The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! If you haven’t already, support this blog by donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!
Great news, ladies! Pickup artist and rape legalization proponent Roosh Valizadeh has decided to take a wife, or at least a wife-equivalent! Might you qualify for the job?
In a blog post that is essentially the world’s longest and least enticing personal ad, Roosh lays out what he’s looking for in what he so poetically calls “a woman who I think would be suitable for reproduction (and not necessarily state-sanctioned marriage).”
Beldar Conehead could not have put it better!
Let’s go through the list of requirements.
You must be so young and inexperienced you don’t realize you could do better than Roosh
Roosh likes them young, specifying that his future wife or wife equivalent needs to be between the ages of 18 and 25. In part, he explains, this is because he wants someone with a fresh womb, etc, capable of popping out multiple children units.
But he also wants a woman who’s not “emotionally damaged,” which his way of saying “someone who’s never dated anyone better than him.”
[S]ingle women over 25 are emotionally damaged in some way, are alpha widowed, or are professional daters who are incapable of making the proper relationship sacrifice.
“Alpha widows,” in the Red Pill world, are women who look back fondly on men they’ve dated before.
You must not have had sex with anyone better than Roosh V
Ideally, Roosh would prefer a woman who’s never had sex with anyone at all, and who cannot, therefore, compare him to anyone else.
I … don’t want to marry a woman who has voluntarily accepted being used as a [censored by DF] dumpster by other men, or who kisses my child with lips that have been previously wrapped around many other …
We’ll just end that quote a little early, for decency’s sake.
He is, however, willing to wife up — or wife-equivalent up — women who’ve touched fewer than three other penises. As long as the dudes she previously dated were basically big losers.
For a woman who has had sexual partners before me, I must be the absolute best man she has ever been with in terms of appearance, personality, and resources. Otherwise, once the honeymoon is over and the relationship hits an inevitable low point, she will get a “Could I have done better?” itch and sabotage the relationship or test me to the point where I have to play “dread game” just to keep her in the kitchen.
In case you missed his main point, he spells it out as explicitly as he can:
There must be no doubt within her mind that I am the best that she could possibly get.
You should be pretty, but not so pretty that you think you can do better than Roosh
More specifically, you must be a 7 on the ten-point lady attractiveness scale. No other ratings are acceptable.
Thanks to technology and modern cosmopolitan society, a woman who is an 8 or above in beauty has been exposed to more toxic situations and experiences where she’s achieved some level of e-fame, been validated incessantly for her appearance, and been offered money, consumer products, and trips for her vagina (and likely accepted those offers).
I think he means that these terrible 8-point-or-higher women have traded sex for vacations, not that lovesick beta males have literally paid for these women’s vaginas to travel the world. But this is Roosh here, so who knows.
She has also fully utilitized her beauty to get her way in life, including prime seating for manipulating men for personal gain. Not only is such a woman harder to manage, but her entitlement is far higher. For a life partner I will purposefully aim lower than what I could get for casual sex.
So evidently it is fine for Roosh to think he could “do better” than his wife, but not vice versa.
The color of your skin must fit within acceptable parameters
Roosh, of Persian/Armenian descent, wants his future wife/wife equivalent to have a “skin tone … within two shades of myself.” So no Swedes, but also no one with skin much darker than his.
I would like to have kids that look like me, so I will not reproduce with a woman who is black, Asian, or Indian. Acceptable races are South American, Persian, Armenian, and European (non-Northern).
You should be feminine, submissive, and preferably not too smart or strong
Roosh likes his women like he likes his coffee, weak. (NOTE: I do not actually know how Roosh likes his coffee.) As he sees it, his ideal mate
should look and act like a woman and not try to compete with me in terms of mental or physical strength.
You should be happy staying at home with the kids while he procures some sort of super-enriched bread
Once the kids arrive, she should have no desire to pursue a pointless office career in place of taking care of our growing brood. … her place will be in the home while I tirelessly work on my internet ebook hustle to bring home the bread that gives her everything she needs.
But Roosh won’t be a tyrant. While he specifies that he won’t “participate in more than 5% of household duties outside of home improvement,” his bride or bride equivalent will be allowed to have some hobbies, and possibly even a dog.
She may have some freedom to pursue hobbies like yoga or knitting … She can live a pleasant middle-class lifestyle that can even include dog and car ownership.
Sounds like paradise! Speaking of which:
You have to believe in some sort of god
Roosh, who doesn’t seem to have any religious beliefs of his own, as far as I can discern, requires that his future wife or wife equivalent be a believer herself. As he sees it, religious women are less likely to use the internet or get fat on him.
My experience shows that a woman who doesn’t believe in god has a value system taught to her by corporations and progressive degenerates. She will certainly be addicted to internet attention, alcohol, casual sex, material possessions, or food.
But don’t worry, gals. Roosh doesn’t specify WHICH god he requires you to believe in, so all you Baal worshipers should be ok!
You probably should live in some tiny Ukrainian village without internet access
As Roosh sees it, his requirements for the future mother of his children
are quite reasonable, and something that would have taken no more than a 6-month search two generations ago … .
Unfortunately, such women are hard to find these days, at least in places with actual sidewalks and electricity and so forth.
[B]ased on my last decade of intensive fornication, I’ve encountered maybe two girls who fit the bill, especially when it comes to girls being a virgin and eager to stay at home. Part of this reason is that most of my time hunting for women was spent in big cities where such values are rapidly disappearing.
So where in the world does Roosh think he might find the elusive girl of his dreams, reproduction-wise?
If I do want to have kids, I should immediately move, because I’m surely not getting any younger. The two countries that seem to best accomplish my list are Ukraine and Russia … .
Wait: IF you want kids?
Yep, if.
Because there’s one little catch, ladies. Roosh doesn’t actually want kids now. He’s just pretty sure he’ll be wanting some later.
While I can honestly state that I’m not crazy about having kids right now, I know that my desires can change and so I have to guess if I will want them within five years time.
So all you ladies older than 20 are pretty much out of luck — by the time Roosh gets around to actually wanting kids, you’ll be too old, an ancient crone of 25 years or older.
But if you’re between the ages of 13 and 20, with the proper color skin and no career aspirations, you still have a chance! All you need to do is to is to throw away your iPhone, strap on a chastity belt, move to some small town in Ukraine or Russia, and wait five years for Roosh to arrive.
Hank: I politely invite you to piss off and go back to watching Bill Maher.
Someone piss in your cornflakes, katz? There there. How about you grab some Listerine, come back and attempt to raise some valid objections to what I wrote? Obviously you had some objections to my drawing comparisons between religious fundies/creationists and MRAs; how about you flesh them out instead of posting feeble one-liners that should embarrass you?
____
P.S. Bill Maher? I have no time for smarmy little tossers. Or Bill Maher. But hey, jolly good try.
@hank_says
The difference between the MRM and religion is that religion does have some good people following it.
Another difference is that even the pope doesn’t want people to pretend the bible is a science book, whereas all MRA types present their views as facts of nature.
I’m not into religion either and I understand hank said ‘parallels’. I just hope no one assumes a religious person = MRA on any level. There are many kinds of followers of any given religion, as Pandapool pointed out.
I read Hank’s post as comparing them with religious fundies not all people of faith necessarily and just didn’t go out of his way to clarify that. We don’t have to jump down someone’s throat right away without asking for clarification when there’s any ambiguity, do we?
@Pandapool
I agree entirely, with a caveat.
Perhaps I should’ve been way more explicit; however, I didn’t say or even imply that “MRM = religion = bad!” I said that there were distinct parallels between certain harmful religious doctrines and core MRA behaviours which should surprise noone, and I even listed some specific examples. I also stated that irrational belief systems share common elements, specifically regarding how they can be arrived at, maintained and defended – something which also should surprise noone. I attempted to explicitly avoid making a broad comparison precisely because I don’t think such a comparison is justified.
But you know what? Here comes the caveat: just as there are good people in the thrall of problematic religious sects, there are probably good people out there who identify with the MRM. Just like religious fundamentalists, they may well be decent people with good intentions who’ve been indoctrinated, misled or who are simply ignorant of the problematic elements of the MRM.
I will not defend the MRM as a whole, ever, being utterly pointless at best and fatally toxic at worst, but surely the implication of your statement – that the MRM has no good people following it – is as broad and unjustified a brush stroke as the one I’ve apparently been accused of making.
Apologies for a double post; the Edit timer ran out while I was still editing (it’s kind of a problem that the countdown keeps ticking while you’re writing and then erases everything you wrote if you’re not quick enough. I’m used to deadlines, but that’s insane).
Thanks to Leda Atomica and weirwoodtreehugger for getting my clearly not-crystal-clear point. As I said above, I agree that I could’ve been more explicit. Obviously at the time I thought I was being obvious enough, but “obvious” things obviously have a way of turning out not to be obvious.
Anyway, I would certainly have appreciated a request for clarification over being thrown, will-nilly, under Bill fecking Maher, of all the douchetastic broclowns.
Hank — could be because non-religious people have this pesky habit of acting like we’re some enlightened class who’s better than those with “irrational belief systems”. You’re beginning to grasp the edges of separating harmful beliefs from your everyday random person who happens to be religious, but your initial comment most certainly didn’t leave any room for “actually, most religious people are decent people”.
And no, the MRM does not have decent people among their ranks — decent people bail when “fuck their shit up” and such become the norm, and if they don’t, they forfeit their right to be considered decent.
Side note not related to religion — did you read the comment policy? Could you please?
Speaking of Bill Maher, I have no idea what I’ve viewed to deserve him constantly in my youtube suggestions. I watch mostly like cute animals and Dubliners videos.
Not…really? Biblical Jesus did not seek status, wealth, or heaping piles of ass to bang, and was in fact severely opposed to at least the last two. Nor was he particularly interested in self-improvement at fuck the rest, so much as he was about being a pillar of community and guiding everyone to spiritual enlightenment. This is a weak-ass segue.
???? This was present in a number of specific religions, and is still present in a number of religions today, so none of this makes any sense to me at all. And lack of religion hardly stops even the most hardcore of circlejerking nu-atheists from being misogynistic assholes.
I’m pretty sure literally every ideology has demographics of ear-plugging radicals. “This is just like religion,” isn’t nearly as representative as, “This is just like everything else.” See: American gun culture, which has craploads of people who think their right to own and carry semiautomatics should be protected above all else (and whose appeals to the Christian god clearly is just a scapegoat and has jack shit to do with actually following their faith, since…murder.) Also, (@ regulars) remember the SkepChick elevatorgate? All the atheist bros at the convention were dead-set on believing she was a cruel man-hater and refused to be persuaded otherwise. Weird shit!
Again, this is not unique to religious folks, my friend. Radical bigots harass and assault people, it’s not news.
I’m laffin’, this is literally exactly what nu-atheist misogynists do too.
TIL that creationists are the only group who do their damnedest to forcibly bend others to their perceptions. Chest-beatingly secular France and its weilding of alleged religious neutrality as a cudgel to implement rampant institutionalized Islamophobia? A mere flight of fancy!
Well, yeah, in that these are the traits of radical bigots the world over without regard to religious affiliation.
So uh…it’s like when people get more strung up in trying to force the world to adhere to their views that work with what’s actually before them, shit goes to hell? Who’da thunk! And here you are…blaming all the world’s evils on religion…despite those generalizations being so broad and simultaneously only applicable to such small groups within those larger demographics…and countless incidents in just the last couple decades making it abundantly clear that, “Secularity! Reject any evident religious influence!” does nothing to stop bigots from keeping right on bigoting………………….hm.
Hm.
@hank_says
I don’t really think good people would get caught up in the MRM, or at least the MRM I know of. It’s really hard to think of someone as good when they keep putting the blame on the wrong people, the hypocrisy, the dogpiling, the doxxing, what have you. You’d have to be so far up your ass or a complete hypocrite to stay with the MRM as long as you just aren’t just skimming the surface of it. Some of their better talking points are good, but the big MRM players are doing nothing about it.
Of course, I’m not saying good people won’t experiment with the MRM, but I am saying they likely will not stay an MRA, just as good people would not continue the bad practices of their religions.
And I’m sorry I jumped down your throat. I assumed you were one of the bad atheist, if you understand, because you just came in here and started talking about the parallels between the MRM and fundamental religions. Please pardon me for jumping to conclusions about what you were trying to say.
Where did you get “creationists are the only group” in that paragraph?
Yes that can be true, but religiosity, particularly Christianity is privileged. Extremely so. I don’t think people need to go out of their way to say “not all Christians” anymore than we need to make sure to say “not all men.” Progressive Christians and atheists/agnostics who are somewhat self loathing about it thanks to associations with the Dawkins/Harris types have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to this. Christians are the only privileged group allowed to behave like a marginalized group and expect to be treated like a marginalized group is social justice spaces and I do find that tiring.
That said
I’ve got to disagree with this. Nobody has ever played and won the find a non-misogynist MRA challenge. I think maybe in the early days that was true, but the “movement’s” true colors have been clear for awhile now and I don’t think anyone who isn’t misogynistic is going to be taken in for longer than it takes to read through AVFM posts or skim the men’s rights sub-reddit. Where they differ hugely from religion is that each major religion is very diverse. Leaving lots of space for bad and good factions even if there are still problematic elements in the good factions. The MRM is narrow and not diverse at all.
I’m well aware of how toxic and hateful a lot of my fellow atheists can be, hence my sentence “Considering how many MRAs are non-religious…” on my Page 3 comment. I do my best NOT to act like someone’s intellectual superior just because I think I’m right about ONE THING. If it looks like I do, like I apparently did in my first comment, I appreciate it being brought to my attention so I can clarify my position (as I’ve already done, so I won’t rehash it), instead of people immediately assuming the worst about me.
Beginning to grasp the edges? Condescension aside, I’m well aware of the distinction. But maybe I do need to rehash my clarification after all…
As for decent people aligning with MRM, I’m not talking about paid-up active members, as it were. I’m talking about people who might have heard about it and don’t know what it actually is, hence my qualification that they may have been indoctrinated, misled or are ignorant of it (do I need to re-clarify that too?). Once someone does become properly aware of the MRM and choose to remain in it, yes: they can most definitely eat a bag of boiled arseholes. But it is actually possible to softly align with something without understanding it fully, and then to abandon it once you become aware of the truth, like college kids dabbling in fringe political theories that have zero real-world applications. I don’t wish to dehumanise people by stripping them of their agency and decency because they may be honestly wrong about a problematic belief or belief system that they’ve adopted without deep consideration.
True, but Hank said “religion,” not Christianity,” thereby throwing all the marginalized religions under the bus as well as non-fundamentalist Christians.
weirdwoodtreehugger:
You might be right about there being no good MRAs anywhere. But once again I’m talking about those out on the edges who don’t really know what it’s about; the ones who have a misty, distorted idealistic picture of the MRM and haven’t seen its actual ugliness (in a similar fashion to how people are lured into joining cults with vague promises of peace and prosperity, which are quickly replaced by restrictive dogma once the hooks are in). Such proto-MRAs are sure to exist – it’s my experience that outside certain mostly-online circles, most people need it explained to them what the MRM is in the first place. Happily, the most common response is a shrug or a Spockish “really?” eyebrow.
Pandapool, thank you, much appreciated. Having been floating about the atheosphere since around 2006-ish and having seen the explosion of overt atheist male-supremacy more or less in real-time, I’m well aware of the troublesome overlap between the MRM and atheism/skepticism/secularism. Considering that, you’d think I would’ve learned to be completely explicit by now!
Katz, not so much. I have clarified my position more than once since my initial comment, so to continue accusing me of something I absolutely did not do, several comments later, is a bit rich.
Psyche, you don’t seem to have understood the point of either my initial Page 3 comment or the subsequent clarifications. If you understood where I was coming from you’d realise we agree on quite a bit.
I’ve posted enough for one day. Next time(?) I comment here I’ll be sure to be explicit.
Adios
I think around these parts you get cat whiskers about “who’s being offensive” and sometimes the whiskers get over-tickled. I’ve left some comments unposted because the subject was religion and I couldn’t have explained myself nearly as well as hank_says just did. Being new as a commenter here (but an ancient lurker) I worry about the quickfire.
@Leda
Yeah, you have to explain yourself right the first time and that’s tricky, even worst on a touchy subject like religion. :/
Adios addendum
@Leda Atomica, I totally get it. Pharyngula, where I’ve been a reg for years, was infamous because of a serious problem with quickfire (in XCOM it’s called “Overwatch” :)), with undeserving interlocutors copping some serious roasting over minimal glitches and never commenting again. I engaged in a bit myself, to my shame, but iirc in recent times PZ’s tried to reduce the propensity of the locals to open up at the slightest hint of trollery/goonism/sealioning. I understand where it comes from: if you have to bring the hammer down often enough, soon everything looks like a damn nail. As for explaining myself well, obviously I needed a couple of tries to get it somewhat right 🙂
@Argenti, who advised that I read the comment policy: I did. I saw “Don’t attack people for their religion or their lack of religion”, and thought it was sensible, as I agree with it. I criticise unfounded beliefs, and I save the “attacks” for people who hold harmful beliefs, especially if they’re held for no good reason (which harmful beliefs almost always are). I also liked the “No pile-ons” rule. I only skimmed, though, so I might’ve missed the one that says “Request clarification if it appears someone’s being an ass, just in case they’re not.”
Communication works both ways: senders need to be clear, certainly (trust me), but receivers need to request clarification if there’s any ambiguity.
I regret not being sufficiently clear, not just because it led to an unjust accusation, but because it derailed the thread. I didn’t want it to be about me, at all, so here’s me, leaving you all to it.
Hank — I’d actually directed you there because you called something or other “insane” and I’m too damned tired for a crash course in ableism. As for religion…it’s a particularly touchy subject around these parts, with a lot of us Old Timers opting to just not go there for exactly that reason. So, you know, just don’t bring up religion as an analogy and you’ll be fine.
Katz — in other things, I’ve been placating our resident kitty with the ‘nip, and had an unexpected but not too bad encounter earlier. I was sitting on the top step petting our newcomer, with the baby gate in the door behind me, the other furballs were asleep in the next room and I needed to shift so I slid the gate out… my girl tentatively walked into the kitchen with mom and I both giving each other that “I have no idea what is going to happen” look. Dog stood up, cat retreated under the table, sniffing occurred, all well and good, wary, but good. Then she decided to run the 2’ to the basement, he gave chase, I slammed to door between them. He laid down, I slid into the basement, she was instantly on me going PET ME NOW HUMAN!!
So…not bad for their first ungated interaction? Mom says he chased our resident for a few months too, he just likes chasing things, is prone to looking at them confused when he catches up (seriously, he’s stupid enough to throw a ball, chase the ball, and then stare at the ball, I am not working with Doggie Einstein over here!)
The girls are opting to ignore each other and interact with me instead, so hey, if she’s gonna get pointy I’m used to dodging (and catching a trapeze I just fell from going “I meant to do that”)
Ok, I’ll stop discussing the furry situation now!
Fred the dog:
Congrats to you and your daughter! Hopefully, that 10 years of education will pay off well. Nurse practitioners are in high demand, she picked a great occupation. You should be VERY proud!
Psyche:
Really? Every single one?
@Moggie:
I remember that incident very well. I suddenly found myself surrounded by people who hated Watson and were screaming for her blood, all of whom assumed that I was on their side because I looked like them. It made me incredibly uncomfortable about remaining within movement atheism, and that was despite my white/male/STEM privilege. I can’t imagine what it was like for women within the movement.
In retrospect, I can’t think of a single atheist bro (where bro is used as a shorthand for a complex set of behaviours and identifiers that any atheist will recognise, but which might be difficult to explain to non-infidels) who stood up and spoke on Watson’s behalf. Some may have sided with her but been cowed into silence; to my discredit I certainly was.
It was the triggering event for me to stop being a laid-back “sure, I identify as a feminist as long as I don’t actually have to challenge my own privilege” type and actually take notice of stuff.
So yes, in my view #allatheistbros is a perfectly reasonable position for Psyche to hold about that incident.
@Psyche, Moggie, EJ, etc
Elevatorgate was a major turning point for me, actually. My wife and I first met through the community website Atheist Nexus, so in the beginning we happened to talk a lot about atheism/religion and related topics.
We were both new to “organized atheism”, or whatever term you’d use for it. My wife comes from a very religious family but stopped believing while in college. I was never religious, but I came to be interested in counter-apologetics through watching clips of James Randi, then (briefly) Dawkins, then Hitchens, then Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris.
My wife used to read Pharyngula and I used to mostly watch youtube videos. When Elevatorgate happened I was, like many others, confused. I had for some reason assumed all atheists would be considerably left of center, progressive, anti-racist, feminist (or at least feminist friendly, as I considered myself at the time), pro LGBT rights, etc.
The whole thing with Rebecca Watson and all the harassment that followed was, like I said, a turning point. It was amazing to me that what she actually said (“guys, don’t do that”) was in so many people’s minds instantly changed to (“I hate men. All men are rapists all of the time.”). After a few months or even a year of utter confusion, I started losing interest in reading about atheism/religion and turned to social justice issues instead.
Even though I had already started teaching and working with refugees when Elevatorgate happened, I truly believe the aftermath of this event has influenced my trajectory when it comes to studies and work. Instead of going back to school to finish my science-adjacent degree, I stayed with teaching for years and am only now back to university to finally get some sort of education. And even now I do volunteer work in the evenings.
—
Side note: I got promoted to regional coordinator at my volunteer work. My only promotion ever, of course it’s unpaid. :p
Bro. Yes, maybe Katz was a bit quick on the defense there, but responding to her by going full condescending “Wimminz be hysterical” fucknugget isn’t going to help your case any.