HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » athena » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »

athena

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Aug 7, 2004, 10:55 PM
Number of posts: 4,187

Journal Archives

The alt-right and its misogynistic roots in the pickup artist community.

WARNING: The contents of this post may be extremely disturbing to some.

This past weekend, I was reading this extremely disturbing article:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/trolls-for-trump

which talks about how pickup artists (a pathetic group of misogynistic losers who pride themselves on treating women like dirt) has become politically engaged and is supporting Trump, using standard trolling tactics to promote Trump online.

Nowadays, the blog is mostly a platform for pro-Trump spin, but at first it was about how to pick up women. Its name comes from Nietzsche. (“The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.”) Early posts included “Misogyny Gets You Laid” and “When Should You Compliment a Woman?” (Answer: “During or after sex.”)

(snip)

Pro-Trump activism channelled several of Cernovich’s interests: he could hurt a feminist’s chances of becoming President, associate himself with the year’s top story, and deploy brawler methods on behalf of someone who is even more ruthless online than he is.


Here is another article about it (note that "PUA" stands for "pick up artist":

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/04/pickup_artists_dont_just_sound_like_trump_they_worship_the_very_ground_he_walks_on/

The alliance between Trump and the pickup artist community runs far deeper than a few rhetorical similarities. On the contrary, there is a deep ideological link between pickup artists and Trump. They share a reductionist view of society, one where all human relations are viewed in terms of dominance and submission, where every interaction — even sex — is about one party “winning” and the other “losing.” It’s a worldview that leads quite naturally to being incredibly sexist, treating women not as people to relate to, but objects to conquer and own.

(snip)

“Trump is, in many ways, their ideal alpha male, an arrogant, deliberately obnoxious asshole who treats women like shit but has a former model more than twenty years his junior as a wife,” Futrelle told me over email. “It doesn’t hurt that she’s Eastern European; PUAs like Roosh Valizadeh contend that American women are basically spoiled by too much feminism, and see Eastern European women, by contrast, as relatively unspoiled.”

Pickup artists like Daryush Valizadeh, who goes by the name “Roosh” to publish his “Bang” series of books purporting to teach men how to have sex with women in various countries, and James C. Weidmann, who goes by the ridiculous name Heartiste, absolutely adore Trump. In him, they see a kindred spirit, a man who believes women exist to be submissive and flattering and provide sex and have no value outside of that.


These losers assign numbers to women based on their "desirability", just like Trump does; no wonder they like Trump so much.

https://thinkinggirl.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/professional-pick-up-artists-run-woman-tricking-business-to-help-guys-get-laid/

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”.


Every young woman out there should be familiar with the tricks of these pickup artists. They will try to prey on you using the most disgusting psychological tactics. Do not fall for it. You are smarter than these losers, and knowledge is power.

http://elitedaily.com/women/signs-youre-talking-to-pick-artist/854610/

Promoting strategies of manipulation, and trivializing something as important and necessary as consent, feeds rape culture, which is the bigger problem.

Some lonely, sex-starved man listening to a self-righteous, 25-year-old pipsqueak will feel that he is allowed to manipulate and abuse women in order to have sex with them.

(snip)

Hence, why women need to be aware, and also why women have more power to end its prevalence than men do.

Accepting emotional or physical abuse of any kind perpetuates this cycle and gives men the message that it's not only effective, but also acceptable.

People love the misogynistic image

of two women going at each other's throats.

From the start of Hillary's campaign, we've seen endless stories about how Warren and Clinton supposedly hated each other. Now that that has been disproven, the story is how Warren and Clinton will supposedly hate each other in the future.

I am going on the record to say that this will not happen. These women are both too smart to fall into the misogynistic trap the misogynistic media has been trying to set for them.

These photos just look wrong.

I think they were all photoshopped by Trump's photographer. Compare the color of the light on the figures to the coloring in the rest of the photo. I'm not a photographer, but I'm an artist. In real life, if a room has a golden glow, that will be reflected in all the figures. Or, if a bluish light is coming through the window, everything will look slightly bluish. Even if you have additional yellow lighting directed at the figures, that will not be enough to uniformly overcome the much larger amount of light coming through the windows. I suspect that the fourth, fifth, and sixth photos from the top were taken at night, and then a New York skyline was separately added over the windows. I believe the seventh (last) photo is a composite of two photographs, one taken at night with yellow lighting, and one taken in the early morning or late afternoon, with bluish lighting coming in through the windows.

In other photos, it looks like the photographer enhanced the colors in certain places. For example, in the fourth picture from the top, the navy blue of the clothing does not fit with the rest of the color scheme, and the white of the flowers is much too bright to be real.

Finally, some of the photos seem to be outright photoshopped together from different pictures. In the first picture, the colors are so incongruous that I believe the elephant, Melania, and the background were all originally separate photographs. You can see this clearly if you look at the edges of the elephant's trunk near the top. Also, look at the bottom of Melania's left hand in this photo; there should be a shadow where the hand turns down and touches the dress, but there isn't. In the last photo, look at Trump's feet: is left foot doesn't seem to be touching the floor the way a normal foot would. His jacket also looks wrong against the chair. And the manufactured breeze that is affecting Melania's dress is not affecting Trump's hair. I think Melania and Donald were both photographed separately and then placed in this photo, with a few shadows added afterwards to make them look like they are actually in the room.

Nothing about Trump is real. He can't even provide pictures of his dwelling that are real.

It's only women who need to be "humanized".

When you have a male sociopath running for president, saying outrageously insensitive and offensive things, no one even talks about the need to "humanize" him.

Whenever we use the word "humanize" in reference to Hillary Clinton, we are admitting that we, as a society, still don't think of women as humans.

The Bill Moyers interviews were amazing in that way.

It was never about Bill Moyers. He would recede into the background and let the person speak, interjecting only to get more depth or to refocus the discussion.

I agree with you about Charlie Rose, by the way. I used to watch him about ten years ago. After a while, he began to irritate me with his self-importance and his tendency to turn his interviews into a way for him to show off how great he was. At around the same time, Bill Moyers was interviewing amazing personalities like Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie. If you haven't seen those interviews, I suggest you take a look. They are pure gold.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_atwood.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_rushdie.html

These sets of interviews are about "Faith and Reason". As an atheist, I am not particularly interested in the question of faith and reason, but I loved the interviews nonetheless. Bill Moyers, of course, is a seminary graduate. A truly great interviewer can interview a person about a topic he is interested in, and still make the interview interesting to someone who is not interested in that topic.

For the first time in my life,

I am no longer afraid to be called "nasty". If Hillary Clinton can stand up to this kind of sexism, so can I. I reserve the right to be as nasty as I like -- especially when I'm hurting nothing and no one aside from the feelings of a sexist bully.

Because we are not afraid to be called "nasty" any more.

We've been manipulated by this sort of sexist attack for too long. Every time we dare to be smarter than a man, or to disagree with a man, or to stand up against a male bully, we get called all kinds of things that suggest that we're not ladylike enough, that there is something wrong with us, and that we should be ashamed of ourselves. It was pivotal to see this happen to Hillary Clinton in such a direct way on national television. Enough is enough. They can call us nasty if they want to; we will wear the label proudly.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »