubborn pride. She has the inability to admit fault, admit wrong, and let things go. I think if she permanently dropped all discussion/referencing of past commenters, red pill sites, the sphere, etc. then most would simply leave her alone to do her thing in peace. But as Rollo as said, she wants to throw rocks at the boys, but not expect to have rocks thrown back at her. I genuinely hope she will get on with the business of advising young women as she sees fit and basically STFU about all things Spher/Red Pill related. But if she continues to persist in addressing Sphere topics and doing so in a misleading and error-filled way, then I suspect we will address it from time to time.

  84. 84
    Han Solo says:

    Rollo 56 We all know that she won’t debate. That’s why she created her comment-modified blog fortress.

    HH 57 Ignoring any future potshots from her may be the best course but I wanted to set the record straight on this. Also, Jezebel hasn’t taken specific digs at JFG. I’m not going to go out of my way to argue with Susan but I reserve the right to set the record straight if she mentions me or JFG in posts.

    Liz 59 Yes, avoiding getting drunk would be helpful…which means that they want to get drunk and, in part, do it specifically to lower their inhibitions so that they can get sexy with whomever. Of course, the next day, some of them regret it; and sometimes truly bad things do happen; but the hope of getting the sexy guy sex in the way they want it outweighs the risks they perceive (and maybe they don’t understand the risks sufficiently). Putting all the onus on men to police themselves and other men is an attempt to keep the rewards of the drunken lay while removing the negative consequences…and granting them a powerful card up their sleeves to use to get the guy to continue to treat her well afterwards, or else.

    Swith 61 The increasingly contentious tone was of her making. She claimed to be open to debate and reason things out and only base things on the facts but when facts were presented that she didn’t like she would up the shaming and personal attacks. More “extreme” voices had long since left and it was more moderates like myself that were increasingly arguing with her and presenting (usually) fact-based and logical arguments. But none of that mattered if it went against her opinions (which can be shown to vary and contradict themselves over time). The only male comments that are really permitted there anymore are the mildest and most agreeable (with her). At any rate, she’s free to do with her blog what she will. But if she’s going to falsely accuse me of saying something I didn’t then I reserve the right to respond and fully dismantle her false witness and she can’t resort to shaming or threats of banishment. Best thing for her to do is shut her mouth about me and JFG and do her thing.

  85. 85
    Han Solo says:

    BB 62 The call option to turn an FUI (fucking under the influence) into a rape charge is a powerful weapon for a perverse-minded woman.

    And it’s fascinating that women can be guilty of DUI but not FUI.

  86. 86
    Morpheus says:

    -the HUS mission more or less requires an ample supply of “blue pill” beta-provider men who remain optimistic about relationships, who do not explore the new-found market power created by things like 60/40, who remain relatively chaste, who are prepared to provide emotional and economic support for college-educated young women desiring career/domesticity optionality. All of this requires that the price of sex be kept high as a relationship commitment leverage tool.

    -J4G seems to be promoting “red pill” men who question everything about previous dating and mating models, and who unapologetically identify and pursue their own self-interests with the same aggressiveness and enthusiasm that radical feminists pursue their agenda. The correct intellectual posture for most men would probably be one of cautious, controlled cynicism about the SMP, with an awareness of potentially ruinous downside risks. For at least some men here, hookup culture and a relatively low market value placed on sexual access are tremendously attractive from the standpoint of lifestyle design. Even some of the previously restricted men sound like they are adapting to threats and opportunities by taking up the rapier and becoming swordsmen.

    Great summary BB. I think this contrast lies at the heart of the matter.

    Nelson Mandela – “Where you stand depends on where you sit.”

    In market terms, we all “talk our book”.

    This is important to understand. In order for women to fully pursue their dual-path life script of education, career, and optionality for SAHM and children, it is imperative that the pool of men willing to embrace or sign up for “Draft Animal/Horse” aka “Good Man tm” status be maximized.

    Let me digress for a moment. I just love BV’s contrast between “Good Man” and being good at being a man. This topic is full of catch phrases, NAWALT, Nice Guy, etc. I think “Good Man” is one we can add. In my mind, the “Good Man” is obviously defined by women, and defined in such a manner that there is basically 100% alignment with the feminine imperative and female life goals/objectives. The “Bad Man” thus becomes the man who questions this imperative or dares to question any aspect of what women ordain as correct and proper. Pursuit of sex outside of a “relationship”? You are a “Bad Man”

    In this light, educating men about their market power, the full scope of their options, alternative life paths to signing up as a Draft Horse is seen as a threat which is why it is attacked so intensely and tried to recast not just as an alternative but morally and ethically negative.

  87. 87
    YOHAMI says:

    Han,

    “And it’s fascinating that women can be guilty of DUI but not FUI.”

    Lol. Im going to use that one.

    Morpheus,

    “The “Bad Man” thus becomes the man who questions this imperative or dares to question any aspect of what women ordain as correct and proper. Pursuit of sex outside of a “relationship”? You are a “Bad Man””

    True. Still a woman pursuing sex outside of a relationship is not a bad woman – and you’re again a bad man if you call her one.

  88. 88
    Han Solo says:

    BB 65

    I’m perfectly happy to let HUS do it’s thing…as long as that thing doesn’t involve falsely accusing me of twisting the numbers.

    As to the JFG mission, I agree that we do want to produce red pill men that can use that knowledge to pursue their desires, whether that be marriage like Ted and Morpheus, an LTR like Obsidian, or casual/STR in the short term and marriage and kids when the right opportunity arises for me. I do find it fascinating that many men here are reporting that they are adjusting to the sexual/marriage market as largely created by the way in which women demand sex. That confirms things that you and I have discussed both here and back at HUS about how (excluding top males that really live in a different reality) most men respond to the sexual market signals sent out by women–some adapt to pay the price paid, others can’t and others decide to not even attempt a bid anymore.

    We also provide a lot of very useful information so that women can really understand both men and themselves much better, with no blue pill BS to tell them to just keep doing what doesn’t work.

  89. 89
    Morpheus says:

    True. Still a woman pursuing sex outside of a relationship is not a bad woman – and you’re again a bad man if you call her one.

    I’ve come to this conclusion, and again NAWALT. The position of most women is one of wanting to retain FULL OPTIONALITY of all decisions and behaviors. Have casual sex? She is “exploring” her sexuality. Now she wants a commitment before sex? She has “matured”. The key point is that ALL decisions and behaviors are equally valid.

    And not only that. But the key second part is that it is invalid to make any sort of judgement or hold her accountable in any way for past behavior or decisions. It no longer matters once she has changed her mind about what she wants, and you are a “Bad Man” if you make decisions based on past behavior.

    In this worldview, the man is not an equal human being with equally valid wants and desires, but simply an agent for the fulfillment of whatever her current prerogative is whether that be casual sex, or committed relationship, or career woman, or SAHM. Whatever she wants is what is right.

  90. 90
    Han Solo says:

    deti 68

    Yes, the cheap shots against you are cowardly. And to whatever extent HUS can be purple pill instead of full-on blue then that’s good. Lately, though, it’s taken on a much more blue shade, though at least in her recent post (the one referenced in this post) she does spread a message of not getting drunk.

    But why she has to sully that message with an attack on JFG, completely taking Hoinsky out of context with regards to the “pull out your cock” statement, and presenting a study that supports the radfem mission and says that basically over 25% of college women will be assaulted during the 4 or 5 years in college (when you look at the rate reported by seniors; and I have no doubt that if I looked into the study would find all kinds of very loose definitions of what counts as sexual assault to juice the numbers), is beyond me.

    Except for the part on not drinking and the part referencing the Hoff Sommers article on rape, the whole post could have been written by a full-on feminist. So solid blue pill rhetoric, with a tinge of red pill.

  91. 91
    YOHAMI says:

    Morpheus,

    “Have casual sex? She is “exploring” her sexuality. Now she wants a commitment before sex? She has “matured”.”

    And she can always go back to the exploring part if she gets bored.

  92. 92
    Han Solo says:

    BV 69

    Yeah, most of the comments did come from the guys and it is interesting how precious few young women have appeared to comment since the reboot. TBH, if the blunt and sometimes harsh tone of some males drove away young female readers, I don’t see the catty and vindictive tone of Susan and some of the commenters as doing any different.

    I’m not looking to have a war. But I do reserve the right to respond or not respond to false accusations if she makes another one.

  93. 93
    Stingray says:

    most of the comments did come from the guys and it is interesting how precious few young women have appeared to comment since the reboot.

    Go the men? So go the women. Even if they don’t like to admit it.

  94. 94
    Han Solo says:

    Liz 72 The white knights in the military leadership make me shake my head.

    HH 73-74 Yes, her way is the one true way (even though it started out blue, became quite purple and has boomeranged back to blue) and anyone who disagrees with the current outlook (except for herself in yesteryear) is a heretic and deserves to be vilified.

    I certainly wasn’t trying to reason with her by writing this post. Rather, it was to point out the false accusation so that anyone who reads this post will see that she can either not reason or doesn’t care and will smear people. A sort of inoculation against potential future false charges. And if the attention stimulates her ego a bit, so be it. I’m not planning on waging an offensive against HUS or Susan but do reserve the right to refute any future false charges.

    Swith 75 Yes, you JUST felt at home here! lol

    BB 76 That was the comment that inspired my “guilty of DUI but not FUI” statement. Or perhaps, since we’re talking about rape and assault, it should be that women can not be guilty of an RUI (raping under the influence). The FUI–fucking under the influence–does have a better ring to it, though.

    HH 77 I agree that their unwillingness to listen is what’s most detrimental to them and is what really caused a lot of the confrontation.

    Richard 79 “However, to be going after JFG, which should be irrelevant to her goals, seems kind of odd.” Fully agree.

    Bandit 81 lol Yes, the conspiracy runs deep.

  95. 95
    Han Solo says:

    Morpheus 83 The campaign against the dark triad was fascinating. Calling out true dark behavior is fine but it got to the point where anything that didn’t mesh with her way was then seen as the dark way. Also agree on the stubborn pride and loving to throw rocks but then starts to howl when fire is returned. I too wish she would just get on about advising women and stop the anti-red pill rants.

    Morpheus 86 Good point about how the Good Man is defined by the feminine imperative and anything that deviates is seen as bad by many women.

    And keeping the draft horse from becoming a dark* horse is of vital importance to the dual-path woman.

    *dark meaning anything other than a draft horse that has a tinge of sexiness

    Yohami 87 Glad you liked the DUI vs FUI comparison. And the draft horses that aren’t allowed to fuck outside of a reln. can’t complain about women doing so, lest he be called a dark horse, a bitter horse, a horse that can’t-get-laid.

    And completely tangential, to draw on that great “ancient” song, women don’t want to ride across the desert on a horse with no lay.

  96. 96
    Han Solo says:

    Morpheus 89 Yes, many women do want to hold onto all their options and be able to do what they want when they want.

    Doesn’t the bible say that:

    To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

    A time to be single, and a time to commit; a time to fuck alphas, and a time to refrain from fucking alphas

    A time to abort, and a time to give birth; a time to be a fabulous career woman, and a time to be a stay at home mom

    A time to get drunk, and a time to stay sober; a time to party, and a time to stay home

    A time to “you go girl,” and a time to “you can’t have it all”; a time to be picky, and a time to refrain from being picky.

  97. 97
    Liz says:

    94: “Or perhaps, since we’re talking about rape and assault, it should be that women can not be guilty of an RUI (raping under the influence). The FUI–fucking under the influence–does have a better ring to it, though.”

    Change “guilty of” to “accountable for” and FUI is perfectly apt.

  98. 98
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    In regards to # 38 Really? That is what had people upset? Cherry picking is a form of bullying and intimidation. Pick one point scream and accuse and you can rile any group, particularly women, to the point you will never be heard over their emotional outburst.

    Candide #54
    Yohami, I instinctively put it to your sense of nobility. Although Candide makes an interesting point, I hadn’t considered societies influence..

    SS # 75
    “I was absent for a while last year, when I got back the atmosphere had changed. It was more quarrelsome, don’t know what caused it.”

    Women are never far from their emotions its our natural default, and without men to provide a counterbalance our ability to think practically, even for the most rationally inclined women, becomes skewed. This from recent personal experience.
    Funny how quickly did it morph into its own version of a crab basket. Personally I am very sad to see what has happened to HUS it was a site I use to recommend to girls as an introduction to red pill thinking. It was a reply that Deti made to my daughter’s comment that got her to take the red pill cure.

    Morpheus # 83
    “Well, that’s because the “male presence” was really a red herring with respect to female commentary. There a number of female commenters who have disappeared (Hope, Sassy to name just two). The simple fact of the matter is intellectual discussion of these matters simply is uninteresting for most college aged women, and the truth of the matter as I’ve discussed with a fellow blogger is the women who do show up tend to kind of be the equivalent of omega guys. They reflect a very small minority of young women.”

    I recently told my husband regarding his business, Make it a place for men and the women will come.

    @Han, Penalty box? Are you a hockey fan?

  99. 99

    Re: persuading Millennials. I have a couple of observations on this based on my limited time as a professor teaching classes that are approx. 70% female:

    1. They Hate Trade-Offs. The students almost invariably want to have it all—the great-paying job, free time, travel, toys, status, good friends, hot romance, philanthropy. The ones who are most determined to have it all, by far, are the 3rd Wave feminism-empowered alpha females with high SMV. If you tell one that he or she cannot have it all, any following advice will probably be rejected.

    2. They Do Not Want to Be Like Their Parents. They normally love and respect their parents, but they readily see serious flaws in their parents’ lifestyles and they do not look at their moms and dads as examples of what to do. Thus, advice from their parents can be viewed skeptically. The downside here is that they don’t necessarily have any clear roadmaps for attaining the well-balanced, “have it all” lifestyles that they want

    3. Authority Comes From Example. You persuade a Millennial by being a personal example of things that they want, not by argument, appeals to CV qualifications, or by deliberate sales pitch. Basically they need to look at someone and say, “This Han Solo guy sure is cool. I want to know how he does it”, or “Jesus, how can I become a BuenaVista?”, or “Morpheus rocks. That’s who I aspire to be.” I could go on using other J4G characters, but I’m sure the point is made.

    Any advice has to take place within this a priori contextual sheath of admiration or it will be dismissed. They particularly like people who don’t seem to have had to make hard trade-offs (see #1 for why).

    They are a generally tolerant, nonjudgmental group, so the quickest way to turn a group of them off is to start throwing around labels and arbitrary moralistic frameworks. They just call you a hater and tune out.

    4. They Are The “Sexy” Generation. The girls started wearing miniskirts and booty shorts by middle school, the boys have grown up with porn available, Miley’s behavior is generally considered perfectly appropriate, girls text topless photos and thong shots to guys they hardly know, etc. While many outsiders are fascinated with college hook-up culture, the fascination is not reciprocated and the students don’t really care if other sub-populations are or are not having casual sex.

  100. 100
    BuenaVista says:

    Morpheus: #86: Good Man vs. Being Good at Being a Man.

    That’s actually a Jack Donovan trope. It’s not mine, in any way. (I just borrow it 5x per day.) (Incidentally, even total leftie feminists get it and like it.) When I augured in, earlier in the year, in regard to being the Good Man, his was one of the first books I read. I too find his opposition of these two archetypes richly descriptive. I gather he is controversial in red pill land but I like the book and gave it to Son#1.

  101. 101
    BuenaVista says:

    #92, HS:

    In regard to the tone of HUS, see BB’s #3, just above. These kids don’t want to sound like self-righteous Fem 1.0 talking point robots. That is the tone, though, of the new HUS. That, plus the suck-up males tip-toeing around in circles.

    I too would be annoyed and hurt if Susan publicly ridiculed or shamed me. I’d probably respond too, though I would probably spend a couple of days trying to create a satire from my anger. I would say on balance that you and BB are the two most dispassionate commenters I encountered there, or here. That deserves better treatment than you received.

  102. 102
    Han Solo says:

    BB 99

    Great point about them hating trade-offs. In their late teens and early 20′s they are at the height of their sexual power and glory, unfettered by the cultural shackles of generations gone by. They are often told they can be anything they want and have it all, even sometimes by their enabling parents.

    Unfortunately, for many of them, their power rises and falls before wisdom is learned.

    I firmly believe that in less lush settings, with fewer fragrant fruits to pull them in all directions at once, that these young women would be much more willing to latch onto the best thing available. That’s simply my observation, not saying that society should become less safe and prosperous to remove some of their options.

    I did have an experience that I related in great detail on Obsidian’s blog about going to India and a backpacking Israeli girl latching onto me as her protector for a day and a half until my other friend showed up. There she didn’t have all the options anymore and had a need (or at least a desire) and took the best and only option available–me. lol

  103. 103
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    “I firmly believe that in less lush settings, with fewer fragrant fruits to pull them in all directions at once, that these young women would be much more willing to latch onto the best thing available.”

    That time is coming.

  104. 104
    Ted D says:

    “That time is coming.”

    If I didn’t have kids I’d so be sitting poolside when it happens…

    But, as it stands, I’ve already rolled the dice on the future and invested. Its a shame, because it could be a very entertaining show for those not playing a part.

  105. 105
    LTlurker says:

    HS@84, et al: “I’m not going to go out of my way to argue with Susan but I reserve the right to set the record straight if she mentions me or JFG in posts.”

    A suggestion, respectfully. You’re losing frame, and you (along with fellow travelers such as RT) are being used.

    Who do you imagine needs to have the record set straight? Of course, SW has no deep interest in relevant truth and fairness, nor in honest debate. What followers/viewers she has left don’t really care about your online persona. JFG types, who wouldn’t buy her charges about you in the first place, hardly pay attention to HUS anymore.

    In short, you’re only helping to keep an oldish woman more relevant than she otherwise would be. This gives the appearance of a beta-like effort to seek from females respectful understanding and disagreement or at least detente. She wants respectable enough “manosphere” antagonists to engage in conflict, as a compelling rationale for her mission. She no longer wants that conflict on her site.

    Unlike feminist types who have no serious familiarity with the manosphere’s high end, SW did read and have discussions with its leading lights–who mistakenly hoped that a sympathetic and influential older woman might inform young lady folk of the errors of their ways. You were had.

    Better to ignore the likes of SW/HUS, calmly, and get on with the business of informing and entertaining red-pill-leaning men.

  106. 106
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    The Millennial’s and following generations will be the first not to do as well as their parents. With globalization and tech innovation jobs are and will continue to become scarce. The economic change will be one of the causes that will bring young women back to embracing natural gender roles if not because it is the right thing to do but for economic practicality.
    Any speculations on what kind of spin they will put out there to justify abandoning feminism?

  107. 107
    Han Solo says:

    BV, I agree that the tone there is as you describe. And compliant, lapdog males are allowed to comment there but only if they agree. If they express too much independent thought they’ll be branded and banned as heretics.

    I don’t think I was hurt but I did shake my head at the absurdity of accusing me of fudging the numbers when my whole post (the numbers part) came out of the very same article that Susan used as proof that radfems juice the numbers…and, though I didn’t get into the later study she cites, it goes on to claim the high levels of sexual assault that radfems rant about (likely due to very loose definitions of what counts).

    I usually am fairly dispassionate. BB even more so than I.

    And I will fully admit that I did take a bit of pleasure in being able to respond here to her false accusation as bluntly as I wanted to, unlike back on HUS when she would argue with me and I’d show her the errors of her interpretations of various studies and she’d obfuscate or shame or change the subject, all with the threat of having a comment deleted hanging over or being banned from my main commenting watering hole (until JFG got up and running) if I kept arguing or called her out a little too bluntly, something I didn’t do. When she finally deleted my perfectly-legitimate Hoinsky comment, pointing out that he wasn’t saying to whip out the cock without lots of escalation beforehand, that was too much, and I left.

  108. 108
    Han Solo says:

    LTlurker

    Thanks for the suggestion. I will definitely keep it in mind if a future potshot is sent my way.

    I fully realized that by writing this post I might be giving her desired attention. And part of my desire to respond was simply to show how fallacious her argument was, not to try and engage in a “a beta-like effort to seek from [Susan] respectful understanding and disagreement or at least detente.” Basically, she served up some low-hanging fruit in her attack on me and so I attacked back and showed her to be illogical or mean-spirited.

    Going forward, I will probably be more strategic and give more weight to whether by responding I’m just playing into her desire for drama, conflict and attention, and to have useful sphere combatants that she can point to as attacking enemies to frighten her beta mare followers.

    I agree that I and many other male commenters were “had” to a certain extent. But we also benefited a lot while the fairly-open-HUS allowed good conversations. Gradually, that was rolled back and then completely removed. But I can still credit most of my redpill learnings to stuff I read there, mostly from other commenters and even a bit from Susan herself, before she turned (back) to the dark-blue side.

  109. 109
    Han Solo says:

    PP2, I used to be quite a hockey fan, not so much anymore but not because I don’t like the game but just don’t like or hate any teams anymore so not that into it.

    Also, I agree with you that the sluggish employment situation may very well likely cause some of those options to be reduced.

  110. 110
    Han Solo says:

    LTlurker

    Most of our focus will continue to be to help people (mostly men but women too) to take the red pill so we agree there (basically). But we reserve the right to fire back if fired upon…but we also don’t need to necessarily always fire back…we can pick and choose.

  111. 111
    Tasmin says:

    “The problem Susan has is that none of her target audience has the energy, or interest, to post.”

    Second to what was stated above. College-age and early career UMC women (assumed to be the target) have very little interest in the truth; the opinion, desire, wants of men; the reality of their choices, beliefs, and actions relative to the SMP, and how men view/value those things in a mate.

    The futility and risk of discussing such truths and views/values IRL is well known by most men. The internets are not that different. Women who go googling “why don’t I have a boyfriend” are not looking for truths – things that will likely make them *feel* worse about themselves. They are not looking to unlock the secrets of men in order to better connect, understand, and meet those needs and wants. They are not working to unwind those sacred things from the lies they have been fed; reveal our desires, our real truths about sexuality, attraction, values, and courtship.

    They are looking to assuage the dissonance of their conflicted lives not through the pain of change, self-assessment and improvement, but through a kind of salvation through communion of their *feelings*, a camaraderie within the padded echo chambers, a safe (from inconvenient truths) place to rationalize their incongruent desires and behaviors where absolution from the long tails of responsibility can be had a la mode.

    Ultimately they want someone to write the cliff’s notes for optimizing their options, their entitlements, to pry just deep enough into the lives of men to lay new, better, more modern hooks into the jaws of those elusive ‘catches’. HUS does well to move women out of the total comfort zone into slight discomfort, but stops short of the truth of the male experience. So why would they need men’s input in that process?

    I stopped commenting there quite a while back. I enjoyed a lot of the conversations and found the majority of regulars to be very fine, intelligent, and thoughtful people. But I could also feel that my past experiences were only marginally relevant to the mission and my current real life experiences were (apparently) not supporting the ideas and messages she wished to present, thus my commentary, while always met kindly, was just not going to be central in any way. No skin, no problem.

    But more importantly, I also found the dissonance of the ‘message’ and reported experiences from men commenting (including of course my own) to be frustrating and counterproductive in my own assessment of the SMP. The embedded reporter vs the hairdo hanging around the pentagon reading censored sit-reps and ‘official’ body counts. Other more subtle things led the way as well. In defense of the reboot, the negativity, which was often indeed an issue IMO, was also feeding to much into my already cynical viewpoint. I wore out my trail runners instead.

    But I am glad to be back around so many of those voices here at JFG. I checked in over there a while back and just happened upon a comment of hers that summed up her view of JFG: same sad group of men saying the same things; nothing has changed…basically the disgruntled, outcast men pressing sour grapes into the same old bitter wine of discontent.

    Empathy for men is fleeting indeed. No biggie. We learn that by 2nd grade. But the treatment of men’s experiences as only relevant if/when congruent with the predetermined message and then insulting the messengers due to their lack of enlightenment or (d)evolution toward that predetermined message is what I find to be sad.

  112. 112
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Morpheus

    Let me digress for a moment. I just love BV’s contrast between “Good Man” and being good at being a man. This topic is full of catch phrases, NAWALT, Nice Guy, etc. I think “Good Man” is one we can add. In my mind, the “Good Man” is obviously defined by women, and defined in such a manner that there is basically 100% alignment with the feminine imperative and female life goals/objectives. The “Bad Man” thus becomes the man who questions this imperative or dares to question any aspect of what women ordain as correct and proper. Pursuit of sex outside of a “relationship”? You are a “Bad Man”

    This is perfectly exemplified by the “Good Men Project”.

  113. 113
    Morpheus says:

    LTlurker @ 105,

    You make a very strong case with some excellent points….I may need to rethink or at the very least significantly rewrite my next post sitting in rough draft.

    Honestly, I need to ponder what you’ve said. I think you are right that we cannot let SW/HUS drive the agenda here. That would get boring/tiresome. That said, I can also see the argument for periodically swatting the flie/mosquitos buzzing around you if they won’t leave your presence. Perhaps stupidity and shoddy thinking is best left unaddressed unless as in this case it was a direct frontal attack.

    Appreciate the comment…you’ve left me and I think us something serious to think about.

  114. 114
    Morpheus says:

    The futility and risk of discussing such truths and views/values IRL is well known by most men. The internets are not that different. Women who go googling “why don’t I have a boyfriend” are not looking for truths – things that will likely make them *feel* worse about themselves. They are not looking to unlock the secrets of men in order to better connect, understand, and meet those needs and wants. They are not working to unwind those sacred things from the lies they have been fed; reveal our desires, our real truths about sexuality, attraction, values, and courtship.

    This is basically my conclusion as well (NAWALT). There are maybe 1 in 100 women who are receptive to hearing men detail blunt, direct truths without getting defensive. The answer for men is to educate themselves, and then implement strategies consistent with their own objectives and internal principles. For men who are interested in long-term relationships/marriages one has to be on the lookout for the minority of women who basically already kind of “get” that bolded part either naturally or as a result of how they were raised.

    I checked in over there a while back and just happened upon a comment of hers that summed up her view of JFG: same sad group of men saying the same things; nothing has changed…basically the disgruntled, outcast men pressing sour grapes into the same old bitter wine of discontent.

    I saw that same comment….I can’t say for sure but I do think she was referring to my post Displays of Weakness and ensuing discussion. Which just goes to show, when a woman talks about things like “emotional intimacy”, “deep communication”, those are more buzzwords and catchy phrases then anything real. It is still about her and her feelings and how WHAT YOU SAY makes her feel, not about real sharing.

    But the treatment of men’s experiences as only relevant if/when congruent with the predetermined message and then insulting the messengers due to their lack of enlightenment or (d)evolution toward that predetermined message is what I find to be sad.

    Well…the convenient delusion/insult is it is just a small group of “maladjusted” outlier men who share certain concerns, thoughts, communicate certain ideas. The majority of “normal” men are chomping at the bit to buy what she is selling. I think she either does not know, does not want to know, or cannot fathom just how pervasive certain thoughts, views, perceptions are, but that it is only on the Interwebz where certain things can be discussed outside the boundary walls of “polite” conversation.

  115. 115
    LTlurker says:

    HS@108: “But we also benefited a lot while the fairly-open-HUS allowed good conversations…. But I can still credit most of my redpill learnings to stuff I read there, mostly from other commenters and even a bit from Susan herself….”

    I hadn’t fully appreciated this phenomenon. Fair enough: credit where it is/was due. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

  116. 116
    LTlurker says:

    Morpheus@113: You guys, and many of your commenters (e.g., BB), are articulating your perspectives impressively. SW/HUS and “feminists” aren’t needed for targets. Red pill insights go broadly and deeply enough, sans diversionary additives. Keep the quality content coming.

  117. 117

    There seems to be a notion out there that, by Han or any of us, responding to the spurious and injurious claims made by Ms. Walsh (or anyone else for that matter), he/we are “losing frame” and playing right into her hands by giving her attention and the like. The following, which is an offlist email that I sent to Han, etc., will suffice as to my response to these allegations and notions, and which I hope, will clear the air as to the idea that Han, or any of us, is somehow “losing frame”:

    “Han,
    First, I think you took the proper course of action – given the seriousness and enormity of the issue itself – rape and sexual assault – combined with the wholesale assault on your good name and by extension, that of JFG, I felt that not only were you, but ALL OF US, were justified in correcting the matter and taking Ms. Walsh out to the woodshed. If she were just talking smack about any one of us, that would be something I could simply ignore; but she crossed the line when she tried to smear JFG and libel you. You wrote a thoughtful, careful and most importantly, accurate article about how the ideologues gin up rape and sex assault stats, and here comes Ms. Walsh with her dissembling and disingenuous ways. No, we had to respond, and I for one am glad that we did it, because she now knows that we won’t take her BS laying down. Again, for the record: she is free to her opinions; she is not free to her own facts.

    If you note my comments in the thread to your post, I addressed her stance with regard to Ken Hoinsky – I said nothing personal in the least about Ms. Walsh, nor did I defend, in the least, what Hoinsky said. I did this to highlight the fact that Hoinsky himself was wildly quoted out of context by ideologues who have an axe to grind against Game, and to prove how and why Ms. Walsh is cut from the exact same swatch of cloth. I provided links and direct quotes backing up what I said, and left it at that. I personally couldn’t possibly care less as to what Ms. Walsh does with her site. But I DO care what she says about JFG, my JFG brothers, and Game/Red Pill info. If and when she goes off the reservation trying to impugn any of the above, I feel that we have a duty to set the record straight.

    So again, good on you for standing up for yourself, and taking a stand.

    I stand with you shoulder to shoulder. That’s what JFG is all about.”

    O.

  118. 118

    Glad to see Vox has wised up to Aunt Giggles finally, http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/10/savaged-by-statistical-sheep.html

    HUS is no longer in his blog roll either.

  119. 119
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ pp2

    The Millennial’s and following generations will be the first not to do as well as their parents. With globalization and tech innovation jobs are and will continue to become scarce. The economic change will be one of the causes that will bring young women back to embracing natural gender roles if not because it is the right thing to do but for economic practicality.
    Any speculations on what kind of spin they will put out there to justify abandoning feminism?

    But will they? Will they rather abandon feminism and embrace natural gender roles, or will they demand that their de-facto husband, the welfare state, take further care of them?

    Unfortunately, I get the feeling we will see a lot of wailing about “where have all the good men ™ gone?” and complaints for the state and society to step in and take care of them.

  120. 120

    Sir Nemesis,
    I think it was the Belmont Club where the point was made that deficit spending–including increasing entitlements–could “work” as long as the next generation was even richer.
    If not, and it won’t be, then the money has to be taken from current owners of money to be given to others. So it won’t be a war against the next generation, but within the same generation.
    I lived in the ‘burbs all my life with the exception of the Army, and now I’m eight miles from a small town. One hundred percent of the people I know around here are armed. I have to believe the same is true of those I don’t know. And the CCW/CHL classes are picking up.
    Point is, the state and society might be a little short of the scoots forty years from now. Sugar Daddy DC could be pulling back.
    Could be a market for men. Even if it isn’t laagering up in the neighborhoods; just earning a living some way or another.
    Bitter satisfaction, if satisfaction there is.

  121. 121
    LTlurker says:

    O@117: Respectfully, neither justification nor a right to respond was called into question. Subtext is what it is, despite one’s stated intentions.

    You “DO care,” your words, about what a disingenuous woman of transparent motives and marginal influence happens to feel and write about your comrades and issues on her fading blog. The question was why–given the assumption that your target is (now) unserious, of little consequence, and obviously trolling for relevance and attention.

    I’m not seeking an answer or a debate. I’m explaining a perspective: why it’s folly to attempt to argue facts with a shameless fool or liar. “We stand by our analysis, distorted protestations aside” would suffice as a response. But this is your co-blog, and you’re entirely free to maintain a different perspective.

  122. 122
    Candide says:

    The problem with you fellas commenting on HUS in the past is that none of you is the perfect beta that the HUSsies want. You’re usually either the fat nerdy wordy older married man who writes 5-page essay for every comment or the young openly promiscuous player who brings up alarming stats from your field reports, none of you finds any of the HUSsies attractive and you all have nothing nice to tell them.

    Now if you were all tall, skinny, white, girly, sensitive artsy 28-year old guys who’s had maybe a few relationships but too scared of your own penis to fuck around despite the opportunities, and doesn’t have to work much but still makes plenty of money, says a lot of nice nonjudgemental things about the average girls, especially if you like dating average looking minority girls with extra pounds… then boy, you’re gonna get all of those silent girls out of the woodwork commenting until the site crashes from overload.

    There is a cure for this oneitis…

  123. 123

    Well, Candide, a man that is successful with women, a man that can pull attractive women effectively, is not exactly likely to be the kind of man that is interested in commenting on a blog designed to give women advice on pulling a unicorn man i.e. a sexually attractive beta provider. He has no reason, no incentives to do so. And he isn’t likely to be the kind of man that is attracted to the kind of woman that reads blogs to find dating advice because she doesn’t have a boyfriend. I have no idea why Walsh and her readers are incapable of realizing that.

  124. 124
    Liz says:

    LTlurker,“I’m not seeking an answer or a debate. I’m explaining a perspective: why it’s folly to attempt to argue facts with a shameless fool or liar. “We stand by our analysis, distorted protestations aside” would suffice as a response.”

    Internet debate requires arguing the facts with shameless fools and liars a good portion of the time. It’s kind of inherent to political discussion in general (though of course one has to pick one’s battles, it’s natural to object to blatant mischaracterization).

  125. 125
    Johnycomelately says:

    Looks like HUS played the sphere with a long con, not only that she managed to sucker the major players to boot.

    Kudos to the guys for spotting the misdirection and bait and switch play, shame it took so long.

  126. 126

    Other than personal satisfaction, I can’t see the use of the misrepresentation. Not in a business sense for the HUS blog. Is JFG seen as competition?
    The opportunity cost; time, energy, bandwidth, sunk in pursuit of this issue meant it couldn’t be used for something else. Which tells us that the post was seen as the best use of the resources.

    I have an interest in the Good Men Project because, among other things, they published four pieces of my fiction. Nice of them. Lisa Hickey is an excellent editor and, as I said, if she were a dentist, she wouldn’t need Novocain.
    That said, they claim not to be a democrat/liberal site. But their submissions on various subjects where such concerns arise are hugely liberal and almost without exception, grossly deficient in getting the facts right.
    Guns. Environment. Walmart. Welfare.
    Their chin-pullers on being Black after the Martin/Zimmerman trial all grossly misrepresented the facts of the case. It’s one thing to have a contributor express his feelings, whatever they are. It’s another to implicitly stand behind the misrepresentations. I inquired as to whether GMP needed that part of the audience which knew better.
    I am banned.
    Far as I can tell, they’ve gone ‘way left in just the last year. And that doesn’t apply to their men/women/relationship/ stuff, about which less objective information is usually acceptable to all sides.

  127. 127
    Ted D says:

    Candide – “The problem with you fellas commenting on HUS in the past is that none of you is the perfect beta that the HUSsies want”

    Well then, the REAL problem for HUS is that blogs like ours are doing their best to make sure there are none of those “perfect betas” left to be picked up. I am all about finding those guys, and giving them enough information to get something in return for their time and investment in a woman. Clue him in so he can get a fair shake, or perhaps even up his game, gamble, and win big.

    I suppose those ladies can see us as a threat. I’d think if they really wanted to be the best they could be, they’d embrace men wising up a little and see it as a chance to step up their girl game. Of course, that would mean they’d have to do more than show up. ;-)

  128. 128

    In my time of commenting on HUS as Just1X & JustYX I made it very plain that I wanted to educate men there about the red-pill (and I did, on HUS, I passed red-pill knowledge to guys) – no problem. I also made it plain that I was there to try and communicate with the women and share the men’s point of view for the benefit of those women (and I did). For example, I made it plain that high N women were not desirable to most settle-down kind of guys, so be careful about your N if you want some guy like that later in life. At the end of the discussion the truth of that was accepted by the majority of men and women – no problem here either.

    I think that my delivery of such truths was low key, I used (alleged) humour, I tried to be honest and open about everything. Someone called me ‘the James Bond of MRAs’ and Susan agreed with the comment (or she made it – IDRW). But I was debating red-pill stuff with and around Susan, it was accepted.

    At the end of the day I wasn’t there to legalistically define terms, so wasn’t too worried about tying down an iron definition of solipsism etc. and absolutely state that every woman is 100% solipsistic (I’d settle for casual definition and say that women had it on a spectrum). So maybe I’m too laid back for some red-pillers’ taste, but I was there to have fun and spread knowledge. I think that if you can tone down the delivery of the message and get the message across, you’re doing better than hammering an unwavering message home (right up to getting the comment deleted and yourself banned). Purists should feel free to disagree, whatever.

    None of that caused any ructions until early this year, when I offhandedly repeated some comment that I’d made before and Susan leapt on it. Susan’s judgement about what was acceptable changed (no problem with that, her right. I left the blog shortly afterwards on my own steam).

    So while everybody piles on about what HUS is or isn’t. You need to understand that HUS changed a lot over the years. IMHO up to about a year and a half ago (absolute guess), HUS was a friendly place to hang out, it did discuss close to the bone issues (that are no longer possible) and there were no major problems as long as the delivery didn’t involve metaphorically jabbing your opponent in the chest with your metaphorical pipe-stem. (It wasn’t a rowdy discussion in a pub where somebody obnoxiously told the other that they were an idiot whilst poking them in the chest to force the point home). That HUS took a lot of effort from Susan to maintain the tone. She kept out the feminists and the in-your-face guys and allowed a decent atmosphere and reasonable debate.

    IMO Susan ran out of luck in maintaining that balance, she let too many guys in who argued in her face (I’m not saying they were wrong, I’m saying they argued too aggressively for the situation), then the women stopped taking part in the debate and the place died. I think that Susan is pissed about that. I have a lot of sympathy for her if she is. I don’t agree with the current tone there, I think she’s making a mistake because she’s pissed.

    As I said above, I stated on HUS that I wanted a split last year (iirc the date). I wish it had happened then, because JFG is exactly the kind of place that I envisaged (perhaps more fun can trickle in? I like humour). JFG and HUS could have remained on friendly terms with audiences with a fair amount of overlap. I regret that we got to this situation. I’m very happy to be here on JustAndTheFourGuys, it’s a fine blog indeed, but I wish that HUS hadn’t had to go through all that trauma because not so long ago HUS was a friendly place for men and women. The passing of that wasn’t just due to the actions (and reactions) of Susan.

    Just my opinion

  129. 129

    St.
    Agreed with the later parts of your piece. Some guys were overly confrontational.
    There is time to let stuff go rather than keep pounding until all agree. No profit in that.

  130. 130
    Ted D says:

    “Some guys were overly confrontational.”

    I’d say in general, men tend to be rather confrontational by default. Men talking to other men don’t pull punches. They don’t try and soften the message to fit the audience. They tell it like it is and let the chips fall. I squarely fall into this camp, because when it comes down to it, how someone feels about what I have to say isn’t as important to me as the actual information being discussed. Yeah, sometimes what people have to say pisses me off, but I don’t hold that against them, and I don’t usually get pissed AT THEM because they were the messenger.

    I put some effort into tailoring my delivery these days, but I’m also honest to admit that I don’t put much effort into it. It would require me to care a lot more about social stuff than I do, and a lot more about “people” than I do. Basically, I leave it up to others to work out their feelings. I’m just looking to pass on and/or find more info.

    And, as far as it goes, I tend to get annoyed when people try and soften the blow when telling me something. Just tell me what’s wrong, and let me figure out how to fix it. Don’t butter me up, save my feelings, or spin it so it isn’t as harsh. Don’t feel bad if telling me upsets me, hurts my feelings, or otherwise causes me negative reactions. That is my problem, not yours.

    And lets be fair about this. There were plenty of women over there being ‘confrontational’ too, and from what I saw most of the so called threatening men didn’t become that way until the snarkiness started showing itself. I mostly give what I get, so as debates got confrontational, so did I. I realize now that some of it was my delivery ruffling feathers, but see above for my outlook on that one. Not my problem to make sure your feelings don’t get hurt.

    Or I’m simply well on my way to being a crotchety old bastard. :-p

  131. 131
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    BB, I find your succinct definition of the Millenial generation fascinating and accurate. They do not believe in trade-offs, they are indeed the sex-stimulated generation, they demand examples, and, gosh, their parents are just so boring!

    They strike me as exceedingly immature, with said immaturity masked by lots of important-sounding credentials and activities that don’t mean shit. Oh, you’re studying to be a doctor? Can you tell me why Warfarin is starting to be phased out of service and the implications of Obama-care on hospital computer order processing? Cause I can, and I don’t care how many soup kitchen organization you chair or are treasurer of or whatever…

  132. 132
    Morpheus says:

    IMO, at least one mandatory component of actually maturing as an adult is understanding that most of life involves trade-offs. Opening certain doors often involves closing others, and it is simply unrealistic to think you can optimize everything.

    As just one example, if you really want to climb the ladder in corporate America and be on the fast track, that involves sacrificing many other things in your life. You absolutely CANNOT optimize personal relationships, personal leisure, and say personal health and fitness and simultaneously have any hope of being CFO by 40 or 45.

    I think it borders on delusional to think you can “have it all”.

  133. 133
    deti says:

    I disagree that “some guys were too confrontational”. Susan was hawking HUS in its incarnation from late 2010 to about a year after Dalrockgate as THE place for men and women to discuss intergender relationships, few holds barred. Men were not “too confrontational”. It was simply that they were giving women there what they (said they) wanted: to discuss what men and women want from their relationships.

    The problem was that the girls weren’t hearing what they wanted, and they were hearing it from all kinds of men except the ones they wanted to hear it from: Good looking alpha men with a touch of beta. Hot, successful, good looking, relationship-minded men. Men like the players she had commenting there, Jesus Mahoney, Zach, and Jason773. But as HH has correctly pointed out many times, most men of that ilk don’t spend their time commenting on relationship blogs and don’t want to be bothered with it. And most women don’t want to hear relationship advice from the typical men who actually exist in real life: sexually frustrated married men, divorced men, “beta chumps”, and office cubicle drones. All such men, according to Susan Walsh, are just disgruntled, angry men and their experiences are not to be listened to or given any credence.

    These girls heard about what is happening in real life, and they didn’t want to hear it.

  134. 134

    “Or I’m simply well on my way to being a crotchety old bastard. :-p”

    I’ve got some spare time, do you want some tutoring from an expert c.o.b.? I could have been be a contender. I’ve got a few years on you, you can make up the distance. Never let your dreams slip away.

    More seriously, I wasn’t looking to name names or anything. Just point out that she had some help getting to this situation. Neither side has clean hands.

    Less seriously, STILL no one biting on this site being named in ‘my’ honour? Just and the Four Guys! Seriously? Damn you guys are a tough audience.

  135. 135
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    @Sir Nemesis #119

    “But will they? Will they rather abandon feminism and embrace natural gender roles, or will they demand that their de-facto husband, the welfare state, take further care of them?”

    I want to tie this in with what Morpheus said @114 about seeking out girls/women with red pill qualities.
    “The answer for men is to educate themselves, and then implement strategies consistent with their own objectives and internal principles. For men who are interested in long-term relationships/marriages one has to be on the lookout for the minority of women who basically already kind of “get” that bolded part either naturally or as a result of how they were raised.”

    I live in UMC University town. In general the generation of women coming up has not been raised to look ahead but to follow their feelings and drive for instant gratification, and most of all their parents run their lives. They don’t like controversy or conflict and lean towards the apathetic unless the heard is stirred up.
    One other thing, a universal truth in life is that each generation tends to intentionally diverge in approach to life then the previous. They don’t want to do things like their parents did and feel that they are smarter then them.

    The government money won’t be there and with increase in globalization how much longer will citizenship be definable. With the service sector jobs being taken over by technology they will find it harder to find jobs that pay and offer the benefits and lifestyle their parents enjoyed. Once life doesn’t turn out like it was promised by mommy and daddy and the state they will look for and turn towards the easy answers by following their instinctual feelings/drives.

    Will this be a full blown refute of feminism? No, but I think women will finally have their choice to become wives and mother’s vrs. career validated. I meet and often privately talk with many young women who feel they don’t have the choice and would chose differently if they could. Not as many you would like mind you but more then you would think and it grows every year.

    If anything the future will be more then ever before about finding and validating our individual choices. As Morpheus says you will have to be on the lookout they are there.

  136. 136

    I ought to point out that my long post above did not involve any correspondence with Susan. She got a copy of that post after I posted it here, but that’s all.

  137. 137
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    SS I have a question for you.
    How much do you think humor can change perceptions?
    On the way to work we listen to XM comedy radio and I am finding more humorists making jokes that would be perfectly at home here in the manosphere. There’s no denying that sadly Stephen Colbert or John Stewart are now taken as serious sources for news and information by the young. You may have an opportunity there, Satirist/ Humorist for the manosphere. ;)

  138. 138
    deti says:

    New HUS= New Coke circa 1985.

  139. 139
    ExNewYorker says:

    “New HUS= New Coke circa 1985.”

    In this case, I’m not sure Old Coke is ever coming back…

  140. 140
    Han Solo says:

    ExNewYorker,

    It most certainly isn’t coming back. I saw some of your very well-reasoned arguments over at HUS recently. Good job in trying to bring some sanity to the matter there but they seemed to fall mostly on deaf ears.

  141. 141
    ExNewYorker says:

    “Good job in trying to bring some sanity to the matter there but they seemed to fall mostly on deaf ears.”

    Yeah, and in the latest thread, yet another woman saying “My cousin had a child at 38!” therefore I can wait forever.

    The demographic that Susan is currently targeting basically wants validation that things will work out. Problem is, they don’t want to hear about the work and effort needed to make things “work out”.

  142. 142
    Han Solo says:

    ExNY

    Yes, there is a lot of wanting to hear that things will work out. The tone there used to be much more along the lines of “this is the stark reality–get on it” while now it is much more in line with feminist thought that there isn’t that much to worry about.

    The one thing you pointed out, about trying to paint men and women as equally to blame for fertility was very telling. From the Atlantic article, it says this,

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/men-have-biological-clocks-too/280673/

    “For one-third of couples the problem is the man’s, another third deal with a female’s issues, and the remaining third struggle with a combination of both.”

    But, as you point out, it doesn’t mention that the male problems are usually much less severe than the women’s and are more easy to remedy. This is a typical way that stats are twisted to tell whatever story is desired, in this case, that “See!!! You men are just as much a problem in fertility as women are!”

    But when you look at how far more men can be successfully and quickly treated by getting exercise, more sleep, a better diet or not bike riding as much than women can overcome their problems, the intended deception is revealed.

  143. 143

    @PP2
    “Satirist/ Humorist for the manosphere”

    What with me being the James Bond of the manosphere, I find much of my time tied up chasing Miss Moneypenny around the office, driving supercars about, shagging Pussy Galore etc and the dreary day-to-day secret agent dross as well, of course. I could tell you about it, but then I’d have to shoot you…

    Don’t get many LOLs when I try the humour out anyway. Not one bite on me claiming that this is my eponymously named site. TANJdammit

  144. 144
    Han Solo says:

    Swithunus

    “Just and the Four Guys!”

    LOL–now you’ll just claim I’m making it worse but I really did laugh when I read it originally. And yes, you were right there with us from the beginning and worked your subconscious magic on us to get that word, “just,” in their. :)

  145. 145

    @Han

    I just thought that it was time to unleash the truth…the time for modesty was over.

    I kind of wrong footed you all by changing names to leave the old one to gather dust as a marker for past times. My bad. It was a good name, it worked in a number of ways, as does Swithunus.

  146. 146
    Han Solo says:

    Also, it was nice to see over at alphagameplan.com that Desiderius–the same one who was falsely accused at HUS of being a p#dophile, announced he is now happily married.

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/10/savaged-by-statistical-sheep.html?showComment=1382614255654#c746091422040939383

  147. 147
    Han Solo says:

    Swith, I think it’s time for you to put off the saint and become the Just1x super hero again. :)

  148. 148

    All the best, Desiderius

  149. 149
    Ted D says:

    Glad to hear things worked out for Desi. That whole episode was one of the few times I got literally pissed off by the comments at “the blog of which we do not speak”. The Accusations were so far past uncalled for I really wanted to punch a bitch. I wasn’t annoyed or agitated, I was angry as hell. That was my first wake-up call that things were not as they seemed.

  150. 150
    Han Solo says:

    I agree, Ted, that was the first time I started to really see the ugly side of things there. Over time, it got worse and worse.

  151. 151
    Jimmy says:

    Really glad to hear that about Desi. Always a thoughtful and respectful poster, would be great if he found his way over here.

    Like you guys, the character assassination hit job on him really disgusted me. Should have seen the writing on the wall at that point.

  152. 152
    Han Solo says:

    Edit: letting bastiat deal with this

  153. 153
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Morpheus,

    Agreed on trade-offs. Maturity involves accepting that you cannot have it all. Period. There is simply no way to obtain every pleasure that a human could possibly experience, no way to have every experience a human could hope to find pleasure in.

    We have limited time and we have to make choices. Period.

  154. 154
    BuenaVista says:

    This false flag issue, I think, is going to be a larger one than prior media platforms addressed. I really lost a great deal of my residual affection and respect for Walsh when she decided to make money off of BB (for that is what it is: asserting HUS value by trammeling someone else’s).

    It is such attacks, which cannot be disproven if one wishes to retain a handle or alias, that may end discussion circles such as this one. I cannot participate and retain my effectiveness at my day job, if I use my real name. Very few of us could. This suppression is crucial to the so-called cathedral adherents.

  155. 155
    YOHAMI says:

    Lets rewrite that – Han can you delete the other one?

    ———

    Check this out if you want to understand the HUS character:

    http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-advocates-truthseekers/

    She’s not attacking because she thinks the statements are true, but because they are plausible, and she thinks she can win. That’s enough. If confronted with the truth, she will retreat in rethoric, use projection, blaming, changing frames, and calling victim.

    If she was a truth seeker and thought Bastian is a Catfish, she would get infuriated and want to get to the bottom of it.

    As a bullshit advocate though, she will use that as ammunition. If confronted with evidence that Bastiat indeed is who he says, she’ll just find new ammunition.

    Think politics. They dont attack each other out of concern or truth seeking. The objective is to win. Truth doesnt have value – it only has value as long as is useful, and its only one of several weapons in the arsenal. Dont let truth interfere.

    Your concern for her only means she did the first part of her game well. She got you invested and ready to be manipulated / abused. Your initial disorientation when she pulls the abuse will serve her to bring you closer and double the take, before she steps back and decides the conflict is resolved for now. But she will push it and increase it next time.

    Im amazed she pulled 78 bans at the same time. She was REALLY doing trying to pull a big one back then.

    What she is doing now is the same as scientologists do to their attackers, or what a psychologically unstable ex wife would do in court to fuck you up for everyone so she can gain the upper hand in the breakup.

    Do you want to help her?

    Give this kind of character political power and she would escalate to do mass killings.

    BTW this change of allies means she now wants to bring some other people closer. Give her some time and she’ll repeat the charade with them. Sit back and watch.

  156. 156
    OffTheCuff says:

    XNY: My wife’s mother was 45 when she bore her. Everyone knows an older mother! … Then again, she is the youngest of six, and her oldest sister is 25 years older. Do the math.

    BB: I wonder of the “concerned author” actually invented your predator namesake. You couldn’t be attacked directly, due to your status and unfailingly polite tone, so, the only way to discredit your views would be via indirect character assassination.

  157. 157

    “I agree, Ted, that was the first time I started to really see the ugly side of things there. Over time, it got worse and worse.”

    Don’t forget that women aren’t naturally imbued with a sense of justice and have no innate sense of morality in general. They also lack any concept of honor. Devlin has written about this many times.

  158. 158
    Liz says:

    #159: HH, if 50+ percent of the population truly had no sense of justice, morality, or honor, the world would be a much worse place than it is.

  159. 159

    No, it wouldn’t be, because men have created codes of morality and justice, both for themselves and also all other people to abide by.

  160. 160
    Liz says:

    Male penitentiaries and fraternities must be very moral and honorable places.

    There could never be enough force to suppress the violation of the laws if the vast majority of a society didn’t share and independently adhere to certain values about right conduct. Self-imposed values keep a society viable and civilized, not the law alone.

  161. 161

    I bet male penitentiaries and fraternities are, indeed, more moral and honorable places.than female penitentiaries and fraternities.

  162. 162
    Liz says:

    I wouldn’t want to spend any time in either.

  163. 163
    Liz says:

    I have a pretty high sense of honor and morality myself, and I’m not some special rainbow unicorn.

  164. 164

    That’s your personal issue, it isn’t my concern.

    To get back on topic: can you picture a male-oriented blog, written by an older man satisfied with his marriage, having exactly the same type of attitude and policy as HUS? That’s what I’m talking about.

  165. 165
    Liz says:

    I haven’t read enough of HUS to answer knowledgeably.
    I suspect not, based on what I’ve read since this thread opened (pretty much my first exposure to HUS).

  166. 166
    Liz says:

    Just to add further, I don’t see anything I’d group under the category of actual ‘sociopath’ from the site owner, however (which would fit the description of a person without honor, morals, or any sense of justice). I think she’s attempting to cater to a certain crowd. That might be ignorance, or folly, but I don’t think it’s sociopathic.

  167. 167
    Ted D says:

    Liz – I have a theory on the honor and duty thing.

    I think that some folks, a small percentage of the whole, are simply born wired for honor, morality, and duty. NO, they aren’t born with a sense of what that all means, but they are wired to accept and understand such systems easily. These are the folks that seem to be mature and responsible from an early age. The quiet kid. The responsible young teen that gets their shit done, follows the rules, and tries to generally be a good person.

    Then you have the rest. They can and will obey laws, but only if it benefits them directly, or doesn’t cause them any discomfort. These are folks that speed and bitch when they get a ticket. Folks that will follow the rules when pushed, but are just as likely to do their own thing as long as they won’t get caught.

    I think once upon a time, we simply had more of the first and less of the second. However, continually falling sexual morals coupled with fewer rules and less personal responsibility allowed many to simply do what they wanted, and what they wanted was to screw like rabbits.

    I fall into the camp that believes most of humanity behaves simply because they are afraid of the consequences if they don’t. Remove those consequences, and those people will do whatever they damn well please.

    One of my favorite quotes from a movie is this one from Men in Black:
    “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”

    We seem to have an overabundance of “people” but not too may “persons”.

  168. 168
    Liz says:

    Ted, I do agree that some are more “hard wired” to be honorable than others (I’m reminded of the story of two brothers raised by an abusive drunk. One became extremely successful the other einded up in prison, and when asked why theirs lives turned out that way each had essentially the same answer, “With that kind of a parent, how else could I have turned out?”). The majority of people are sheep. And the majority of people are rather stupid as a collective (that Men in Black quote is actually one of my favorites).

    But we’re all the product of our environments from social conditioning. I mentioned before that society would look a lot worse, but that was probably inaccurate. Human beings, a species that rely on social connections for survival, would have ceased to exist long ago if over half the population was comprised so largely of inherent sociopaths. And there’s a reason why most every person in the room is happy when the hero “wins” in a movie. They usually do have some sense of honor, and morality (which doesn’t always mirror what the law reflects, notice some of the best film heroes work outside of the law in the interest of justice, and everyone likes them more for it).

    Heck, even other primates do:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html

    http://www.livescience.com/2044-monkeys-fuss-inequality.html

  169. 169
    Ted D says:

    Liz – “Human beings, a species that rely on social connections for survival, would have ceased to exist long ago if over half the population was comprised so largely of inherent sociopaths. ”

    I agree fully. However, take into account that as a species we are reproducing at an almost alarming rate. (overall. I realize many Western countries are seeing a reproduction deficit, but even then we are still increasing the overall population of the planet.) So, as more of us are born, more sociopaths will be as well. In addition, our modern society allows such sociopaths to blend in and survive, in many cases even reproducing. (How many women get pregnant on a P&D? How many sociopaths can manage to hold a relationship together for long enough to have a child?) And, not only can they hide in our society, in many cases they can thrive because we reward the selfish, the over-confident, the flashy and edgy folks with money and status.

    I truly believe we are PROMOTING narcissistic tendencies in folks, and certainly providing an environment were sociopaths can thrive. This is practically the perfect sociopath breeding ground.

  170. 170
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    Liz and Ted,
    I’m in agreement. But I think women in particular are more willing work outside the law or bend the rules because of emotional empathy. This is called situational ethics.

    HH, Is a woman’s natural sense of justice you spoke of like what I wrote above? Please will you explain what you mean by honor?

  171. 171

    I suppose you could read Kipling’s “The Female of The Species”.

  172. 172
    YOHAMI says:

    Liz,

    “That might be ignorance, or folly, but I don’t think it’s sociopathic.”

    You have to give her time. You’re not going to catch a BPD or N plots with a snapshot.

  173. 173
    YOHAMI says:

    Liz,

    About that monkey study:

    Getting upset about other people having more rewards tells us nothing about their sense of fairness and justice, it tells us more about their selfishness and self preservation.

    We could talk about “Fairness and justice” if the monkey getting more rewards would naturally share them with the other monkey.

    We could talk about “Fairnes and Justice” if the monkeys apply a system to value each activity and reward and then adhere to it, and punish the ones who dont adhere, and, more importantly, dont change their minds about the code when convenient.

    * * *

    Men have a code of honor and justice because we’re wired to fight and rank each other. That ranking needs a system. That honor wiring is why we have a hierarchy with alpha, betas, omegas, and why when men enter a room they automatically sort each other and then keep that ranking mostly intact. Men do codes, learn codes, adhere to codes. Women dont, or, the women’s model is fluid, rather than strict.

    The women’s social order is a circumference with a centre, the male order is a ladder.

    Even if you have a strong sense of honor and justice, Liz, it is probably its probably very different to what a man would call a sense of honor and justice.

    For example, you thought that being irritated when you dont get the same rewards other people get for the same amount work, meant you had a sense of honor and justice.

  174. 174
    Liz says:

    Yohami: “Even if you have a strong sense of honor and justice, Liz, it is probably its probably very different to what a man would call a sense of honor and justice.”

    You might be right. I don’t place people in a social hierarchy to determine their relevance (to my knowledge, it’s definitely something I would try not to do). I do volunteer my time (quite a lot of my time, though less than some) and help others without the expectation of anything in return. I support what I think is right, and have stood up for others in the moment of truth (though my moments of truth were pretty mild…social ostracization isn’t like a gun in the face). Ect.

    “For example, you thought that being irritated when you dont get the same rewards other people get for the same amount work, meant you had a sense of honor and justice.”
    The study pertained to monkeys and demonstrated they have a sense of morality (right and wrong, aka fair play). I don’t think they are high enough thinkers to actually conceptualize honor and justice. My apologies if I was vague, just thought the study interesting and related, though somewhat tangentially.

  175. 175
    Ted D says:

    Liz – “I don’t think they are high enough thinkers to actually conceptualize honor and justice”

    I believe that just about everyone has some sense of right or wrong. Thing is, not everyone cares much about the difference. And, to be honorable (by my definition anyway) you MUST be concerned with right and wrong AND act in accordance. Living by your code of right and wrong is being honorable. Living in spite of it is something else entirely.

  176. 176
    Liz says:

    I agree, Ted. Seems my concept of honor and justice isn’t so very different after all.

  177. 177
    YOHAMI says:

    Liz,

    “You might be right. I don’t place people in a social hierarchy to determine their relevance (to my knowledge, it’s definitely something I would try not to do). ”

    How do you determine their relevance?

  178. 178
    Liz says:

    #179: That’s an interesting question.
    I think I treat most everyone with equal respect, unless and until they give me a reason to believe they should be treated otherwise.

  179. 179
    YOHAMI says:

    Liz,

    “I treat most everyone with equal respect, unless and until they give me a reason to believe they should be treated otherwise.”

    Well, it’s all about those reasons.

    In men its going to be based on how well they perform on a given set of rules. From sports to you name it. Its always around a code.

    What are yours?

    I suspect it depends on how they treat you back, or how they treat others?

  180. 180
    Ted D says:

    “You might be right. I don’t place people in a social hierarchy to determine their relevance (to my knowledge, it’s definitely something I would try not to do). ”

    How do you determine their relevance?”

    I was actually wondering this myself. I think its largely the difference between pack mentality, and herd mentality.

    In a pack, it is essential that each member have a clear knowledge of what the other can and will do in any circumstance. You want to know who can be depended on and how when shit hits the fan. So, it makes sense that in packs each member is evaluated and ranked. Not only does this solidify who are the most valuable for any situation (fight, hunting, etc.) but it also clearly shows who can be sacrificed if it comes down to it. (the worst ranking members of the pack are the least valuable and the easiest to do without. Harsh but true)

    In a herd, the idea is that all members are to be valued and saved. Yes, there are leaders in herds just as in packs, but overall the herd isn’t evaluated on individual merits, because the concept is to simply breed as much as possible and survive with sheer volume. Weak members are often left behind when attacked, but its just as likely that the herd may try to defend even a weak member IF defense is an option with minimal risk.

    So think of it this way:
    In a pack, it is important that each member be able to function at their specific tasks, sometimes autonomously, and with a degree of precision. (think a hunting pack of wolves that will break off into smaller groups and use tactics to snare prey) In a herd, whats most important is that each member follows the rest and stays alive. Conformity is paramount, because non-conformists don’t follow easily. Herd members should be easily swayed/convinced to follow the rest, and individual thinking/acting is generally considered a nuisance.

    Now, humans are generally herd animals in that we are all rather social. However, between men and women (as individual groups) men function MUCH more like a pack than a herd, and women are the opposite. So, men will rank each other and place them on the “ladder” as described above, almost instinctively. A man in the company of other men will quickly determine who the AMOG is, who his henchmen are, who the outcasts are, and where they can hopefully slip into the ladder. (average man anyway. How they react depends largely on where the individual man falls in the general hierarchy. Meaning, and alpha won’t necessarily capitulate for another alpha, but he may simply tone it back a bit if he isn’t in the mood for a competition.)

    Women tend to form cliques, which are really just small herds. There is often a “leader” but overall the goal is to always be “in good” with the rest of the members. Going against the grain can get you the boot, which is the worst punishment you can inflict on a herd member. So, often times individuals will behave in ways that aren’t necessarily congruent with their core beliefs simply to be accepted by the herd. (this can go from keeping quiet when other women talk smack about their husbands all the way up to groups of women all getting divorced around the same time.)

  181. 181
    Liz says:

    Interesting subject, this. Isn’t often I think in depth about specifics of honor, justice, morals, or why I think the way I do.
    “I suspect it depends on how they treat you back, or how they treat others?”

    Both, I’d say. Assuming my rationale is different, it’s still a far cry from saying women have different rationalizations/reactions/ways of assessing justice and morality than to assert that they have no innate sense of morality or justice at all.

  182. 182
    Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, Susan slut Walsh still at it, huh?! Oh happy days!

  183. 183
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    Yohami and Ted,
    Thank you for the insight, it is what I thought men and women have different approaches to justice and honor.

    But would you say both are needed?

  184. 184
    YOHAMI says:

    Liz,

    So your rationale to differentiate people is indeed how they treat you and how they treat others?

    If so, do you notice how this makes you the core center of the “justice”. You like people who like you and dislike people who dislike you. If you were in power and in charge of mass murdering people, the basis would be how much you like them. Without a “logic” structure for your liking.

    In men the same happens but with a structure.

    I dont like men who like me. I like men who succeed at what I want to succeed. I like them because we share a code.

    And I dont dislike men who dislike me. I dislike men who are failures at what I want to succeed at. Men who instead of inspire me, bring me down.

    This is how rivalry in men can lead to deep friendships: because you compete against men who share something vital for you, you understand each other, and in the competition, you grow stronger.

    While competition among women is simply destructive and predatory.

    This is why we say women dont have justice and honor.

    Men have the “let the best man win”. A man is willing to lose if that makes the code stronger.

    While a woman is… different. Theres no code. Everything is about her.

  185. 185
    YOHAMI says:

    practicallyperfect2

    “But would you say both are needed?”

    Sure. You need a father telling you the code and a mother embracing you no matter what you do.

    The male code is impersonal, its good to deal in the abstract and in the big scheme of things. The female form is interpersonal, good to deal with the ones you love.

    If I become a thief and I rob a bank and my family discovers it, I’d rather have the female treatment than the male treatment. Let the state prosecute me and want to punish me because I failed at the code – but dont rob me of the love of my family.

    A full male – code society would have no compassion in this regard.

    On the other side. If I compete on a tennis tournament or at life, or in the big social scheme of things, I want to win and lose based off merits – depending on how well I perform at the code, I want it to be fair – instead of the liked ones, the connected ones amassing the success regardless of how well they perform.

    So we need both, each should have its place.

    I’d love to see the female one gone from the big scheme of things though.

  186. 186
    Liz says:

    Yohami: “So your rationale to differentiate people is indeed how they treat you and how they treat others? If so, do you notice how this makes you the core center of the “justice”. You like people who like you and dislike people who dislike you.

    That’s half right.
    The other half of the equation is “how they treat others”. It isn’t only about me. An asshole is an asshole, a cunt a cunt even if they treat me very well…because they mistreat others.

  187. 187
    YOHAMI says:

    Liz,

    “It isn’t only about me. An asshole is an asshole, a cunt a cunt even if they treat me very well…because they mistreat others.”

    Right, but since they are mean or whatever, you’re going to mistreat them, right? which means the people who like them, wont like you. And voila, you’ve got two tribes.

  188. 188
    Ted D says:

    Liz – “But would you say both are needed?”

    Absolutely. However (and you aren’t going to like this one bit) I also believe that because of this difference, men and women are better at specific tasks related to justice and fairness, and horrible at others.

    As Yohami pointed out, I believe that men overall are fairer when it comes to basing praise or criticism on merit. Meaning, men tend to compliment or rip up other men based on how well they did X. (X being any number of things from work to sports and everything in between) Women tend to reward/scold based on how they feel about the other person, regardless of their utility. So, a woman manager might “dig” on a co-worker not because they fail at their job, but because he/she doesn’t like that person.

    Personally, I think that in general, men are better off in positions that are to be judged on merit. So, work related, as well as legal aspects. Women are better equipped to deal with situations that are more fluid morally speaking, and need to be based on feelings and empathy over the rule of law.

    Of course, this leads down the path of all kinds of nastiness like “should women be allowed to vote” and whatnot. I’ll tell you honestly, not only do I think most women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, I don’t think most MEN should be allowed to vote. Only because it is crystal clear to me that the vast majority of legal voters DO NOT bother to get educated on exactly who they are voting for. It is a popularity contest instead of a measure of effectiveness. People get elected on popularity, not how well they can do the job. (or, put another way, elections are VERY MUCH a femcentric function these days.)

    I’ve never denied that I’m an elitist. :p

  189. 189
    Liz says:

    #189: Yes, actions matter. I’m pretty sure actions matter to you, too…though you’re not a chick (to my knowledge).

    I don’t know about “mistreatment” per se. I ignore people who are “mean” to others, or I stand up to those others to whom they are “mean” and if they’re mean to me I try not to respond in kind, but I won’t go out of my way to help them, and if I had to I would fight back to the best of my ability. And if they violate the law I call the cops.

  190. 190
    Ted D says:

    Liz – well perhaps you are more inclined towards “male” perceptions of justice and fairness? I’d say that my wife is similar, in that she tends to judge people on their merits far more than on how she feels about them. And, it shows in her work ethic. She can and does work with people she dislikes without issue, because she respects that those folks get the job done. And, she isn’t overly obsessed with people liking her.

    It seems that many/most people are FAR too concerned with being liked, and far too unconcerned about being right/moral/fair/honorable. That goes for men and women, but IME women are a bit more over the top with the desire to be liked by all. Most guys I know could give a shit, as long as they have a few close friends. (and a few don’t even need that!)

  191. 191
    Liz says:

    I don’t know Ted. Maybe.

    But I can’t think of a person in the world I mistreat, and there are a LOT of people I don’t particularly care for. I’m kind of lost at this point of the discussion. Kind of starting to remind me of dueling banjos (sadly, I’m no musician).

    “Fire on the Mountain.” Run, boys, run!
    The Devil’s in the house of the rising sun;
    Chicken’s in the bread pan picking out dough.
    Granny, does your dog bite? No, child, no.

    :-)

  192. 192
    YOHAMI says:

    Liz,

    But, see, again? this is not about you. We’re talking males and females approaches, as a general thing, because here I am, a man, talking about big scheme things. While your natural tendency is go back to yourself and tell us how you particularly do things.

    Yet, Im sure you know plenty of women and plenty of men and you’re able to perceive the spectrum?

    Or is in your mind everyone the same and individually unique? do you see girls living and dying by codes and standards, and men as a whole … you get it.

  193. 193
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    Yohami

    “I’d love to see the female one gone from the big scheme of things though.”

    I agree. The equality of women is only for the elites and ironically the more “equal” things get the more unfair life becomes. Yesterday morning my stomach churned as I watched a news interview about a new book coming out called “The XX Factor: How the Rise of the Working Woman has Created a Far Less Equal World. The panelist all women and one man were less than sympathetic to the plight of what is becoming the ‘servant class”, ironically that servant class is made up mostly of low wage women.

    Ted,
    Women wanting to get along is partly to gain the protection of the heard and to be protected from the heard. As you said there are some like myself, and I won’t speak for her but I think Liz would agree, who think with more of a male perceptions of justice and morality.

    I don’t know how to add links but if anyone is interested go to:
    http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/do-working-women-make-a-less-equal-world-56127555891

  194. 194
    Morpheus says:

    Liz,

    The key difference that Yohami is highlighting is that whether it is just how the person treats you and/or others you are evaluating based on the person rather then a set of abstract principles. That is what we are talking about with code.

    I’ll give you an example. In my experience, women have an almost impossible time objectively evaluating things like the looks of a guys, or an argument someone makes, or a performance IF THEY DISLIKE the person. Their evaluation is tied up in how they perceive the person. Men generally have a better ability to step outside their feeling and stay 100% impartial with respect to some code or principles of evaluation.

    I’ll give you a real life example. I work with a woman I despise. She really is a horrendous human being and is disliked by many co-workers. She has tried to sabotage my work. That said, I can objectively look at her spreadsheet skills, and say she is a 9.5 to 10 when it comes to working with Excel. If you reversed the situations, most women could not divorce their personal feelings to render an objective evaluation.

  195. 195
    Liz says:

    “But, see, again? this is not about you. We’re talking males and females approaches, as a general thing, because here I am, a man, talking about big scheme things. While your natural tendency is go back to yourself and tell us how you particularly do things.”

    Yohami, I’m responding to these questions:
    “Right, but since they are mean or whatever, you’re going to mistreat them, right? which means the people who like them, wont like you. And voila, you’ve got two tribes.”

    “So your rationale to differentiate people is indeed how they treat you and how they treat others? If so, do you notice how this makes you the core center of the “justice”. You like people who like you and dislike people who dislike you.”

    “So your rationale to differentiate people is indeed how they treat you and how they treat others?”

    These questions are phrased towards me. I am responding in kind. I was general before when not answering direct questions about myself. It’s a little silly to ask me direct questions and then claim I’m making it “all about myself” when I respond. I suppose I could speak in the plural second person…I’ve seen that a few times. Has it got a mouse in its pocketses precious? But I might get banned for lunacy.

  196. 196
    Liz says:

    @Morpheus: “If you reversed the situations, most women could not divorce their personal feelings to render an objective evaluation.”

    Okay, yes. I’ll concede that’s probably true.

  197. 197
    Morpheus says:

    @Morpheus: “If you reversed the situations, most women could not divorce their personal feelings to render an objective evaluation.”

    Okay, yes. I’ll concede that’s probably true.

    Liz,

    JUSTICE requires impartiality with respect to the application of unchanging principles. How you feel about the person is irrelevant. That’s why women don’t do justice very well. Their personal feelings infect and distort the evaluation process.

    What women do better is compassion because compassion does require an evaluation of the person. A person who treats others well deserves more compassion than a selfish asshole.

    But as Yohami points out, there are spheres of human relations where justice should be all that matters with NO compassion, and there are spheres where compassion should supersede justice.

  198. 198
    YOHAMI says:

    Liz,

    I ask you personal questions because you’re talking about yourself

    “I have a pretty high sense of honor and morality myself, and I’m not some special rainbow unicorn.”

    See. Im making points about how men and women in general do this, and you respond:

    “You might be right. I don’t place people in a social hierarchy to determine their relevance (to my knowledge, it’s definitely something I would try not to do). ”

    How do you determine their relevance?

    So if you want to make it about you, lets make it about you and reach the big scheme of things by digging deeper. Because this thing about making it about you is part of it.

    How can one have a strong sense of justice, when the primary motivator is oneself?

    Justice will more often than not fuck you up than do you any favors.

    And males are more likely to embrace that turd and work their way up than women.

  199. 199
    YOHAMI says:

    And Liz, sorry if Im too blunt with you in my approach. See, for me nothing of this is personal, even if the subject is a person.

    This is how I got banned at HUS ;-)

    Stop me whenever you want.

  200. 200
    Liz says:

    Lol! You’re not too blunt Yohami. :-)

    Just one more word and then I’ll stop this bunny trail (mea culpa! I’m the one who took everyone here). Well…a few words. Rather, a question. I’ll agree with Morpheus’ take on women and compassion versus “justice” (I’m a tiny bit rankled on specifics, justice doesn’t equal law afterall…but won’t branch us off into another trail again, it’s true enough I’ll concede that point also).

    How is compassion possible for a morally bankrupt group of individuals? I submit, they aren’t. We’re just different.

  201. 201
    Ted D says:

    “Justice will more often than not fuck you up than do you any favors.

    And males are more likely to embrace that turd and work their way up than women.”

    I’d say there are certainly men that not only embrace it, but excel at it. Men are generally better equipped to be disliked because of our principles. We are usually better equipped to handle criticism. We are used to “going it alone” because often we find that we are indeed alone. Some men get a ton of pride from it in fact.

    Of course there are women that are capable as well. But, there’s a reason they usually earn the title “ball buster” in the office. Because, again generally, women are not expected to behave in a masculine manner.

  202. 202
    Ted D says:

    Liz – dear, you’ve been around here long enough to know we don’t mind thread derailments. (provided the subject is interesting anyway…) Far as it goes, although the current discussion isn’t directed at the post, I find it very interesting. Don’t get worried that you’re sidetracking everyone. If someone wants to pull it back on track, they’ll grab it and go.

    The only thing that will get our ire up is intentional trolling. I’m even OK with the occasional accidental troll, because shit happens. :p

  203. 203
    Morpheus says:

    Rather, a question. I’ll agree with Morpheus’ take on women and compassion versus “justice” (I’m a tiny bit rankled on specifics, justice doesn’t equal law afterall…but won’t branch us off into another trail again, it’s true enough I’ll concede that point also).

    To be clear, I wasn’t equating justice with the law. There could be unjust laws. The key point is the that THE CODE or SET OF PRINCIPLES/STANDARDS used for evaluation sit entirely separate from ANY evaluation of the individual person. How you FEEL about the person is 100% irrelevant to an impartial application of whatever principles/standards are in effect.

    How is compassion possible for a morally bankrupt group of individuals? I submit, they aren’t. We’re just different.

    But they still deserve equal impartial application of the principles. That is the point. That is the difference between the “male” system and “female” system of evaluation. If I am going out on the hunting party, I want the best group of hunters with me as evaluated by the standards, even if I despise one of the guys as a person. It is a question of setting personal feelings aside. I submit again that this is something most women find tremendously difficult.

    I see it in the workplace all the time. If I had a female boss, I would focus more effort on getting her to like me as a person rather then delivering the best possible work product. I will get better reviews if she likes me than if I delivered a stellar work product but she disliked me.

    The problem is there are areas of human interaction where personal feelings and their impact are counterproductive.

  204. 204
    YOHAMI says:

    I would just replace “compassion” with “fine tuned preference”

    Its said that women show more compassion. And it’s true, except its for selected targets. At the same time women show no compassion or hatred in equal manner. Say, creeps, bugs, rival girls, etc.

    So, fine tuned preference.

    A corrupt group of individuals… what makes them corrupt exactly? that they have no rigid set of rules but they are all preference? then they will show unlimited compassion (preference) fot whoever pleases them, and infinite cruelty for whoever displeases them.

    Like when a mom has a favourite son.

    Or pushed to the extreme, like what happens in wars and the winning army takes new territory. Compassion for allies vs cruelty for the conquered.

    Unless there’s some actual code going on. Some conquerors showed respect for the conquered. Like in sports when they shake hands afterwards. The more you substract the code, the uglier it gets. Yet compassion operates in that same lack of code realm.

  205. 205
    Han Solo says:

    Yohami 157

    Interesting post on the advocate and the truth seeker. HUS definitely fits more within the former than the latter, though draped with great claims of the latter.

    The new allies are more mainstream and feminist-acceptable advertisers and HuffPo. IMO, the whole move have been orchestrated over the last year or so to be able to be more palatable for such places to try and increase the ad revenue (and notice how the site is larded up with so many ads it takes forever just to get to the 2nd post on the main page).

  206. 206
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    Yohami
    “A corrupt group of individuals… what makes them corrupt exactly? that they have no rigid set of rules but they are all preference? then they will show unlimited compassion (preference) fot whoever pleases them, and infinite cruelty for whoever displeases them.”

    In my experience what makes a group corrupt is unchecked power. Code can be discarded when their is no threat of a counterbalance of power that can enforce the code. Take Christian principles which guided most of western civilization’s Kings and principalities and some would consider the highest code. These principles were and are frequently discarded or twisted in favor of the agenda of those in power.

    Feminism is compassion run amuck.

  207. 207
    Marellus says:

    Great thread this. Keep it up.

  208. 208
    Han Solo says:

    HH2

    “Don’t forget that women aren’t naturally imbued with a sense of justice and have no innate sense of morality in general. They also lack any concept of honor. Devlin has written about this many times.”

    I wouldn’t say they have no innate sense of morality or justice, but that they do lean more towards compassion for those they deem worthy (such as children or someone they’re madly in love with) and are more prone to situational ethics.

    I would view it as men and women each on a spectrum with the average value of men more towards liking to set up and follow codes of justice.

    It makes sense evolutionarily. Women’s prime activity (outside of exercising whatever mate choice they could and having babies) was to raise the babies and small children. Getting their babies and small children to survive beyond those most-vulnerable years was the most important thing they could do (once the babies were had). And since babies and small children don’t have any or much moral ability then it makes no sense for a mother to be overly strict when the baby spits up the food or cries when you don’t want it to. Mothers that focused on equality of outcome for the babies probably helped their genes pass on more than ones who were trying to set up some code for which babies deserved survival more (though in extreme situations of poverty or evacuation, such a brutal decision might have to be made).

    OTOH, men were more involved in governing the tribe and dealing with external threats and needed to make sure that things actually worked and that people were contributing and not destroying the tribe so it makes more sense that they would be more focused on creating a system that works, usually one that had some somewhat-sensible code that people could follow and know would be enforced.

    None of this is to say that men can’t be compassionate and see that their code doesn’t apply sometimes and exceptions need to be made to follow some deeper principle they hold or that women don’t have a sense of fairness or justice. I think that most women do, especially when they’re in a non-emotional or less-emotional frame. But fire up those emotions and the emotions usually rule the day.

  209. 209

    The link is to an interminable report of a parade in Norwich, CT. It was in 1909, celebrating several important anniversaries. I happened on it looking for some information about the town, my father’s home town where I lived when he got back from the war until I was about five.
    Point is the number of organizations. I suspect that many fewer people were autonomous then, having one sort or another of allegiance to one or more civic organizations.
    With the exception of technological issues, some parts of our progress don’t seem that great.

    http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/william-c-gilman/the-celebration-of-the-two-hundred-and-fiftieth-anniversary-of-the-settlement-of-ala/page-12-the-celebration-of-the-two-hundred-and-fiftieth-anniversary-of-the-settlement-of-ala.shtml

    Question is what this does to and for men which would support their view of themselves as important, and thus impress women with their confidence.

    OTOH, I am reminded of Mencken’s observation, “The Knights of Dominion were so resplendent in their regalia their masters would hardly have known them.”

    Whatever, it served a need and we’re without it now.
    Does it make a difference?

    BTW, the middies were from four cruisers or battle cruisers in New London, while the kids were on their summer cruise.

  210. 210
    Liz says:

    #208: “In my experience what makes a group corrupt is unchecked power. Code can be discarded when their is no threat of a counterbalance of power that can enforce the code. Take Christian principles which guided most of western civilization’s Kings and principalities and some would consider the highest code. These principles were and are frequently discarded or twisted in favor of the agenda of those in power.

    Feminism is compassion run amuck.”

    Very well said, PP!

  211. 211
    Han Solo says:

    Related to drunken sex and what feminism is about, here is a comment I left at Elusive Wapiti’s:

    http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-one-way-spin-on-campus-sexual.html?showComment=1382729999193#c3058317842149383910

    HanSolo said…
    Yes, of course, fairness would make both drunk parties equally responsible but that’s not really what feminism wants. Feminism wants to apply the fairness standards to all areas where women are behind and ignore it in areas where men are. This way they, feminist women (and as a consequence, other women) can have their cake and eat it too.

    Also, much of today’s society is set up to enable women to have access to higher-status or more attractive males and keep the average and lower males at bay.

    With so much discretion in the hands of women to accuse sexual assault or not, who are they more likely to accuse? The drunk, hot, high-status guy they drunkenly have sex with? Or, if it were to even actually happen, the lower male? Obviously, the lower male. This all serves to instill relatively more fear and caution in the lower males than the upper, causing them to self-police while the upper males won’t need to exercise as much caution (though, they should).

    It also give the women some leverage over the hotter males they have sex with because then the threat of an accusation will have a slight influence on the upper males in not abandoning the women as quickly.

  212. 212
    practicallyperfect2 says:

    @Liz,
    Thanks
    I was always been an outlier (not a math or stats person so I looked up the term) and have personally experienced the Heards disfavor. But being on the outside has allowed me to watch the dynamics. The guys are really right, women have a hard time setting their emotions aside but the compassion only extends as far as you follow along with their agenda. I remember when I first really saw it in myself. Now I try to wait before I react or pass judgment. It is so hard to do. But what men and women bring is necessary for balance.

  213. 213
    Jen says:

    Deti – most rapes are never reported due to the female or male victim feeling shame or feeling “responsible” for the rape. This is why the estimates never coincide with the actual rape statistics provided by law enforcement. There seems to be some resentment here concerning women/girls who get drunk and and end up date-raped. Those situations are rarely reported because the women feel partially responsible and feel shame. Any DA will tell you that they rarely prosecute such cases, if reported, because of a lack of evidence.

    I agree that different groups twist the statistics to suit their own agendas. I just want to emphasize that rape and sex crimes in general are underreported. Do not confuse the individual rape victim with the groups that loudly proclaim various “facts” about rape – on both sides of the aisle.

  214. 214
    Han Solo says:

    Jen, there’s no resentment here towards any woman who has really been raped. There is no attempt to make the numbers appear lower than they really are.

    What is opposed by me, and others similar to me, is making the categories for what counts as rape and sexual assault so broad that it includes many things that reasonable people, including most of the women surveyed themselves that were counted as victims, would not consider rape or assault.

    What is opposed is the unfair double standard that if two people are equally drunk then it’s the man who’s at fault but not the woman.

    Don’t try to find some equivalency between what we’re saying here as the opposite of what feminists are doing. There is no equivalency. We are promoting fair treatment that desires prosecution and prevention of true rapists, and likewise for false accusers. We want common sense laws. Not laws or university policies that are horribly biased against men.

    No one here is saying that men should be able to rape passed out women.

    Got it?

  215. 215
    Han Solo says:

    Furthermore, Jen, I haven’t read anyone here denying that actual rape and sexual assault crimes are underreported. It seems fairly obvious that that would be the case since not all victims will report.

  216. 216
    Jen says:

    Han – Thanks for the clarification.

  217. 217
    ExNewYorker says:

    @OffTheCuff

    “XNY: My wife’s mother was 45 when she bore her. Everyone knows an older mother! … Then again, she is the youngest of six, and her oldest sister is 25 years older. Do the math.”

    Yes, we all know an older mother. Of course, they’re the ones that usually tell you “don’t wait like I did”, or they already have a bunch of kids, so they weren’t operating in the “may never have any kids” zone. The women who read those Atlantic articles, or get the “your fertility decreases in a very minor way” message, well, often they’re putting off even having their first child till late.

    That was one of the subtle points in one of the articles. The woman who was saying that female fertility doesn’t really fall that fast had a list of recommendations, the first one being “Have your last child by 40″. So even she couldn’t whitewash reality beyond a certain point. I would bet that many readers “overlooked” the word “last”.

    It’s quite a cruel thing to deceive woman that way, but I guess to them, to make an omelet…

  218. 218
    ExNewYorker says:
  219. 219
    Morpheus says:

    It’s quite a cruel thing to deceive woman that way, but I guess to them, to make an omelet…

    What if they are actively complicit in their own self-deception? Do they deserve even the slightest bit of sympathy? Call me a bastard but I actually think schadenfreude is perfectly fine. If I take a dehydrated horse to water, and the stupid animal simply won’t drink, perhaps it deserves whatever it gets.

  220. 220
    ExNewYorker says:

    @Morpheus,

    You have a point, but I guess i mainly have sympathy for the younger, dumb and ignorant ones, who just needed a swift talking to get them back on the right track (I have a few female cousins who fell into this group, until my siblings and I did “mini-interventions”, so to speak).

    For the older ones that should know better, well, yeah, the level of sympathy is pretty low.

  221. 221

    Morpheus:
    Keep in mind that the blue pill exists, is all over the place, isn’t going away, came from someplace and can’t exist in the face of reality except with some massive support from someplace.
    Therefore; sympathy for the blue pill guys who’ve never heard anything else, or heard that the red pill is rape and misogyny is justified.
    Ditto young women getting the Word on such things. Explaining something–since you are the Enemy–to them isn’t going to overcome a life’s conditioning. Whether they can be reached or not, some are to be pitied.

  222. 222

    I think it would be best to just pretend she doesn’t exist. She’s not really that influential and quite frankly she just doesn’t matter, she isn’t worth the effort.

  223. 223

    […] goes off the rails in her criticism of the SMV graph. Related: HUS goes further off the rail in regards to rape stats. Related: A bit more on Susan’s intelelctual failure. Related: Man, Susan has taken a lot of […]

  224. 224

    http://tinyurl.com/n5ldx6x

    108 comments between 7 commenters and the hostess

  225. 225
    Morpheus says:

    108 comments between 7 commenters and the hostess

    Of which about half the commenters are “moderators” and a middle-aged woman with an odd fascination with the manosphere

  226. 226
    Han Solo says:

    The thing about her reboot is she can keep us from commenting (and after she deleted my comment and I asked her what was up with that and she refused to see plain reason or allow honest debate, I decided to never comment there again), she can keep her blog walls high and tight to not allow red pill ideas in but she can’t keep her readers (some of them apparently) from reading red pill sites and getting the low down from the men on what they really think about women. And since the customer is always right in these matters, they’re going to look to men to find out what men really think and want, not some narcissistic false accuser that spouts illogical dross in every post.

  227. 227
    Han Solo says:

    I think that Yohami’s take on HUS was the best ever:

    http://yohami.com/blog/2012/05/29/my-hus-love-story/

    If you’re a man wandering at HUS and you’re friendly, Susan will first receive you with cushions and drinks, treat you well, make sure you’re comfortable and enjoying the show, and pull you in closely, intimately, so you become part of her “team”.

    See. Susan either has allies or foes, it’s a Black or White world, where the shades of gray are measured according to how much she can use you as an ally, and where she plays the unquestionable moral compass of White. Emphasis on “unquestionable”.

    So all it will take is for you to express a dissenting opinion, or a criticism, and your comfortable friendship and trust you were building and the drink that you’re holding on your hand, will explode, beautifully, because you stepped on a land mine that you didnt know was there, and now you’re labeled a despicable “foe” and the cops are coming for your ass and someone is screaming help! help! and whose is all that blood?

    If you refuse to, you´ll stand there, repeating firmly what you think is right and reasoning through it, and watch how Susan ignores every argument, while nitpicking words and changing the subject, escalating on the issue, making personal comments that might make you react. She´ll increase the dosis.

    But let’s say you dont react. You keep your ground firmly, and as cool as you can, no matter which dosis she gives you. She’ll call for the support of every ally she has and make a big bitch fest around you, painting a big picture of you and looking under your clothes which buttons she can press and press them all in a big huge hungry orgy of dramatic misunderstandings and broken feelings, which she will keep escalating until something breaks. Hopefully you. You bitch! how you dare making her work so hard.

    When you eventually see the futility of resisting, you’ll make a mark on the ground and write “land mine here, and here, and here, and dont walk through there, dont mention this… avoid, avoid, avoid, please, please, please her” After a while, there will be a lot of stuff that you just dont talk about, and you’ll know what’s proper to say and what not. You still might receive a drama dosis from time to time, just to make sure you’re under control.

    Or you might decide to abandon HUS, or to become one of HUS and help give newcomers the same treatment.

    Or you´ll take the whole thing badly and spit it out. In which case you’ll get banned. You were always a foe, didnt ya know? oh you despicable malicious pig.

    All those mines and sensitive subjects were, most of the time, fights Susan initiated herself, offenses she took on herself when the other parties meant no offense, or offenses she did on others but then acted like an abused victim when the other party responded angrily….

  228. 228
    Sir Nemesis says:

    Wonder what Bastiat’s take on this is: regarding mating success, does the greater earning potential down the road outweigh the lack of experience with attractive women if you choose a STEM major over liberal arts or psychology?

    Graph of average IQ and female attractiveness and IQ by major

  229. 229
    Han Solo says:

    Nemesis, what does attractiveness refer to? Of the people studying that or how attractive the major is to people of the opposite sex (men, women)?

  230. 230
  231. 231
    Liz says:

    #234: Interesting, Sir Nemesis…not surprising in my experience.
    Note public administration majors are the worst of the lot. Both ugly and stupid! Stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason.

  232. 232

    Let’s not forget to draw the main lesson from this: a woman can only be trusted by Red Pillers if she openly turns against the Herd. Walsh never turned against the Herd, and in the end, she revealed her true character.

  233. 233
    deti says:

    Han:

    Yohami is always insightful.

    Here’s Badger’s vivisection of the situation:

    “The “Flowers for Algernon” sort of circle at HUS is breathtaking. In the beginning it was very plainly blue-pill and mainstream – typical frustrations of a Kay Hymowitz type wringing her hands at why these awful men aren’t treating their poor little dears. Absolutely no understanding of the male experience, the apex fallacy, dualistic mating strategies or girl game.

    “In the middle, red-piller Manospherians flooded in thanks largely to linkage from Ferdinand/In Mala Fide after SW posted about Mystery (Susan credited Obsidian with encouraging her to read Neil Strauss’ book). Much mirth was had dissecting relationships and sexual mind games in a mixed environs with few holds barred.

    “In the latter phase, all of the learning and messaging that was based in a real understanding of gender dynamics was undone in the name of not making the target audience feel bad, a classic error of confusing positive feeling with positive benefit (in the same sense that working out is not comfortable but benefits its practitioner). Men of contrary nature, including those who had been strongly loyal to the HUS clan through some high-voltage times and provided strong value to the brand via intelligent and friendly commentary, were aggressively and pyrotechnically driven out. It became a warren, a house of self-congratulation. All of us were retroactively branded a la “we have always been at war with Eastasia.”

    “**** I have to admit that for me and a number of other men who hung out there, there was a certain validation we habituated into in having a sort of mother-surrogate to chat about our dating life with and to tell us that wanting sex and a relationship wasn’t a bad thing, that she wanted us to have that too. (It’s a saddening part of the game journey for many men to learn that they have to let go of a desire for that validation, not only when it comes from a woman you’re pursuing but also from a platonic acquaintance. I guess Freud and Oedipus were right.)

    “Anyway, I checked in there about a week ago and there were 100 comments literally between the same five people, with liberal references to J4G and other male writers. So Susan pats herself on the back for purging the place of bad male feelings, but can’t stop bloviating and and rehashing and spreading discontented invective about how bad we all were. Susan, a middle-aged woman, also wonders aloud what middle-aged men are doing commenting on a blog about 20something sex lives. Teh s0lips1sm lives.”

    (cont’d)

    “In the end, I think we learned two things:
    -The kind of women interested in reading a dating blog find the male style of frank, direct communication (and in fact the reality itself of the male locker room) to be deeply unsettling.
    -Women aren’t going to change what they like in a man. There were so many stories of the same script that I lost count: “I took your advice and met this really great beta guy but he’s like, you know, he’s just beta…” with a curdled lip of disattraction.

    “Women have tried shaming alpha men into being more relationship-friendly – all that did was make beta guys more beta, alpha men don’t listen to that stuff or they co-opt it a la Hugh Schwyzer. They have tried to hint and cajole the beta men into being more manly, but that confused the beta men even more, disequipped as they are to deal with the indirect and pluralistic female communication style (e.g. shit tests and “just get it”). They’ve tried telling themselves to adjust what they value and find attractive in men, but that has predictably failed. Susan has tried all of them, and her even still flip-flopping stances suggests none of them have stuck with her core audience.

    “I think Susan was/is ultimately perplexed and frustrated about why her seemingly “it just happened” life path – go to college, sleep around in your 20′s, build you career, meet the right guy along the way and decide to make a family with him – wasn’t happening for her daughter’s cohort of friends. That’s probably the path of lots of her age cohort as well, and boomer anxiety over their children’s mating options is no doubt driving the editorial decisions behind the flurry of “end of men” articles. We here know the reasons why – incentives have changed that drive middle-class men out of the market, and among the educated white-collar set feminized upbringings have made even more of the “eligible” men sexually unattractive and unable to capitalize on their structural advantages. “

  234. 234
    Han Solo says:

    Excellent words from Badger, deti. The “Flowers for Algernon” arc is particularly spot on. And the expulsion of men followed an ever less-tolerant trajectory. At first it was the men who disagreed outright. Then those who agreed with some things but mostly disagreed, then the 50/50-ers, then the “mostly moderates,” like myself, who still had to speak up when there was some blatant error (and there were many), and finally the outright have been recipients of hostile treatment. Very much like 1984 where even the most loyal followers would eventually be deemed enemies and liquidated. And, retroactively, yes, we are all branded as enemies.

  235. 235
    YOHAMI says:

    Imagine the schemes she pulls off in her real life.

  236. 236
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Honestly?
    The discussions there just remind me how happy I am not to be a damn woman, lol. There was a lengthy discussion over the naturalness or non-naturalness of certain makeups. Then spirituality, which reminded me of some discussion of chakras except taken seriously.
    Now there is a lengthy discussion about dream interpretation.

    Over vacation there was a night where the fiancee and I agreed to take time to ourselves. I like to learn a lot…she apparently decided to flip between E!, HGTV, Food TV, and America’s Next Top Model.

    I do not think I could tolerate being a woman for longer than a day, not because of how “hard” it is, but because of how insanely boring it must be.

    Then there is the solipism and the emotionality. I mean for Christ Sake friggin suck it up. It’s like every episode of The Biggest Loser is treated like some sort of deep revelation because OH MY GOD LOSING WEIGHT ISNT JUST ABOUT BEAUTY BUT MY FEEEEEWWWWIIIIINGGGGZZZZ!

    As fucked up as the SMP is, I just do not think I could be a girl, at all.

  237. 237

    Sir Nemesis: I was an English major in undergrad and only went into quantitative subjects during my grad school programs (and really struggled with stochastic calculus, probability, EVT, etc. until I could convert them into intuitively-appealing verbal descriptions).

    The undergrad STEM choice would appear to be a “party now or party later” phenomenon, which IMHO means that the swordsman-STEM may need to accept that his more rigorous classes and fewer females in his major could affect his immediate, next-quarter earnings. I think that he may productively view himself as a kind of late-blooming, Count of Monte Cristo (Count of Monte Carlo Simulation…?) figure who will make his pro debut in the post-college SMP, armed with his increased cash flow stream that is, hopefully, combined with the harnessing of all of that analytical horsepower to the study of social phenomena and avoid needless self-handicapping. His sexual payouts could come later, but in an impressive series of big wins.

    He might also have the possible virtue of natural camouflage when it came to dealing with option-seeking female mercs already tiring of 9-5 in the HR office (i.e., appearing to be a safe, beta-provisioner choice; a “deep value play” with limited N and naivete when it came to assessing his price-taking capability and appeal in the SMP).

    This all obviously requires that he not do something stupid while his market pricing power is low. He needs to think for the long-haul, which is easier said than done when the dissolute, Byron-reading liberal arts guy is screaming “Carpe diem!” as he thrusts his rapier home once again. But he who laughs last..

    Was that your interpretation as well?

  238. 238
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Bastiat

    Hah, I tend to struggle with verbal concepts until I can convert them into intuitively appealing mathematical statements. :P

    As for my interpretation, well I can’t give a definite , seeing as I haven’t lived it yet. I’m banking on becoming the Count of Monte Carlo (love the term you coined). I’ll find out how well things work out several years down the road.

  239. 239

    To be honest, I don’t think HUS ever changed that much. It was always fundamentally Blue Pill, gynocentric and de facto feminist. It’s true that Walsh knew the ‘sphere is a growing intellectual force to be reckoned with, so she tried to leech off its Red Pill ideas. But she was basically a taker, not a giver. She wanted to lure moderate Red Pillers over to her site and get them to comment in an inoffensive, polite, watered-down way. The truth of the matter is that the pure Red Pill was never tolerated there. There was never a time when Walsh or any of her female commenters simply said about any Red Piller that “yeah, he’s right”. It was always “yeah, he has some interesting ideas, BUT…”. In other words, they never really made concessions. If you commented about Red Pill stuff, there was instant criticism and disbelief. “What’s your source for that claim?” and all that dishonest BS.

  240. 240

    […] This brings to mind her recent post where she endorsed the Hoff Sommers debunking of excessive radfem rape claims and then used my post–based on the very same Hoff Sommmers piece–to claim that PUAs and MRAs try to downplay how much real sexual assault happens.  I debunk that here. […]

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>