Response to an Anonymous Roosh Reader

A couple of weeks ago, an anonymous reader left a comment on my post, "On PUA."

He acknowledges "negativity and hate in the manosphere," but claims "There's no workable alternative" for men seeking advice on how to be men in a society that views "masculinity" as "inherently evil."

The existence of the "manosphere" is evidence that there are thousands of young men who feel marginalized, who need "safe spaces" in which to discuss their issues.  There is indeed more to the conversation than simply admonishing young white men to "check their privilege."  I see no evidence that the majority of women believe men are "inherently evil," although the majority of women are, to some degree, afraid of some men's predilection to violence.  May I refer you to the redoubtable Louis CK on this matter?

This is how I see it after fifty years struggling to be "a woman" on the planet:  There isn't nearly as much difference between the sexes as we like to imagine...  In general, men and women have essentially the same needs and desires: for engaging work, a sense of belonging to a community, a certain degree of physical comfort, intimate relationships.  These commonalities bring us together in the family of man. 

However, the "manosphere" denies the commonalities and instead promulgates the crudest stereotypes of gendered behavior.  Hence, the edict that "femininity" connotes subservience, delicacy and/or cunning/manipulation, whereas "masculine" men are dominant, muscular, don't eat quiche, etc.  (In fact, some men are gentle and nurturing; some women are aggressive and competitive; most people are happiest, most complete and most self-fulfilled when allowed to exhibit both "feminine" and "masculine" qualities).

BTW, as a woman, I have, over the years, also sought advice on how to "perform" my gender.  Most of the advice I got was crap, too: confusing, condescending, ultimately doing more harm than good to my psyche.

As a feminist, I reject social strait-jackets based on gender.  Feminism is the promotion of equality among the sexes, not a dystopian "women-on-top" social scenario.  It means that men and women bear equal responsibilities (yes, I include military service here), as well as equal opportunities.   

But getting back to the heart of your angst, which is how boys learn to be men in a society where many of the traditional masculine traits are no longer valued, and where many boys are growing up without a strong male role model?  I'm afraid I have no easy answer to that.  Your generation (I assume you are in your twenties), are going to have to make your own path here.  The good news is that, for the first time in milennia, you get to define your own masculinity.  In doing so, Quit looking backwards.  The false nostalgia promulgated by the manosphere is a path to obsolescence and further alienation. My best advice is to quit worrying about being "a man" (or "a woman") and instead focus on defining yourself as "a human."

Go outside of your head a little bit.  Leave the echo chamber that is the internet behind.  Literally, go outside into the air and sunshine, and look around.  Talk to other people (old, young, male, female) and really listen to them.  Connect to humanity.  Find your professional vocation by experimenting fearlessly and energetically.  Exercise patience, but maintain faith that good things (including a girlfriend) will find you when you are open to the possibilities.  Develop your core values; it helps to be judicious about what you expose your mind to.  Recognize that the best intimate relationships are based on sharing common core values.

By the way, I am shocked (although somehow not surprised) that you believe "social justice efforts are adding to the problem instead of solving it."  Honestly examine what you mean by "the problem" (whose problem?  yours?)   Cuz I guarantee that millions of women, people of color, disabled people, poor people will agree that their lives have certainly improved as the result of the past fifty years of "social justice efforts." 

Feminist English Teachers!

Over at the Men's Rights Subreddit this morning, a high school student is plaintively soliciting help in dealing with his English teacher who is "very feminist."  Of course, because I am an English teacher (who also happens to be "very feminist"), this catches my attention.

The poster makes a number of claims I find quite improbable unusual:  first, that the boys are "often served detentions for being too quiet during class."  While I can imagine disciplining students for being disruptive, I've never heard of a teacher forcefully requiring students to speak in class -- although I have (gently) reprimanded students for sleeping in class.

He goes on to complain that "she started reading us articles about how men are rape creatures and are useless other than to the extent of conception [sic]."   When he complained, he was treated to another unjust detention.

BTW, in my world, spending time outside of class with students is more punitive for me than it is for them.  And another BTW, why is the teacher "reading" to her students?  Even in high school, aren't the students capable of reading for themselves?  But I digress...

What's becoming apparent to me is that this English teacher has her work cut out for her.

His third complaint is that "Every single paper that is submitted by the guys are usually barely passing [sic]."   That the male students have previously enjoyed extremely high GPAs clearly proves her anti-male gender bias.

The subsequent commentators have been predictably sympathetic ("the bitch!").  Helpful suggestions include telling the poster to record classes on his cell phone in order to provide "evidence" against the teacher.  That may or may not be permitted by school policy, but it makes sense.  I myself would love to hear what the instructor actually said, and in what context she conveyed the idea men were only sources of genetic material.  Did he abruptly wake up while she was quoting the author of some dystopian or radical feminist fantasy?  Or was he still dreaming when he "heard" her say that?  Of course, the third alternative, that she actually said and meant what he attributes to her, is possible too (possible, but not very damn likely).  In which case, and it can be proven, her head will roll...

Another commentator warned that, if the student approached administration, he not attribute the conflict to the instructor's being "a feminist... who hates men." Good advice.

That I have a liberal bias is manifest, and I freely cop to it in class.  When students ask me what I think about a current event, for example, I will tell them (and always with the proviso, "This is my opinion").  As a teacher, I do consider the extent my personal biases affect my students, especially in choosing topics to read and write about.  Sometimes, I frankly enjoy the authority to require students to think about and discuss topics I am interested in.  On the other hand, I use caution with material that might be interpreted as "male bashing" or derogatory about non-western cultures (my own culture I can freely disparage).  I try very hard to avoid writing prompts that are likely to elicit views that will upset me, too, because (1) I really, really don't want to dislike my students (after all, we're stuck with each for a whole quarter), and (2) marking papers is disagreeable enough a task without getting angry or sad about the content of those papers.  As you can imagine, just identifying "appropriate" topics can be a big part of my planning process.  Then add to that the chore of finding topics that are sufficiently "interesting" to inspire an "emerging adult" to write AND a mid-life adult to read and you can see why it is an ongoing challenge.

Anyway, next week I'm going to show them the recent documentary "Seeking Asian Female," and have them write about the mail order bride industry.  Because many of my students are from countries that are the source of many "mail order brides" (China, Vietnam, Ukraine), this could be a highly sensitive topic.

Getting back to class participation:  I have to constantly curb myself from calling on male students more than female students.  If there is a bias in that regard, it is toward the boys, mainly because they tend to be more assertive and fearless in expressing opinions.  It's rare for me to have a female student who challenges me directly or who "hogs" class attention.  What is more problematical for me are students that want to express their opinions without having done the relevant reading...

Christoph Waltz Teaches You the Art of Seduction!

Austrian actor Christoph Waltz poking fun of PUA here.  Best parody of PUA since Christopher Walken's hilarious "The Continental" sketches on SNL.

All kidding aside, I am utterly infatuated with this guy...  and a little Internet research proves I am not alone. 

For a seriously erotic (yet still quite funny) scene, watch this.  Who knew 16th century Anabaptists were so hot?  In fact, this clip inspired me to read a history of the Muenster Rebellion, and to order the movie it's from at great expense from Germany (even though there are no subtitles and I don't speak German). 

This scene rivals the infamous "eating scene" from "Tom Jones" in its bawdy celebration of our carnal appetites.  "Bad boys" whose mischievous rogue appeal is based on wit and humor are seductive -- especially when they don't seem to take themselves too seriously. 

Oh, and just one more, a kissing scene with a very young and devastatingly pretty Waltz as Tristan.  I may have to put this on continuous loop...

Matt Forney Declares Jihad on Female Self Confidence!

According to Matt Forney, American women have way too much self-esteem, and it is killing his boner.  (Well, not literally, he hastily amends -- he'd still "bang" a cocky bitch if her figure was "slamming" -- "but a crucial part of the attraction [would be] lost.")

Apparently, the state of Matt Forney's libido is crucial to the health of the State at large  Therefore, "There needs to be a massive and concerted war on female self-esteem." 

You know, it all kinda makes sense when you consider that only a woman with pitifully low self-esteem would be attracted to a guy like Matt Forney.

I work with a lot of international students who tend to believe that Americans in general, of both genders, suffer from an excess of self-esteem, and sometimes I am inclined to agree with them.  It's certainly become common for Baby Boomers to complain about the Millenials' inflated opinion of themselves, which goes hand in hand with their inflated senses of entitlement.  (Although sometimes I reckon that's just what the old folks always say about the young'uns, and the fact is, I can't get too exorcised about it:  Time has a way of bringing us all down a peg or two.)

Forney also writes, "Most girls’ so-called achievements, the ones they take pride in, are complete jokes," citing as examples liberal arts degrees and "fluff" jobs in "human resources" or elementary education. (What's with these guys and their fixation on women in human resources?  I mean, I know dozens of women who all work, and none of them are in HR.)   Anyway, I'd hate to see family farms and the military try to function a week without the cadres of women who are employed in these so-called "masculine" fields.

I'd also love to know exactly how Mr. Forney makes his livelihood.  I'm willing to bet it is not in a STEM field nor in mining or construction.  Cab driver, maybe?  Fork lift operator?  Parking garage attendant?  Something along those lines, I imagine...

"If every man lost his job tomorrow, the country would collapse."  I wouldn't count on that.  Didn't WWII prove that women are perfectly capable of picking up the slack when necessary, or was Rosie the Riveter just liberal propaganda?

"If girls want to play in our world, they'll have to obey our rules."  Ha ha ha!  First of all, the world does not belong to a handful of angry, sexually frustrated, unskilled men (not even when they're white).  Your "rules" are irrelevant.  If the world belongs to anyone, it is to those who are flexible, forward-thinking, and who can adapt to a rapidly changing playing field.  And that does not describe the standard ass-backward reactionary who frequents your blog.

Forney states that "Insecurity is integral to femininity" and that "Insecurity is the natural state of woman."  Hmm.  I posit that "insecurity" is the natural state of all rational human beings. 

Forney reasons that women would be frightened without men to protect them.  I counter that this is true only to the degree that women need men to protect them from other men.  I haven't been physically threatened by another female since Chantelle threatened to beat me up after 8th grade gym class. And come to think of it, most men rely on other men (military, police, etc.) for protection too. 

"Confidence doesn't give men erections; vulnerability does."  In my experience, both men and women are attracted to partners who exhibit both qualities in appealingly appropriate measures.  Confidence is not the opposite of vulnerability.  Anyway, I've never worried about my ability to give a man an erection; it strikes me as just about the easiest part of relating to men.

Then Forney takes a U turn in his own logic, arguing that the problem is not, after all, a woman's self-confidence, but rather her "inborn insecurity," which causes her to view a man as "a life support system for a penis, an accoutrement... incapable of viewing men as human beings."  So, make up your mind, Matt Forney!  Are we too confident, or not confident enough?

The essay goes on, but I can't be bothered to do more than skim the rest.  Essentially, I am left with the impression that Matt Forney really, really wishes he could play the guitar -- or meet some extremely insecure woman who could -- and they could pursue "worthy" careers together as street buskers.

Abortion, a Male Perogative?

Over at Return of Kings this week, there are two posts about abortion running concurrently:  "How to Convince a Girl to Get an Abortion" by someone who calls himself "bacon," and "How to Fight Abortion" by regular ROK contributor Athlone McGinnis. 

The bottom line: Abortion is always the woman's fault, and it's always wrong for a woman to seek an abortion unless the responsible male partner wants her to -- in which case, it is wrong for her to refuse to comply.    

I really don't believe most of the readership at ROK cares two figs about the rights of fetuses, and in fact these are the kinds of articles ROK readers have been complaining about. (Such downers!)  What they do care about is controlling women, and particularly women's sexuality.  In that respect they are no different than many "mainstream" conservatives and religious fundamentalists. 

I wish there were more non-permanent birth control options for men (and for women). Nobody should be forced to parent against his or her will, and I have a low opinion of women who accidentally-on-purpose let themselves get pregnant in order to secure commitment from men (and yes, this happens).  I understand condoms are a desensitizing drag, and, as Nina Hartley recently pointed out, not ideal for female partners either, but for fuck's sake, grow up and quit railing against reality.  Biology is often unfair.  And it strikes me that Roosh, with his much vaunted degree in microbiology ("a man of science" indeed!) could have chosen to apply his training to help develop better contraceptive methods instead of squandering his life promoting irresponsible sexual behavior.

The voice of men, the voices of despair

I spent the sunny afternoon at a public pool near my home.  Not surprisingly, given that it was an exceptionally warm day in Seattle, the pool was filled with families.  The density of splashing, shrieking youngsters frustrated my effort to swim laps, but I enjoyed observing the kids nevertheless.  Although I don't have a family and children myself, I sometimes find a kind of vicarious pleasure in watching other families enjoying themselves together.  I was especially moved by several affectionate, attentive fathers interacting with their little ones.  It gives me a kind of hope.  After all, one does not need to be a biological parent in order to feel invested in the youngest generation.

When I got home, I thought about the men of the manosphere, who are so angry and hateful towards women.  Although I frequent manboobz, the site which delights in mocking misogyny, I sometimes feel at odds with the prevailing tone of dominant commenters.  The more I follow the manosphere (Voice for Men, Heartiste, Roosh), the more compassion I feel for the young misogynists.  It's easy to ridicule them, because most of what they say is ridiculous.  It's easy to be outraged by them, because most of what they say is outrageous.  It's easy to be frightened by them, because they are simmering with anger.  And then it's comforting to reassure myself that their ideas are, well, after all, pretty silly.  They pretend they are a movement, but they spend so much of their energy squabbling with one another that it's evident that they couldn't organize themselves out of a paper bag. 

But more and more, what I hear behind their hateful words, their virulent disdain for all women (and most other men), is despair.  Roosh and his ilk (Matt Forney, Paul Elam, "Roissy," et al.) are men who have pretty much given up on the one thing -- other than engaging work -- which makes life meaningful: intimate, committed relationships with others.

A couple of weeks ago, Roosh was positively distraught when Mark Minter abandoned the manosphere ship to marry a gal he'd met online.  His sense of betrayal was palpable.  Even his followers were a bit baffled that he took it so much to heart.

But someone like Roosh has nothing else except his convictions, as delusional and self-destructive as they are.  He has no relationships beyond his tenuous online connection with the men and boys who echo his nihilistic philosophy.  He is so out of sync with the cultural tide that he must seek refuge in ancient texts, to constantly imagine that the way it was is the way it should be now.  

Today he posted, in his typically self-aggrandizing and melodramatic fashion, that "every man dies by his own ideas."  He views himself as a martyr to his own ideals.  But relentless, inchoate rage is not a "cause."  It is a symptom of a personality disorder. 

I reflect on the mothers and fathers I watched frolicking in the pool today.  Whether they are "happy" in their marriages I have no idea.  I have never been convinced that "happiness" should be a person's primary aim.  I'm not sure even what "happiness" means.  I can say that they all looked thoroughly engaged with one another.  I thought, "This is Real Life."  And by merely observing from the sidelines, I felt myself part of it:  the Family of Man.  And I pity the men of the manosphere, who have learned to hate what they have come to believe they cannot have: intimate connection, a sense of purpose, community membership, an investment in the world around them.

Is Roosh Even Human?

In a recent forum, Roosh and his minions were amused by a well-publicized news story about two women who drove into a lake and drowned.  What they found particularly hilarious was that one of the women, in a panic, attempted to dial "911" on her cell phone.  Because women are so stupid.  And because women deserve to die, anyway.

Back when I was living in Louisiana, I was in the throes of my "bridge phobia."  Driving on bridges and overpasses triggered severe panic attacks.  (I still get a little anxious about bridges, but I managed to "desensitize" myself once I moved back to Seattle -- otherwise, I wouldn't be able to drive anywhere!)

I've had nightmares of being trapped in a car underwater ever since the Chappaquiddick scandal, when Mary Jo Kopechne was abandoned to such a fate by a drunken and cowardly Edward Kennedy.  And who can forget the death of Jessica Savitch, whose date drove into a canal in New Hope?  Mired in mud upside down, the doors of their car could not be opened.

Every time I had to drive across a lake or bayou in Louisiana, I unrolled the driver's side window and mentally rehearsed swimming out.  I tightened my muscles in anticipation, and visualized bursting to the surface.  The problem was that the windows of my Toyota were pretty small, and I wasn't convinced I could squeeze through.  So there I would be on the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway -- which is 24 miles long, mind you -- gripping the steering wheel, sweating profusely despite the wind rushing through the speeding vehicle, and roundly cursing myself the whole way for being such a lard ass.

I still occasionally read of people, often late at night, driving off embankments or bridges and drowning in their cars.  And I still think it's prudent to unroll the window when crossing bodies of water.

The story was tragic, but the real horror here is the psychology of people who find such stories risible, or evidence of the inherent inferiority of the victims. 

When we hear about terrible accidents, we naturally try to learn how to avoid them (or how to survive them if they befall us despite our best efforts).  We struggle to find meaning and purpose in what is otherwise random horror.  We may look for ways to "blame the victim" in order to deny the possibility that such a fate could ever visit us.  We grieve for the families and friends, imagining or remembering the sudden loss of our own loved ones.  But regardless, on some level, we can't escape being reminded of the fragility of our own existences.  Such stories are occasions for somber reflection.

But a person like Roosh is not one of "us," is he?  He is a human who is devoid of humanity.

It's not exactly accurate to say that people like Roosh lack empathy.  In fact, he has enough empathy to actually take pleasure in the suffering of others (specifically women, the targets of his inchoate, inexplicable, relentless rage).

His isolation from the cloak of humanity is his tragedy. And although I have just finished reading The Wisdom of Psychopaths, in which author Kevin Dutton argues that psychopathic elements contribute to the survival of cultures, I cannot imagine what purpose the existence of someone like Roosh serves in this world.  

Perhaps one must simply accept that there is no purpose.  Perhaps the best we can do is to try to identify the potential dangers of dark mountain roads or dark charismatic personalities, at the same time resigning ourselves to the fact that these are simply parts of the mystery of life.