While the men whose behavior, and in some cases, character, was subjected to criticism took it in stride, the women not only reacted very badly to even the most mild criticism, but in several cases announced their intention to refrain from commenting in the future. This then led a few commenters to suggest that all personal criticism should henceforth be banned in the future. Susan, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, responded with a solid post entitled Women Need Men:
We need to shift our way of thinking to acknowledge sex differences, and how the sexes, though different, can complement one another perfectly when we’re honest about the different wants and needs of men and women. In my opinion, this complementarity is a key part of successful relationships and, ultimately, marriage.Men know that women think very differently than they do, and for the most part, they accept this even if they don't necessarily like it. I'm not so sure most women do. But women can't have it both ways. They can't declare they don't need men and then expect to rely upon them. They can't share their personal problems which stem from personal choices and behavior and then expect to avoid personal criticism. They can't declare themselves to be the equals, or perhaps even the superiors, of men, and then run away crying the first time someone tells them that their decisions and actions were sub-optimal. They can't engage in discourse with men and expect men to talk to them in the same way other women do.
Some women understand this. But a surprising number, perhaps even most, simply don't. This is why I think some of Susan's critics - you know who you are, gentlemen - have been too harsh on her, because I don't think they fully grasp the severe difficulty, perhaps even the impossibility, of the task that she has voluntarily taken on. This isn't white-knighting, this isn't even defending a friend, it is a straightforward factual observation. What she is attempting to do matters, because men cannot fix the SMP on their own, except by old school force.
Think about it. How does one help young women question their assumptions and rethink their actions when they are hyper-resistant to even the appearance of judgment, let alone actual criticism? It is a real challenge, approaching the level of dichotomy, and I fear that Aristotle may have the only valid answer, as those who cannot bear the dialectic can only be convinced through rhetorical manipulation.
The old school may ultimately prove to be the eventual outcome. But at this point, it is not inevitable. If men are willing to be strong and truthful with themselves and others, if women are willing to be open and honest with themselves and others, it will possible for couples to escape the choice between the Scylla of the brothel and the Charybdis of the burqah that today's equalitarian society is presenting to us.
And if a man and a woman can escape it, so too can a society. Perhaps that is too optimistic. Most likely, the die is already cast in this regard, just as it is with regards to US demographics and the global economy. But we don't know that yet, and so we don't have to accept it.
I think it would be a mistake for Susan to shut down criticism and transform her site into a more intelligent Jezebel with math. But I don't think that is a mistake she is likely to make, and in any case, I would still support her mission of trying to help young women make the choices that will allow them to be marriageable in a society that sometimes appears to be doing its worst to eradicate the institution. Regardless of whether one thinks she is doing an optimal job of it or not - and I happen to think that she's doing rather better than anyone could reasonably expect - that is an objective worth suppporting.
91 comments:
"I would still support her mission of trying to help young women make the choices that will allow them to be marriageable in a society that sometimes appears to be doing its worst to eradicate the institution."
THAT's her mission? Are you so sure?
I do judge her harshly, because she deserves it.
IME, she treated women with kid gloves and men with spiked-knuckled trench knives.
You can laud her intent all you want. Her execution sucks. You don't piss on someone when they're apologizing. That's just basic manners. And it seems that's her MO cuz she's done it to more than just me.
I agree with mmaier: that's not her mission.
She's a feminist in sheep's clothing just helping women ride the carousel.
If you call her on it, she pulls out the female debating tactics: non-sequitur responses, rallying other women instead of responding to the issues, censorship, etc.
Susan is no friend of men and just another negative influence on our society.
I have to agree with mmaier and greenlander above.
I think it would be a mistake for Susan to shut down criticism and transform her site into a more intelligent Jezebel with math.
She is already a significant way down that path by banning many of the most respected manosphere thinkers.
men cannot fix the SMP on their own, except by old school force
Then it will come down to force, because even if Susan is helping at HUS (big IF there), the number of women reached is so small compared to social/media forces at large that women en masse will never get behind reducing their advantage and returning to patriarchy until the alternative becomes so horrific that they have no other choice.
http://umslopogaas.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/the-shrill-the-slutty-and-the-hamster-what-hus-tells-us-about-post-feminist-gynocentrism/
She is already a significant way down that path by banning many of the most respected manosphere thinkers.
I understand what you're saying although I don't think it is necessarily relevant. What you guys have omitted thus far is my central point. What Susan is attempting to do is very difficult. It may, in fact, be completely impossible. Removing the likes of Yohami, Rollo, Dalrock, and even potentially me from the commentariat there may be absolutely necessary given what is observably a limited female capacity for receiving criticism.
I mean, I was wearing kid gloves over there in comparison with how I address commenters at VP, and yet it was still more than some delicate flowers could bear.
So, what is the solution? Perhaps there is none. But it is not intellectually honest to pretend that the very real and substantial challenge which Susan faces does not exist. It is certainly possible that she isn't handling it in the optimal manner... but in that case, what is the optimal manner?
You can have her.
"...because men cannot fix the SMP on their own, except by old school force.
..."
It's a similar situation for a society. To all the women out there, let this message sink in good and deep. Police yourself or be policed. Control yourself or be controlled. Govern yourself or be governed in a way you choose not. To be plain, for a woman, governing yourself is the same as putting yourself under the authority of your husband. It's the best deal you can get on this earth.
For a woman your choice is between one man, your husband, and the wider society through the tool of government. They are both capable of providing justice in ideal circumstances but a husband can also provide mercy where a government has none. Be governed by a husband that loves you and practices that love through the limits he sets on you or be governed by society and the government which loves you not and seeks to enable you to destroy yourself and your family.
"...
How does one help young women question their assumptions and rethink their actions when they are hyper-resistant to even the appearance of judgment, let alone actual criticism?
... "
Figuratively, you let them starve. You withdraw all help, all condoning, all safety nets, all fences, all protections, all affirmation. You let them, in the most obvious way possible, sink or swim on their own so they have no one but themselves to blame. And only when they admit failure of self and repent of the solipsism do you begin to provide what they previously rejected.
To some extent this is already happening. The wolves are among them, feeding freely. Just go take a look at the Chateau. Roissy/Heartiste will tell you all about it. These ladies want to be debauched. They are getting their wish. The slide down is well and truly started. From what I've seen there is no stopping it until the only ones left are a remnant of adults.
(what is the optimal manner?)
Maybe there isn't one. I went back and re-read Susan's post and all the comments.
Then I saw on the news the fat bulldyke women and the man boobed beta males who are on strike in Chicago, from their job "teaching" the porch monkeys, and it occurred to me that the average person posting in the comments section is ...
fairly ugly.
fairly obese.
fairly stupid.
fairly clueless.
Given that, how do you teach these people to use good judgement? Maybe you don't.
It might be as easy to 'splain to women that they don't merit the right to vote, and should, for the sake of our country, voluntarily vote to reverse female suffrage.
I admit it might be quite a challenge.
"VD September 12, 2012 4:55 AM
...
So, what is the solution? Perhaps there is none. But it is not intellectually honest to pretend that the very real and substantial challenge which Susan faces does not exist. It is certainly possible that she isn't handling it in the optimal manner... but in that case, what is the optimal manner?
"
Without repentance there can be no reconciliation. Forgiveness is a gift, you don't receive the gift unless you accept it. You can't accept it unless you repent.
To get to repentance requires the destruction of your pride, your reliance on self. Their pride in self, their solipsism, must be destroyed, and all that they rely on that affirms the self and the pride in self must be destroyed.
So, what is the solution? Perhaps there is none. But it is not intellectually honest to pretend that the very real and substantial challenge which Susan faces does not exist. It is certainly possible that she isn't handling it in the optimal manner... but in that case, what is the optimal manner?
The problem is this: To gain mainstream acceptance, Susan must adulterate (heh) her message to the point that it does not help, and may actually hurt by offering solutions that aren't really solutions. (Guys, man up and marry those sluts! Don't worry girls, you can be a (reformed for now) slut and still win!) Then there is the further question of whether she believes the adulterated message to be the truth, or if she is really Red Pill but understands that she must sugar-coat the pill for women as a gateway to get them thinking and moving past the adulteration to real understanding of the current SMP/MMP situation. Given the hysterics and banning, I suspect the former.
I once had hope that things could change, but just like Christianity vs. Churchianity, if widespread acceptance requires adulteration of the message to the point of meaninglessness or even harm (i.e., a lesser evil is still evil), then there is no fixing things. In this case, the optimal manner is to take a true Red Pill approach like some other women bloggers and try to save as many men and women as possible before things go totally south. Better a small, strong cohort than a larger, weaker and fickle host.
A+
"Figuratively, you let them starve. You withdraw all help, all condoning, all safety nets, all fences, all protections, all affirmation. You let them, in the most obvious way possible, sink or swim on their own so they have no one but themselves to blame."
+1
Höllenhund
"Absolutely necessary" my ass. Yohami, Rollo, Dalrock etc. are the only people able and willing to help them. If they refuse them, they can go screw themselves and die.
Höllenhund
Yup. You can keep her.
Höllenhund
"They can't declare they don't need men and then expect to rely upon them."
There you go, thinking like a man again. That's *exactly* what they do, and there's nothing stopping them from doing it. Ever. I'm pretty sure Hanna Rosin's entire career and lovelife is predicated on this, as is Kate Roiphe's.
Vox, you are in fact White Knighting because you are attempting to do the impossible, to help women understand the SMP. The rationalization hamster is a yoda-like little rodent; you can't hope to beat it, you can only hope to contain it. Teaching a woman to understand how a man thinks is like teaching a fish to ride a bicycle. Even if she wanted to, she hasn't the legs to do it. Except for those Snakefishhead things that have a limited ability to walk on land. They may have some rudimentary bike riding ability we haven't noticed yet. I hear they are quite common in Asia.
The manosphere does a decent job feeding the red pill to men. It does a pretty shoddy job feeding it to women. And if you think it isn't important to convince women, then you're fooling yourselves. HUS doesn't always get it right, but for many women it'll be the first clue that feminism is lying to them. In a world of sluts, progress means reforming some of them.
VD:
"What you guys have omitted thus far is my central point. What Susan is attempting to do is very difficult. Removing the likes of Yohami, Rollo, Dalrock, and even potentially me from the commentariat there may be absolutely necessary given what is observably a limited female capacity for receiving criticism.
****
So, what is the solution? Perhaps there is none. But it is not intellectually honest to pretend that the very real and substantial challenge which Susan faces does not exist. It is certainly possible that she isn't handling it in the optimal manner... but in that case, what is the optimal manner?"
VD, if what HUS is trying to do is get women to make choices that will allow them to be marriageable in this trainwreck of an SMP, then yes, this is very difficult. I fully agree with this.
You've identified the problem. Women at large want to have it both ways.
1. Many women want to have sex with the hottest men, but they do not want to bear any of the adverse consequences for it (delayed marriage, accidental pregnancy, abortion, STDs, stigma etc.)
2. Many women want to be sluts (whatever that means) but don't want to be judged for it.
3. Women want to ride the carousel until they are ready to marry; then step off the carousel into the arms of a man with exactly the right alpha/beta mix, waiting with a marriage proposal and a ring. They don't want to find or be told that when they are ready to marry, the only men available are men she isn't attracted to.
4. Women want to have it all, simultaneously, right now.
Perhaps all that can be done is to help women stop making themselves less marriageable. A good start might be:
1. Telling women not to have sex with any man she cannot really see herself married to.
2. Telling women not to have sex with men until they are exclusive.
3. Telling women that men don't want to marry sluts.
4. Not telling men or women that beta traits or Godliness are attractive and that women want to have sex with men whose beta traits predominate.
5. Telling women that men's perspectives are important, and that women ignore men's perspectives at their peril.
deti
What Susan is attempting to do is very difficult. It may, in fact, be completely impossible. Removing the likes of Yohami, Rollo, Dalrock, and even potentially me from the commentariat there may be absolutely necessary given what is observably a limited female capacity for receiving criticism.
Yes, it is. Although not a perfect parallel, I'm reminded of the Biblical concept of not being able to serve two masters. I believe there is an inherent tension in serving the idea of telling young women what they absolutely need to hear versus trying to create an environment where everything is warm and fuzzy and everyone "feels good". I do think Susan tries to thread that needle as best as she can.
I mean, I was wearing kid gloves over there in comparison with how I address commenters at VP, and yet it was still more than some delicate flowers could bear.
Yes, and I noted this in a comment there.
So, what is the solution? Perhaps there is none. But it is not intellectually honest to pretend that the very real and substantial challenge which Susan faces does not exist. It is certainly possible that she isn't handling it in the optimal manner... but in that case, what is the optimal manner?
I don't know. Most importantly, she cannot alienate her core constituency of young women. As an intelligent woman, she knows this. Which is why she is often quick to jump in or post a comment at the first sign a female commenter is "uncomfortable". I do think overall she is doing an effective job of balancing various interests.
Solving the problem isn't possible. Surviving it is.
You can't simply turn this thing around; it will have to play itself out, to the bitter end. Feminism and its deluded disciples will eventually hit the end of the road, crashing and burning, producing so much pain (for both men and women) that new thinking will be required. A LOT will be LOST by then.
The point is to save as many sane people as possible, extracting them from the downward spiral. That effort has to be undertaken on both sides of the gender war. The Red Pill is helping men to unplug from our vacuous culture. If Susan can apply the "Pink Pill" (that term really has to catch on) with any success, then we'll emerge from the crisis with more functional families. Otherwise, so sorry, the survivors will start over.
Meanwhile, don't get too excited about engaging the women directly. They're not normally capable of processing the criticism. They have to do their own work on this, sifting through the lies. Let them get on with it, even though they'll struggle without clear guidance. In the end, they may possibly learn from their mistakes. This is the essence of MGTOW, when you think about it.
Aim the harsher criticisms at the political, governmental, and legal establishments that codify the failures that are ripping our society apart. They perpetuate and increase the disaster by transferring money/effort/status to the worst offenders. We need the pain of consequences to fall sooner rather than later. That reduces the total amount of suffering.
Pull the security blanket and many problems will be resolved -- quickly. And have a little grace for anyone who's trying to help mitigate the disaster.
Since you framed it as an avoidance of judgement, I can understand why women are so offended. Women want to understand the problem, but are unable to take the blame or the responsibility. Thus, the problem is in a zombie state, never to be resolved. What can be solved will be delayed until it doesn't matter anymore. Perhaps they realize the solution really isn't a solution for them. My realization is they like things just as they are however inconvenient.
They won't go back, yet they won't go to where they are happiest. They won't be happy regardless.
They want to be on top of the mountain (in charge). A quote from a famous women, "I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better." And so it is.
Hoots, you get the complementary nature of this. It isn't solved unilaterally.
The manosphere gives male perspective -- for any women who can stomach the raw truth. They're welcome to listen and learn. We're not hiding under a rock. Men should simply go on being men and let the chips fall...
HUS may provide a "clue" that all is not well, prompting women to keep digging, and all the more so, as conditions of dating and marriage steadily deteriorate. Try to coax them to see reality, but don't approach them as a logical adversay. They'll see a confusing threat everytime, and run home to the feminist collective, to complain about the viscious men that attacked them.
The truth is available. It doesn't need to be force-fed to unwilling women. Let them choose to understand or become irrelevant.
Withdrawing all help sounds cruel, but it's not. The exact opposite is true: Help enables and exacerbates the problem.
In fact, they don't have to starve, either figuratively or literally. They can accept the truth and find relief.
Thing is though, you're not coming across as 'honest' to them, you're coming across as 'angry' (to my reading). Women are naturally more fearful and anxious than men, and the second they perceive you as angry on the intertubes, it's going to kick in those defensive emotions. The emotional brain and the rational brain are different parts of the same organ, but when the emotional brain is engaged, the rational brain isn't. So when you're having an argument with a women, you can't make her anxious or her rational brain will withdraw from the conversation and you've instantly lost the debate.
Number 4 might be in contention, but Susan has advocated 1, 2, 3 and 5 verbatim. She is doing what she can to get accross to her target audience.
They won't take the Red Pill because there's no incentive to do it. Throw in the fact that the Red Pill is fairly logical and simply makes sense to the male mind and doesn't "feel" right to the female mind.
Women are not facing any real hardship. They're not facing any real sacrifice. Yeah, they whine about the lack of alphas to settle down and lament the past they view through rose-tinted glasses, but it's not causing them the serious, visceral pain that men face when they finally accept the way of the Red Pill.
Western Civilization hasn't decayed to the point where it's a post-apocalyptic free-for-all and it's still able to sustain the feminist imperative. Like it was stated before, women will not take the pill until there is no alternative but to do so.
By then, it'll be far too late for society as we know it.
"I believe there is an inherent tension in serving the idea of telling young women what they absolutely need to hear versus trying to create an environment where everything is warm and fuzzy and everyone "feels good"."
"Which is why she is often quick to jump in or post a comment at the first sign a female commenter is "uncomfortable". I do think overall she is doing an effective job of balancing various interests"
Yes, but many women making poor choices in the SMP need to be made to feel uncomfortable. They need to be presented with hard, cold truths about the effects of their conduct or proposed conduct. And women need to hear it, even if it gives them the vapors.
The vapors will pass. Viruses don't.
The vapors go away. Herpes is the gift that keeps on giving.
The vapors go away. HPV and risks of cervical cancer don't.
You'll get over the vapors. You might not get over a hot alpha.
The bad feelings will dissipate. But how will you feel when you're 31 and single and the best marriage prospects all look "meh" and your bio-clock is roaring in your ears like a freight train?
Are you prepared to feel that regret, that loss, that void, for the rest of your life when you don't have Kate Bolick's looks, money, connections or fame?
Are you prepared to feel that regret, loss and void when you're not a published, well-connected author, but rather a 30-pounds-overweight junior high social studies teacher in Akron or an overworked, stressed out, on-hypertension-medication paralegal in Wichita?
You can't get back your physical virginity.
A high N is a high N. It can't be fudged down and you'll eventually have to come clean about it someday.
deti
What you write seems to resonate. I am now curious as to what is going on there, on the other side of things. Fine, I'll go look at the trainwreck, but if she does cut off criticism, I probably won't stay. It would be just another surrender to the notion of equality of outcome through scorched earth policies. If girls can't jump as high, for example, they just shut down the competitions that involve jumping. Ah, that solves it!
I posted some extended thoughts on my blog:
http://7thseriesgongshow.blogspot.ca/2012/09/how-not-to-argue-with-woman.html
Basically, I think you guys are trying to argue with women as if they're men. They're not, they're women. Trying to argue with women like you would with men is sort of like saying you're equal and there's no sexual dichotomy. So you're acting like Feminists.
Excellent post, very helpful. My actions are sometimes very counter productive. I've found that with time women (me) come around to certain realities after getting over the shock or feeling of being 'upsetty' or cranky. All emotionalism and moods aside the truth is simply the right way.
To love learning and growing is to accept correction and help. If one wants to never grown, never learn they will stay all defensive, in fight mode, bitchy and deny reality.
Paul warns of being easily offended. I know the truth hurts but when someone pulls one aside they more than likely trying to help or assist a lady in clear need of direction or advice. Or she has asked for feedback and needs that to make better choices.
The red pill is tough for guys to swallow, but what about for women? Especially considering the emotional basis women are coming from. They have been lied to for so many years: girrl power and if it feels good do it from preschool and on - you can have it all - most of the time there aren't any consequences, but the odd chance there are, the fixes are quick and easy, the government's got your back, and so on. After the point of no return (high N and/or age), it is a very bitter red pill that many women would rather avoid than confront.
So Susan might be adding spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down. Expect a little sugar high before the medicine kicks in.
The collapse will come, and it will be shockingly fast. These things don't happen at once, you can see them coming a long way off, but a civilization tends to walk on zombie-like for quiet a while, until it suddenly (and inexplicably to many involved) collapses. That cratering birth rate in Europe should only require one full generation to pretty much destroy the place. Japan's about to hit the wall on this. Watch what happens, and how fast it crumbles.
And most women are choosing avoidance rather than confrontation.
We don't have any more time to indulge women's sugar highs while we wait for the medicine to kick in.
Ask the never married women piling up, heading into their 30s with no marriage prospects in sight.
Ask the men in their 20s and 30s with no jobs, no money, no women and no way to get any of them.
deti
"...and I fear that Aristotle may have the only valid answer, as those who cannot bear the dialectic can only be convinced through rhetorical manipulation."
VD, is this referring to a quote or something Aristotle said in a general idea? Could you (or someone else that knows what it references) expound on it a little bit? Thanks.
"...the number of women reached is so small compared to social/media forces at large..."
I agree. What is the readership #s at HUS vs what is the readership at any other female centered online publication.
"...so they have no one but themselves to blame. And only when they admit failure of self and repent of the solipsism do you begin to provide what they previously rejected."
Except some will NEVER come to that point, even when they are face on the floor at the bottom, they will never admit that they caused themselves to get to that point. They will always, and society and friends will be right there along with them, be telling themself that it is NOT their fault that all this bad stuff happened to them.
That's exactly it - Game isn't "fair" to high N and/or age. There's no emotional payoff for the woman who finally learns what would have helped her marry as well as possible 5 years and 10 men ago.
An omega man who learns Game at 30, 40 or even 50 will improve his life. A high N woman who learns it at the same age will realize only that she's burned opportunity to the ground, and her ideal mate found someone else a long time ago.
In other words, blue pill living is emotionally stressful to the man. It is emotionally entertaining to the woman. Jerk the pill and the dude relaxes. Take it from a woman and she'll demand it back.
Why should it be otherwise? That is the nature of Game: the truth hurts. That means a different thing to women than it does to men. To men, it means "if you hurt, there might be truth to be found." To women, it means "truth can harm you."
All the guys crying and ridiculing over the inherent illogical behavior of women ought to stop for a second and think, man, think:
You aren't ever going to change girls into boys. Why the hell would you want to?
Besides, when a man bans, it is because he has rules (logical or not) that have been violated. For the gals, banning is just a way of telling you she's turned on. Stop getting so emotional about it.
deti, that's just nuts. Let the lemmings run off the cliff. If a jobless man in his 20s is waiting for Susan Walsh to get him a girl, he's doing it wrong.
Jobless is the new dangerous, after all - it overrides the security toggle with a manly jerk of the drama switch.
Time isn't running out for you: there are always more girls on the girl tree, after all. As long as you are awesome, the shot clock hasn't even started for you. Start aiming younger.
Wow, Wendy, your thoughts are accurate and eerily familiar. Expressing anger about the "life-long lie" is a very masculine sentiment. Hearing it from a feminine point of view is strange, but encouraging.
I still fight the resentment, remembering the advice of trusted family members to, "go along with the program, and make everyone happy," just as you mentioned. It makes me mad, and I have to take a deep breath before talking to my wife or any other woman about the horrible damage that resulted.
I can only imagine the wrath and sadness from a woman's point of view. After all of the emotional buy-in, finding out that you've been suckered... It's a tough realization. Waking up and facing the Red Pill gets harder and more bitter with each passing day, doesn't it? Very tempting to just look away... Glad you didn't.
You're right in your post VD.
The burqa or the brothel.
Oh what a choice.
In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he writes something about delivery, and kind of complains about how it is not a proper method for making inquiry. He views it as a necessary evil, because, basically, some people are only convinced by rhetoric, because they don't have the basic brains to understand the facts of a case or proofs borne by the dialectic.
I would compare them to people who major in computer science but can't write a simple line of code (not memorized) before entering or after graduating. Aristotle says those chaps need rhetoric to get them where you need them to go, even though they'll never understand why they believe what you persuaded them to believe.
I think Book III regards delivery, but he might have brought it up earlier on the dialectic.
Makes sense, thanks.
After reading Dalrock for awhile, he is sort of not getting it either. There's a whole population of available women who are no to low N count women so why are they insisting only slutty women exist? Also, the whole bit about the state of the Christian Church neglects their central mission of ministry. Dating is a side show.
Maybe its time for men to take responsibility of their own poor choices as we begin to require women to do the same.
For the gals, banning is just a way of telling you she's turned on. Stop getting so emotional about it.
What a perfect opportunity to clarify my policy re banning. I've never done it. There is actually no one on the HUS blacklist. I guess I haven't found any of my haters sufficiently enticing.
Hollenhund can confirm this. I once threatened to ban him but promptly forgot. He may say "You can keep her," but he's left 43 comments at HUS since the start of September.
Hollenhund can't get enough of HUS. I feel like I'm getting my braids pulled on the playground. :)
Perhaps, but I still think you'd be much better off putting more of your focus on attracting superior male posters to your site than on restricting opportunities for inferior female ones to take offense.
Jimmy:
"There's a whole population of available women who are no to low N count women so why are they insisting only slutty women exist?"
I'll accept arguendo the first part of your claim (though I doubt it). I don't think Dalrock claims "only slutty women exist".
"Also, the whole bit about the state of the Christian Church neglects their central mission of ministry."
Eh. Most churches aren't doing much ministry either. Most mainline Christian pastors don't preach the Gospel; instead it's "prosperity" or pop psych or anecdotes or wandering through the Bible.
Of course you have a blacklist. You've declared that certain male bloggers cannot be either cited or named on your site. And you selectively delete my comments without offering any explanation.
So yes, others can keep you, declare you to be an asset, an ally or whatever they think you are. I'll stay on the side. I sometimes commented on your site because not all male commenters have abandoned it so far. But I cannot support your mission.
Höllenhund
Daniel makes a good point. It's almost never too late for a man to take the red pill and improve his life. He could have spent the first forty years of his life kowtowing to women, pedestalizing them, doing them favors, apologizing for making them divorce him, and so on, and he can take the red pill and turn it all around. He can't get those years back, and he'll grieve for the opportunities lost, but he has plenty more opportunities ahead. By adjusting his attitude, he can drastically improve his success with women, and probably see improvements in other areas of his life as well. His past as a beta won't work against him with new women.
On the other hand, for a woman who's been living the feminist-inspired lifestyle and is at least 25 years old, the main thing the red pill is going to tell her is that she's already blown most of her opportunities. She's already missed the chance to grab a great guy and start a family when she was at her most attractive and fertile. Her N count is already high enough to be a problem for the best guys, and her tramp stamp won't help either. She never learned to cook or clean house very well, so she doesn't have much in the way of skills to offer a husband except blowjobs -- at which she excels, but she's always planned to stop doing that after marriage.
To a man, the red pill says, "Things aren't as hopeless as they look. There are reasons for the troubles you've had with women, and there are things you can do about it." To most women, it says, "You're kinda screwed. The things you've been working on -- a career, your social life, your prowess in bed -- aren't going to land you a good husband or make you happy. In fact, they're going to work against you, because you weren't working on the right things. You can start over, but you'll be working with some big handicaps now. You'd better stop looking at handsome doctors your own age and start looking at portly IT guys 10 years older than you."
Not too surprising that they aren't interested.
"What a perfect opportunity to clarify my policy re banning. I've never done it. There is actually no one on the HUS blacklist."
Two words: Bull. Shit.
Every member of the manosphere commentariat for the past year just spit coffee on their monitor.
hookingupsmart.com/2012/05/07/relationshipstrategies/can-a-manwhore-ever-really-settle-down-even-if-he-wants-to/comment-page-3/#comments
QUOTE: "Honest to God, there are male bloggers I wish I’d never heard of. From this moment on, I’ll never mention Rollo or Dalrock again, and I’ll delete any comment that does so. I’d rather be water boarded than continue this conversation"
You've even gone so far as to scrub entire blog posts from Yohami you retroactively disagreed with.
http://yohami.com/blog/2012/05/29/my-hus-love-story/
VD, your apologies for Aunt Giggles would hold more water if she was in fact interested in anything resembling critical thought about her ideas. She is patently, and evidentially not interested in cogent argument.
Susan's blog and her echo-chamber isolationist mentality, is an indictment of EXACTLY the feminine 'hyper-resistancy to even the appearance of judgment, let alone the actual criticism' which you credit her with burdening herself with.
Anon: You're probably not "banned" because it's too hard for her to discover how to do so at her site.
Though this really does amuse... So I'm just supposed to just .... somehow KNOW that despite my conciliatory posts being vaporized into the ether by you or your appointed powers that I'm still welcome at your blog?
Are you TRYING to encourage loony blog stalkers?
@Anonymous: The fact that you allow my argument means that not enough thought was considered as to whether there are low or no N count women. They are invisible to most men because they are either ostracised for not being in the hookup culture and for their low sexual market value. Many are lower than 5's.
The discussions about manning up is about men marrying slutty women. His various posts about the Church is about men marrying slutty women. That's the whole basis of discussion. He doesn't himself offer the alternative. He looks for evidence that the Church is not doing its job in shaming women. Is that the Church's job?
"Most churches aren't doing much ministry either."
Since Dalrock is conservative, he wouldn't attend a mainline church anyways. You might not like how churches function, but what you're complaining about won't get you where you need to go. Ministry is the primary function of Churches. It is should be the focus, not the side show of recommending who to date.
I agree with Rollo
From reading through the comment thread, it appears that the majority of commenters on HUS are: angry feminists who want a place to let their hamsters run wild screaming nawalt, angry gamma/delta mra/mgtow who have traded in their balls for a mangina and want to murder all alpha males and sluts, and clueless manboobz herb type guys.
Doesn't seem like a place capable of having constructive dialogue
Except some will NEVER come to that point, even when they are face on the floor at the bottom, they will never admit that they caused themselves to get to that point.
Exactly. Some just cannot and will not be saved.
So what better way to weed them out. Let them starve.
And if society, family and friends are right there telling them that it is not their fault all the way down, then let them die alone with their illusions.
@Rollo
You published a few comments just recently at HUS - obviously you were not banned. That doesn't mean I'm happy to see you. :)
As for Yohami, I did not disagree with his post retroactively, I still think it is quite good. I don't think he has lived up to it, frankly, and cannot in good conscience publish it. Of course, he is free to put it on his own blog.
Susan's blog and her echo-chamber isolationist mentality, is an indictment of EXACTLY the feminine 'hyper-resistancy to even the appearance of judgment, let alone the actual criticism' which you credit her with burdening herself with.
Vox is not one of your boy toys, I don't think he's going to buy HUS as an echo chamber with hundreds of comments of vigorous debate on each post.
"the nature of Game: the truth hurts."
As H. L. Mencken said, "Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.”
Those high N and/or age women are reaping their just rewards, and oh does it sting.
All the more reason for them to keep denying or trying to alter reality.
I showed up late to the party, but I couldn't agree more with the general sentiment. Do the things we say hurt your precious little princess feelings? Tough Shit ladies.
You should pray that you have some pretty left in the tank when the wheels really start coming off. It will be your only bargaining chip.
-Chuck
"In HUSoviet Russia, future is known. Is past that is ever-changing!"
"Vox is not one of your boy toys, I don't think he's going to buy HUS as an echo chamber with hundreds of comments of vigorous debate on each post."
All contributed by the soupline of the same dozen or two commenters for years who need their catharsis, but like you are too frightened to hear, much less consider ideas that don't fit into their cocoon.
As I said before (but was surreptitiously censored), the strength of an idea, the validness of a premise, can only be tested by objective debate. You've proven that you'll actively censor that debate, therefore we can only assume your premises are weak.
Susan, I'll expand my point: the more of a controlled-climate hothouse environment you create in your comments, the more your infantilize your readers, and self-infantilization -- i.e. self-disempowerment through helpless victimization ideology -- is pretty much the biggest problem your female readers face overall.
We've gotten to the point now where the only meaningful limitations anglosphere women face are the ones to which they're subjecting themselves. That's why you'd be better off attracting superior male posters rather than limiting opportunities for inferior female ones to take offense.
You've raised children, so you should understand by now that after a point, it's objectively harmful for people in general to be excused from personal responsibility for their own emotional states. It's not just that you can't be a functioning adult without accepting that responsibility; it's also, and more importantly, that doing so more and better is one of the major advantages men still have over women.
The old Marvel Comics adage is backwards from the way things work in the real world: with great responsibility comes great power, not the other way around. It's an objective causal relationship; the more responsibility you accept, the more power you end up having.
What you're doing ends up denying your readers even the opportunity to take responsibility for their own emotional states. It ends up keeping them dependent and powerless, and that's pretty much in direct opposition to what you claim your goals are.
Your readers will never be fit to be with the kind of people they desire unless and until they take a comparable amount of responsibility for their own emotional states. That's one of the critical factors that has made those other people desirable in the first place, and without reciprocal qualities in your readers, said readers will simply not become reciprocally and similarly desirable.
You are apparently amazed that sluts don't like the female kryptonite of Shame and Social Judgement being deployed against them.
I too find that surprising.
Relax, kids.
Susan is well-known for warning young women off slutty behaviour, and taking responsibility for their actions. That's why the dessicated fembots loathe her so much.
I haven't yet seen anything that negates Vox' point. Susan's doing a great job, but there's no way it can have an effect until there are more bloggers like her.
'Superior male commenters' tend to talk past her, and their bitterness makes their posts counter-productive.
And now Vox is deleting my response posts from last night – again proving my point.
Nothing to see here folks.
Retracted. Sorry, I see now that it got eaten as a Google Account post.
"You'd better stop looking at handsome doctors your own age and start looking at portly IT guys 10 years older than you."
LOLZ. Ah, Schadenfreude! Nearly as good as a stout cup of coffee to start my day with.
"You've even gone so far as to scrub entire blog posts from Yohami you retroactively disagreed with."
Well, one is welcome to admin on their blog however they see fit, regardless of if censorship is practiced or not. The above though if true doesn't do much for the "place for critical debate" claim.
But if I'm reading this correctly, Vox is pretty consistent on this issue: Scalzi landed on the frying pan last month for rhetorical dodges and ultimately censorship over at his blog while having the chutzpah to claim it was a place for real critical debate; whereas in this case, it's laudable that a woman can seemingly hold up her section of the blogosphere on this topic for as long as she has, since it can't be reasonably expected that most woman would - or could - keep critical debate going for any length of time on this subject without ultimately reverting back to some form of the hamster wheel.
Burqas are very feminine, beautiful, and Biblical. So it isn't much of a choice at all. Down with brothels!
I think Cail describes the HUS situation pretty well. Even as an older (50+) guy, applying Red Pill principles helped me resolve issues that had been nagging me from previous relationships. It was like everything snapped into focus, and I could understand better how things had happened. It wasn't that I found a way to blame my exs .. actually it was a way to understand what I had done that didn't work. I've been involved in another relationship for about eighteen months that's gone much smoother and been far more enjoyable even though I probably haven't applied half of the principles Vox, Roissy and others are talking about.
Cail is right on that it's the exact opposite for women. The ones that are screaming up to the Wall are going to hate being told that what they've been doing for the last decade of their lives isn't only not going to get them the man of their dreams, but is actually going to be a hindrance. You can also see in the many of the comments of the younger women posting there that they don't like being told that they are not going to be the special snowflake that can ride the carousel until just the right moment and jump off with the gold ring (literally) in their hand.
@Jimmy
After reading Dalrock for awhile, he is sort of not getting it either. There's a whole population of available women who are no to low N count women so why are they insisting only slutty women exist? Also, the whole bit about the state of the Christian Church neglects their central mission of ministry. Dating is a side show.
Maybe its time for men to take responsibility of their own poor choices as we begin to require women to do the same.
My advice to men from the beginning has been to screen carefully to find a suitable wife. However, given what has happened in our culture this still means that very large numbers of men won't be able to find suitable wives. Our mutual advice to men simply encourages the men reading to beat out another man for the very limited pool. Most Christians seem just fine with this, for reasons I'll probably never understand. We also have pastors and other Christian leaders pushing men to make dumb choices. Pastor Driscoll wrote an op ed piece not too long back decrying that no one would marry the 40 something career gal in his church. Why won't those peter pan manboys man up already?
And my complaint isn't that the church doesn't focus on dating. I'd challenge you to find an example of that. My complaint is the outright hostility to biblical marriage. My recent post on Mohler, president of the Southern Baptists Theological Seminary is only one example. Are you sure you have read my site?
Dalrock
"Also, the whole bit about the state of the Christian Church neglects their central mission of ministry. Dating is a side show."
In my experience, this typifies the reaction of a church leadership that is wedded to some error in doctrine or practice. Someone not sharing the establishment mentality (Dalrock, for example) calls attention to the error and the leaders promptly accuse him of focusing on petty, fleshly concerns. Whether this reaction is an honest mistake (entrenched blue pill mentality) or a deliberate evasion, the result is the same. Reform is castigated as rebellion and the church continues in error.
Walsh's incandescent hotness reigns supreme over almost everyone.
Man, fuck the manosphere! After you take the redpill, you need another red-pill to wake you up from the stupid dreams of the manosphere's original redpill. What you guys swallowed was actually a purple pill - which means red mixed with blue.
Barry Kirkey Nation, represent.
@Dalrock "And my complaint isn't that the church doesn't focus on dating. I'd challenge you to find an example of that. My complaint is the outright hostility to biblical marriage."
I do get the complaint about not adhering to Biblical marriage. The church focuses on men sacrificing to their wives instead the wives making a sacrifice is well noted. I completely agree with you on this issue.
As for the complaint on dating, the discussions on "Manning Up" focuses on marrying sluts. You confirmed it above with "We also have pastors and other Christian leaders pushing men to make dumb choices." The thing is everyone there pushes people to marry. People love a marriage ceremony. Hardly anyone tells someone to breakup. I strongly believe that people should break up when they are dating if it doesn't work out. It doesn't get better after marriage. The dating ritual is supposed to find these things out.
I'll address another important point.
"However, given what has happened in our culture this still means that very large numbers of men won't be able to find suitable wives. Our mutual advice to men simply encourages the men reading to beat out another man for the very limited pool."
It's funny how this has come to pass. When I was single, I wasn't sure I was ever going to get married, but I did at 29. Then it didn't work out and my wife divorced me (no kids) after 4 years. I was single for another 8 years. Now, in my mid-forties, I married again and have one kid. Wow. What does this suggest? Men can out last women. (My ex-wife never remarried.) Most men who want to be married do find a woman to marry. Both times, I married women with limited sexual history (not sluts or have short/long-term shack up honeys as Dr. Laura would say).
Suitable wives are availabe if we look and don't bite the first low hanging fruit. I concede that you're not going to find them at Church. I've tried. The Church women have their own ideas of what an ideal husband is and it is simply not realistic. They seem to be busybodies with church activities and not interested in men.
With a limited pool, it is best to not marry than marry the wrong one.
The thing I hate about modern Christianity is fatalism. People assume that there is God's plan. That God will find someone for you so you don't have to do a thing. This is incorrect thinking. Everyone can participate in the outcome to create the best situation possible. You adapt. You take responsibility. I don't think the Churches teaches this, but it is often implied.
You identified the problem. Good job. The next step is getting out the message that there's another way that is still Biblical. No one should be a slave to the culture.
Mistakenly using dialectic when only rhetoric will serve is not white-knighting. By any definition.
First, Rollo, I wouldn't delete your comments. I mean, I have a permalink to the latest post at your site. Second, I didn't even have Internet access for two days.
No harm, no foul.
Jimmy writes: "The Church women have their own ideas of what an ideal husband is and it is simply not realistic. They seem to be busybodies with church activities and not interested in men."
It's an almost certain bet these single female busybodies are quite interested in alpha men, however surreptitiously, and whether or not they're getting themselves alpha-banged on the downlow. This issue has been kicked around in the manosphere (here and at Dalrock's blog, IIRC). Their aversion to ordinary church men appears to be caused by a poisonous combination of feminism and Christianity, which regards male piety, generosity, and kindness as signs of weakness.
@Houston: I wonder if this perspective can be supported by the evidence. It sounds a bit like sour grapes, which is why I find myself cynically doubting the truthfulness of this argument. The Church women can be attracted to alphas like any other women, but this is only half the story. What do they actually do?
Also, I find it insulting to have discussions at Dalrock where everyone is insultingly calling Christian women sluts. Certainly, if it is true, the word slut is applicable, but every Christian women? Don't tell me the men are geeks and abstinent (not by choice but genetics).
I wouldn't be near that Church if I know that to be true. You think it is true? Best to declare yourself an atheist and be done with it.
@ Jimmy: You had to ignore a good deal of qualifying language to misinterpret my meaning so badly. Evidently guardrails are not enough to contain a reckless driver, or a reckless reader. I neither wrote nor implied that all Christian women are sluts. You've set up a straw man.
High N (sluttiness) is not the issue here, it's rampant hypergamy. What the seemingly man-ignoring church girls "actually do" with their bodies is irrelevant to the question of why they show no interest in non-alpha Christian men. The infection of churches with feminist thinking is a reasonable explanation for the behavior you describe, even if it isn't the sole contributing factor. Do you dispute this?
As for trying to out me as an atheist, you're late, brother. I was raised atheist, but I received Jesus as my Lord and Savior in my early twenties. I'm happily married too (just shy of 16 years). But I'm also a Generation-Xer who's observed that virginity before marriage is uncommon among women of my cohort, to say nothing of the sexual behavior of the Millennial women. Noting the possibility of fornication when talking about the mating decisions of Christian women is warranted given the state of our culture.
Correction: The above statement, "But I'm also a Generation-Xer who's observed that virginity before marriage is uncommon among women of my cohort" claims too much. Let me amend this to:
But I'm also a Generation-Xer who's aware that virginity before marriage is not the rule among women of my cohort...
Vox, what book does Aristotle mention this in? I'm planning to a bible study on this topic.
I was obviously a heavy participant in this issue when it first came to a head last year, and I do understand the need to keep the tone calm when introducing new people to red-pill concepts. I coach sports and also deal with some fragile trust relationships in my work life, so it's become an important skill for me to be able to manage the balance of leading and teaching without being overbearing or turning people off from the message. It was an honor to receive praise from several manosphere writers for my "gentle" nature.
However, there's a point at which people need to be accountable for self-awareness and receiving feedback on their issue, and if they don't want to hear it or feel "judged" or whatever, that's their own problem and YOYO.
I've undertaken massive amounts of self-improvement over the course of my life, fueled by uncomfortable honesty about my faults, humble self-awareness, hard work and a serious desire to better myself and my results. I suppose I have former-smoker syndrome about this, but I have difficulty
Getting away from game/LTRs/etc, I have a declining level of respect for someone who repeatedly claims they want something yet continues to do anything and everything to guarantee they won't get it.
My attitude reduces to "either get a plan to get it, or shut up about it."
This applies to people who want a boyfriend/girlfriend/FB/etc, who want to lose weight, who want a better job or better stuff in their current job, who want to chase a life goal like flying planes or playing in a band. If the mere concept of the truth is too scary for you, go play minigolf and forge your scorecard.
In a greater sense, if women insist (by words or actions) that they can't take criticism, I feel no incumbency to strategize with them to get ahead in the working world or in relationships/marriage, as an un-self-aware person who rejects improvement plans is unfit for those levels of responsibility and power over others.
I don't totally buy it, though - I think this aversion to the pain of criticism is more of a nurture thing, Millenial American women are spoiled and self-absorbed and were raised that way by Boomer parents who didn't want to say no and were so emotionally immature themselves they were desperate for their children's approval as "friends" instead of being leaders as parents should be. (Actually you could argue that Beta men are the same way, seeking the approval of women rather than to lead them).
"Actually you could argue that Beta men are the same way, seeking the approval of women rather than to lead them."
I don't see any argument against that. Seeking female approval is an essential Beta trait (if you're using Roissy's definition of a Beta, rather than Vox's).
@Houston "I neither wrote nor implied that all Christian women are sluts. You've set up a straw man."
I wrote "I find it insulting to have discussions at Dalrock where everyone is insultingly calling Christian women sluts."
Thus your criticism should be directed at you!!!
I was also addressing what you wrote precisely as "It's an almost certain bet these single female busybodies are quite interested in alpha men, however surreptitiously, and whether or not they're getting themselves alpha-banged on the downlow. This issue has been kicked around in the manosphere (here and at Dalrock's blog, IIRC)."
ALPHA-BANGED. Dalrock's blog has kicked this issue around quite frequently where they have called Christian women sluts. I didn't say you did it, but you brought up the issue via "alpha-banged" and fail to notice.
As for the accusation of Atheist, I was refering to the blog where the people are quite willing to call Christian women sluts and it seems so disungenious that I wonder if the participants are actually Christians.
Since we are at the same subject, we should presume everyone is Atheist until converted. Gee. What's up with you?!!! BTW: I became a Christian in my late twenties. Jerk.
Jimmy, you sound more mature when you lay off the insults. You've got intelligence. You've got faith. Try working on your style, bro.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: "The infection of churches with feminist thinking is a reasonable explanation for the behavior you describe, even if it isn't the sole contributing factor. Do you dispute this?"
Finally, to de-escalate hostilities, I apologize for misinterpreting your reference to atheism.
Houston: I'll answer your question, but I wonder if it matters. I essentially answered it in reply to Dalrock above.
Your question "High N (sluttiness) is not the issue here, it's rampant hypergamy. What the seemingly man-ignoring church girls "actually do" with their bodies is irrelevant to the question of why they show no interest in non-alpha Christian men. The infection of churches with feminist thinking is a reasonable explanation for the behavior you describe, even if it isn't the sole contributing factor. Do you dispute this?"
High sluttiness is irrelevant. I already said this. I agree, but for different reasons. There are plenty of women who don't fall into this category. I would say the effect of alpha men is irrelevant so any effect of beta-men is almost the same.
You can say hypergamy is an issue, but hypergamy can be disassociated with feminism. Women would naturally gravitate to the high status males.
As for feminism, yes, women and church are both infected with feminism. However, is feminism a contributing factor to the behavior that I describe? I'm shaking my head. I don't know how. Please explain what you mean by this.
I said women are not going for men in Church and that they are busybodies. How can I atribute this to feminism?
Okay, this is a stretch, but I just came up with this. Feminism can be blamed for not instilling them with an urgency to marry and have children. They are delaying their natural desires as God prescribes (be fruitful). There is also conflicting scriptural dictates to ministry. They feel an obligation to spread the message, which ignores the necessary Biblical message to procreate and raise the next generation of Christian leaders and believers.
Sometimes Christians leaders get mis-directed. They leave their families for long stretches. They spend more times with others than their own families.
As for the insult, I am sorry, but you raised my blood pressure with your insulting response.
I would still support her mission of trying to help young women make the choices that will allow them to be marriageable in a society that sometimes appears to be doing its worst to eradicate the institution.
Frankly, I would even support a mission of improving the self-awareness and sense of responsibility in young women who choose careers and serial monogamy instead of marriage.
Women have every right to try and get what they want from the sexual marketplace. The problem is the denial of reality and use of coercion and intellectual dishonesty (shaming, righteous indignation, alienation, ad hominem) to reinforce the fantasy.
VD I have just jumped in here, I am only passingly familiar with your blog so far, but I just had an idea for how heavily-commented bloggers might deal with the issue of Who To Ban and all that: What do you think?
Allow absolutely EVERY commenter, no matter how obnoxious, (except commercial spam of course), as long as they don't post too much or too often. How much does that mean? It's in relative terms. So for example, no swamping the comments with overly FREQUENT comments even if they're short; comments of (almost) any length permitted as long as they're INFREQUENT relative to the number of other commenters present; and so on. If a commenter really does need a relatively huge amount of space, and the blog owner likes it, the commenter would be required to post the comment somewhere else, and the blog owner would give the link.
That's my idea, what do you think everyone? Feasible? Can it be improved?
I do not create many responses, however i did some searching and wound up
here "Communication and la difference". And I
do have a couple of questions for you if it's allright. Could it be only me or does it look like some of these remarks appear like they are written by brain dead individuals? :-P And, if you are posting at other social sites, I'd like to keep up
with anything fresh you have to post. Could you make a list of all of your shared pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
Also visit my web blog - rapid weightloss
Hello there! I know this is kinda off topic but I'd figured I'd ask.
Would you be interested in exchanging links
or maybe guest authoring a blog post or vice-versa?
My website addresses a lot of the same subjects as yours and I think
we could greatly benefit from each other. If you're interested feel free to send me an email. I look forward to hearing from you! Excellent blog by the way!
my homepage ... halong bay cruises luxury
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.