I mean, I understand that you’re suggesting that men who don’t use the approval of women as the core of their moral compass and the chief determinant of their behavior don’t have any need for good pickup advice
Rather, the opening advice incidentally implies that they don’t seek dating advice from a female authority figure that has selected and vetted subjected to her seal of approval.
“Mommy, how do I make girls like me?” just isn’t a particularly good way to arrange the education of males and a feminist guide to dating for males is even more inappropriate. It makes so much more sense for ‘feminism’ to give advice for females. There isn’t such an overwhelming conflict of interest with regards to agenda (which is not to say that the political agenda wouldn’t interfere even with advice to females at times as well).
There isn’t such an overwhelming conflict of interest with regards to agenda (which is not to say that the political agenda wouldn’t interfere even with advice to females at times as well).
You would think that if feminism was about watching out for women’s interests, it would also watch out for their heterosexual interests. Yet some feminists seem to view women’s heterosexual interests as counter their political interests, when those women have preferences for traditional gender dynamics.
In some conversations with feminists about pickup techniques, I often get the sense that they look down on the women who respond to particular techniques. For example, in a thread at Feministe, “negs” are only granted effectiveness because of vulnerabilities in women. It couldn’t possibly be because some types of women actually enjoy some types of negs, without being psychologically broken!
For example, this comment supposedly distinguishes a “neg” from light teasing:
(1) A week or so ago I was sitting in a bar with a few friends and a guy walked up to me and said “You have lovely eyes, they’d be remarkable if you wore makeup.” That’s a neg. That made me laugh at him and tell him to go away.
(3) In contrast many years ago I was sitting in a coffee shop, when a guy walked up to me and said “You’re reading Kant? You know that guy will rot your brain right?” That is light teasing. That made me laugh, and talk to him for 5 solid hours. Then marry him…granted there might have been a bit more involved there…but it started with a tease that was not about dominance, but rather about shared experience.
Yet Clarisse Thorn herself pointed out to me that these sorts of comments actually aren’t so different in principle. The second one is an intellectual “neg.” The poster might hear the first approach, and think “what a pretentious asshole.” Yet if a woman was merely reading Kant as an assignment, and received the second approach, she might also think “what a pretentious asshole.” Both approaches have the possibility of getting a positive and a negative response depending on how it is pulled off, and what sort of woman receives it.
There seems to be a bias in some feminist women to view their preferences as the default, while viewing the preferences of other women as unhealthy, such that PUAs are “preying” on those women. Although I would agree to a limited extent that some common mainstream female preferences are unhealthy, and perhaps should not be satisfied, I am highly skeptical of feminist women trashing other women’s preferences and trashing PUAs for fulfilling them.
I am tickled to be referenced as “Clarisse Thorn herself”. Since that conversation, though, I have to say that I’ve thought about Kristen’s Feministe comment a lot, and I think I understand it better now (though I’m still not sure I agree).
(1) shows a guy who is trying to exert dominance by telling her what to do. “You have lovely eyes, they’d be remarkable if you wore makeup” includes a proposed “solution” to the “problem” he’s outlining. (3), on the other hand, is just mockery. “That guy will rot your brain” doesn’t tell her what to do.
I see the distinction now, but I’m not convinced that the speakers did, nor am I convinced that most hearers would.
You would think that if feminism was about watching out for women’s interests, it would also watch out for their heterosexual interests. Yet some feminists seem to view women’s heterosexual interests as counter their political interests, when those women have preferences for traditional gender dynamics.
No disagreement here.
In some conversations with feminists about pickup techniques, I often get the sense that they look down on the women who respond to particular techniques. For example, in a thread at Feministe, “negs” are only granted effectiveness because of vulnerabilities in women. It couldn’t possibly be because some types of women actually enjoy some types of negs, without being psychologically broken!
I would go as far as to say that it is the least vulnerable women for whom negs are the most enjoyable and effective. Guys that lack the confidence , social savvy and resistance to moralizing pressure to display strong dominance in their approach are beneath them—and having a vulnerability for weaker approaches would lower their reproductive success and in general be far less powerful.
So, I can kind of get this to make sense if I assume that good pick-up advice acts against the best interests of women… which, now that I think about it, is consistent with your other comments on the subject.
Sure, if that’s true, and if feminists are interested in advancing the interests of women (which seems likely), then it follows that feminists giving pick-up advice is a conflict of interest, as you say.
Of course, men who consider themselves pick-up artists giving pick-up advice is also a conflict of interest, in that they presumably consider themselves in competition with their advisees for resources.
But perhaps, as you suggest, the conflict of interest in the second case is less overwhelming.
And your equation of feminists with female authority figures suggests that you consider those sets entirely disjoint… that is, that there are no feminist men, at least not in this context.
And if I additionally assume, as you seem to here, that I have to choose—that is, that I can either learn from feminists, or learn from soi-disant PUAs, but I can’t do both -- then it follows from all that that I should not seek out pick-up advice from feminists.
OK, I think I understand. Thanks for the clarification.
I don’t accept any of that as especially representative of any position I put forward and do not wish to engage in discourse of the style you are using.
There may be those here who appreciate my comment—I will leave them to do so or not based on their own perspectives.
Rather, the opening advice incidentally implies that they don’t seek dating advice from a female authority figure that has selected and vetted subjected to her seal of approval.
“Mommy, how do I make girls like me?” just isn’t a particularly good way to arrange the education of males and a feminist guide to dating for males is even more inappropriate. It makes so much more sense for ‘feminism’ to give advice for females. There isn’t such an overwhelming conflict of interest with regards to agenda (which is not to say that the political agenda wouldn’t interfere even with advice to females at times as well).
You would think that if feminism was about watching out for women’s interests, it would also watch out for their heterosexual interests. Yet some feminists seem to view women’s heterosexual interests as counter their political interests, when those women have preferences for traditional gender dynamics.
In some conversations with feminists about pickup techniques, I often get the sense that they look down on the women who respond to particular techniques. For example, in a thread at Feministe, “negs” are only granted effectiveness because of vulnerabilities in women. It couldn’t possibly be because some types of women actually enjoy some types of negs, without being psychologically broken!
For example, this comment supposedly distinguishes a “neg” from light teasing:
Yet Clarisse Thorn herself pointed out to me that these sorts of comments actually aren’t so different in principle. The second one is an intellectual “neg.” The poster might hear the first approach, and think “what a pretentious asshole.” Yet if a woman was merely reading Kant as an assignment, and received the second approach, she might also think “what a pretentious asshole.” Both approaches have the possibility of getting a positive and a negative response depending on how it is pulled off, and what sort of woman receives it.
There seems to be a bias in some feminist women to view their preferences as the default, while viewing the preferences of other women as unhealthy, such that PUAs are “preying” on those women. Although I would agree to a limited extent that some common mainstream female preferences are unhealthy, and perhaps should not be satisfied, I am highly skeptical of feminist women trashing other women’s preferences and trashing PUAs for fulfilling them.
I am tickled to be referenced as “Clarisse Thorn herself”. Since that conversation, though, I have to say that I’ve thought about Kristen’s Feministe comment a lot, and I think I understand it better now (though I’m still not sure I agree).
(1) shows a guy who is trying to exert dominance by telling her what to do. “You have lovely eyes, they’d be remarkable if you wore makeup” includes a proposed “solution” to the “problem” he’s outlining. (3), on the other hand, is just mockery. “That guy will rot your brain” doesn’t tell her what to do.
I see the distinction now, but I’m not convinced that the speakers did, nor am I convinced that most hearers would.
No disagreement here.
I would go as far as to say that it is the least vulnerable women for whom negs are the most enjoyable and effective. Guys that lack the confidence , social savvy and resistance to moralizing pressure to display strong dominance in their approach are beneath them—and having a vulnerability for weaker approaches would lower their reproductive success and in general be far less powerful.
So, I can kind of get this to make sense if I assume that good pick-up advice acts against the best interests of women… which, now that I think about it, is consistent with your other comments on the subject.
Sure, if that’s true, and if feminists are interested in advancing the interests of women (which seems likely), then it follows that feminists giving pick-up advice is a conflict of interest, as you say.
Of course, men who consider themselves pick-up artists giving pick-up advice is also a conflict of interest, in that they presumably consider themselves in competition with their advisees for resources.
But perhaps, as you suggest, the conflict of interest in the second case is less overwhelming.
And your equation of feminists with female authority figures suggests that you consider those sets entirely disjoint… that is, that there are no feminist men, at least not in this context.
And if I additionally assume, as you seem to here, that I have to choose—that is, that I can either learn from feminists, or learn from soi-disant PUAs, but I can’t do both -- then it follows from all that that I should not seek out pick-up advice from feminists.
OK, I think I understand. Thanks for the clarification.
I don’t accept any of that as especially representative of any position I put forward and do not wish to engage in discourse of the style you are using.
There may be those here who appreciate my comment—I will leave them to do so or not based on their own perspectives.
All right.
If at some later time you choose to clarify what I got wrong there, I’ll be interested.