Categories
empathy deficit entitled babies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA rape rape culture red pill return of kings rhymes with roosh

Check out my piece on Roosh in the International Business Times

Roosh V
Roosh V

I was asked to do a piece on Roosh V for the International Business Times, and so I did, arguing that his now infamous post on legalizing rape is not actually the worst or most dangerous thing about him.

Roosh, like many other gurus of so-called “pick-up artistry”, likes to pretend he’s discovered some secret codes that – like the cheat codes that make video games easier to play – allow men to charm and/or manipulate almost any woman into having sex with them.

In reality, of course, there are no cheat codes; women aren’t video games. But there is another, more old-fashioned technique that men have used since time immemorial when they want to have sex with women who aren’t interested in having sex with them. This technique is known as rape.

While Roosh indignantly insists he is no “rape advocate”, in his books and blog posts, he encourages his followers to treat a woman saying “No” as little more than a temporary obstacle to sex.

Read the rest here.

 

129 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ Vicki P

Interesting article, but I especially like the comments.

Is “I don’t know anything about this Roosh” the new “I’m not a racist but..”?

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
6 years ago

@ Alan

I do believe you may be correct in your interpretation. They’re pretty quick to defend, aren’t they?

Dreadnought
Dreadnought
6 years ago

@ Saphira

This article may explain why some scientists fall prey to illogical beliefs. It talks mainly about jihadists but I think it applies to feminism as well – or any other social issue.

BoinkBoinkBoinkBoinkBoinkBoink
BoinkBoinkBoinkBoinkBoinkBoink
6 years ago

The doxxing of Roosh is really forcing me to question my morality. I’m adamantly opposed to harassment so logically I should be against Roosh being doxxed. On the other hand, however, Valizadeh is such a despicable, abhorrent human being who himself has doxxed many individuals; so should my moral judgement on harassment stop at Roosh? If I were to do that, wouldn’t that make me a hypocrite who’s actually in favour of harassment?

At the risk of sounding like an armchair philosopher, I think that depends on whether you believe in moral absolutes or moral relativism. I tend to go with relativism, because absolutes get sticky and dogmatic. I don’t believe in doxxing, I’m against it. It’s mob justice, and I don’t believe in mob justice; I think it sets a dangerous precedent and does more harm than good.

HOWEVER, there are exceptions that I still think are morally righteous. Like the gang of 200 Indian women who, after being repeatedly ignored by the police when they reported a man who was terrorizing their area with rape, robbery and murder (he paid hefty bribes to the police to escape prosecution), all gathered together at his acquittal and physically tore him to pieces. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/16/india.gender

So even though I’m against mob justice as a moral rule, I can’t find it my heart to condemn these ladies. I think there are still exceptions to every rule, and you have to look at the moral relativism of the situation.

TL;DR, Morals can be adjusted to fit a certain situation, without you being a hypocrite.

P.S. I don’t think death threats or doxxing are still warranted in this case, though.

1 4 5 6
%d bloggers like this: