[Tex Pro]

Roosh is featured in an article in The New Republic called: Pick-Up Artists and Pro-Family Conservatives Agree: Women Only Marry for Money

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/12098...arry-money

Quote:

There are infinite varieties of misogyny on the Internet. Arguably the most visible type of digital woman-hating emanates from the pick-up artist movement, something between a sociopathic self-help theory and an ersatz philosophy. Among the most visible leaders of this revanchist style of gender politics is Daryush Valizadeh, a pick-up artist who operates under the pseudonym “Roosh V.”

[Easy E]

There is no such thing as bad publicity.

He was also recently featured in an article on Vox.

The SJWs must sense a "disturbance in the force" if they are devoting so much time to bashing Roosh.

[Saweeep]

The article:

Quote:

There are infinite varieties of misogyny on the Internet. Arguably the most visible type of digital woman-hating emanates from the pick-up artist movement, something between a sociopathic self-help theory and an ersatz philosophy. Among the most visible leaders of this revanchist style of gender politics is Daryush Valizadeh, a pick-up artist who operates under the pseudonym “Roosh V.”

Roosh V writes on a variety of platforms, and maintains a catalog of erotic travelogues that purport to offer tips on seducing local women. He became known more broadly beyond his online audience for an angrily written screed against Denmark, which reporter Katie J. M. Baker analyzed in a 2013 essay for Dissent. What, by Roosh’s account, was the matter with the state of Denmark?

According to Baker, Roosh found it difficult to score with women who had no pressing financial need to affix themselves to men. All the methods engineered by enterprising pick-up artists to make themselves appear confident and wealthy were of little interest to Danish women, who can rely upon a robust social insurance regime for financial support rather than the vicissitudes of male sexual taste. As Baker writes,

Quote:

Marginalized women who need male spouses to flourish might, indeed, find pick-up artists alluring. But women in countries that have gender-equalizing policies supported by an anti-individualist culture may not.

In a recent essay for Vox, Emmett Rensin interviewed Roosh on the subject of gender and sex. For all of Roosh’s frustration at not drowning in no-strings-attached intercourse in Denmark, Rensin reports the pick-up artist found what he does to be merely pragmatic, but not optimal. “In Roosh V's ideal world,” Rensin writes, “there would be no need for men like Roosh. He claims no deep biological imperative beneath his seduction tactics. Only a culture falling apart in the West, marriages dying as women are no longer beholden to the pillars of its stability.”

The pillars of marital stability are, for Roosh, primarily financial. Feminist artist Angela Washko asked Roosh about his ideal world during a lengthy video interview with him in January. In Roosh’s utopia, he explained,

Quote:

…a man has to come first. But that doesn’t happen anymore. From that I think a lot of good things would probably happen. By removing the dependency of women on men you’ve unleashed a can of worms where women no longer have to try…So what is actually happening by giving women an independent source of income, you have allowed them to aim for their most base degenerate instincts. The fact that she doesn’t have to get the approval of a man who is taking care of her means that she will get tattoos on her arms and her neck, she will get the gauge earrings and piercings, she will shave half of her head, she will burp, she will curse, she will gain a lot of weight, she won’t have any style, she won’t look good, she’ll be loud and violent. And that’s what we see now

Viewing marriage as a financial last resort for women seems typical of Roosh and his cohort, though the idea that only women who cannot support themselves independently marry doesn’t mesh with the fact that the wealthy and highly educated tend to enjoy the highest rates of marriage in society. Dissonance with the evidence aside, it would be easy to write off Roosh’s pathological view of women and marriage as an artifact of his anomalous misogyny, were it not so very common. In fact, the idea that marriage is such a financial lifejacket for women that they must be forced into via the threat of poverty lest they revert to nasty instincts is somewhat typical of the pro-family right.

George Gilder, a pro-family conservative who was the person most often quoted by President Ronald Reagan, believes that welfare “usurps the male role as chief provider and undermines the foundation of families. His provider role is absolutely central to the family; if the state replaces the male provider, you don’t have families. The welfare state cuckolds the man.” In other words, if the state provides women a source of income that doesn’t require marriage, Gilder surmises, women simply won’t marry. Worse yet, in Gilder’s parlance, welfare constitutes state cuckoldry, as though food stamps steal sexual access men are rightfully entitled to. Thus, in the words of once and likely future Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, Uncle Sam becomes “Uncle Sugar.”

Brad Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project, expressed a similar objection to my recent criticism of an Economist editorial which argued that people who use welfare should refuse public assistance, and leave their families and homes in order to seek work. I contended that this approach removes vital social supports from the people who need their networks the most. But according to Wilcox, any form of long-term assistance weakens one’s dependence upon one’s spouse, thus undermining family formation.


It’s no far cry from Gilder’s assessment that reducing women’s dependence on men for financial sustenance will reduce marriage rates. But it’s also not far off from the worldview of Roosh V and other assorted misogynists who believe, for whatever reason, that women don’t want to be married and must be made to do so.

Pew research shows that, in fact, more than half of all never-married adults would like to be married. Rather than avoiding marriage out of disinterest, 34 percent of never-married adults between the ages of 25 and 34 say that they have avoided marriage because of financial insecurity. Marriage can actually intensify financial risk, contradicting the conservative imagination. Others in the same age cohort consider themselves too young, or believe they have not met the right person yet.

Perhaps these latter two reasons (though made up of smaller percentages than those citing financial insecurity as their reason for never having been married) fit into the narrative Roosh and his conservative compatriots advance about women and marriage. After all, if women’s options were limited to immediately marrying someone at the age of majority or when they are suffering poverty, they would probably settle down immediately. Being unhappy is marginally better than being homeless. But this is where the similarities between the pick-up artist’s story about women and conservative hesitation about welfare reveal a disturbing reality: if welfare income is wrong because it reduces women’s dependency upon their spouses and thereby undermines marriage, then any income is equally dangerous to the American family. Roosh detests the Danish social democratic system for supporting women, but he’s equally disenchanted, as Washko and Rensin’s interviews demonstrate, with women pursuing degrees and jobs.

Roosh’s suspicion of women’s work and education carries over to conservative mistrust of welfare used by women because both camps believe female independence undermines American families. Of course, rather than focusing on trying to cattle-prod women into marriage with the threat of poverty, we could always focus on the reasons women leave relationships, such as the asymmetrical division of emotional labor. We could also try to make young people more financially secure with job guarantees or a universal basic income. But these policies, alas, may be too woman-friendly to survive the currents of conservative thought, which blend, as Roosh V demonstrates, with considerably darker waters.

[SteveMcMahon]

I tried reading the article, but it's a thicket of bullshit assertions and SJW cock-gobblery.

However, would bang the female typist:





Let's see how many feminist articles she can write while bouncing on my cock and calling me "Daddy".

[Pestilence]

It's awesome how all these people are spending time and money writing these articles on Roosh and he's just chilling in Europe banging 18 year olds.

[The Reactionary Tree]

Ah yes, the dark murky waters where traditional family values meets having the confidence to talk to girls in person. What is the world coming to when game bloggers and republicans agree that traditional marriage is a good thing... I mean what an unholy alliance. It's like they are advocating the next holocaust.

The world is a scary place these days.

[zombiejimmorrison]

What an article, devoid of any critical thinking and basic economy.

"Marriage can actually intensify financial risk"

True if you're a man. Nothing sends you down the gutter quicker than a woman who has massive debt, loves spending money and doesn't want to downsize for living purposes. Kids are an even greater financial risk for a guy.


"If welfare income is wrong because it reduces women’s dependency upon their spouses and thereby undermines marriage, then any income is equally dangerous to the American family"

Wow, I can't even.


"In fact, the idea that marriage is such a financial lifejacket for women that they must be forced into via the threat of poverty lest they revert to nasty instincts is somewhat typical of the pro-family right"

Lifejacket if they want or have kids, which brings us to the next point.


"Roosh’s suspicion of women’s work and education carries over to conservative mistrust of welfare used by women because both camps believe female independence undermines American families"

Female independence Har Har. They wouldn't stay independent for long if all that tax money stopped flowing into their hands. Women have safety nets for their mistakes. All critical thinking and self preservation go out of the window when they have daddy government for hand outs and divorce rape.


"Of course, rather than focusing on trying to cattle-prod women into marriage with the threat of poverty, we could always focus on the reasons women leave relationships, such as the asymmetrical division of emotional labor"

That's right gents hamster labor. That's why women leave, not because they get away with half the guys hard earned money and follow their tingles risk free.

[StrikeBack]

That female typist looks like a sweet attractive girl. It's a crime that she got brainwashed so hard. What a waste.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

How much you want to bet that she comes from at least a moderately wealthy family, and has never had to have a real job in her life?

[ChrisPitts]

The comments on that website for this article are pretty great. Seems no one is falling for her bullshit.

It's really cute that she thinks she can write articles with such big words in them.

I'll give her another big word she needs to know: mayonnaise. It's what I like carefully spread on my sandwiches. Get to it, honey.

[Glaucon]

To be honest, I can see why women would want to be independent from a man. I would not want to depend on anyone as well. True, it destroys the traditional family unit, but I am on the opinion that the traditional family unit was not that good either. One pussy for life? Shotgun weddings? No, thank you.

[bacan]

I like how she linked this article saying women do more of the emotional work in relationships but if you read it the while article just talks about how women are more likely to end marriages, end relationships, and recover from the termination of relationships quicker and be less emotionally dependent on their male partners. Basically they are just cold and heartless (source: bacan's personal interpretation). But the last paragraph is where the author surmises (without citations) that maybe there should be more a equal division of emotional labor.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/it-...#sidr-main

[kbell]

What the fuck is shared emotional labor? Are you supposed to be able to use telepathy and punch her bad feelings a way!

[TravelerKai]

The author linked this article that included roosh as well and was released 3 days ago, on the 5th. http://www.vox.com/2015/2/5/7942623/mens...s-movement

Is there already on thread on this one? I don't remember seeing one. It's a better article that the original writer. She is so full of herself it's hard to read.

[Foolsgo1d]

Quote:

though the idea that only women who cannot support themselves independently marry doesn’t mesh with the fact that the wealthy and highly educated tend to enjoy the highest rates of marriage in society.

It is a fact that single mothers make up a huge number of poor households in the western world.

Nobody, except the fools want them.

A partnership, even a basic one where the blood father is under the same roof as his children and girlfriend/wife is better than a single mother set up.


The fact that the author compares rich, intelligent people to everyday joe and jane is ridiculous.

[Sp5]

This article and the Vox article are about Hillary 2016 and prepping the ground for what they are now figuring out are her growing vulnerabilities on our fronts.

[Renzy]

(02-08-2015 08:56 AM)bacan Wrote:  

I like how she linked this article saying women do more of the emotional work in relationships but if you read it the while article just talks about how women are more likely to end marriages, end relationships, and recover from the termination of relationships quicker and be less emotionally dependent on their male partners. Basically they are just cold and heartless (source: bacan's personal interpretation). But the last paragraph is where the author surmises (without citations) that maybe there should be more a equal division of emotional labor.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/it-...#sidr-main

That Psychology Today is science confirming the Red Pill.

The Misandry Bubble:

Quote:

A woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.

As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.

Men often get the label of being "afraid of commitment", because society now defines commitment the way women think of commitment (the willingness to get married) as opposed to the way men think of commitment (the willingness to stay married).

[Sir Vigorous]

(02-08-2015 08:56 AM)bacan Wrote:  

I like how she linked this article saying women do more of the emotional work in relationships but if you read it the while article just talks about how women are more likely to end marriages, end relationships, and recover from the termination of relationships quicker and be less emotionally dependent on their male partners. Basically they are just cold and heartless (source: bacan's personal interpretation). But the last paragraph is where the author surmises (without citations) that maybe there should be more a equal division of emotional labor.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/it-...#sidr-main

I have noticed this trend with SJW articles. They will post a link to support a point they made. However, if you read it you'll realise the study/article has an entirely different view than what their citing and they often just take 1 sentence out that supports their agenda. Nowadays, you can't say anything critical of women without throwing some blame on society or men as the culprit of it, there's always that 1 sentence in any study or article which will support their view.

[bacan]

I was trying to get through the vox article written by that male feminist while a history channel show on the origin of life on earth was playing. The contrast was just striking.

I can't believe I wasted my time reading that bullshit.

[Swordfish]

didn't bother finishing the article but the writer is a solid high 8.

[ikemen]

On his BIRTHDAY, a Torontonian white knight on my Facebook just linked this article and commented:

"The world's two worst groups of people agree on the world's worst opinion."

That's right...he's so blue pill he puts them above the KKK, Neo Nazi groups, ISIS and planet raping oil companies.

[Basil Ransom]

This girl is confused. Roosh is saying women are no longer submissive thanks to financial independence, while she is saying that women are still getting married. She's implying that marriage = female submission. It doesn't, at all. Especially when women have strong leverage over the man in divorce proceedings. Rich women being married is no contradiction of what Roosh has said. Pretty elementary fuck-up on her part.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

These people are on drugs. No one said that women only marry for money. In fact, if they did then the sexual marketplace would be a lot less chaotic than it is.

[delicioustacos]

(02-08-2015 05:45 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

I tried reading the article, but it's a thicket of bullshit assertions and SJW cock-gobblery.

This is not an SJW. This girl is a young married hetcis white Christian who works with her husband. She is June Cleaver, square as a slice of Wonder Bread. This article is a boring homework assignment.

SJW's are nuts, and scary-- but nuts and scary are interesting. SJW's bring drama. An SJW would have called Roosh a rapist to spice the piece up.

Instead we get commentary on commentary. Here is what Katie J.M. Baker said about Roosh. Here is what Emmett Rensin said about Roosh. Here is what a Christian guy said once: it sounds kind of like what Katie J.M. Baker said Roosh is like.

What she's trying to get at is: "these new crazy rape PUA's you're hearing about on facebook are just a rehash of Pat Robertson style sisterfucking gun hicks."

This is A) interesting and B) not entirely wrong. But this prim milquetoast manages to make it a bore. Because, again: this is article is just boring homework. No time to add new insight. No time to search her own soul for an emotional response to the scorched hellscape of modern gender relations. If she did that she'd be late for debate team practice. Rigorous dedication to extracurriculars is at least as important as a sterling GPA.

The worst bit is this:

Quote:

Brad Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project, expressed a similar objection to my recent criticism of an Economist editorial which argued that people who use welfare should refuse public assistance, and leave their families and homes in order to seek work. I contended that this approach removes vital social supports from the people who need their networks the most.

The linked Economist piece is itself a criticism of an NYT piece by Nicholas Kristof. So this paragraph is five levels of bullshit separated from an actual lived experience:

BRUENIG'S CRITICISM OF WILCOX'S CRITICISM OF BRUENIG'S CRITICISM OF THE ECONOMIST'S CRITICISM OF KRISTOF'S TAKE ON HIS FRIEND'S LIFE
^^^
BRAD WILCOX'S CRITICISM OF BRUENIG'S CRITICISM
^^^
BRUENIG'S CRITICISM OF ECONOMIST
^^^
ECONOMIST EDITORIAL CRITICIZING KRISTOF PIECE
^^^
NICHOLAS KRISTOF'S TAKE ON HIS FRIEND IN NYT
^^^
ACTUAL HUMAN LIFE EXPERIENCE HAD BY A FRIEND OF NICHOLAS KRISTOF

In summary: what the fuck? I thought this was gonna be about a Satanic master PUA using his swarthy cock to rape sex trafficked slaves. The SJW's at least know this: you gotta give 'em something to jerk off to.

2/10, would not read again.

EDITED TO ADD: Of course, my own commentary adds a sixth level of bullshit. I'm gonna go outside.

[Roosh]

Since they can't kill us with their articles, it looks like they are trying a strategy of aligning us with conservatives/Republicans.