Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Subscribe to Journal

Wednesday, April 13th 2011

10:37 AM

Keeping It Real: The Game, Neil Strauss, The (Sexual) Politics Of Fear, & Why Both Clarisse Thorn AND Ferdinand Bardamu Got It All Wrong

"Ferd, I’d be interested in your take on this recent revealing interview with Neil Strauss:

Two quotes from Strauss that are pure gold:

"A guy who says he hates feminism (a) doesn’t understand or know feminism, and (b) is scared of powerful women."

"We still are a patriarchal society, as you know—men are dominant, and when the dominant group bands together, that’s a threatening thing."

Whether Strauss is an ignorant fool or an opportunist liar who wants to appease feminists in order to avoid negative feedback is anyone’s guess, but if his words are anything to go by, we can safely assume that the best-known public advocates of Game are perfectly OK with parroting feminist dogma. It’s a rather predictable development – Assanova also voiced similar sentiments on his bygone blog – but it seems to contradict the notion that the spread of Game will undermine the feminist status quo. What change is to be expected if even PUAs encourage young men not to question feminism?"

- Frequent Manosphere commenter Hollenhund

It was with these words that the newly reconstituted In Mala Fide, under the leadership of Ferdinand Bardamu, began a tortured and twisted multi-paragraphic rant against a guy who by all accounts has actually DONE MORE to help Men than all the blatherings of armchair revolutionaries in the Manosphere combined. That it would all get started with an off-topic series of quips from a guy who, if you disagree with him, then berates you as a "proto-feminist" and likens you to Charles Taylor, really speaks to Ferd's own vetting of the facts and from whence they come. It's a sad day for IMF 3.0, and yet another in a long series of anti-social rants that will ultimately do more harm than good for the Fellas over there.

But they are by no means alone:

"As some of my readers know, I’m fascinated by the pickup artist subculture (a community devoted to advising men on how to seduce women). It’s a very mixed bag. My feeling is that there’s good advice in the community for genuinely kind shy guys. But sometimes, it’s so mixed with misogyny and cold-heartedness that wading through it feels like panning for gold in a sewer...A good friend of mine recently told me that he’s been reading the blog of a misogynist pickup artist who I absolutely loathe. I was appalled. I provided a detailed feminist critique of this guy’s blog. My friend listened and understood, but in the end he said, “I hear what you’re saying, and I agree with you. The guy is an asshole and his advice is permeated with terrible opinions of women. But a lot of it is really good advice, and I don’t know where else I can find such good advice about women.”

So says one Ms. Clarisse Thorn out of the Chi; she is among the umpteen Feministas out there who specializes in "sex positive" Feminism and, like her sisters in arms, has a particular penchant for "deconstructing" this and "critiquing" that. If you're a member of the community - the Seduction community, that is - you're familiar with her kind; they've made it one of their missions in life to, if not shut us down, than to somehow shame us into more "ethical behavior" by upbraiding the whole of the community based on the whacked actions of a few.

In case you haven't figured it out by now, my position here is to say that not only are both Thorn and Bardamu are wrong as two left shoes on the basic facts of the matter, big and small (big meaning sexual politics writ large, and small meaning the pickup community itself especially Strauss' role in it) but they both severly misrepresent Strauss himself, someone who by every account I am aware of is just a cool guy. Which makes this post and the topic upon which it is based, all the more ironic, since Strauss' latest book has as its central theme, "keeping it real" with his interview subjects, and which is something that deeply concerns both sides of the blogosphere - the Manosphere wants to "keep it real" by throwing literary Molotov cocktails at society filled with the gasoline of truth that the Wimminz have taken over; and the Femosphere's chief concern with the Seduction community is that it peddles in "deception and manipulation".

So, since both sides claim so much to want to "keep it real", here's the truth:

They, the Femosphere, and the Manosphere, are two sides of the same coin.

They both peddle in the Sexual Politics of Fear.

Don't believe me? Just go back and read Thorn's and Bardamu's articles again; they're both drenched in fear, and both serve as microcosms of their respective "spheres"; the Femosphere's irrational focus on anything thing that even sounds like "rape"; the Manosphere's bizarre fascination with anything that sounds like it's from a decade that doesn't resemble something from Mad Men. I've been around both these "spheres" long enough to know how they operate, and I have the added benefit of being a Brotha, because let's face it, in the end, this is a wrestling match taking place largely between White folks, and not being either a White Man or Woman gives me a kind of perspective on things that neither side would dare considering much less copping to.

But to really drive my point about how these communities are far and away more alike than they are different, consider the following quotes from the Man himself:

"Here’s the deal. Anyone who hates something feels threatened by it. A guy who says he hates feminism (a) doesn’t understand or know feminism, and (b) is scared of powerful women. Most attacks come from fear…That’s like when a politician does something bad and people say all politicians are bad. I think a lot of people say stuff about The Game who have never read The Game.Some people feel threatened by it. But when women have problems with the movement, I do understand."

Style made a powerful point that neither side in the War between the Fembots and the Mansters want to own up to: BOTH ARE DEEPLY AFRAID, and it is this fear, that keeps all this fitna going. I call it the Sexual Politics of Fear because that's what it is - the Feminists are afraid that Game can and will undermine everything they've been taught and teach about how the world is supposed to operate, about how Men and Women are supposed to behave; the Manosphere is afraid of Game because quite a few of the guys there wouldn't measure up in a world where Women aren't essentially forced to be with them simply "because". This is why there's so much agita on that side of things about marriage, being "ass-raped" in divorce and family court and so forth; on the Feminista side, of course there's the whole everything-in-the-world-is-a-rapist spiel, and there's also the notion that there's a misogynist lurking under every rock and hiding around every corner, armed with deceitful and manipulative tactics by shady PUAs just waiting to leap out and put it on unsuspecting ladies, to say nothing about the fact that the Seduction community has it right on the fact that not only is there a systematic way to get Women into bed, but those ways fly in the face of the "social constructionism" dogma they've peddled in for more than a generation. Both sides are so deeply steeped in their own rhetorical manure and so deeply vested in their ideological cant, that neither can or is willing to be objective about some very simple things and facts that are staring them right in the face.

For example, Ferd & Co. got all up in arms over Style's comment in his interview, that we as a society still live in a patriarchy. Sure, that's a dog whistle word and if you're a part of the Manosphere, you're supposed to react like a vampire to sunlight or something - but let's take a step back and examine that, shall we?

In the year 2011, who controls the banks of America? Is it Men, or Women? Who continues to make the laws of this land - and who continues, for the most part, to administer them? Men or Women? Last time I checked, the US Supreme Court only had two Women on the bench - the most it's ever had in its entire history. All of the US Presidents have been Men. All of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been Men. I haven't checked, but if I were a betting Man I'd put up good money that the Forbes list of most richest people in the world has Men at the top ten spots; and Men at the top ten spots of the world's most successful companies. Quick, what's the female equivalent to LeBron James? Is Nicki Minaj really on par with Busta Rhymes, whom she quotes in one of her hit songs?

I could go on, but by now you see the point I'm making - that doesn't mean that you have to like what I'm saying here, but you simply cannot get around the fact that Men have, and continue to this day, call the shots as to how it all goes down in our time. To be sure, Women have been gaining in influence in many of these spheres, but when you really sit back and think about it, sans the ideological cheerleading, what Style said wasn't wrong here.

Now, let's examine the other part of Style's statement: how many of The Game's most fervent critics - and I'm talking about the Feminists now - have actually read the book? I personally have had intense debates and the like with a few such critics and they told me outright that they weren't going to read it, attempting to discredit the author instead. The sheer vitriol and energy, all the many, many words devoted in the discrediting effort and so forth, calls to mind the possibility that there is something deeper going on than a mere philosophical difference or an arid sticking point of academic debate; one gets the sense that what Style said in his book - which was a memoir, not a manual - was something so deeply threatening to their (Feminists') existence, that it had to be removed, destroyed, taken out. I personally would have loved to see Strauss actually ask Clarisse WHY she thought so many of her "sisters" hadn't read The Game, and to read her own response. For that matter, I would have loved to see Style ask Clarisse herself, had SHE read it, and what she thought of it? She doesn't make it clear in her "Ethical Pickup Artistry" post on her blog, and to be frank, by the way she writes in said article, I am doubtful her "research" methods and techniques are much better than say, Amanda Marcotte's, or any of the other third-wavers in the Femosphere. More on that in a moment.

Do you see how the simple, basic facts get all lost in the sauce when heated and emotive rhetoric supplants rational discourse and discussion? Do you see how BOTH sides, the Femosphere AND the Manosphere, are in fact guilty of this? Do you see how they are a heck of a lot more alike, than different?

I have never met Style, and may never meet the Man in this life or the next - but I will say this about him. He has had a profound impact on my life, and that of countless other Men. His personal two-year odyssey of self-discovery and self-improvement, coupled with his awesome literary talent and earnest retelling of his tale, really helped me put it all into focus - not just about Women, but about life itself. His personal example of being pro-active, of taking personal responsibility for one's life and it's outcome, and for facing down one's fears, is to me a kind of retelling of the age-old tale High Noon. I don't expect Style to be some grandiose theorist examining the intersection between the Science of Seduction and the Sexual Politics of our age - which is what Roissy's  biggest claim to fame was/is (and would have made a much stronger and positive contribution had he been able to reign in his deeply misogynistic, racist and Oscar the Grouch misanthropic rants) - I just wanted to learn more about how to be a better Man in an area of life that, in the final accounting as I faded to black, is the area that will matter the most. I think that's what the vast majority of guys who come into the community are all about. And I think it's fascinating that here again, we see both the Feminists and their "brothers" in the Manosphere, wanting to use any and everything they can get their hands on, as "evidence" that the sexual balance between Men and Women are out of whack and that "they" have the answer - that's what the whole "Patriarchy" spiel was about with the Feminists, and that's why Roissy is such a big deal in the Manosphere - neither are really all that interested in making changes on the personal level in order to better get along with the opposite sex. This is why there's so much sheer resistance to notions of beauty and the like on the Femosphere side, and why the same persists wrt Game on the Manosphere side - I've been viciously attacked, by MEN, for merely suggesting that Men not go about looking like slobs and taking a bath. I've been called a "proto-feminist", a pussy-pedestalizer, a fellow Manhater, and of course a faggot, because I think it's a good idea for guys to wash up and wear some clean clothes. And I've seen the same thing happen to Women over on the Feminist side, who express the sentiment that there's nothing wrong with looking Feminine, or that not all guys are knuckledragging rapists and so forth. The discourse has gotten so shrill that even commonsense can't prevail, or even be heard. And that's what makes me, and I suspect Style himself for that matter, so very sad.

Going back to Ms. Thorn, here's something she said in her recent post that really jumped out at me:

"Here’s the thing: the current pickup artist subculture has a monopoly on effective advice for how to break down social interactions and talk to women. Not all of it works, but enough of it works that it draws guys in. As a pickup artist instructor once told me, “When I first found the community I was horrified by how sleazy and gross it is, but I had never had a girlfriend and I told myself: dude, if you don’t learn this stuff you’re gonna die alone.”

I’ve theorized that maybe feminists should provide good pickup advice, in an attempt to counterbalance some of the awfulness of the existing community. In the meantime, however, I figure the next best thing to do is to provide a list of less-misogynistic pickup artist instructors and sites, and a few very basic critiques..."

Well now, let's examine that a bit, shall we? Why HAVEN'T the Feminists come up with a better mousetrap, if indeed Game is so very objectionable? I mean, you'd think with that big ole braintrust of talent spread accross the Femosphere, surely they'd come up with something infinitely superior, right? The Game's been out for six years, and in that time there's been enough "deconstructions" and critiques" of it and the community itself to float an oil tanker in, yet to this day, not a single one of these ladies has come up with a better way for guys who were on the sidelines of life to get into the game. For all their rhetorical flourishes and literary snark, all they could offer up was the same, lame, tired and warmed-over tripe such as "be yourself" and so forth, which DOESN'T WORK. Well, I'll let you all in on a little secret as to WHY the Feminists haven't come up with anything better, and WON'T:

Because they can't. They don't know anything about how Men and Women operate. The Men of the Seduction community, for the most part, DO. Style definitely does.

Game operates on the understandings of Evolutionary Psychology, something that is verboten among the Sisterhood like its Satan himself or something, and notice how they simply refuse to even consider that so many Men getting results with Game, just might mean a realignment with their own ways of seeing the world. That isn't reason, folks. That's religion - and Feminism has become, in many ways, a religion for some Women.

But they're by no means alone - the Manosphere's got its own "church" too. Not only is Game at best a lukewarm topic there, but ANY talk of self-improvement is vociferously shouted down; "it's the Women's fault!" they proclaim. Both Hollenhund and Ferd are great examples of this, as both make it plain that it's all the Womens' fault:

"We can complain about Sith Game all day but the simple fact is this: women's sexual preferences are utterly devoid of moral considerations. The implication is that when these preferences are the only rules defining the SMP and separating men in groups of sexual/romantic winners and losers, all bets are off and morality is thrown out of the window."

And

"My favorite bullshit PUA sentiment in this vein is Mystery’s admonishment that “you should always leave a girl in better shape than you found her.” You’d have to be high as the clouds to think a line like that has any connection to reality. Pumping and dumping a girl, or even dumping her after an LTR runs its course, unavoidably ruins her. Every minute she spends getting used as a living masturbation receptacle by you is a minute she could have used to find a good husband, get married and have children before her biological clock runs down, a minute she’ll never get back. PUA, players, cads and other promiscuous men are vampires, parasites leeching off of womens’ youth and beauty and turning them into dried-out, infertile, bitter cat ladies. At least whores get paid...There are no innocents in these transactions. Both the cad and the slut are damned, and almost all of the women fucked and chucked by gamesters had it coming. (And keep the Universal Law of Gender Parity in mind, because it’s important to our next segment.)"

Wow. Just...wow.

And this type of sentiment is far more pervasive throughout the Manosphere than many would openly admit and own up to. And you certainly don't need me to point out the Feminist equivalent over on the Femosphere side - after all, Women like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti are world reknown for their acerbic commentary and caustic views of Men.

Which leads me to this conclusion: Ferd is 100% correct in his citation of Spengler's Universal Law of Gender Parity, which states that anywhere on the planet and at any given time, the Men and Women of a society deserve each other. Too bad his focus was so lopsided - because while no doubt the Feminists and their acolytes get the Men they deserve, the guys of the Manosphere get the Women they deserve, too. Or was it the hand?

Now adjourn your deluded asses...

The Obsidian

30 comment(s).

Posted by Obsidian:

Hollenhund,
Replies below:

A: That’s not what I said. My point was that women who don’t show moral behavior in the SMP cannot expect it from men. If you lie about anything or manipulate others in any way, you can’t complain about being subjected to the same treatment. If you make decisions without considering their moral implications, you cannot complain if others do that to you. Women cannot complain about Sith Game as long as they’re running their own version of it.

O: Oh believe you me, we're definitely in agreement on the blatant hypocrisy insofar as "dating ethics" are concerned, and I intend to deal with this very soon, so please do not get it twisted; but that's not what Style was talking about, and it definitely isn't what I'm talking about. I am talking about Men needing to improve themselves, which is a wholly seperate issue from the whole "dating ethics" thing. Completely seperate. Again H, I was viciously attacked over at the Spearhead, merely for suggesting that guys not go around looking like slobs! I mean, what is that all about?

O.
Tuesday, April 19th 2011 @ 4:05 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Hollenhund,
Replies below:


H: Well, look, Obs, if Strauss isn’t even willing to do so much as acknowledge in an interview that male losers exist in the SMP, how can we claim that he’s offering tremendous help to betas? Yes, he’s a PUA and he did great PR for the seduction community, but if he’s repeating feminist claims about society and doesn’t address the problems affecting betas, then I have to say he’s part of the problem, not the solution, at least to a certain extent.

O: Question: have you actually read The Game?

O.
Tuesday, April 19th 2011 @ 4:01 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

O: OK, fine. But would you deny that what I said above is true and if not, why?

H: Well, look, Obs, if Strauss isn’t even willing to do so much as acknowledge in an interview that male losers exist in the SMP, how can we claim that he’s offering tremendous help to betas? Yes, he’s a PUA and he did great PR for the seduction community, but if he’s repeating feminist claims about society and doesn’t address the problems affecting betas, then I have to say he’s part of the problem, not the solution, at least to a certain extent.

O: Fine

H: That’s all I needed to hear.

O: would you deny what I said about who's been running this country almost from day one, that it's been in the main, Men and no Women, Hollenhund?

H: The leaders have been men – although an increasing % are women – but that doesn’t mean that you’re currently living in a patriarchy.
Tuesday, April 19th 2011 @ 12:22 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

O: Men are expendable because SPERM IS CHEAP, whereas, eggs and wombs, are not.

H: That’s true as long as people follow their evolutionary programming in a natural environment i.e. a) men have lots of unprotected sex with lots of women (thus giving sperm away freely) and are willing to sacrifice themselves for them en masse b) women bear many children in the period when their fertility peaks (17-27 years of age, roughly). This has normally been the case throughout history. But to an increasing degree, it’s no longer the case. Our environment is artificial; we’re rather far from our natural state. A growing number of women remain infertile or have only one child. Are their eggs expensive? Not really, because she doesn’t utilize them. A growing number of men refuse to contribute sperm, have unprotected sex or throw themselves under the bus for women. If you have the self-awareness not to be expendable and nobody forces you to be expendable, you aren’t expendable.
Tuesday, April 19th 2011 @ 12:13 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

@Hollenhund,
O: OK then - PUAs like WHO, Hollenhund?

H: That's a question Ms. Thorn has to answer since she's the one who brought it up in the interview. E-mail her if you want to. She mentioned them, which means she believes they exist, and Strauss, himself familiar with the PUA scene, didn't object to that idea, so I have to assume they exist.

O: Yes, I noticed that as well. Fair enough.

O: Do you also accept this fundamental tenet of Evo-Bio/Psych, Hollenhund, and if not, why?

H: Men are expendable if they allow themselves to be expendable. It's up to them.

O: No, it's not. Men are expendable because SPERM IS CHEAP, whereas, eggs and wombs, are not. Do you not see that, Hollenhund?

O: Ahh, I see. You want him to publicly acknowledge the losers of the reproductive race. Gotcha.

H: Those aren't the only men who were disadvantaged by feminism, Obs, and you know that.

O: OK, fine. But would you deny that what I said above is true and if not, why?

H: Patriarchy means rule by fathers, or a system which gives fathers authority over their families as "paterfamilias". Look it up in any dictionary, Obs. We may argue whether the US is a matriarchy or not but it's sure as Hell not a patriarchy.

O: Fine; would you deny what I said about who's been running this country almost from day one, that it's been in the main, Men and no Women, Hollenhund?

Yes or no?

O.
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 3:29 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

Patriarchy means rule by fathers, or a system which gives fathers authority over their families as "paterfamilias". Look it up in any dictionary, Obs. We may argue whether the US is a matriarchy or not but it's sure as Hell not a patriarchy.
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 3:13 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

O: OK then - PUAs like WHO, Hollenhund?

H: That's a question Ms. Thorn has to answer since she's the one who brought it up in the interview. E-mail her if you want to. She mentioned them, which means she believes they exist, and Strauss, himself familiar with the PUA scene, didn't object to that idea, so I have to assume they exist.

O: Do you also accept this fundamental tenet of Evo-Bio/Psych, Hollenhund, and if not, why?

H: Men are expendable if they allow themselves to be expendable. It's up to them.

O: Ahh, I see. You want him to publicly acknowledge the losers of the reproductive race. Gotcha.

H: Those aren't the only men who were disadvantaged by feminism, Obs, and you know that.
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 3:07 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

O: What "anti-feminist argument" has he specifically "dismissed"

H: Thorn mentioned that a lot of PUAs hate feminism. Of course, she omits that they usually explain their position in detail; they aren't simply venting.

O: OK then - PUAs like WHO, Hollenhund? Give me the names of say, half a dozen well known and respected in the community, names of PUAs who take such an "anti-feminist" stance? I'll wait.

H: Strauss also glosses over this issue completely, he just dismisses them by saying that they're mad about feminism and powerful women because they fear them, which is BS.

O: How so? Please explain - after you've given us the names of these supposedly "anti-feminist" PUAs?

H: If he simply said that "many men hate feminism but it's understandable because many of them are disadvantaged by it in various ways", that'd be admirable.

O: Ahh, I see. You want him to publicly acknowledge the losers of the reproductive race. Gotcha.

O.
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 1:22 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

@Hollenhund,

O: Hold on, H - exactly WHO is Style talking about when he says this?

H: He says a "lot of people" without specifying who they are but since it's feminists who complain about Game the loudest, I guess he's talking about them.

O: Great; so don't you think he does indeed address them?

O: What he was saying was that it is understandable why so many Women would feel very vulnerable about a systemitized method of seduction
, and if you're as big a fan of Evo-Psych as I think you are, you know why and understand, too.

H: I don't accept his reasoning because it's ludicrous to say that the USA is a patriarchy, period.

O: OK, so the fact that ALL the Presidents, ALL the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the vast majority of this country's lawmakers and judges have been Women, to say nothing of the vast majority of this country's business owners and the like have also been Men, simply do not count - right? Because there are Male losers among us. Did I get that right?

H: But I accept the evo-psych explanation, which, if I'm not mistaken, is that women don't want to be fooled by "counterfeit alphas". BTW didn't you argue that both betas and also most women would benefit from the spread of Game?

O: And it's also that MEN ARE EXPENDABLE, and Women are NOT, because eggs and wombs are expensive, and sperm is cheap and easily replaced. Do you also accept this fundamental tenet of Evo-Bio/Psych, Hollenhund, and if not, why? And yes, I did indeed say what you mention above about Women and Beta Males benefitting from Game; of course the rub comes in that the majority of Betas simply will not able to acquire Game for varying reasons, some of them HBD related.

Holla back

O.
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 1:14 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

O: What "anti-feminist argument" has he specifically "dismissed"

H: Thorn mentioned that a lot of PUAs hate feminism. Of course, she omits that they usually explain their position in detail; they aren't simply venting. Strauss also glosses over this issue completely, he just dismisses them by saying that they're mad about feminism and powerful women because they fear them, which is BS.

If he simply said that "many men hate feminism but it's understandable because many of them are disadvantaged by it in various ways", that'd be admirable.
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 12:44 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

O: Hold on, H - exactly WHO is Style talking about when he says this?

H: He says a "lot of people" without specifying who they are but since it's feminists who complain about Game the loudest, I guess he's talking about them.

O: What he was saying was that it is understandable why so many Women would feel very vulnerable about a systemitized method of seduction
, and if you're as big a fan of Evo-Psych as I think you are, you know why and understand, too.

H: I don't accept his reasoning because it's ludicrous to say that the USA is a patriarchy, period. But I accept the evo-psych explanation, which, if I'm not mistaken, is that women don't want to be fooled by "counterfeit alphas". BTW didn't you argue that both betas and also most women would benefit from the spread of Game?
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 12:38 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

H: Frankly I don't see him coming down on both feminists and anti-feminists (MRAs) in that interview, definitely not to an equal degree. He's correct to point out that many critics of Game are ignorant about it.

O: Hold on, H - exactly WHO is Style talking about when he says this? You tell me.

H: But then he goes on to say that women's fears of Game are explained by the dominant position of men in this "patriarchy".

O: I understood what he meant without having a parakeet over it, LOL. What he was saying was that it is understandable why so many Women would feel very vulnerable about a systemitized method of seduction, and if you're as big a fan of Evo-Psych as I think you are, you know why and understand, too. Or do I have to actually spell it out for you?

H: He doesn't say the word "justified", but that's what he basically means. In other words, he's repeating a very important piece of feminist dogma (i.e. men are dominant in this patriarchy and it's understandable that women fear them), whereas he dismisses anti-feminist arguments entirely and refuses to address them. That's not equal treatment.

O: OK, let's set aside the first part of your statement there, because we've already heard you expound on that ad infinitum and I've addressed it in detail above. What "anti-feminist argument" has he specifically "dismissed" in that interview he gave, Hollenhund? Please explain?

Thanks.

O.
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 5:06 AM

Posted by Höllenhund:

Frankly I don't see him coming down on both feminists and anti-feminists (MRAs) in that interview, definitely not to an equal degree. He's correct to point out that many critics of Game are ignorant about it. But then he goes on to say that women's fears of Game are explained by the dominant position of men in this "patriarchy". He doesn't say the word "justified", but that's what he basically means. In other words, he's repeating a very important piece of feminist dogma (i.e. men are dominant in this patriarchy and it's understandable that women fear them), whereas he dismisses anti-feminist arguments entirely and refuses to address them. That's not equal treatment.
Monday, April 18th 2011 @ 4:56 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

@Hollenhund,
I'm not; as you said, that evolutionary fact that Men have always been deemed as expendable as opposed to Women is a fact of human existence, not ideological cant. Why can't you accept what are plain as day facts - that Men have until very recently in human history, been at the top and calling the shots? Yes, there have also been Men at the very bottom as well - but that doesn't negate the former point. All it means is that Men have a tendency towards extremes than Women in aggregate. Prof. Roy Baumeister talks about this in some detail along evolutionary lines.

Still waiting for you to post those links.

As for Style, I don't think you paid attention to what he actually said and which I've reposted in my article above. He was coming down on BOTH sides of the debate, the Feminists AND the Manosphere, and rightly so. He wasn't "pandering" to anybody, he was only trying to be honest - something you refuse to be. Stop being angry that life didn't hand you or those that makeup the bulk and mass of the Manosphere life on a silver platter, Hollenhund. instead, focus on what you can do to make a better life for yourself. That's what Style is all about - and so am I.

O.
Sunday, April 17th 2011 @ 11:22 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

"All the movers and shakers in our society have been Men, period."

But that doesn't mean men were/are "dominant" and, as Strauss claims. Why aren't you simply accepting that he's parroting feminist dogma, at least in this case?
Saturday, April 16th 2011 @ 5:22 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

Obs,

both Zed and Welmer have written more than once about the doctrine of male expendability.
Saturday, April 16th 2011 @ 5:18 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

@Alte,
Oh, OK then, my response to that is that it's a BS argument. We all know that all Men weren't Big Shots, but that doesn't diminish what Style said and you know it. All the movers and shakers in our society have been Men, period. I don't see why we simply cannot acknowledge this fact of life and get on with it. That there have been many Male losers of life is a given and historically documented; Prof. Roy Baumeister, among a great many Evo-Psych scholars, have openly written and/or spoken about this, and here again we see the blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Manospehere - they want to cherry pick those parts of Evo-Psych that feels good to them just like they do with HBD. The minute when either doesn't fit their narrowly defined interests nor props up their egos, they have a hissy fit. It's all a sham. And I'm glad you've finally seen the light. :)

O.
Saturday, April 16th 2011 @ 1:40 PM

Posted by Alte:

They have already explained it. That the overwhelming presence of men at the top of the hierarchy does not imply that men rule at all levels of the hierarchy, or that their rule is an essential trait of the system (rather than an artifact from a previous system).
Saturday, April 16th 2011 @ 1:15 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Hi Alte,
Yea, the venom just doesn't do anybody any good, and it's really sad because there real and legit concerns wrt the MRM that will almost certainly go down in flames the way things are going now.

As for the whole patriarchy debate, do you have any idea what this whole "apex fallacy" is?

O.
Saturday, April 16th 2011 @ 1:08 PM

Posted by Alte:

Hmm...

As the others noted, patriarchy isn't what we have right now, even if men still rule. Men always rule, really, regardless of the political structure.

But I am also dismayed by the vitriol.
Saturday, April 16th 2011 @ 12:45 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Hi Hollenhund,
I've disabled the auto-moderation function of the blog, as it was beginning to get a bit tedious fishing through all the comments on a daily basis; what I do know is just keep an eye out for posts that are spam and delete them that way, so you're cool to post up a link so everyone can see what you're talking about. Have at it!

O.
Friday, April 15th 2011 @ 8:56 AM

Posted by Höllenhund:

Obs,

I won't post a link here bacause it might get my comment stuck in moderation. Enter "apex" in the search function of TS and you'll find Zed's article.
Friday, April 15th 2011 @ 5:10 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

Hi Dragnet,

Hey Man, longtime, no hear! Glad to see ya about.

I think it's fair to say that there have always been more Men at the bottom of the heap than at the top, that's just the way of things; but I don't see how that diminishes Strauss' point he made in the article. Do you deny that Men have and still do very much control things, or not?

And what the heck is this "apex fallacy"?

O.
Thursday, April 14th 2011 @ 10:44 PM

Posted by dragnet:

Actually the more I re-read this piece, the more I find I disagree with it. As far as I'm concerned, Hollenhund and Ferd have it exactly right. Where I part ways with them is the bitterness, the vitriol the caustic tone.

But on the substance they have it nailed.
Thursday, April 14th 2011 @ 10:35 PM

Posted by dragnet:

An interesting post with good points...

...but you are WAY off on the patriarchy bit---you fall prey to what is known as the "apex fallacy". You are basically using the alphas at the top (the apex or the top 10 percent) to describe the landscape and position of all men generally...except that the reality of the alphas has almost nothing to do with the mass of men below them in status (socioeconomic and otherwise).

And patriarchy isn't defined as "rule by men". All modern societies are ruled by those at the extreme right tail of the bell curve---in intelligence, ambition, narcissism, etc---and these are likely to be men due to inherent biological differences. No, the real definition of patriarchy, is "rule by patriarchs" or "rule by fathers over the household". This is clearly not the current state of affairs in the Western world.

The Western world hasn't been a patriarchy for quite sometime now.
Thursday, April 14th 2011 @ 10:08 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Hollenhund,
I know this is gonna come as a shock to you, but I honestly do not know what you are talking about. I am not familiar with the Spearhead piece on it, and would deeply appreciate it if you wouldn't mind posting the link for my interested readers, as well as you giving a brief overview of what exactly the "apex fallacy" is. I want to engage you and anyone else in fruitful discussion here, H. Help a Brotha out, OK?

Thanks

O.
Thursday, April 14th 2011 @ 6:32 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

You know perfectly well what it is, Obs. There was even an article about it on TS.
Thursday, April 14th 2011 @ 6:14 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

@Hollenhund,
OK< before we go off to the races, and for errbody reading along at home - would you please define for us exactly what you mean by "apex fallacy"? Thanks!

O.
Thursday, April 14th 2011 @ 3:48 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

@Scipio,
You know I like to think of myself as a Brotha who's smarter than the average bear, but I gotta tell ya, what you said above flew right over my head, LOL. Would you care to do that one more time - in slo mo? Thanks!

O.
Thursday, April 14th 2011 @ 3:46 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

WSJ,
Ahh, gotcha - and I agree 100%! It just seems to me that a lot of these "isms" and "osms" is a convenient cover to keep from having to deal with those personal issues you rightly mentioned, and for me this is on both sides of the aisle - the Feminsts, and the Manosphere both. Thanks for clarifying for me, Joe! Much appreciated.

O.
Thursday, April 14th 2011 @ 3:44 PM