The repulsive pickup guru and wannabe philosopher of “neomasculinity” Roosh Valizadeh has long made it clear that he has a problem with women making decisions about their own lives, whether that decision is picking a college major — or saying “no” to sex with him.
In one notorious post, he explained to his readers that, as he sees it, a woman’s “no” pretty much never means “no.” Only if she uses the magic word “stop” does he stop. But he doesn’t think she really has a right to use that word, because, in his mind, once a woman “gives” him an erection, she owes it to him to finish the job.
“A man’s nut is sacred,” he wrote, “and for her to impede that should be criminal. I’m serious.”
Given all this, it perhaps should not come as a shock to hear that Roosh thinks women should have their right to make decisions taken away from them altogether, not just when he’s trying to get his “nut.”
In a blog post with the blunt title “Women Must Have Their Behavior And Decisions Controlled By Men,” Roosh sets forth his thesis:
After a long period in society of women having unlimited personal freedom to pursue life as they wish, they have shown to consistently fail in making the right decisions that prevent their own harm and the harm of others. Systems must now be put in place where a woman’s behavior is monitored and her decisions subject to approval of a male relative or guardian who understands what’s in her best interests better than she does herself.
As Roosh sees it, the whole “woman having control over their own lives” experiment has failed, and it is time to return to the good old-fashioned patriarchy that had previously served us so well. In this golden age, he writes, a woman
was not allowed to study any trivial topic she wanted, sleep with any man who caught her fancy, or uproot herself and travel the world because she wanted to “find herself.”
He’s really stuck on this whole women-choosing-their-own-college-majors thing.
And he’s also deeply offended by a woman’s right to take sexy selfies, interact with men in ways he does not approve of, watch TV shoes he doesn’t like, and, of course, with her ability to control what food goes in her mouth.
When a female lacks any urgent demands upon her survival, what behavior does she pursue? Obsessively displaying her half-naked body on the internet, flirting with men solely for attention, becoming addicted to corporate-produced entertainment, and over-indulging in food until her body shape is barely human. …
Once you give a woman personal freedom, like we have in the Western world, she enslaves herself to one of numerous vices and undertakes a rampage of destruction to her body and those who want to be a meaningful part of her life.
Never mind that men do all these things too, and that men in the US are actually more likely than women to be overweight or obese. Maybe men need to have their rights to make decisions about their own lives taken from them as well?
Roosh is also angry that women get to choose when they get pregnant, whom they marry, and whom they vote for — invariably choosing the candidate “who is more handsome and [who] promises unsustainable freebies that accelerate the decline of her country.”
Really? When I look at politicians in this country, “handsome” is not really the first word that comes to mind.
But never mind, because to Roosh this is all proof that a women’s right to make significant decisions about her life and the world should be taken away from her and handed over to the nearest man. Pretty much literally.
Men, on average, make better decisions than women. If you take this to be true, which should be no harder to accept than the claim that lemons are bitter, why is a woman allowed to make decisions at all without first getting approval from a man who is more rational and levelheaded than she is?
Lemons are sour, not bitter. But let’s ignore this little glitch in his logic and continue on,
So which men get to make decisions for women? As Roosh sees it, there are two possible ways his plan could work.
I propose two different options for protecting women from their obviously deficient decision making. The first is to have a designated male guardian give approval on all decisions that affect her well-being. Such a guardian should be her father by default, but in the case a father is absent, another male relative can be appointed or she can be assigned one by charity organizations who groom men for this purpose, in a sort of Boy’s Club for women.
She must seek approval by her guardian concerning diet, education, boyfriends, travel, friends, entertainment, exercise regime, marriage, and appearance, including choice of clothing. A woman must get a green light from her guardian before having sex with any man, before wearing a certain outfit, before coloring her hair green, and before going to a Spanish island for the summer with her female friends.
Roosh’s second “option” is just as flesh-crawlingly creepy.
A second option for monitoring women is a combination of rigid cultural rules and sex-specific laws. Women would not be able to attend university unless the societal need is urgent where an able-minded man could not be found to fill the specific position. Women would not be able to visit establishments that serve alcohol without a man present to supervise her consumption. Parental control software on electronic devices would be modified for women to control and monitor the information they consume. Credit card and banking accounts must have a male co-signer who can monitor her spending. Curfews for female drivers must be enacted so that women are home by a reasonable hour. Abortion for women of all ages must be signed off by her guardian, in addition to prescriptions for birth control.
Welcome to 1984, ladies! Big Brother will be watching you! Or perhaps your own big brother, if dad’s not available.
While Roosh acknowledges that “my proposals are undoubtedly extreme on the surface and hard to imagine implementing,” he thinks they’re necessary to protect Western Culture from the barbarians.
The barbarians, in Roosh’s scenario, are all those brown people from other countries who are entering our country.
Allowing women unlimited personal freedom has so affected birth rates in the West that the elite insists on now allowing importation of millions of third world immigrants from democratically-challenged nations that threaten the survival of the West.
Roosh declares that he’s making “these sincere recommendations not out of anger” but because they would be the best thing for Western Women, including the women in his own family. “They would not like it, surely,” he writes, “but due to the fact that I’m male and they’re not, my analytical decision-making faculty is superior to theirs .. .”
I’m not sure many people are going to be agreeing with you on that, dude. Your “analytical decision-making faculty” is pretty much shit.
Those who like to pretend that Roosh isn’t as terrible a person as he so clearly is may assume that he is being “satirical” here, as they said about his at-least-half-if-not-three-quarters serious proposal to supposedly end rape by making it legal on private property.
But these proposals are entirely consistent with the reactionary, misogynistic worldview Roosh has set forth in countless previous posts. Most of the commenters on his site, last I checked, were taking this post seriously, many of them agreeing with him.
And if that isn’t enough to convince you, Roosh himself states, in the top comment of his own post, that
this article is not satire in any way. I firmly stand behind the recommendations I made.
We can only hope that the increasingly blatant evidence of Roosh’s repugnant extremism ends up alienating his more casual readers, those who’ve somehow convinced themselves that his “teachings” simply offer awkward men “self-improvement” tips to help them navigate the dating world. Because he’s not a self-help guru; he’s a reactionary ideologue and rape-enabler with increasingly obvious neo-Nazi sympathies, pushing his own misogynistic brand of far-right hate.
Let’s do what we can to grease his inevitable slide into irrelevance.