professional pick-up artists run woman-tricking business to help guys get laid
January 29, 2007 by thinking girl
seriously. Sam sent me a link to this article, in Aussie online mag The Age, which is all about these men who earn their living teaching other men to be smarmy in bars and other social events. I post it as fair warning to women: men are willing to pay someone to teach them how to trick you into thinking they are charming so they can get into your pants. And some men are willing to take that money.
Wellington has taken at least a dozen phone numbers tonight, but he has no intention of using them. Tonight’s about business, not pleasure: it is his job to teach men the art of seduction. He is a professional pick-up artist.
“At a very young age I learnt that I liked these soft, curvy, nice-smelling things called girls,” Wellington says. “So I started to teach men how to be better in their presence.” That’s putting it mildly. [emphasis mine]
Wellington and his friend James Marshall run a business called The Natural, offering weekend workshops in seduction. These cover skills such as body language, conversation, presentation and “touch training”. Two days of intensive, one-on-one tuition costs $880.
So, these guys think they are teaching men how to be “natural” with women. It couldn’t be that they’re teaching men how to be sleazy and dishonest? Why is it that teaching men to be confident with women is automatically about tricking women into thinking the man is something he’s not - smooth, suave, charming? Then again, the whole thing is about performance - gender is one big long performance, an imitation that really has no original in the first place, and why shouldn’t we just learn to be different at it? I dunno, maybe because nothing is honest in this world anymore! Nobody knows how to be honest with one another! At least, not when it comes to sex. Here’s more:
“What we’ve got now is a big generation of closet heterosexuals being quite asexual in their approach to women. They become their best friend, but their own worst enemies. I call it ‘Best Friend Syndrome’.” Marshall calls such men “moths”.
“Hovering around the light, banging their heads against it occasionally,” he says. “People occasionally say to me ‘you guys are womanisers, this is a sleazy thing to be teaching’. And I say, ‘well, what I think the most sleazy thing is pretending to be a girl’s friend for three years waiting for a moment of vulnerability’.”Marshall and Wellington aren’t alone in their belief that men are now sexually neutered and need to regroup. [emphasis mine]
Oh yeah, men are ’sexually neutered’ in our society. Everything from advertising to movies to TV to music to fashion treats women like objects to be used for male sexual graitification, objects that couldn’t possibly have a sexuality of their own to express, but men are ’sexually neutered’ - sure, I’ll buy that. When monkeys fly out of my ass.
Get ready, girls. This is how they do it. Memorize this shit, so you know exactly what to watch out for (for the record, the guys in this article don’t teach this method, they teach one that they claim is more ‘direct’ - this method comes from asshats in California who run a similar woman-tricking business):
“Indirect gaming” is counterintuitive. Don’t talk to the “hot babe” (HB) or “super hot babe” (SHB) you’re interested in; talk to her friend and look like you’re having a great time. Next try a “neg” — a backhanded compliment to show the woman you are indifferent to her beauty.
(”Beautiful nails — are they real?”; “Nice dress — I saw it on another girl just a minute ago.”)
Once the HB’s interest is piqued, you could lead her up a “yes ladder”, asking questions that require an obvious affirmative answer. (”Can I ask you a question?” leads to “Are you adventurous?” leads to “Can you prove it?”).
Gross, right? Treat her a little bit like shit, then she’ll like you and think you’re clever and charming. Women, learn these methods well. Don’t get sucked in.
[One man] has a different agenda; he has paid for wingmen services, but will not say with whom. He refuses any form of identification, but is at pains to explain that he is no Average Frustrated Chump.
“In the year or so I’ve been in the Lair I’ve approached probably 10,000 women and slept with about 100.” But he says there was a problem with the “quality of women”; the wingmen services allowed him to zero in on better “targets”. [emphasis mine]
“Sarah” is that sort of target.
She believes she uncovered a pick-up artist on a date last year. “We were at a bar just talking and it became quite obvious that this guy had a method,” she says. “He was very smooth, very attentive, very focused on the conversation like there was no one else in the room.
“But when I challenged him he was quite honest with me — he told me how he has a particular way of picking up women, that he usually picks them up just for sex, that he would never go for somebody who’s not a ‘9′ or a ‘10′ on a scale of 1-10.
“He said to me ‘you’re not a 9 or a 10 but, I don’t know, I was intrigued’.”
A classic “neg”, but Sarah wasn’t biting. So the PUA went for broke and suggested to Sarah that she might like a slot on his “sexual roster”.
“I pulled away and said ’sorry, I don’t go on people’s rosters’. I’m single and I’m thinking to myself, ‘is this what I’m out there facing’? I’m hoping to God I don’t come across them too often.”
Sarah says the revelation of pick-up strategies made her feel physically ill.
“There’s no serendipity or consideration for the other person’s feelings. It was just so male-centric and one-sided that I was just absolutely disgusted.
“I feel like we’re saturating ourselves with the desire to be with somebody and not actually just going out and living our life and being open and giving ourselves a chance. And the pool of respectable gentlemen is narrowing.”
Three cheers for Sarah! God, the ego of these men - “quality targets”? Jesus. Where is there any room for honesty, for authentic feeling (beyond sexual arousal)? With all the trickery going on here, we only distance ourselves further from the chance for anything genuine at all. Didn’t these people see “Hitch”?
Wellington and Marshall heartily disagree. They say their “direct” method eschews the Jedi mind tricks and ridiculous aliases of the “indirect” school.
“It is ‘natural game’ and it’s direct,” Marshall says. “Being honest; showing that you think they’re attractive; showing that you admire them; or showing your intentions straight off.It’s not about the opener, not through what you say — it’s just how you’re feeling inside and how you’re expressing that.”
Note: these ‘direct’ moves include things like how to stand, when and where to touch a woman (on the arm, the on the small of the back), and *exactly what to say*. Yeah. Real “natural.”
So, this is what we’re dealing with out there in the world of hetero dating. Predators teaching men to be predators. And getting paid very well to do it. Maybe I’ll start a business of my own, and I’ll call myself a date doctor, and instead of teaching men sleazy tricks to get into a woman’s pants, I’ll teach them how to actually treat women with respect. But, oh, wait - a business like that won’t make any money! The ones that make money are the ones that teach men to trick women. Because apparently, some men would rather learn how to trick a woman than learn how to be respectful and genuine.
[Sam, muchos gracias.]
I can’t think of a thing to add except, “UGH” my skin is crawling.
UGH indeed, although I find the whole thing quite interesting when you look at it in relation to things like Cosmo magazines. What do these magazines do other than try to teach women to pick up men? (The main difference being that women are taught to try and “reel a man in” to a relationship through being sexy and sporty and mysterious (but not too mysterious) etc etc whereas the men are being taught how to get a girl for the night. The other main difference would be that in the “indirect” method expressed above the object is to pull the woman into a game whereas a magazine tries to teach women to be as attractive as possible so that he’ll make a move.) Both are disgusting practices if you ask me, men do it and women do it too, and what you get is a lot of confused frusterated and lonely people. I have no issue with learning to be confident or learning proper ettiquette, because I think that a lot of these things were taught by parents and regular social events at one time that we simply don’t have anymore. Should men learn to stand up straight to increase their chances? Sure, why not? Give them an opening line so that they are not frozen in the fear of rejection? Also okay by me! What’s not okay is the entire script, hook line and sink’her attitude… that is just gross. Especially the “neg”. Make a woman feel less than special to play off her insecurities and make her more likely to take you home? That is just gross. (Also interesting is that in women’s magazines we’re supposed to learn to compliment his best features so that he feels manly and strong and connects this feeling to being around us. Equally manipulative, but at least in this case there is some focus on the other person’s positive feelings (not to defend these magazines..))
Ugh indeed…
Hi ladies,
Yep, it’s all pretty icky. And M, thanks for bringing up the Cosmo crap. It’s so very true. I stopped reading magazines quite a while ago - even the non-Cosmo kind got tired after a while, because it’s all the same old consumerist crap about buying stuff to make you feel better about life. So I’m just so far removed from that world. But you are absolutely right, women are also taught this kind of BS, but from the other direction.
And what is really most interesting to me, is that the focus of each gendered approach is so very opposite! For women, the idea is to secure a long-term commitment, with men it’s to secure a one-nighter. Because that’s how we value one another: women are valued most highly in terms of their relatinoship to a man (which is supposed to prove their femininity), and men are valued most highly in terms of their many sexual conquests (which is supposed to prove their masculinity). Except not really, because men are able to secure respect in other realms as well, while women are jsut shut out of that. Like careers.
So what we have is feminine goals being so far removed from masculine goals in terms of dating practices that it’s no wonder society likes the Venus/Mars explanation of gender relations.
Well…I’m disgusted too. This post kinda surprised me and yet didn’t in a way — today’s society seems to be always trying to find the most efficient way to do something, even ‘relationships’ with ’speed dating’ and now a pickup coaching course…even a particular psychological method with which to do it. It’s another example of how the bar scene has become a overly sexed, hyper-dating scene.
As an aside on a related issue… the objectification of women who work in the bars has become even more prevalent, making the whole bar scene about objectifying women, I believe. A few examples to illustrate this:
In a few bars in Calgary, the typical ‘attractive’ waitress has been taken to a new level, whereas some bars are actually paying their waitresses for breast implant surgery. These waitresses serve as ‘beer tub’ girls — placed at the entrances to the bar similar to a greeter at Walmart. Other bars are taking the “Coyote Ugly” type approach to a more extreme level, where ’shooter girls’ (girls dressed up like Cowgirls with toy guns and bar shots as bullets in a belt) are paid by patrons to put the shooter between their breasts and ‘feed’ the buyer the shooter, all while standing on a 4 foot bar (in mega short jean shorts and ripped/almost non-existent tank tops.) This is prevalent in almost every popular bar during the Calgary Stampede celebrations. Yet another bar regularly features a specific ‘lingerie night’ where the bar staff all wore revealing lingerie (and not a nightgown, some women only wore patches on their upper half). I laughed at how the male bar staff wore full length house coats (covering everything) and the girls who were pretty much naked. In others places, the female bar staff are hired to dance in cages all night wearing bikinis. The bar with ‘the beer tub girls’ also has girls that specifically sell cigarettes. These girls are all dressed the same, wearing a red vinyl (plastic looking) outfit (hat, short skirt, long knee high boots, and a blonde wig). These girls stay in the same spot all night, standing still on a podium, almost as if they were barbie dolls (the best visual example I can think of is the stewardesses on that luxury boat as seen in the film, the Fifth Element).
I’m interested to see if these examples are also prevalent in other cities as well. When I was doing my research in Halifax on the bar scene 5 years ago, I didn’t see anything to the extent on what I’ve seen in Calgary over the past few years. I was surprised to see what I saw, but also surprised that others didn’t notice how blatantly objectifying it was as well. Yet, people still go to these bars, almost not aware of what they’re being subjected to, almost subliminally.
When I look at the bar scene as a whole, I think it would be easy to conclude that bars are becoming more and more about sex, objectification and watching/voyeurism. With all of these things, I appreciate when I go to regular neighbourhood pub, order a regular beer, wings, and play some pool, in a bid to avoid the now all too typical scene.
I wonder how many of those people were inspired by the movie Hitch? Anyways, that is so patronizing towards women. I had a friend once meet a really nice guy at a party, then she overheard him bragging to another guy how he “had her where he wanted her” and how he was manipulating her…what an ass! She of course did not speak to him again.
You say you’ve lived in Calgary? Any advice for a feminist looking for feminist work in Calgary?
Cheers, Kerrie
Thinking Girl
We are modern cavemen only recently removed from bare survival. So many of us are governed by our genetic history without being aware of it.
For me I say why be a one night stand seeker. But for the women I say why try to get your hooks into a man. Be with the one you want because you want them, not for either security or status.
Of course this will take examining your everymove thought and feeling for underlying biological forces.
If it helps remeber we are more than 90% animal in our minds. The animal is always just below the surface. I recomend a book by Desmond Morris called “The Naked Ape” it is a look at humans through an animal behaviourists eyes and is quite a good read. If you cant read the book read the reviews at this link.
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Ape-Zoologists-Study-Animal/dp/0385334303
What amazes me is that apparently women fall for this shit? I mean, wow. Guys would not do it if it did not work, right? Ick. Ick. Ick.
RG> I live in Calgary now. Advice? Well, the only advice I could give to anyone coming to Calgary is ensure you can live off what you may be making. There are many that move to Calgary that become surprised by the cost of living. I know I was. But if money isn’t an issue, I guess the only thing would be to watch out for the conservative attitudes here, its much like lil’ Texas!
Dave - you speak the truth, my friend. The objectification of women for male profit is a time-honoured patriarchal tradition that has flourished in the bar scene. Economic exploitation of women who work at bars by owners who demand more and more T&A from their staff to increase revenue is pretty common. Our culture gets more and more pornified all the time, and it can’t be avoided.
When you were researching in Halifax, did you see the cigarette girls at the Marquee? They had gold lame outfits and walked around selling ciggys to mostly drunk guys who felt it was their prerogative not jsut to buy their wares, but also to grope the cigarette girls. Some “tip.” A grope from a drunken asshat. Super. But yeah - it definitely sounds like Calgary is way worse than Halifax for objectifying female bar staff. yikes.
Rainbow Girl - hi there, welcome! I saw you commenting over at Rachel’s, right? The name stuck with me.
I actually think it’s the other way around - that “Hitch” was inspired by those sleazy Love Doctor guys out in Cali. I have no evidence of this, but it’s my suspicion. I’d check it out, but I’m too lazy right now!
Gross about your friend.
No, sorry, I’ve never lived in Calgary, so I can’t be of help there. Any Calgarian feminists out there who can help Rainbow Girl out?
Steve - actually, I pretty much eschew most evolutionary accounts of why men and women do the things we do. More than looking for biological motivations for the things I do, I look to ways that I’ve been socially conditioned to behave. However, I’ll check out the link, and that book if I’m able.
Renegade - yes, exactly. They do it because it works. I would never say womena re easily fooled, or gullible, or anything like that. But we are conditioned to be generous, polite, receptive, and to please others. I think that might have something to do with it.
Dave again - yeah, so I”ve been told about the conservative nature of Calgarians, and Albertans more generally. What was it - 12 years of Ralph Klein? More? Brutal. My aunt, uncle, and 2 cousins lived there for years, and my aunt absolutely loved it - she called it the best city in the world. I was like, even over Paris? London? NYC? Montreal? LA? Rome? Sydney? Rio? Tokyo?
I have my doubts.
Great post and comments. Our society puts far too much emphasis on appearances and outward perceptions, thus this kind of behavior. I would say that both sexes are equally guilty of pretending to be something they are not in order to get ‘close’ to a potential partner, whether it is for a relationship or just for sex.
Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom in the media is that “sex sells”, and it is being taken further and further along the continuum in order to overcome desensitization and market saturation.
I personally have been predicting a backlash against this kind of behavior and we are starting to see it in things like this story on Foxnews: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121608,00.html
TG> I did research in most bars in Halifax, but didn’t see the ’stamped barbie’ look…then again, that was back in 2000. Interestingly, the research I did is coming out as a book, written by George Rigakos, who has done some feminist-oriented publications.
A few articles came out as well, here’s one: http://crpr.icaap.org/index.php/crpr/article/viewArticle/22/41
Shoulung - thanks for your comment. I agree. Men and women are both pushed into a weird, strange dance int he dating world. I don’t know how all those games are supposed to be helpful, or at all conducive to intimacy. Of course, not everyone is looking for a lasting relatinoship, or even intimacy, but all the pretending we do certainly doesn’t get us there.
DaveAh, great. I don’t remember when I saw the cigarette girls, but I think it was later than 2000. The Marquee shut down last year or so, it only opens now as a venue for specific music shows. Shame, I always had a fun time there.
Thanks for the link - very interesting. I was struck by the discussion of the panoptical effect of CCTV in bars, and the reverse sort of effect, what he called the synoptic frenzy - everyone there to be watched, to be noticed, to be looked at. We all become spectacles of a sort in a nightclub, that is a really interesting point, and at the same time, we are also watching others. I have a better understanding of your comments about voyeurism in the bar scence now. Thanks!
Haha this is all too funny if you ask me.
Women dont know what they want.
You take a girl on a date and compliment her, buy her dinner, be nice and friendly. You drive her home and all you get is a kiss on the cheek…if that.
She complains that guys are as#holes and dont respect yet she bonks them and wont have it any other way. What happended to that nice guy? HE’S LEFT IN THE GUTTER…He’s confused and doesnt know what just went down. He was a typical girls ‘perfect’ guy. Nice, friendly, DTE and guess what he didnt get anywhere.
These ‘pick-up’ courses is what women WANT men to learn…so they become men again.
Anyone here who has taken my workshop speak up and let all know how it’s helped you.
Alex - yeah, I think women do know what we want. We certainly don’t need some smooth-talking, sex-expecting Rico Suave to tell us.
Dinner and a compliment doesn’t entitle a man to sex. It doesn’t even entitle him to a kiss on the cheek.
I don’t think women want men to learn how to be something that they’re not in order to pick women up.
And it’s been a couple of days now, and nobody’s spoken up about how your workshop has helped them. I guess posting on a feminist blog isn’t going to get you a whole lot of traffic for your project of tricking women to help guys get laid.
Now run along.
The seduction community is alot more complex than you make out here thinking girl. A lot of people have the same initial reaction, but when they delve deeper they normally see it as a good thing.
If you actually met a pick up artist you would probably fall for him. The best ones I know are extremly fun, interesting, happy and well adjusted. They’d be someone who you would love to introduce to your friends.
Most would also tell you before sleeping with you that they are not after a commited relationship. And thus you might part ways.
The good method aren’t about teaching “trickery” or being “sleazy” because these things don’t work. You can’t trick a girl into bed, the very idea is prepostrous.
I’m happy to discussion on MSN or something about it and give you things to read that should inform you more.
Roger - see, that’s where our ideas about this differ. I see the whole act of hiring someone to teach you how to pick up women as being, in itself, sleazy - as well as the act of teaching a guy how to be successful at picking women up. Taking courses and learning how to be something other than what you are in order to pick up women is, in itself, tricking women into bed.
What I don’t see in the “seduction community” (gross, by the way) is anything honest or genuine or respectful going on. There’s just horny guys who want to get laid and don’t want to actually treat a woman honestly or respectfully. When a guy leaves his house for the night, armed with a bunch of tricks he learned from some “seduction specialist” or wahtever you want to call it, in order to find a “quality target” and get her into bed, that’s intrinsically sleazy.
I have nothing against one-night-stands. And I have nothing against sex for sex’s sake. But for christ sake, be honest about it, be genuine, be respectful. If you need to use tricks on a woman to get her to sleep with you, I don’t know, that’s kind of lame, and kind of misogynist.
I totally agree with Alex on this article.
I’m not gonna sugar coat it so try to bare with me here:
Women have make up and there are also classes on how to apply it as to make themselves look better and in return get more attention from the opposite of sex. Make up would not exist if it were’nt for this exact reason. This is fact. They have magazines telling them to do this and that to attract and get the guy of their dreams. But who I’m sure you don’t associate yourself with is to that there are girls out there that actually use these little aesthetic “Tricks” and pick up techniques they learn from magazines and such for exactly the same reason as you say their male counterpart in these groups. The only difference is that it’s been around for so long that it’s become the norm and a way of life for girls to be sexy and mysterious whether it be fake or not. It does’nt matter cause the the animal in us always win’s us over whether we know it or not. With this said, females are in fact PUA’s themselves and they KNOW IT!(let’s not kid ourselves here)
In return men have evolved. The normal “nice guy” thing that girls supposedly want doesn’t work to get to a girls heart.And yes I’m sure there are alot of angry guys out there cause all they have been is nice and have been thrown in the gutter cause the females confusion/insecurities(I can’t tell the difference and I bet they can’t either) nine out of ten times has lead her to the guy that treats her like dirt. Offcourse the nice guy is gonna look for an alternative whether it being changing his appearence or his attitude. Girls change at the snap of a finger to impress a guy. And by doing the nice guy thing we then YES turn into “moths”. It’s definately not our fault. The circumstances of the times have made us this way. We have all tried the nice guy approach. Now it’s time to evolve.
The thing’s they learn in these groups could be used for evil, Yes I definitely do agree but they could also be used for good. Self esteem and etiquette. A guy getting the girl of his dreams. Yes we have dreams too.
Both sexes have their own little trade secrets. Where they’ve learned and how they’ve learned is ere-levant.
They can both be used for good or bad. It’s pretty much case specific. Do not generalize here.
It’s a neverending cycle. Human’s will be human. This will never end.
Make your kidney shift?
hey Manko, what does my kidney have to do with your rant?
If you had taken the time to look around you, you’d have seen that this is a feminist blog. Most of what we do here is critique patriarchy, the dominant and coercive social system that privileges men and subordinates women. Part of that critique includes femininity practices, like wearing makeup, to take your example, and doing things like acting coy and making your entire life revolve around a man. Actually, if you’d read the comments at the top, you would have seen that M already mentioned how disgusting are all the things that women are encouraged to do in order to attract a man. So, your little rant isn’t anything we feminists don’t already know, and don’t already dislike. The difference is, we don’t put all the blame for these behaviours on the individuals who practice them, we look at them within a larger social context of power relations dictated by patriarchy. There’s something larger going on with why women are pressured, by that coercive dominant social system called patriarchy, to make men their whole life than simply getting laid, which seems to be the only goal for these PUAs, as you call them. Things like that society places higher value on women who are married and have children, and things like more single women live in poverty (especially if they have children) than single men due to the fact that women still make 70 cents to every dollar men make in the workforce - which makes a woman’s best chance of improving her economic situation getting married to a man.
you know, I think it’s a shame that nice guys have a hard time. But here’s the thing: maybe they are trying to date the wrong women. Instead of using disingenuine trickery to learn how to pick up the women that have rejected them in the past (which to me smacks of my old saying, “men like a confident women because it’s more of a challenge to dominate them”), perhaps they should be looking for a different kind of woman. Maybe guys need to stop objectifying women and placing them on pedestals as something they have to attain or possess, and stop feeding their insecurities that they aren’t good enough for these women that they themselves have objectified. Maybe, they need to see women as real human beings, and ask themselves why they would want to be with a woman who doesn’t like them for who they are as a nice guy, and just maybe, they should try asking out another kind of woman, who isn’t playing the games and tricks.
Mind-blowing, I know.
You know, none of my women friends have ever said that they would like to date a guy who’ll treat them like shit. Every one of them would prefer to date a guy who’s kind and generous and sincere and reliable and respectful. Yet, almost every woman I know has in fact dated a man who treated her like shit.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the heterosexual dating framework is fucked up, and it needs a reboot. Rather than being more dishonest and more tricksy and more game-playing, perhaps what we need to do is unplug and make dating about meeting someone, getting to know who they really are, developing some honest feelings, and going from there.
I totally agree with TG. Personally I don’t feel any attraction or desire of sexual relations with a woman who I’m not committed, don’t love and respect deeply.
Learning etiquette and how to be fun itself can be a good thing. But what these “seduction” businesses are doing is to use these skills to deceive women just to have sex with her. Hence girls are ‘these soft, curvy, nice-smelling things’ for them, and men who are best friends of women are ‘moths’ (assuming that the only interest men have in women is sexual). Majority of my good friends are female, so I feel quite insulted, but probably I should rather be proud to be called a ‘moth’ by such a disgusting misogynist.
When do we learn that what really matters is character not appearances? Humans will always be humans, socially-conditioned beings. Media obsession with appearances and sexualisation of women are what condition people to behave accordingly; so these are not intrinsic human nature. We are not slaves of sexual lust, it’s the opposite, and by that virtue we are different from animals.
By the way the Age is the best newspaper, south of the Equator. Brilliant journalism.
The modern dating scene truly is depressing, for a ton of reasons, including the ones discussed on this post. But I have to say, something about your analysis bothered me a little, Thinking Girl. You seem to only be extending some empathy to one side of the coin. It has been brought up that women too are guilty of practices to artificially attract a man, yet the first thing you do is point out how this is a result of the patriarchal system. You said: “we don’t put all the blame for these behaviours on the individuals who practice them, we look at them within a larger social context of power relations dictated by patriarchy.” No argument there; I think that’s a good way to look at a lot of things, including the dating scene. But when it comes to the men doing this, you are just as quick to call them sleazy and disgusting and put the blame on them. This may not be your opinion, but what you seem to be saying, essentially, is that the women doing it are victims of the patriarchy, and the men doing it, they are sleazy and dishonest. Now I’m not going to disagree with either of these, but it seems to me like it’s a little inconsistent. If you are going to blame the people for something, blame all of the people who are doing it; if you are going to blame the system, make sure it applies to all of the people affected by it. It’s not really your analysis or conclusions that I take issue with, but rather how and to whom you apply it. In the same comment where you say that it is not about blaming the individuals, you basically go on to do just that when you say: “I think it’s a shame that nice guys have a hard time. But here’s the thing: maybe they are trying to date the wrong women.” It can’t be that the system is fucking everyone over, it has to be that these guys are going for the wrong gals, huh? I don’t know, you may be right about most of this, but again, I just don’t think you are being very consistent with who and what you are denouncing.
P.S. My kidney just shifted. Now what the fuck do I do, Manko?
LL - yup. yup. yup.
Kyassett - thanks for commenting. I disagree. I don’t think I’m being particularly inconsistent. Patriarchy affects everyone, yes, but it doesn’t affect everyone equally. The system is fucking everyone over, but it’s not fucking everyone over to the same degree. That’s the whole point - women have it worse under patriarchy than men do. Patriarchy privileges men and subordinates women. So there’s no sense in trying to pretend that men and women should be treated equally by an analysis of patriarchy. Men and women aren’t equal under a system that privileges men and subordinates women. And it is a mistake to treat men and women alike, when patriarchy makes them dissimilar.
Look, I don’t deny that women and men both use tricks to try and snag a hetero partner. And patriarchy - through the prescription of gender roles - affects both men and women’s efforts. But it doesn’t affect them both the same, or equally.
Do you see what I’m saying?
Hi Thinking Girl. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, or I wasn’t clear enough. I wasn’t making any kind of argument about the degree to which men and women are affected by the patriarchy and how we should analyze that. What I was saying is that the areas where you condemn individuals and where you make excuses for them within the dating scene are inconsistent. You’re saying that men and women’s actions are both influenced by their gender roles, yet the only ones you are condemning as individuals are the men. I know that this post is about a specific group of men doing a specific thing, but when women’s flawed actions are brought up, you all but excuse them by saying that society conditions them to do these things.
I’m trying to limit this argument to the dating scene because I feel like gender roles within society are way too complex for generalized blanket statements. So, what I’m saying is that both men and women are trying to accomplish the same basic goal of attracting the opposite sex, albeit in very different ways. A good portion of these people from both sexes do this with varying degrees of dishonesty. Their reasons for doing such things and the ways in which they go about doing them are both a result of societal pressures and individual choice. My critique of your argument is that you are saying women’s actions are caused by societal pressures and men’s actions are essentially individual choice, therefore you are allowed to denounce one group without denouncing the other. I just can’t get behind this one-or-the-other logic. That is why I was saying you were being inconsistent in condemning one group’s actions and not the other, when both groups are pressured by society to go out and attract the opposite sex in whatever way they can. You seem to have a lot to say about what the guys are doing wrong and what they should do instead, yet the only fault you seem to find in women is being influenced by societal pressures. It’s not a huge deal if we’re only talking about the bar scene, but it’s inconsistent, nonetheless.
Kyassett - I didn’t misunderstand you at all. you may not be making an argument about how patriarchy affects men and women differently, but I am. I could offer a more heavy critique of what women do here, but it would ultimately be a critique of patriarchy. The concept of choice becomes fuzzy when we’re talking about oppression. Patriarchal oppression of women would have to be removed for me to talk about these things as entirely free and autonomous individual choices.
But patriarchy doesn’t oppress men. So, the heavier critique goes to men’s actions here, the explicit purpose of which is to deceive and take advantage of women. Why? because this is more clearly a matter of individual choice than when women adhere to dictates of patriarchy that are oppressive.
But if society dictates men’s roles as it does women, even if that means giving men more power, does it really mean that all of men’s choices are completely autonomous and free? And in modern western society, are women really without choice and control over how they act in the dating world? You obviously are not compelled to act in a dishonest way to “reel a man in” (at least I assume you don’t do this), so what does that say about you and your free choice as a woman?
Societal pressure and individual choice: you’re saying it’s one or the other. I’m saying it’s both. Who’s right? We may never know. All I know is that I’m still waiting for Manko to come back and clear up that kidney comment. It’s been eating away at me for a few days now.
No, not all of all men’s choices are completely free and autonomous, and not all of all women’s chocies are not free and autonomous. and I’m not saying it’s one or the other. I agree that it’s both. It’s just both to different degrees.
yeah, the kidney thing is bugging me too. what does that mean, anyway?
Oh, by the way, someone just arrived at this site by searching for “how to pick up feminists”.
nice.
Yeah that “different degrees of free choice” stuff is tricky business. I sure as hell am not going to be the one to open that Pandora’s box here. At least not until I have plenty of time on my hands to argue. Really, the only reason I brought this up in the first place was that it didn’t seem to me like you were taking the combination of free choice and societal pressure into account for both sexes. But maybe you were and this is just the conclusion you came to. In my personal opinion, I would say that society places a significant amount of pressure on men to put up a front and act in a way that they think women want them to act. That being said, it is completely within the realm of free choice to take a class on how to do this for the sole purpose of getting laid, and the men that do are as sleazy as they come. I would also say that the women who employ dishonest tactics for the purpose of “bagging a man” aren’t too much lower on the ladder of sleaziness. But that’s just me.
“how to pick up feminists” - LMAO. Maybe you should teach a class.
I kind of think that femininity itself is all about this - to be cute and coy and whatnot to play for men’s sexual pleasure and ultimately to highlight male power in contrast. (masculinity, on the other hand, is not just for women. It’s for other men as much as it’s for women. both are about competition with others of the same sex, but with femininity that competition is for male approval, while with masculinity, it is for power.) But femininity isn’t exactly optional. Femininity is often a matter of survival under patriarchy. So I’d be hard pressed to call all the women who practice femininity “sleazy.”
Yeah, maybe I should teach a class. I wonder how many guys would sign up for a class that strips them of masculinity as much as possible?
Hard pressed to call women who try to attract men in a dishonest way sleazy just because they are women? Not me. Fuck ‘em. And in today’s world, would you really say that a woman looking to hook up with a man in a bar is often a survival situation? I don’t know who you’re trying to fool here but it ain’t me. Yes feminity itself supports male power, but manipulation for personal gain is still manipulation, no matter who does it.
You know, maybe I’m just trying to make this point because I can’t stand the dating scene altogether and I really hate to leave anyone out when I give the whole institution a big ‘fuck you.’ As far as I’m concerned, it’s full of shit-heads no matter whose side you’re on. Then again, I might be a little bitter…
How to pick up feminists?!?!?!??!!
Uh…step one…respect?
Uh…step two…don’t be a tool?
Uh…step three…repeat as needed?
Oh well…I guess we feminists really got it going on, or something. I’ve always thought so.
PS: Thanks for the advice everyone! Really appreciate it as a newcomer and Dave, as for your advice on living within my means: Har, har
I did realise that this was a feminist site. And no offence taken but it was not a rant.Rather I felt the article needed some raw straight arrow info from a different male perspective since I thought it was lacking. (Not cutting anyone down)Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion ofcourse, and this should go without saying.
“I guess what I’m trying to say is that the heterosexual dating framework is fucked up, and it needs a reboot. Rather than being more dishonest and more tricksy and more game-playing, perhaps what we need to do is unplug and make dating about meeting someone, getting to know who they really are.”
I truly do believe that this dating scene definately needs a reboot. No doubt about that, but I think society is neck deep in quicksand and we’ll surely get sucked under if we try to simply swim out of it. In other words. I don’t think it’ll ever recover. Call me a pessimist if you like. I’d like to think of myself as a realist. Guess we’ll have to wait and see if it topples over on itself in years to come.(I HOPE SO) Until then I think it’s useless to try and fight the scene. We as humans have a limited shelflife and time is a precious comodity. We are all quite impatient as well. Seeing all the “game” players getting “who” they want.(Sometimes that “who” being your segnificant other) This especially makes us feel impatient and screwed over to the point where we start to evolve we start to believe that this is the way of things. Not one of our finer moments I agree but I’m sure that every guy and girl has gone through this proccess. Someone will always be tempted to throw in a lie here and there if it’s in their best interest.
I think that these “Pick up artist’s” are just are just using a different kinda of “artilery” to make the “dating scene” more equal.It has never been.Women have always had the sexual power . Women know this already or should. Cause women are beautifull “as they are” correct? The make up and whatever it is they learn from magazines/friends/media as well as the pressure they feel to abiding by these teachings is in itself “artilery”.
These “pick up artists” are simply trying to catch up and make the “sexual powers” equal cause they more than likely have been fooled/ruled by the (above stated). And I’d be lying to you if I told you they were that they happy about it. The Dating scene will only get worse from here.
Shakabuku anyone?
Kyassett - well, I was referring to Manko’s point that women who wear makeup are trying to attract a man through dishonest means. Makeup is part of femininity and dictated by patriarchy, but it’s more than simply trying to attract a man. It’s so deeply embedded for people to practice femininity, and women do it in all sorts of circumstances even where there will be no men around, that it’s about more than that. so I don’t think that something like that is always sleazy, right? Going along with the patriarchal mandates of your gender isn’t about sleazy, it’s about survival. and women are punished for going along with it, by guys like you and Manko who see it as sleazy and dishonest, never mind that the entire point of femininity is to mark oneself as inferior and make oneself both a target and a symbol for male power - and they are punished for not going along with it, because they aren’t girly enough, they don’t care about their appearance, they have no pride, they don’t try to play the societally disctated role. So yeah, compliance with femininity isn’t just a matter of being sleazy. and I would argue that the ones being manipulated by femininity are women, not men.
I can’t stand the dating scene either. I just don’t really engage with it, you know? I don’t want to participate in this kind of crap, just want to go out and have a fun time with friends, maybe meet some nice new people every now and then to chat to, get my groove on every once in a while. I dunno. Dating, like actual dating, can be fun but the pick-up scene isn’t really dating to me.
Rainbow Girl LOL at your pick-up advice for feminist-seeking men. “don’t be a tool” - hilarious!
Manko - don’t worry, I think the “male perspective” in all its shapes and forms gets enough airplay from the patriarchy, you know?
I get where you’re coming from, like survival from within the system for frustrated people who can’t seem to compete with the manipulative competitive bastards who are taking all the good women at the bars. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, right?
No, not every guy or girl has gone through this process. Some of us are still single because we’d rather not behave like asshats. Some of us don’t get nearly the play we could if we tried these tricks because, well, the tricks are repulsive to us.
As far as women having the sexual power - please read the many posts on rape and sexual violence for a different perspective on that.
And women being “beautiful as they are” - wow, that is definitely a twisted way to look at the multi-billion dollar beauty industry, plastic surgery industry, and general pornification of our society. Everywhere I look I see the message that I’m not good enough as I am, but here’s something I could buy to make myself passable. If these things are artillary, and the pressures to abide by them is as well, then whose artillary is it? ‘Cuz it sure ain’t the ladies’. It’s patriarchy’s artillary to keep women in a position of subordination by self-policing and self-marking.
which brings me back to the point Kyassett was trying to make. Full circle comment!
Yeah, I really wasn’t talking about makeup. I’m talking about actions and behaviors, such as playing off of men’s emotions, that “hard to get” crap, and whatever else a woman might say or do to appear attractive that is dishonest or manipulative. I really wish I could point to a specific article or website or something that shows this in a more concrete way, but all I really have to offer is what I’ve seen and heard. From what I’ve seen, there are women who play off of men’s insecurities in almost the same way the pickup artists are telling men to use the “neg.” Of course saying this is sleazy is using my own words. It doesn’t really fit the cultural definition of sleazy because it is practically seen as natural a lot of the time. Men often expect to get crap like this when they approach a woman in this situation so that it gets to the point when it’s hard to tell if she is trying to play hard to get (god, the very idea of this pisses me off) or if she really doesn’t want anything to do with you.
Makeup, on the other hand, is exactly what you said it is, Thinking Girl. I’m not saying that makeup is sleazy and I’m sure as hell not “punishing” women for wearing it. You really don’t need to explain to me how fucked up our society’s perception of “beauty” is, or how the “beauty industry” capitalizes on that. I see it first-hand when my girlfriend and I are about to leave the house and she feels like she needs to “just throw on some makeup,” after I tell her countless times she’s gorgeous and doesn’t need it. Fuck. Yeah, we have a long way to go as a society. Anyhoo, although this could technically be seen as a dishonest representation of one’s appearance, it’s not what I was referring to when I was talking about the dating scene. Makeup is virtually mandated – verbal manipulation is not.
Manko, you make an interesting point about the “trying to keep up with the pack” aspect of the dating world. However, I sure don’t agree with you’re comment about women being seen as beautiful as they are (like TG said, think beauty industry). I will say that men actually are at the mercy of women in this situation more often than not. This can be seen in the fact that the onus is almost always on the man to make the first move and do the approaching. Really, who faces rejection more? Who dishes out the cash to buy the other person a drink just to start a conversation because that’s what society demands? Who typically walks home with a fake number scribbled on a napkin? This all ties back into the pressure put on both genders to try to be more of what society says the opposite sex wants.
One more thing, Thinking Girl. This is a total side-note, but I wanted to clarify something you said in your last comment. When you say “I think the “male perspective” in all its shapes and forms gets enough airplay from the patriarchy,” I want to say that this much more society’s projection of the “masculine perspective,” rather than a truly male one. Just like the opposite perspective presented is one of femininity, rather than that of women. At least that’s my take, being a male and all…
“Shakabuku anyone?” God dammit, Manko, you’re like a walking enigma.
KYASSETT:I tottaly agree with you on your last comment 100%. And 200% on your last paragraph. You hit the nail right on the head.It’s exactly what I was trying to get across. I’ll admit that I’m a little rough around the edges in my writing but you swoop in and smoothen it all out for me.
Thanks.
You get a prize:
Shakabuku: A swift, spiritual kick to the head that alters your reality forever.
Why thank ya, Manko. I actually looked up Shakabuku right after I typed that, and now I have to see Grosse Point Blank again. I’m still trying to figure out the kidney thing though.
lol. It’s a good movie. I definitely suggest you watch it again. I for one cannot get enough of it. I think people NEED shakabuku once in a while.
But as for the kidney answer….I’m afraid it will have to wait until the next time you smoothen out something I’m trying to get across. I’m trying to build incentive here. lol. Besides I don’t think the answer would be appropriate for this article/site especially as I don’t want to offend “Thinking girl” or give anyone the wrong idea. All I can say is that the answer is obvious. It has been altered to a degree for a purpose to generate curiosity and questions. IT DID. And it definitely intrigued both sexes. “Thinking girl” and “Kayssett”. Apparently female and male’s brains aren’t wired that differently.
Thinking girl: Do you think that it’s possible that maybe women portray the same mysterious, Enigmatic characteristics as I subconsciously or consciously with their appearance and tactics to gain curiosity and therefore attract their mates?
Maybe they play the game better then you thought and just don’t know it. But then again. This as I understand is a Feminist site. And the comment is coming from a man.
So we’ll make it simple, give it a blind eye and pretend it’s patriarchy.
The answer as to what my “Make your kidney shift?” is was clear and it had been mentioned in this article in the “neg”ative. But has now been rectified and been used for the positive and greater understanding of what is truly going on. lol
Been a pleasure.
ah, yes. yet another thread going down the “but you don’t say how it all still revolves around men and more specifically me!!1!” path… with the added bonus of complete derailment into “i say random things just to provoke a reaction” territory. sigh.
what you refuse to see, kyassett, is the very simple point that while both sexes have to abide by very strict, unfair and repressive gender roles, only one of those is opressive (as t.g. always says). in other words, to fit socio-cultural gender norms and be accepted both men and women perform, BUT women perform femininity even if they know it’s ultimately to their detriment while men perform masculinity knowing it’s ultimately to their benefit. which applies everywhere we move. this whole nonsense about “women having the (sexual) power” in the heterosexual dating scene - hm, isn’t it interesting, then, that men haven’t thought to solve the problem by seizing the same kind of “power” and don’t start teaching/taking courses on how to get dolled up, objectify themselves, dumb themselves down, assume a passive role and on how to use tricks and manipulation from that position? oh, yeah, that’s right, men wouldn’t do that because that’s set up to be humiliating, it’s what the inferior gender has to do. and let’s think about why, conversely, more women don’t try the “masculine” non-passive, objectifying-of-others tack (though some do)… it’s a combination of the fact that even if you can adopt it, such a role can only take you so far (since you’ll still be a woman), the fact that if you’re going to perform a role anyway it might as well be the one that will let you fit in socially, and the fact that objectifying others etc. kind of sucks.
personally, i guess i don’t even really care who of those who perform is more to “blame.” i just don’t think that you can address the problem by encouraging people to perform “better” in some way. what’s needed is for men and women to look at these gender performances from a feminist p.o.v. - to understand how “masculinity” and “femininity” fit into the patriarchal order and that for men giving up masculinity means renouncing a superior status and its privileges while for women giving up femininity means turning your back on the maximum value society places on you - whatever they then choose to do themselves. i know i, for one, wish more people just stopped performing, period. even though it’s so hard.
Ruxandra - yeah, pretty much. Thanks for jumping in there, I was just getting frustrated banging my head against the wall with this thread. At least Kyassett responds to my points, even though from his perspective he can’t see what I’m getting at. Manko doesn’t even bother to respond, yet he thinks somehow that he’s “won.” The only intelligent thing he’s managed to say is that men and women’s brains aren’t wired all that differently after all. Which, of course, we all knew anyway. Because gender isn’t really biological, but socially based. But then a guy like Manko wouldn’t really want to know about that, seeing as it would mean he and his kind don’t really deserve all that social privilege that they’ve been afforded.
Manko & Kyassett - As for women being “mysterious and enigmatic,” and “playing hard to get,” I don’t really think that’s the case. I think that’s a discourse set out by patriarchy to justify men continuing to objectify and ultimately harrass women who aren’t interested. What sucks is that gender role discourse tells women that they shouldn’t be direct in letting a guy down because it might hurt his fragile little ego, and instead they should be nice and let him down easy. Which gets read as women “playing hard to get” or “being mysterious” when really, they just want him to leave her alone. Conversely, male gender role discourse tells men not to give up so easily, that women just don’t know what they want and men are supposed to show them, that “no means maybe, and maybe means yes.” The funny thing is, in my experience, even when I am completely direct, a lot of guys don’t take me seriously - it literally takes me telling them to fuck off before they actually will stop bothering me. And then of course, I’m a bitch.
And no, it’s not just a “masculine” perspective that gets aired out in society, because there’s always guys like you two who will jump and and set the record straight.
God damn, up until this point, I’ve been very happy with everyone’s consideration and rationality in this discussion, but now it seems that it has become “boy vs. girls” once more. Please, for the love of god, stop trying to place me on a “side” of the argument and stop lumping me in with Manko just because the two of us disagree with you. Up until the last couple comments or so, Manko and I have been in almost total disagreement with each other, so I really don’t think it’s fair to try and make us into “da menz,” just because we are, in fact, men. And Manko, that’s super duper if I’ve “smoothened” out what you want to say, but it’s not what I’m trying to do here. My discussion with Thinking Girl started out as being almost totally different from yours, so I don’t know why we’re all of a sudden this tag team.
Anyway, Ruxandra, you said: “isn’t it interesting, then, that men haven’t thought to solve the problem by seizing the same kind of “power” and don’t start teaching/taking courses on how to get dolled up, objectify themselves, dumb themselves down, assume a passive role and on how to use tricks and manipulation from that position?”
And then you answered your own question with: “the fact that if you’re going to perform a role anyway it might as well be the one that will let you fit in socially.” So I guess you took care of that one for me? You do make an interesting point about the role of mysterious and “hard to get” being passive and self-objectifying and I can see this being true in some cases (mainly movies), but honestly, I just don’t see it happen like this very often in the real world. Now I say this from the perspective of someone who has many a time sat with female friends at a bar rather than a guy trying to pick one of them up. When one of them is approached in this situation, it sure looks to me like they hold the power in the conversation and they know it. So I don’t know, maybe I have weird friends.
After that, you said: “personally, i guess i don’t even really care who of those who perform is more to “blame.” i just don’t think that you can address the problem by encouraging people to perform “better” in some way.” All I can say is word-the-fuck-up. This is exactly what Thinking Girl was saying when she said the whole dating scene needs a reboot, and I wholeheartedly agree with both of you on this. The discussion we’re having is simply about roles within the current system, which is still relevant, unfortunately, because it doesn’t look like the dating scene is gonna get that reboot anytime soon.
Now honestly, Ruxandra, I know I couldn’t possibly kick you out of a discussion even if I wanted, but I was really just trying to have a conversation with Thinking Girl about a critique of something she said on her blog. If you’re going to come in and ridicule what I have to say and talk to me with a tone of condescension and general unfriendliness, I really don’t want to discuss anything more with you. Now if you want to bring up some relevant points and maintain the civilized tone that everyone has generally had so far, I’ll gladly engage you.
Thinking Girl, sorry, I didn’t realize this was frustrating you so much. You said “At least Kyassett responds to my points, even though from his perspective he can’t see what I’m getting at.” I thought this was funny since it’s exactly how I feel about you at this point. What’s frustrating me here is that you keep blowing up the conversation to a discussion of patriarchy as a whole, whereas I’m just trying to limit it to the dating scene. I do understand where you’re coming from in doing this, however. From what I gather, you feel that everything we do is part of the patriarchy and if we examine something, we have to examine how it fits into the patriarchal framework. I get it. I agree to a certain extent. However, in this particular discussion I think it is more effective to analyze things on a smaller scale to really get a good look at people’s actions and motivations for doing them. Men hiring pickup artists to learn how to lure in women is a very personal thing and exists on a small scale. Yes it has ties to the larger framework of the patriarchy, but that is not exactly what you were discussing originally in your post. You were talking about how sleazy these men are and the disgusting tactics they use. When someone made mention of women doing similar things, you instantly stretched it out into a discussion of their place in the patriarchal framework. That is what I originally commented on, and the fact that I saw this as inconsistent was the only point I really wanted to make. You don’t have to agree at all; I really wasn’t trying to convince you. I was just offering an honest critique from someone who regularly reads your site. Really, I think I’m about to call it quits on this conversation unless you feel like you haven’t gotten your point across and you want to keep going. Otherwise, thanks for discussing this with me, sorry if I frustrated you.
well, kyassett, the fact that you didn’t realize the frustration was my point. ’cause it was pretty damn obvious - as was the fact that you’re the one who put yourself in a team with manko. you seem to wonder why i commented. all i can say in my defense is that the wall of perspective that t.g. was starting to bang her head against must’ve blinded me to the fact that this was about being as friendly and civilized as possible. again, sigh.
i also commented because i had some other “relevant points”.
you mentioned a couple of them (but left out most). for instance, you mentioned my question:
and say i answered it myself with a point about the choice to perform your assigned gender role, if you’re going to perform at all. actually, no, if you look carefully i did answer that question but directly, right after i finished it, with this:
in a nutshell, that’s the point you STILL refuse to hear and acknowledege about this whole discussion, which is why you keep coming back to the same question even when that concern has already been addressed. i guess if my comment had been more ladylike, maybe you’d have understood my relevant point that it’s not at all inconsistent, as you say, to criticize courses teaching men to be better predators as extra-sleazy and dishonest but to view the conforming to gender roles from a feminist perspective, in which both women and men are restricted by - and manipulative of - these roles, but women are ultimately at a (major) disadvantage. what would come closer to being inconsistent would be to say that courses teaching men tricks are sleazy but courses teaching women tricks are not… and even then you’d still have the fact that according to the gender roles such courses try to reinforce women are not supposed to be sleazy, predatory… etc. (check out the discussion about cosmo above, and see if there’s any inconsistence.)
but maybe if i’d been more ladylike what would actually matter in this discussion is that we agree about the gist of the problem, the b.s. that is the whole performance of gender? heh, i’ll try my best in any future comments i will make.
A “General” comment In my defense:
Thinking Girl: I can appreciate and learn from your feminist views on things. Otherwise I would have quit after the first post. And I understand why this would be so frustrating to you that you would be banging your head. For this I apologize for it was never my intent. It is a lot like talking to a wall is it not? The feeling is quite mutual. And I understand your position as well as your direction here. But was let down miserably as to your response where you so bluntly posted:
“Manko doesn’t even bother to respond, yet he thinks somehow that he’s “WON”.
And here I thought that this was a conversation about understanding the opposite of sexes and why they do the things they do in the DATING SCENE. Jeez I guess I was dead wrong. This conversation has nothing to do with winning as you clearly pointed out that for you, IT IS. I’m not one to play “games” so why would I bother to respond? My responses and questions the majority of the time have been twisted and warped to the point where it’s recognizable from its origin as much as the dating scene itself is. Perhaps you yourself see it more as a GAME rather than a serious conversation about our actions in the dating scene. A lot like what we’ve turned the dating scene into, a game. I was under the belief that this conversation was about these “Pick up artists” and how sleazy it was to be one. I myself strictly and distinctly tried to stay to the topic at hand and at the same time paint a picture to illustrate a small portion of human behavior. And by doing so have reprimanded me as the the “bad guy”. I guess if this is a Game indeed, then I would indeed be seen as the defense by now eh?. Very typical.
On another note:
As you made ever so clear by stating:
“But then a guy like Manko wouldn’t really want to know about that, seeing as it would mean he and his kind don’t really deserve all that social privilege that they’ve been afforded.”
I’m curious as to what you THINK “My kind” is? I must say that was a little uncalled for. But only leaves me to assume that you think that I am indeed a “Sleazy pick up artist”. I might be pressed to start “Name calling” myself. But believe I am better than that.
So….
You couldn’t be more wrong. I have a great girlfriend that I’ve been with for 2 years that I treat with utmost respect and in return get equal respect. And I think I do indeed deserve “all” that social privilege that I’ve been afforded.
This would be another yet again another example of you Jumping to conclusions and generalizing.
And I’ve grown fond of it in this article.
No hard feelings here. I only had to separate myself from the guys in question pertaining to the topic.
Kyassette: I don’t honestly think you and I are at so much disagreement as you’re trying to let on. Only difference between you and I is that you are soft spoken and sometimes the idea isn’t felt as much as is rightfully deserved. Your tactic definitely has it’s place undoubtedly and is sometimes needed. I commend you. *bows*
I do wish I could say that this wasn’t a “Boys vs Girls” but it so clearly is. It’s funny how these conversations always turn that way. The stubbornness in both sexes never gives in. Never giving into an idea. Perhaps another perspective to educate the other so that both can try and make a difference for the better.
It is for this exact reason that I’m afraid this change will be a slow coming one, As much as women and men have progressed. The Stubbornness we both possess will always keep us from excelling in this common goal. (myself included)
We all want what we can’t have. Males and females are both guilty of this. This is true for the most part whether we admit it or not. If a girl act’s like a “bitch” then he will want her more. The same thing goes for guys. Give her the same cold shoulder and she will want him more. It’s been proven countless times. But the girls will always have the upper hand in that situation which is why I believe they have the sexual power. Cause like Kyassette said:
“Really, who faces rejection more? Who dishes out the cash to buy the other person a drink just to start a conversation because that’s what society demands? Who typically walks home with a fake number scribbled on a napkin? ”
(Sorry to drag your quote into my comment Kyassett but it was SO true.)
So who actually gets hurt in these circumstances more often? I Personally believe that these “teachers” are doing a good thing. Their aim has been misinterpreted by those who haven’t actually looked into the subject deep enough or by the same people that have been taught and taken it to the “dark side”. Which is fair enough as well cause a lot of women have taken their “Charm” to the same extreme as well. Now I doubt patriarchy and not specific individuals are responsible for this monstrosity within the dating scene. You can only go so far about patriarchy (as I’m sure it plays a part, no doubt) in this specific topic.
I’m not here to win. I don’t see it that way.
I’m here to give clear cut perspective of how I see the situation as a male and that is all.
Kyassett - thanks for your comment, actually. So you do get what I’m saying, that patriarchy is the Matrix of our lives and nothing we do is outside of it or uninfluenced by it.
see, there’s this thing called standpoint theory - have you heard of it? basically it says that there are things we cannot konw because of who we are, where we are situated within a social context. our experience of the world is always an interpretation of it, from our particular perspectives. And this is why I put you and Manko in the same basket. You are both men, and that places limites on the kind of knowledge you can have, because you can never get outside of yourself and be an un-situated knower. And being men, the privileged sex in patriarchy, means not only will you never be able to know certain things because of your position, there is sort of no need for you to know about certain experiences because they don’t and will never apply to you. that’s where I was coming from with my comment.
I realize you’re just trying to limit the convo to something that happens within a particular microcosm, but the thing is, microcosms are all situated with a larger universe, and that universe is patriarchy. I don’t know how to break it down any simpler than that. we can’t really dissect something that involves gender without including an analysis of how patriarchal power relations play a role. Because our very identities are constructed within these power relations. I didn’t mention it in the initial post, because it’s implied. I don’t need to include a mention of how gender occurs within the larger power relations of patriarchal discourse in every single post, because that is what this entire blog is about! And re: the supposed inconsistency I demonstrated, I have said it’s not really inconsistent, and I think Ruxandra also made some good points about that, so if you continue to disagree, my take on that is that you are not willing to really shift the framework you’re using.
I’m not unwilling to continue the discussion with you, even though it’s frustrating at times, because I think you might one day open up to the possibilities of what I’m saying. You seem like a willing enough ally to feminism, but just not willing to completely let go of the male privilege discourse. You need a kick in the framework, and I’m trying to give it to you.
And that is, after all, why I do this.
Ruxandra - thank you for everything you contribute to my little corner of the blogosphere! you’re the best!
Manko - no, it really doesn’t have to do with “winning” for the sake of winning. It actually has more to do with keeping on this path of doing my best to talk about feminism and gender and patriarchal power relations because I and billions of other people have a lot invested in turning those power relations over and creating a truly equal society.
and I’m sorry, but I don’t think I’m the one playing games. I’ve been as straightforward on this thread as I always am in every thread. I’m not the one who has seemingly purposely presented arguments in a confusing manner in order to draw attention and get people asking questions. That’d be you.
when I said, “manko and his kind” I was referring to men. That’s it. I didn’t make any kind of assumptions about you being a pickup artist - I try not to make assumptions about people at all from what they post. “yet another example of [me] jumping to conclusions” - again, you’re the one who jumped to a conclusion about what I had said, not the other way around. Point a finger and three point right back atchya, ya know?
and by the way, this:
is EXACTLY the fucking problem. As a man, you have been afforded social privilege by patriarchy that you did nothing to earn or deserve. and that is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.
you seem to like movies, so check this: white male supremacy AKA patriarchy IS the MATRIX. There is not escaping it, it is the mainframe on which the programs of our lives are running. Remember how it felt when you first say The Matrix? Now, plug in patriarchy. That’s the framework of the world we’re livin’.
I appreciate that, Thinking Girl. Now I really don’t want to sound combative with this, or come off with an “I know you are but what am I” tone, but are you taking the standpoint theory into account on your own behalf? First let me say that I realize my position in society only really allows me one specific viewpoint. I can do everything I can to empathize with others and get outside of myself to see the world, but I can really only *live* my life as the person I am. Just like anyone else, including you.
I would think that as someone familiar with this and other philosophical theories you would be the first person to apply this to yourself, but so far, it hasn’t appeared that way. All I see from you are absolutes and statements that suggest you are the end-all and be-all and the very final authority on all things on which you write. There’s never any mention, when discussing male and female gender roles that you are only privy to your own experience, that you do not truly know what life as a male is like, or even the remote possibility that you may (gasp!) be *wrong.* Your assumptions are doled out as if they are the absolute truth, leaving very little room for your standpoint theory. Instead it’s ‘my framework is X, my experience is Y and my privilege is Z,’ and I of all people am the most limited to the understanding of any of these. It boggles my mind seeing how absolutely right you think you are by assuming my disagreement must stem from a failure to understand you. If I think you are wrong, it’s because my privilege, my framework, my penis limits my understanding of the world around me. It’s not at all possible that you are (again, gasp!) wrong.
Now is it possible that all of this truly does limit my perspective and keep me from “coming to the light?” Sure. I like to think that’s not the case, but like you said, how the fuck would I know? But what happens when the finger is pointed back at you? How do you *know* you’re so right and I’m so wrong? What if I was to assume that your failure to agree with me comes from a failure to get outside yourself and understand what I’m saying? Have you made any attempt to look at this outside of the framework that you apply to everything, or have you just assumed that your particular view is the absolute truth? I’ll grant you the idea that I can’t know everything about life as a woman if you’ll grant me that you can’t possibly know for certain everything you claim about my point of view (especially from a few comments on the internet). You’re adamant that the inconsistency that I pointed out earlier is not at all that. Well I’ve listened to you and considered you points and I still think it is. Is that because of my limited worldview or is it because of yours? Maybe a “kick in the framework” would do you some good as well. I really am trying to view things through a different lens. Are you?
See, this is what I think of the standpoint theory: it is probably very true and can be a helpful aid to self-improvement, but it doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot of good in an argument. At the end of the day, each party walks away secure in the knowledge that he or she is correct and that the other person can’t really know the truth because he or she can’t possibly know shit about shit. It forces people to agree to disagree, but secretly “know” that they alone are correct.
As to your little resolution to help me be a better feminist, if it had come from anyone else, I would have interpreted it as a tidal wave of condescension. But coming from you, I see it as a puddle of sincerity with a few surface ripples of condescension (I’m a fucking po-et and I know-it). Again you make the basic assumption that you are right and I am wrong and with enough “help,” I can be put on the correct path (reminiscent of my uber-religious aunt). Um, thanks? Seriously though, a good deal of what you write does force me to re-examine the way I look at things and I think that really can help anyone to better his or herself. I would just like for you to extend to me the idea that if I see things differently or flat-out disagree, it might be, but is not necessarily due to my maleness, and that I may just disagree with you. And still, as unbelievable as it is, you may even be (Jesus-creeping-shit, GASP!) wrong! Not saying that you necessarily are here, but it’s something to think about.
Finally, there is my category, because everyone needs as a category to fit into, otherwise they’re losers. You said: “You seem like a willing enough ally to feminism,” and that is the first time anyone has put me into such a category, other than “da menz,” or just “men.” As much as I agree with most of it, as you may have guessed, I really would not call myself a feminist. I’ve never been one for labels, but even if I had to pick one, feminist would not be it, due to some fundamental assumptions that it makes which I do not necessarily agree with. These are things that most people agree are pretty key to being a feminist, so I don’t really fit the description at all. However, I think a lot of aspects of modern and post-modern feminism are definitely true and I think the collective good outweighs almost all of the bad, so “feminist ally” is a title I can live with. There ya go, that’s more about me than you ever wanted to know. And I’m spent.
I almost forgot to mention someone while this blog got bigger and bigger. I totally skipped over
Ruxandra. (My apologies)
Ruxandra: As to your remark.
“i say random things just to provoke a reaction”
It wasn’t a derailment of the subject at hand at all. Animals have acted and behaved in strange and bizarre ways to attract a mate as long as time itself and still to this day. This was going on way before we as homosapiens ever even existed. Is it so hard to believe that perhaps some of this is indeed ingrained into our subconscious through evolution and being a certain sex has nothing to even do with it? You seem intelligent. Are you to reject evolution as well?
sometimes i’m pretty optimistic seeing awesome men who are feminist, and i go for whole days at a time without flashing back to that one guy in the women’s studies class who genuinely believes it’s his duty to show the women where they’re completely mistaken and who cannot and will not rest until a feminist discussion, whatever it may be, is brought around to the most important subject: him.
that guy is always this close to agreeing with feminist ideas, if only feminists didn’t have everything so very wrong. i mean, yes, men are perhaps privileged, but have feminists ever thought about the fact that women have all the power in the dating scene and how this hurts men more? and, yes, violence against women may be a problem but look at all those male-bashing jokes: let’s not ignore the fact that sexism against men is everywhere too! (or, yes, there’s something patriarchal about the culture of objectifying women’s bodies and relegating women to the sex class but that analysis doesn’t apply at all to, say, his own enjoyment of playboy.) and, yes, having to conform to gender roles sucks and we should resist the pressure to do so, however don’t forget that as a man he’s not required to listen but when he gives you a piece of his mind he needs to be heard and coddled - feminists can be so bitchy and uncivilized when they disagree with him. and, yes, there’s standpoint/situatedness theory to shine a light on perspectives of marginalized groups, but we can’t mention that and not point out how he, as a member of the non-marginalized group, is affected and implicated at least as much; if you think there’s something to the idea of double consciousness which only members of marginalized groups have to develop for survival you’re wrong and you need some extra dose of male perspective! which you may have figured out is the dominant one but he’s here to say that it’s actually lacking. sure, you may be on to something when you talk about the whole male privilege thing but what you don’t realize is that in fact men don’t get (or even choose) to profit much from this privilege. approximately ever. especially him.
’cause this does revolve around him. but other than that, feminism’s quite all right…
t.g., i say keep on keeping on.
thank you, manko. oops, i just realized i didn’t keep my previous promise to remain as ladylike as possible in my comments. and it was stupid of me: now my chances to attract a mate on this blog have plummeted to zero! i have no idea why i go against my deepest instincts like this. i should look into it.
Kyassett - well, see, certain kinds of standpoint theory further argue that the view from the margins is a better one because privilege does indeed interfere with one’s ability to know.
Here’s the thing: I’ve already lived the kind of framework you’re operating (seeing as it’s the dominant one and all). And I did get a kick in the framework. And now my framework has shifted away from the dominant one, multiple times in fact - and I don’t think I’m done yet, either. Nobody knows this better than the people in my life, my parents who don’t understand what the heck I’m talking about half the time, my best friend who is happy and supportive of my newfound perspectives (how did she stand me before?). I know that there are things I will never be able to know from my particular standpoint: I will never know what it is like to be a person of colour, or to be transgendered, or to be gay. Or to be a man. But being part of a widely oppressed group, I have learned the lessons of patriarchy in order to survive under it. Some people don’t have to do that. Lucky them; that is quite a… what do you call it… privilege, no?
I don’t think our disagreement stems from your failure to understand me; I think it stems from your failure to understand you, and just how you fit into the dominant social framework that is patriarchy.
I guess I should revamp my entire writing style, since I’m making all these ungrounded assumptions like they are the be-all, end-all, capital-T Truth of the matter. Maybe I should assume a more passive voice in my writing, and make it clear with every post I write that my own standpoint limits my ability to really know anything. Silly me for not allowing my standpoint to paralyze my thought processes and prevent me from voicing my perspective. Silly me for thinking that the way I write academic philosophy papers would translate into the real world. Silly me for thinking that constructing a sound argument is a good thing that might bring me good things in my life. Silly me for not just assuming that I am wrong and heading myself off at the start. Even though you yourself admit that what I write about makes you think about things in a different way - silly me for thinking that might be valuable to people in their own lives and in a larger sense of social change. I’m just a girl, after all. Can’t change that.
funny thing is, I was right where you are in terms of framework just a couple of months ago, on another issue. And lucky for me, my friend was able to push at me and challenge me enough that my framework shifted. It took a long time, but I finally understood that there are things I will never be able to know because of my own privilege, because of the way the world revolves around that, because I simply can’t abandon it. It’s a visceral kind of gut thing, and when you get it, you get it. And everything changes about how you approach it, how you talk about it, how you accept your own role in the power relations that make up society. That’s why I think I’m right, and you haven’t internalized the lessons of gender theory, except how they relate to you through your lens on the world. the thing is, the lens you think you’re using to talk about gender is like a set of glasses: there’s this whole grey fuzzy area at the periphery, and you can take them off any time you want. But underneath, you’re still myopic. Is this true of everyone? sure, in different ways. All I’m saying is, we need to order some contact lenses, or get some lasik surgery. that is the end of my analogy, I’m not sure if it worked.
as for my relative condescension, again, I’ve been just where you are, this side of “getting it,” resisting and arguing that the simple matter of my disagreement on the issue was not proof that I had a problem with my operating system, and that I didn’t want to have to simply agree with everything my friend said all the time in order to be a good ally - if I disagreed, I simply disagreed, and maybe it was because (gasp!) he was wrong. And do you know what? THAT is actually where the condescension lies. Telling my friend that his lived experience of something was wrong. Like I, the privileged one, would know better than he would. Like I, the privileged one, could better identify his experience than he. Do you understand what I’m saying? When I finally “got it” I was deeply, deeply regretful, embarrassed, and ashamed of myself. I’m not saying you should feel any of those things, but I’m saying, you’re still talking like you know better what the experience of oppressed people is than they do. When you get it, you’ll start talking much differently about these issues.
You claim to be trying to see things through a different lens. Well, try harder. Just for a while, go about the world as though you have accepted that this disagreement is not because I am wrong, but because you have an inability to see things because of your privilege as a man. Just tell yourself that patriarchy exists, it is everywhere in every aspect of every relationship we have with other people, and you are part of the privileged class, that the privileged class is an arbitrary social construct, and you don’t deserve that because you never did anything to earn it. Just try it. Tell yourself I’m right, and you’re wrong, in fact, tell yourself that everything you disagree with about feminism is right, and you have been wrong all this time, and see if anything shifts for you. This might take a while.
Of course I referred to you as a feminist ally. It is obvious that you’re no feminist. For exactly the reasons above.
I know, who am I to say this to you, I don’t even know you, just a name on a computer screen. Who am I to challenge you in this way, challenge your patriarchal authority about how the world works, to refer to you as part of the problem. I don’t know, I’m just a girl. And ultimately it won’t really affect my daily life if you never do what I suggested. But, it might jsut affect yours if you do.
best of luck.
Ruxandra - thanks, this is exactly what I felt was going on here. It seems like the guys who almost agree with feminism are the hardest ones to reason with, because they think they’re doing so well, taking that women’s studies class, learning about these theories, engaging with the feminists about these issues, and even agreeing that women should be treated equally. Except the thing is, these guys are kind of just as dangerous as the outrightly hateful misogynists. They don’t think they are, they would deny it vehemently, but that’s just part of the whole phenom. progressive liberal allies are dangerous because they don’t actually support fully the arguments of the group they ally with. They’re not willing to give up the privilege (even if they could). They’re not willing to learn the lessons, not really, and they’re certainly not really willing to dismantle the power structures involved.
I’ll keep on keeping on as much as I can - as long as I’ve got true support from friends, like the support you’ve given me here for the last several months. I deeply appreciate it. Thank you.
Wow, it’s so late to come into this debate I’m not even sure where to begin. I’m afraid that at this point responding to the comments would not be effective and so I will address the original post instead. I think one of the first things that needs to be addressed is the fact that these tips are intended for the bar scene. Now I don’t know about you but I don’t look at bars as a place to find a girlfriend, if you’re going to a bar to meet women, it’s likely that it’s for a one night stand. You’ll also find that the majority of women there who are looking to meet a man are of similar disposition. So now we have two groups, men and women, both more than likely simply looking for a quick fuck (ignore the members of both groups who are just there to drink or socialise, for obvious reasons they don’t really factor in here) and trying to figure out the most effective way to do it. For women it’s easy, I’m sorry but the simple fact is that if you are a girl and would like a one night stand, you put one some revealing clothes and go to a bar. That’s really all it takes, eventually a man will approach you and you can go home with him if you so desire, if not, likely another will be along shortly. Hell you’ll probably get some free booze out of the deal. Now if you’re a man looking for a quick lay your job is a bit more difficult, in fact I don’t even know exactly what you have to do, I’ve never done it personally and because I’ve never been particularly motivated for a one night stand I’ve never pursued it. But I hardly think it’s despicable to take a course if that is your aim. The simple fact is that for hookups (and I’m explicitly referring to mutual one night stands) women hold the cards, no matter how disadvantaged they may be in other areas, in the one night stand bar scene, women are in power. But wait! What about these poor girls who are going to the bars looking to meet a nice man to take home and start a serious relationship with? They are in the wrong place, guys don’t go to bars looking for girlfriends because the majority of women who are available there are bar stars and just aren’t good girlfriends. Same for the guys in this scene, they are not great boyfriends because they don’t want to be. If you’re a guy or a girl looking for a relationship the bar is a stupid place to look, post a personal, go to a library or bookstore, maybe some sort of social club, a place where people are actively looking for new friends and companions as opposed to a quick fuck. Is it wrong for guys and girls to want one night stands? If both parties consent then obviously not. If girls just want to get laid they should dress slutty and go to a bar, if guys want to get laid they should act sleazy and go to a bar. If either group is looking for a respectful mature relationship they should stay the hell away from the bar. I see this as a problem of not distinguishing the pickup game from the dating game. They have different rules and are played differently, if you try and play one game by the others rules it won’t work and that’s where problems arise.
I’d also like to address dating briefly. I think the reason so many women complain about men being jerks and not being able to find a nice guy is because they go to the bar to find boyfriends and never consider the quiet sensitive guy you befriended at the museum or wherever. The guys at bars are putting out signals that they are sexually interested in the girl, who in turn misinterprets this as them being interested in a sexual relationship, while interpreting the quiet guy who would never be so forward to put a move on as simply wanting friendship. So here we find out problem, at least as I see it. The women are going after the guys who just want to fuck for relationships, while treating the guys who want relationships as platonic friends. The guys quickly sense that they are in the “friend zone” (I don’t like it either but it sure as hell exists) and either simply cease to hold romantic feelings towards the girl and harbor a secret crush for all eternity (which isn’t cool for either