NOTE: Start here with Tuthmosis’ fantastic classification of types of trolls Then, read my thread about the psychology of trolls. Also, note that this got a lot longer than I originally planned. I promise you will understand PuaHate and feminism's approach to PUA better after reading this. Moving on. . .
The recent spat of trolls got me thinking about a few things. Why do people have such a hard-on for this forum? PuaHate.com in particular has some serious issues with Roosh, G and this forum. Also, I will dovetail this analysis with some feminist critiques of PUA, as they mirror or link up with my critiques of PuaHate.
Review Of Recently Banned Members
Let’s step through a few recently banned members as a way to frame the discussion:
PooHammer: Most of you remember this guy as POHammer, who trolled us with his zebra thread. He claims to have multiple troll accounts and makes everything up that he writes. Why does this guy do what he does? Honestly, I don’t know. He didn’t present enough for me to get a good picture of his psyche. He struck me as somebody, that for whatever reason, has an issue with PUA’s. Maybe his girl got poached by some PUA or just some dude with tight game. Maybe he is gay and doesn’t know it yet.
Eternal_Nice_Guy: This guy is Austin Powers over at PuaHate. This guy is a serious game denialist and has some serious personal issues. This guy fundamentally hates himself and his sexuality. If he was a woman, there is a good chance he would be a feminist or a hard-core Bible-thumper. Since he hasn’t chosen either of those methods, he needs some tool to bury his sexuality – he does that through game denialism. By refusing to better himself he never has to face down his sexuality.
singaporean: This guy is most likely some sort of IRT. He started a fucking suspicious thread today about buying women. This guy is a form of feminist troll – trying to make us look like losers who need to treat women as property in order to bed them. Also, he or she is a game denialist – a person who thinks that all a man needs to do is to respect women and treat them well – you will get a girlfriend or hookups this way. Notice he referred a member before he was banned – I hope that troll has already been banned or will out themselves quickly.
These three archetypes: trolls that resent this forum, trolls that deny game and trolls that try to paint us as omegas come into a perfect storm of hate in the form of http://www.PuaHate.com
Analysis of PuaHate
![[Image: puahate.com.jpg]](http://b.webutation.net/3/e/puahate.com.jpg)
I initially planned a big writeup on these fools. After cruising their shitty site for 20 minutes, I realized not to waste more than a few paragraphs on these fools. Be sure to check out JimNortonFan’s thread where he talks about game denialism at PuaHate.com.
I will only touch briefly on the game denialism, as JimNortonFan has already gone through a lot of it. The game denialism is a form of self-handicapping. I think their obsession with game and this forum is that they know, deep down, game is real and eternal. Unable to value themselves properly, they port their self-hatred onto ideas that would improve their lives. The fact they spill so much Internet ink over game suggests a serious complex these dudes have developed. Unable to come to terms with the arc of their life, they develop all manner of inferiority complexes - just like how some MRA/feminists want to blame society for their personal failings. Some are like Austin Powers and are probably sickly jealous of the accomplishments of guys like Roosh and G. They also have a beef with Handsome Creepy Eel. I spoke with HCE about that & he has no idea why that is.
The other aspect is a form of a big-baller troll. As I noted in my troll psychology thread, these guys always target top players to bolster their fantasies of who they are. These guys down Roosh on the regular, as well as The G Manifesto. Some of these guys even think Roosh is just a troll – yeah, Roosh, wrote all of his books, runs his blog & RoK and this forum to troll. They also talk shit about other members and they almost always target the best contributors. It wouldn’t surprise me that the target members that they see themselves as in their head. The attacks come from the chasm between who they are in real life and who they are in their head.
Even some RVF members have approvingly talked about Roosh’s inability to get laid in certain countries on the site. I really don’t know anything about BoyToy, but let me use this thread as a way of developing a point. These losers want everybody on their level – pathetic & ineffectual. When confronted with guys who are happier and more successful, that is offensive to their inferiority complex. They desperately want to prove that others are unhappy and unsuccessful like them. It is a form of narcissism – they want everybody in the world to be as angry and displeased as them. Look how butthurt the tags are – “Roosh fuck closes camels in poor countries” and “Roosh sucks cock in hell.”
Lord have mercy, PuaHaters – it is so openly obvious that you have serious issues. The reason feminists hate that site isn’t just because they aren’t alphas, it is because many of them port their self-hatred out as misogyny.
Analysis Of Feminist Approaches To PUA
Before starting down this horrible road, let me lighten the mood with this beautiful woman.
![[Image: babe.jpg]](http://www.muttznuttz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/babe.jpg)
Let me preface this discussion with a brief overview of the concept of misogyny. All misogyny is is the hatred of women. When feminists try to expand the definition of misogyny, they are admitting it isn't an issue like they try to push. Some men do hate women. They do for many reasons - unable to come to grips with their sexuality (straight or gay), they were abused by women or their mother as a kid. The most common reason is a man who feels the bombs going off around him - in the form of hypergamy and feminism - but doesn't have the tools to understand it, so a man might fall back on just hating all women.
Let's step through this interview with Neil Strauss. First off, Strauss is marketing his book and, in order to broaden his appeal, he has decided to suck on feminist cock. He serves up the typical analysis - we live in an oppressive patriarchal society, etc. What is of interest is his mentioning of two things - that men often come to PUA for the camaraderie with fellow males and why men hate feminism.
His mentioning of a male camaraderie is either intentionally or unintentionally critiquing feminism. Let's talk about the black community and fathers. The lack of fathers and male teachers/role models hurts black boys. This fuels gang culture because those young boys need male role models and male approval. They get it from leaders in gangs, but we all know how often this hurts young blacks. What Strauss is suggesting is that our culture devalues male bonding. Some of it is heterosexism - i.e. Roy Hibbert's comments about "no homo." It wasn't homophobic, what is fucked up about society is a man has to preface he isn't gay when he expresses appreciation for another man.
Communities, such as RVF, that allow men to come together, share ideas and thoughts and develop positive relationships are offensive to some. Roosh's "Be A Beta" rule is so important because in the shark tank of the modern world, men are far too used to having to ruthlessly compete with other men for access to limited resources, such as pussy.
Let's talk about Strauss' comments on why men hate feminism. He coughs up some worn-out bullshit about men fearing powerful women. That is a tired old cliche women love because they think men give a shit sexually about their bank roll or their professional status. The other point is the one I want to discuss - he says that men that hate feminism just don't understand feminism.
That is the most intellectually lazy argument I can think of. Imagine me commenting on a heated discussion of a post of mine at RoK. I respond to critical comments, dismissing them all as "they just hate 2Wycked." I should lose respect for my inability to engage my detractors in spirited debate. Which is what the aforementioned quote is about. Unable to defend themselves from criticism, they just fall back on proclamations of misogyny.
When your movement is superficial and anti-intellectual you can't defend any substantive critiques, you have to react like that. Since feminism is narcissism, when you expose their lack of substance they will always trigger defense mechanisms because you blowing up their self-image.
![[Image: femfund.png?w=604]](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/femfund.png?w=604)
Let me refocus back on PUA. This article does a fantastic job of illustrating my points. Let me state a few things before chopping it up. Feminism isn't just narcissism - it is lowest of narcissism - the inability to change to affect the world around them. Note that narcissists often complain of being a fraud or life is just a performance - the shifting of roles in order to gain other's worship and approval is narcissistic. Further, remember we live a puritanical society that is fundamentally afraid of sexuality. Sure, we in America have gotten better, but some of the more nativistic impulses remain.
This gem might be the most psychologically loaded paragraph any feminist has written. Let's from the top. She seems to think that PUA is about tricking women into thinking men are charming and suave. That makes no sense - until you realize she projecting her own inability to change onto men. In her world, nobody changes or has the ability to. The fact people are changing is supremely offensive to her. Just like those omegas at PuaHate, they are hyper-aware of those who are bettering themselves because they are very threatening. Feminists often talk of PUA being threatening. What is threatening isn't PUA itself, but the idea that people - most of all men - are bettering themselves.
This is where visions of male privilege come from. They use mythical male privilege in order to hold men down from self-actualizing. If some dude is up-and-coming and talking about male betterment, feminists will usually attack him, talking about how men already are doing so well, so what do they mean "male betterment?" It should be "human betterment," in their opinion. That is a fairly obvious way of women injecting themselves into the success of a man. Since men get away with not marrying in today's world, women are very worried a successful man may not have a woman whom he needs.
Her commentary about performance is telling. She thinks the whole world is a stage – that is a narcissistic comment. Gender isn’t a performance for anybody, you are who you are - unless you are a narcissist and fundamentally hate yourself. You can’t be honest about that because that would lead to depression, inaction and probably suicide. So you perform whatever script you think society wants you to perform. Her comment that gender has no origin suggests she thinks utopia doesn’t exist in the future, but resides in a return to the past. I bang on constantly that feminists would be a nun or hyper-conservative Christian in another life – that is because they feel utopia did exist at one point in time. Either before Eve bit the apple or the patriarchy took over.
I will close with her bit about honesty. That is a common complaint in just about any society – especially narcissistic societies. What is funny is that is a complaint of the second or third order – your first desire is to conform, which is what fuels so much feminism. Unable to admit what really bothers them is the fact they want be handed a social script they like, they pretend they want to be autonomous. They implicitly admit their first concern is with adherence to social convention. Further, part of the lack of honesty is feminism. Men can’t come clean about many things without being accused of misogyny or something else. So men shut up and then women & feminists start to complain about men not expressing their emotions.
Unable to come to grips with the fact the problem is them, they just blame patriarchy and men. What do women think will happen when men express their deepest emotions to them? They have a fantasy that has no basis in reality and pretend everything a man will tell will be met with their approval and that they will still desire him after that. That is such a narcissistic quality. Like somebody who reads the newspaper and sees somebody get a fat paycheck after getting hit by a public bus. He or she thinks, “That would be awesome for me! I would get paid. Of course, I won’t get killed or maimed, unlike the person in the paper who is crippled.” That is the narcissistic quality of women – the belief that if men were honest and respectful, all the bad in the world and their relationships would go away – very delusional.
![[Image: alpha_male.png]](http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/alpha_male.png)
Here is another choice quote before I close with some of my personal analysis and why PuaHate & feminism are one.
Sigh. This segues perfectly into my analysis of feminist critiques of PUA. She mentions she doesn't like deliberate attempts to direct a relationship. So she wants a natural. Lord have mercy - she is expecting the world of men she wants! She admits she likes confidence bordering on narcissism. She likes those who doesn't qualify himself to her. She adopts this impossible standard that they treat her as an equal. She wants dominance without dominance, she wants narcissism without any of the downsides.
This one of the fundamental issues with feminism and PUA. They expect the impossible from men. They want men to be naturals and don't want men to improve themselves. They want men to learn to respect women, but reinforces they are targeting alphas and men. When men to seek to improve, they have to be careful women don't hear about it. Self-help books on the nightstand - Cosmo regularly hates on men who do that. When feminists and women hear of or see a man improving himself, they either hate on him or seek to insert themselves in their self-improvement - via claiming he is bettering himself as a "human" or seeking to fuck him and lock him down.
It is delusional levels of narcissism from feminists. The ignore realities of sexual hierarchy while simultaneously desperately needing it. They need betas and omegas to qualify themselves to them, while pining away for alpha cock, thinking the reason they don't get it is because of oppressive beauty standards or male sexual conditioning that prevents them from sexually appreciating female provisioning. They claim to be against hierachies, but by definition, sexuality is fundamentally hierarchical. They don't care about the female side, just about being able to get with alphas.
Further, this sort of terrible thinking smacks of puritanical impulses. Unable to admit they want neither autonomy nor pure expressions of sexuality they hide behind claiming to want those things, while tossing out standards that effectively prevent expression of that which they are afraid of. Sexuality is not easily broken down – when PUA’s do that it offends feminist on two levels. First, is the female level. Women want to pretend romance just happens and men just happen to be attractive. They don’t understand the work the men engage in to be attractive to women.
Second, is the feminist level. They hate knowing that there are biological standards and limitations to sexuality. You see this with feminists claiming to be genderqueer, pansexual and bisexual. Unable to come to grips with their banality, they pretend they are more than just another heterosexual woman. In their equal world, they need a way to distinguish themselves. That is why hipsters are so annoying, in their quest for supreme equality they need ways to differentiate themselves. They get preposterous tattoos, claim to like obscure music and beer and just their draining behavior in general. They need you to know they are different from their fellow equals. As for feminists & PUA’s, it reinforces sex differences that really offend feminists. They envy the empowerment men get from learning game, so they hate on PUA’s or claim it applies to both men and women.
Why PuaHate & Feminism Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin: A Conclusion
Both PuaHate & feminism are far too similar - that is why they hate each other. Women, in particular, hate guys like those at PuaHate because they are entirely too reflective of their psychology. The inability to change, the constant attacking of those they want to be or be with and the rank narcissism is telling. They don’t have the ability to change themselves in a positive way congruent with reality (the definition of the red-pill) so they become haters and narcissists.
When feminists critique PUA, they often comment on the rank heterosexism, invalid biology and misogyny. As for heterosexism, that is a great sleight of hand to prove PUA is about heterosexuality – no, it is about picking up women. If a gay dude asks me for advice to get laid, I would tell him to lose the gut, step up your fashion game and not be an annoying bitch - boom, getting laid. As for the invalid biology, that is just some BS, as feminists assume what they believe is necessarily biological true. They just hate being reminded men aren’t women. As for misogyny, they hyper-focus on pockets of misogyny in PUA and ascribing it to the movement as a whole. I can do this too! – just quote very radical feminists and treat them as representative of the feminist movement. Sometimes, I hate breaking down feminism as they are not a worthy intellectual adversary, just a powerful one.
As for the chumps at PuaHate, they are just garden-variety narcissistic haters. They target what they believe to be their equals and then drag those so-called equals into the gutter of omegahood with them. Of course, they are just keyboard jockies, but ones that we need to watch out to see if their trolling becomes worse or more personal. They are male feminists in the sense they often worship women (often inverting this as hatred of women) and have the complete and utter inability to change for the better. They literally are the antithesis of this forum.
In sum, the June 2013 produced a ton of trolls. Once again, kudos to Tuth’s and Roosh’s work at stomping those cockroaches out. Just like cockroaches, where there is one there are 100 and they will be back in July. As for PuaHate, they are just game denialists who are compensatory narcissists when it comes to dealing with women. Feminism? Their critiques of PUA are just laced with narcissism and Puritanism. They claim to be against those very ideas, but do absolutely nothing to gird their psyche against them. It is a tiresome job dealing with them, as they don’t live in reality and, when debating them, you have to log onto their fantasy world and take them out there. It won’t end, however, as they need those delusions in order to exist. The hamster roams free in the pastures of their false consciousness.
In the end, don’t pay too much attention to these sorts of people, as their negative psychology is looking for converts and if you aren’t paying attention, they may prey on you and drag you into the delusional abyss with them.
The recent spat of trolls got me thinking about a few things. Why do people have such a hard-on for this forum? PuaHate.com in particular has some serious issues with Roosh, G and this forum. Also, I will dovetail this analysis with some feminist critiques of PUA, as they mirror or link up with my critiques of PuaHate.
Review Of Recently Banned Members
Let’s step through a few recently banned members as a way to frame the discussion:
PooHammer: Most of you remember this guy as POHammer, who trolled us with his zebra thread. He claims to have multiple troll accounts and makes everything up that he writes. Why does this guy do what he does? Honestly, I don’t know. He didn’t present enough for me to get a good picture of his psyche. He struck me as somebody, that for whatever reason, has an issue with PUA’s. Maybe his girl got poached by some PUA or just some dude with tight game. Maybe he is gay and doesn’t know it yet.
Eternal_Nice_Guy: This guy is Austin Powers over at PuaHate. This guy is a serious game denialist and has some serious personal issues. This guy fundamentally hates himself and his sexuality. If he was a woman, there is a good chance he would be a feminist or a hard-core Bible-thumper. Since he hasn’t chosen either of those methods, he needs some tool to bury his sexuality – he does that through game denialism. By refusing to better himself he never has to face down his sexuality.
singaporean: This guy is most likely some sort of IRT. He started a fucking suspicious thread today about buying women. This guy is a form of feminist troll – trying to make us look like losers who need to treat women as property in order to bed them. Also, he or she is a game denialist – a person who thinks that all a man needs to do is to respect women and treat them well – you will get a girlfriend or hookups this way. Notice he referred a member before he was banned – I hope that troll has already been banned or will out themselves quickly.
These three archetypes: trolls that resent this forum, trolls that deny game and trolls that try to paint us as omegas come into a perfect storm of hate in the form of http://www.PuaHate.com
Analysis of PuaHate
I initially planned a big writeup on these fools. After cruising their shitty site for 20 minutes, I realized not to waste more than a few paragraphs on these fools. Be sure to check out JimNortonFan’s thread where he talks about game denialism at PuaHate.com.
I will only touch briefly on the game denialism, as JimNortonFan has already gone through a lot of it. The game denialism is a form of self-handicapping. I think their obsession with game and this forum is that they know, deep down, game is real and eternal. Unable to value themselves properly, they port their self-hatred onto ideas that would improve their lives. The fact they spill so much Internet ink over game suggests a serious complex these dudes have developed. Unable to come to terms with the arc of their life, they develop all manner of inferiority complexes - just like how some MRA/feminists want to blame society for their personal failings. Some are like Austin Powers and are probably sickly jealous of the accomplishments of guys like Roosh and G. They also have a beef with Handsome Creepy Eel. I spoke with HCE about that & he has no idea why that is.
The other aspect is a form of a big-baller troll. As I noted in my troll psychology thread, these guys always target top players to bolster their fantasies of who they are. These guys down Roosh on the regular, as well as The G Manifesto. Some of these guys even think Roosh is just a troll – yeah, Roosh, wrote all of his books, runs his blog & RoK and this forum to troll. They also talk shit about other members and they almost always target the best contributors. It wouldn’t surprise me that the target members that they see themselves as in their head. The attacks come from the chasm between who they are in real life and who they are in their head.
Even some RVF members have approvingly talked about Roosh’s inability to get laid in certain countries on the site. I really don’t know anything about BoyToy, but let me use this thread as a way of developing a point. These losers want everybody on their level – pathetic & ineffectual. When confronted with guys who are happier and more successful, that is offensive to their inferiority complex. They desperately want to prove that others are unhappy and unsuccessful like them. It is a form of narcissism – they want everybody in the world to be as angry and displeased as them. Look how butthurt the tags are – “Roosh fuck closes camels in poor countries” and “Roosh sucks cock in hell.”
Lord have mercy, PuaHaters – it is so openly obvious that you have serious issues. The reason feminists hate that site isn’t just because they aren’t alphas, it is because many of them port their self-hatred out as misogyny.
Analysis Of Feminist Approaches To PUA
Before starting down this horrible road, let me lighten the mood with this beautiful woman.
Let me preface this discussion with a brief overview of the concept of misogyny. All misogyny is is the hatred of women. When feminists try to expand the definition of misogyny, they are admitting it isn't an issue like they try to push. Some men do hate women. They do for many reasons - unable to come to grips with their sexuality (straight or gay), they were abused by women or their mother as a kid. The most common reason is a man who feels the bombs going off around him - in the form of hypergamy and feminism - but doesn't have the tools to understand it, so a man might fall back on just hating all women.
Let's step through this interview with Neil Strauss. First off, Strauss is marketing his book and, in order to broaden his appeal, he has decided to suck on feminist cock. He serves up the typical analysis - we live in an oppressive patriarchal society, etc. What is of interest is his mentioning of two things - that men often come to PUA for the camaraderie with fellow males and why men hate feminism.
His mentioning of a male camaraderie is either intentionally or unintentionally critiquing feminism. Let's talk about the black community and fathers. The lack of fathers and male teachers/role models hurts black boys. This fuels gang culture because those young boys need male role models and male approval. They get it from leaders in gangs, but we all know how often this hurts young blacks. What Strauss is suggesting is that our culture devalues male bonding. Some of it is heterosexism - i.e. Roy Hibbert's comments about "no homo." It wasn't homophobic, what is fucked up about society is a man has to preface he isn't gay when he expresses appreciation for another man.
Communities, such as RVF, that allow men to come together, share ideas and thoughts and develop positive relationships are offensive to some. Roosh's "Be A Beta" rule is so important because in the shark tank of the modern world, men are far too used to having to ruthlessly compete with other men for access to limited resources, such as pussy.
Let's talk about Strauss' comments on why men hate feminism. He coughs up some worn-out bullshit about men fearing powerful women. That is a tired old cliche women love because they think men give a shit sexually about their bank roll or their professional status. The other point is the one I want to discuss - he says that men that hate feminism just don't understand feminism.
That is the most intellectually lazy argument I can think of. Imagine me commenting on a heated discussion of a post of mine at RoK. I respond to critical comments, dismissing them all as "they just hate 2Wycked." I should lose respect for my inability to engage my detractors in spirited debate. Which is what the aforementioned quote is about. Unable to defend themselves from criticism, they just fall back on proclamations of misogyny.
When your movement is superficial and anti-intellectual you can't defend any substantive critiques, you have to react like that. Since feminism is narcissism, when you expose their lack of substance they will always trigger defense mechanisms because you blowing up their self-image.
Let me refocus back on PUA. This article does a fantastic job of illustrating my points. Let me state a few things before chopping it up. Feminism isn't just narcissism - it is lowest of narcissism - the inability to change to affect the world around them. Note that narcissists often complain of being a fraud or life is just a performance - the shifting of roles in order to gain other's worship and approval is narcissistic. Further, remember we live a puritanical society that is fundamentally afraid of sexuality. Sure, we in America have gotten better, but some of the more nativistic impulses remain.
Quote:Quote:
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!
This gem might be the most psychologically loaded paragraph any feminist has written. Let's from the top. She seems to think that PUA is about tricking women into thinking men are charming and suave. That makes no sense - until you realize she projecting her own inability to change onto men. In her world, nobody changes or has the ability to. The fact people are changing is supremely offensive to her. Just like those omegas at PuaHate, they are hyper-aware of those who are bettering themselves because they are very threatening. Feminists often talk of PUA being threatening. What is threatening isn't PUA itself, but the idea that people - most of all men - are bettering themselves.
This is where visions of male privilege come from. They use mythical male privilege in order to hold men down from self-actualizing. If some dude is up-and-coming and talking about male betterment, feminists will usually attack him, talking about how men already are doing so well, so what do they mean "male betterment?" It should be "human betterment," in their opinion. That is a fairly obvious way of women injecting themselves into the success of a man. Since men get away with not marrying in today's world, women are very worried a successful man may not have a woman whom he needs.
Her commentary about performance is telling. She thinks the whole world is a stage – that is a narcissistic comment. Gender isn’t a performance for anybody, you are who you are - unless you are a narcissist and fundamentally hate yourself. You can’t be honest about that because that would lead to depression, inaction and probably suicide. So you perform whatever script you think society wants you to perform. Her comment that gender has no origin suggests she thinks utopia doesn’t exist in the future, but resides in a return to the past. I bang on constantly that feminists would be a nun or hyper-conservative Christian in another life – that is because they feel utopia did exist at one point in time. Either before Eve bit the apple or the patriarchy took over.
I will close with her bit about honesty. That is a common complaint in just about any society – especially narcissistic societies. What is funny is that is a complaint of the second or third order – your first desire is to conform, which is what fuels so much feminism. Unable to admit what really bothers them is the fact they want be handed a social script they like, they pretend they want to be autonomous. They implicitly admit their first concern is with adherence to social convention. Further, part of the lack of honesty is feminism. Men can’t come clean about many things without being accused of misogyny or something else. So men shut up and then women & feminists start to complain about men not expressing their emotions.
Unable to come to grips with the fact the problem is them, they just blame patriarchy and men. What do women think will happen when men express their deepest emotions to them? They have a fantasy that has no basis in reality and pretend everything a man will tell will be met with their approval and that they will still desire him after that. That is such a narcissistic quality. Like somebody who reads the newspaper and sees somebody get a fat paycheck after getting hit by a public bus. He or she thinks, “That would be awesome for me! I would get paid. Of course, I won’t get killed or maimed, unlike the person in the paper who is crippled.” That is the narcissistic quality of women – the belief that if men were honest and respectful, all the bad in the world and their relationships would go away – very delusional.
Here is another choice quote before I close with some of my personal analysis and why PuaHate & feminism are one.
Quote:Quote:
I like self-possessed. I like witty. I like a guy who doesn’t kiss my ass unless asked. I don’t, however, like disrespect or a deliberate attempt to structure our interactions so that you’ve got the upper hand and I’ve got to earn your attention.
Sigh. This segues perfectly into my analysis of feminist critiques of PUA. She mentions she doesn't like deliberate attempts to direct a relationship. So she wants a natural. Lord have mercy - she is expecting the world of men she wants! She admits she likes confidence bordering on narcissism. She likes those who doesn't qualify himself to her. She adopts this impossible standard that they treat her as an equal. She wants dominance without dominance, she wants narcissism without any of the downsides.
This one of the fundamental issues with feminism and PUA. They expect the impossible from men. They want men to be naturals and don't want men to improve themselves. They want men to learn to respect women, but reinforces they are targeting alphas and men. When men to seek to improve, they have to be careful women don't hear about it. Self-help books on the nightstand - Cosmo regularly hates on men who do that. When feminists and women hear of or see a man improving himself, they either hate on him or seek to insert themselves in their self-improvement - via claiming he is bettering himself as a "human" or seeking to fuck him and lock him down.
It is delusional levels of narcissism from feminists. The ignore realities of sexual hierarchy while simultaneously desperately needing it. They need betas and omegas to qualify themselves to them, while pining away for alpha cock, thinking the reason they don't get it is because of oppressive beauty standards or male sexual conditioning that prevents them from sexually appreciating female provisioning. They claim to be against hierachies, but by definition, sexuality is fundamentally hierarchical. They don't care about the female side, just about being able to get with alphas.
Further, this sort of terrible thinking smacks of puritanical impulses. Unable to admit they want neither autonomy nor pure expressions of sexuality they hide behind claiming to want those things, while tossing out standards that effectively prevent expression of that which they are afraid of. Sexuality is not easily broken down – when PUA’s do that it offends feminist on two levels. First, is the female level. Women want to pretend romance just happens and men just happen to be attractive. They don’t understand the work the men engage in to be attractive to women.
Second, is the feminist level. They hate knowing that there are biological standards and limitations to sexuality. You see this with feminists claiming to be genderqueer, pansexual and bisexual. Unable to come to grips with their banality, they pretend they are more than just another heterosexual woman. In their equal world, they need a way to distinguish themselves. That is why hipsters are so annoying, in their quest for supreme equality they need ways to differentiate themselves. They get preposterous tattoos, claim to like obscure music and beer and just their draining behavior in general. They need you to know they are different from their fellow equals. As for feminists & PUA’s, it reinforces sex differences that really offend feminists. They envy the empowerment men get from learning game, so they hate on PUA’s or claim it applies to both men and women.
Why PuaHate & Feminism Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin: A Conclusion
Both PuaHate & feminism are far too similar - that is why they hate each other. Women, in particular, hate guys like those at PuaHate because they are entirely too reflective of their psychology. The inability to change, the constant attacking of those they want to be or be with and the rank narcissism is telling. They don’t have the ability to change themselves in a positive way congruent with reality (the definition of the red-pill) so they become haters and narcissists.
When feminists critique PUA, they often comment on the rank heterosexism, invalid biology and misogyny. As for heterosexism, that is a great sleight of hand to prove PUA is about heterosexuality – no, it is about picking up women. If a gay dude asks me for advice to get laid, I would tell him to lose the gut, step up your fashion game and not be an annoying bitch - boom, getting laid. As for the invalid biology, that is just some BS, as feminists assume what they believe is necessarily biological true. They just hate being reminded men aren’t women. As for misogyny, they hyper-focus on pockets of misogyny in PUA and ascribing it to the movement as a whole. I can do this too! – just quote very radical feminists and treat them as representative of the feminist movement. Sometimes, I hate breaking down feminism as they are not a worthy intellectual adversary, just a powerful one.
As for the chumps at PuaHate, they are just garden-variety narcissistic haters. They target what they believe to be their equals and then drag those so-called equals into the gutter of omegahood with them. Of course, they are just keyboard jockies, but ones that we need to watch out to see if their trolling becomes worse or more personal. They are male feminists in the sense they often worship women (often inverting this as hatred of women) and have the complete and utter inability to change for the better. They literally are the antithesis of this forum.
In sum, the June 2013 produced a ton of trolls. Once again, kudos to Tuth’s and Roosh’s work at stomping those cockroaches out. Just like cockroaches, where there is one there are 100 and they will be back in July. As for PuaHate, they are just game denialists who are compensatory narcissists when it comes to dealing with women. Feminism? Their critiques of PUA are just laced with narcissism and Puritanism. They claim to be against those very ideas, but do absolutely nothing to gird their psyche against them. It is a tiresome job dealing with them, as they don’t live in reality and, when debating them, you have to log onto their fantasy world and take them out there. It won’t end, however, as they need those delusions in order to exist. The hamster roams free in the pastures of their false consciousness.
In the end, don’t pay too much attention to these sorts of people, as their negative psychology is looking for converts and if you aren’t paying attention, they may prey on you and drag you into the delusional abyss with them.
