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.
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.