Why Do Men Keep Falling for Women's Manipulative Shaming Tactics?

[Nexus One]

J200, your posts tend to remind me of this character: http://bit.ly/sYiLNa

[Mme. Chaucer]

An element of hatred always seems to flow through most PUA tips/books. It feeds into a pretty dysfunctional psychology that implies that women are something to be tricked, used, cajoled, etc for one's own personal gain. Men don't like being treated that way... so I don't really understand how they could justify treating others that way... unless it is for revenge. Not cool.

 

Isn't it ironic that a thread started in outrage against women manipulating men morphs into sort of a celebration of men manipulating women?

 

There are users of both genders. If you ask me, they are all sad, whether they're men or women.

[Taramere]

Isn't it ironic that a thread started in outrage against women manipulating men morphs into sort of a celebration of men manipulating women?

 

There was another thread (now deleted) by some troll going on about how all women over 40 are ugly, revolting, stale vaginas etc. A few women posted along the lines of "where's my blue hair dye". I'm sure I can recall dasein, or one of the other posters on this thread, expressing approval of women being able to show a sense of humour about being regarded in this way once they're past 40. Yet employing a pink fist logo to define the brotherhood of men who are angry about their involuntary celibacy is, apparently, a cruel and low blow that no man should be expected to have a sense of humour about.

 

Either double standards are firmly at work....or we're being asked to accept that men are more emotionally fragile than women and require more kid glove treatment than we do.

 

I was interested to see Metis' comment abouit Randian elements to PUA. I don't see Randian theory as a central principle of PUA. I think the more thoughtful (or just plain heavily into the notion of some underpinning, splendid philosophy to PUA) enthusiasts probably have some awareness that there is something embarrassing and decidedly unsplendid (or unRoark like for those in that scene who are Fountainhead devotees) about the more manipulative Marketing Man aspects of PUA.

 

Every time that realisation threatens an ego, there are several ways of ways of dealing with it which seem popular in the PUA community.

 

1. Denying ownership of that sense of shame that comes from "I could do better than this. I could be a better person than this." Telling the trainee PUA that it isn't his shame. That notions about "great men" are artificial constructs that society (most specifically women) has saddled him with to manipulate him and keep him in his place. Which is a debatable point. After all, Howard Roark was drawn by a woman...but the essence of the character was that he couldn't be manipulated or kept down by control freaks.

 

2. Acknowledging the sense of shame, and cherry-picking from things like objectivism to help convince the man that actually the PUA community will help to turn him into this great, ethical superhero he would like to be. Somehow or other, by submitting "field reports" of his intimate encounters with women, online for other men's perusal, he will put himself on the road to being the next Howard Roark.

 

I've got a couple of male friends who have read that stuff and who think some of it is quite useful. If some of the ideology is used in a way that isn't hurting others, and exists as that Dumbo Feather which will help a man fly then where's the harm?

 

I agree with that. However, it's a community that seems to attract quite a lot of messed up types in search of a cult (or, in some cases, a cult following)....and while I'm sure there are plenty of men in it who genuinely like women and perceive double standards and hypocrisy at play here and there, I would think that the number who are prepared to say so, in an environment like that, is probably quite low.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Taramere

[musemaj11]

- Meanness: An element of hatred always seems to flow through most PUA tips/books. It feeds into a pretty dysfunctional psychology that implies that women are something to be tricked, used, cajoled, etc for one's own personal gain. Men don't like being treated that way... so I don't really understand how they could justify treating others that way... unless it is for revenge.

The extreme PUA movement we see today is a recent phenomena originating mainly in the US that is indeed arguably a generation revenge born out of growing grudge toward the perceived unfair extreme privilege of women in the developed Western world.

[Taramere]

The extreme PUA movement we see today is a recent phenomena originating mainly in the US that is indeed arguably a generation revenge born out of growing grudge toward the perceived unfair extreme privilege of women in the developed Western world.

 

Unfair extreme privilege in comparison to whom? To men in the developed Western world, or to severely oppressed women in less developed regions?

[A O]

Isn't it ironic that a thread started in outrage against women manipulating men morphs into sort of a celebration of men manipulating women?

Hardly a celebration. Dasein is taking as much if not more flak for his views than congrats. I can see the value in all this as a stepping stone, a helping hand for the less experienced/successful types - a way to get a foot in the door, but not meant as a way to live one's life by.

 

.

[musemaj11]

Unfair extreme privilege in comparison to whom? To men in the developed Western world, or to severely oppressed women in less developed regions?

To men in the developed Western world

[Taramere]

To men in the developed Western world

 

Do you personally subscribe to the notion that Western women enjoy an unfair privilege in comparison to Western men? Where do you see this unfair privilege? Is there an unbalance, in the country you live in, of female/male representation in powerful institutions such as the government, the judiciary, banking industries, armed forces and domestic law enforcement? Does the average female wage greatly exceed the average male wage?

 

That's not the case where I live, but it may be the case where you are. I shouldn't have thought a policy of adopting vindictive behaviour towards the female gender (particularly in romantic or sexual matters) is a very effective or impressive method of addressing such imbalances.

[betterdeal]

Either double standards are firmly at work....or we're being asked to accept that men are more emotionally fragile than women and require more kid glove treatment than we do.

 

Or you're exaggerating, or some men are indeed emotionally less strong than you, or men have been cultured to be "strong" and anger is seen to be a strong, active response to insults, and so are responding as one would expect in such a culture. There are myriad possibilities.

[Taramere]

Or you're exaggerating, or some men are indeed emotionally less strong than you, or men have been cultured to be "strong" and anger is seen to be a strong, active response to insults, and so are responding as one would expect in such a culture. There are myriad possibilities.

 

I don't agree that society conditions people to believe that anger is a strong, active response to insults.

 

As a very simple example, when Jeffrey Skilling responded to a reporter's criticism of Enron's practices by calling him an *******, it was a trigger (a trigger of a demise and of exposure of Enron that was going to happen sooner or later). Skilling wasn't seen as tough or strong when he reacted in that angry manner. Rather, his anger was correctly perceived by the press and other commentators as another indicator that he had something to hide.

 

Do you disagree that it's a double standard to hold women to a higher standard of behaviour (eg that they should laugh off vindictively intended insults rather than responding angrily to them) than one expects of men?

[betterdeal]

I don't agree that society conditions people to believe that anger is a strong, active response to insults.

 

As a very simple example, when Jeffrey Skilling responded to a reporter's criticism of Enron's practices by calling him an *******, it was a trigger (a trigger of a demise and of exposure of Enron that was going to happen sooner or later). Skilling wasn't seen as tough or strong when he reacted in that angry manner. Rather, his anger was correctly perceived by the press and other commentators as another indicator that he had something to hide.

 

Do you disagree that it's a double standard to hold women to a higher standard of behaviour (eg that they should laugh off vindictively intended insults rather than responding angrily to them) than one expects of men?

 

The start of your post contradicts the end of it. If people are not conditioned to respond angrily, men won't be responding angrily, will they?

 

Do you disagree that some men may be less emotionally strong than you?

 

As for cultural expectations of men, have a gander at the self-help section of a bookshop for a start. "Women who love to much", "Inside the minds of angry men", "Anger management for men", "Why does he do that?", "Feel the fear and do it anyway" - what sex do the authors of these titles assume their readers to be? If men want a self-help book, they better be angry because there's not much else for them out there.

Edited November 9, 2011 by betterdeal

[Taramere]

The start of your post contradicts the end of it. If people are not conditioned to respond angrily, men won't be responding angrily, will they?

 

Aggression is a basic drive. Whether a creature learns to manage it, in order to extend their period of survival, depends on what they learn from their environment. Or, in human terms, what the society they are exposed to teaches them.

 

A lion is, by nature, an aggressive animal. Nobody can deny that. Once it's left cubhood, a successful lion will avoid getting into unnecessary fights because it's preserving its health and strength for the battles that matter. It will avoid tackling difficult prey (unless it's absolutely desperate for food) for the same reason. That's something it learns through experience, rather than knowing innately. Experience and the society it lives in teaches it that if it wants to stay alive, it's going to need to control its aggression and select its battles/prey with some care.

 

Where are the people, in our society, who have a tendency to respond angrily to the slightest provocation? Occasionally they might rise to the top, but more often dramatic displays of uncontrolled anger can be found in environments such as prisons, poverty stricken areas and the Jerry Springer Show.

 

Over and over again, society gives us the message that angry people who never learn to control their aggressive impulses, will likely fail in many aspects of life....and other members of the animal kingdom are given the same messages from their environments, experiences and the societies they live in. Some are smart enough to learn the lesson, others never do - and accordingly are likely to have short, violent lives.

 

ETA re whether I disagree that some men are less emotionally strong than me. Firstly, how emotionally strong I am can fluctuate, according to the circumstances I'm in. Mr X might be emotionally stronger than me on Thursday, and weaker than me on Friday depending on what's going on in our lives.

 

I agree that there are some men out there who seem to be emotionally weaker than I'd like to see myself as being. On the other hand, life has taught me that developing a magnetic attraction to the victim role is not in my long term interests...and neither is it something that will help me to develop self respect. Perhaps that's a lesson some of the twenty something men on the board just haven't learned yet. Which would be a reflection on their life experience rather than on how emotionally strong they are capable of being.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Taramere

[betterdeal]

Aggression is a basic drive. Whether a creature learns to manage it, in order to extend their period of survival, depends on what they learn from their environment. Or, in human terms, what the society they are exposed to teaches them.

 

I don't quite get what you're saying. This is what it what I read from your posts:

 

Premiss 1: Many men are responding angrily, I think we agree.

Premiss 2. People learn from the society they are exposed to.

Conclusion: Men are not being taught by society to respond angrily

 

You see the flawed conclusion?

 

But maybe you think it's an innate quality of being male, instinctive, in the blood. So maybe, if I am not angry and instead I laugh off petty name calling and emotional blackmail I am not in fact a real man, is that it?

 

Over and over again, society gives us the message that angry people who never learn to control their aggressive impulses, will likely fail in many aspects of life....and other members of the animal kingdom are given the same messages from their environments, experiences and the societies they live in. Some are smart enough to learn the lesson, others never do - and accordingly are likely to have short, violent lives.

 

Rock & Roll! Our Brave Boys! Hell's Kitchen!

 

ETA re whether I disagree that some men are less emotionally strong than me. Firstly, how emotionally strong I am can fluctuate, according to the circumstances I'm in. Mr X might be emotionally stronger than me on Thursday, and weaker than me on Friday depending on what's going on in our lives.

 

Of course, people's moods and fortitude ebbs and flows over time. So let me rephrase: do you agree that at some points in time some men may be more sensitive to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or even the light (but maybe perceived to be pervasive) mocking of their identity?

 

I mean, it makes sense to me that if men are assumed to be angry they are expected to be angry, and they, like women, pick up on these social cues and, if lacking self-confidence, follow them.

 

I've suggested in this thread that men respond in much the same way women have in the other thread i.e. to not take ownership for the insults, to not rise to the bait, to laugh it off, be assertive and confident in who they are. Why men fall for emotional blackmail (the topic of the thread) is, I suggest, because they have not been taught much apart from to respond with anger or roll over and play dead, and they want to not do either but do something in between, such as be confident in their own identity and dismiss attempts at emotional blackmail. Is that far off what advice you would give to such men?

[Emilia]

I don't quite get what you're saying. This is what it what I read from your posts:

 

Premiss 1: Many men are responding angrily, I think we agree.

Premiss 2. People learn from the society they are exposed to.

Conclusion: Men are not being taught by society to respond angrily

 

You see the flawed conclusion?

 

The way I read it is that people (men and women) that are smart enough learn to control their anger. I had to and I'm a naturally aggressive person. One of the women in our office hasn't and she screams down her phone to her children every day. Her boyfriend left her and called her a psycho.

 

Your conclusion is flawed. What you learn is largely determined by your surroundings within the same society (ie usually class, neglect as a child, education background of parents, etc hence the prison and Jerry Springer show references)

 

 

But maybe you think it's an innate quality of being male, instinctive, in the blood. So maybe, if I am not angry and instead I laugh off petty name calling and emotional blackmail I am not in fact a real man, is that it?

 

 

No. I think the reference is to people not to just men.

 

 

Rock & Roll! Our Brave Boys! Hell's Kitchen!

 

 

Is that a reference to the army? They teach you to control your aggression as you know

 

 

 

Of course, people's moods and fortitude ebbs and flows over time. So let me rephrase: do you agree that at some points in time some men may be more sensitive to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or even the light (but maybe perceived to be pervasive) mocking of their identity?

 

I mean, it makes sense to me that if men are assumed to be angry they are expected to be angry, and they, like women, pick up on these social cues and, if lacking self-confidence, follow them.

 

I've suggested in this thread that men respond in much the same way women have in the other thread i.e. to not take ownership for the insults, to not rise to the bait, to laugh it off, be assertive and confident in who they are. Why men fall for emotional blackmail (the topic of the thread) is, I suggest, because they have not been taught much apart from to respond with anger or roll over and play dead, and they want to not do either but do something in between, such as be confident in their own identity and dismiss attempts at emotional blackmail. Is that far off what advice you would give to such men?

 

I think everyone has to learn this in real life, irrespective of gender. Emotional blackmail is prevelant amongst men and women and we all have to learn how to draw our boundaries and how to assert ourselves. That has nothing to do with gender whatsoever

[betterdeal]

The way I read it is that people (men and women) that are smart enough learn to control their anger. I had to and I'm a naturally aggressive person. One of the women in our office hasn't and she screams down her phone to her children every day. Her boyfriend left her and called her a psycho.

 

Oh, so now you're having a go at people with learning difficulties? As for the distinction between people and men, it was made by Taramere whose sarcastically suggested men - not people - need to be treated with kid gloves.

 

Your conclusion is flawed. What you learn is largely determined by your surroundings within the same society (ie usually class, neglect as a child, education background of parents, etc hence the prison and Jerry Springer show references)

 

It's not my conclusion, it's Taramere's, as I see it from what she has written.

 

No. I think the reference is to people not to just men.

 

Oh right. So it's an innate quality of people and people who don't respond in anger are unreal, surreal or imaginary?

 

Is that a reference to the army? They teach you to control your aggression as you know

 

Are you referring to Hell's Kitchen? No, that's a soap opera with a sweary angry chef shouting at kitchen hands. A highly successful chef. As for the military, it is a role model for lots of boys and those have no experience of it are often unaware that it's not all Braveheart these days, and those of use who have lived with it know there is plenty of aggression, anger and abuse in the military.

 

I think everyone has to learn this in real life, irrespective of gender. Emotional blackmail is prevelant amongst men and women and we all have to learn how to draw our boundaries and how to assert ourselves. That has nothing to do with gender whatsoever

 

I agree. I was asking Taramere about her sarcastic, hubris laden comment about men being so sensitive as to need to be treated with kid gloves. Did you miss that?

[Taramere]

I don't quite get what you're saying. This is what it what I read from your posts:

 

Premiss 1: Many men are responding angrily, I think we agree.

Premiss 2. People learn from the society they are exposed to.

Conclusion: Men are not being taught by society to respond angrily

 

You see the flawed conclusion?

 

My conclusion is that some people don't learn from the society they are exposed to...and that people who have trapped themselves into a state of perpetually angry victimhood are among those people who have failed to learn.

 

But maybe you think it's an innate quality of being male, instinctive, in the blood. So maybe, if I am not angry and instead I laugh off petty name calling and emotional blackmail I am not in fact a real man, is that it?

 

I don't know how you got that from my post, in which I talked about a survival of the fittest situation wherein the fittest have learned to control their aggression.

 

I don't think it's within my power to reassure somebody as to whether or not he's a real man.

 

Of course, people's moods and fortitude ebbs and flows over time. So let me rephrase: do you agree that at some points in time some men may be more sensitive to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or even the light (but maybe perceived to be pervasive) mocking of their identity?

 

More sensitive than me? Well the alternative to what you're saying would be to hold myself as the most sensitive individual in the world. Which would be a ridiculous claim to make.

 

I was generally considered to be a sensitive child. As the runt of the household (youngest child - female) I was sometimes coddled and sometimes targeted. Both of which potentially encourage a sense of victimhood....which I definitely struggled with.

 

I dealt with it by developing an interest in psychology from an early age, which I saw as a path through which I could free myself from the bad feelings associated with being a victim. That's what psychology, in a therapeutic sense, is all about. I think, anyway. It's not about learning to manipulate others so much as it is about freeing yourself from feeling like a victim. Especially as the victim role tends to be self perpetuating.

 

I don't think the men who use this site to vent about women, and who hold women to a higher standard of behaviour than they hold themselves to are necessarily more sensitive than I am by nature. I think they see happiness as something they will achieve once they are fully in control of their environment and the people in it. That their frustration emanates from a realisation that this changing the world (rather than themselves) as a means to obtaining happiness just isn't feasible.

 

I've suggested in this thread that men respond in much the same way women have in the other thread i.e. to not take ownership for the insults, to not rise to the bait, to laugh it off, be assertive and confident in who they are. Why men fall for emotional blackmail (the topic of the thread) is, I suggest, because they have not been taught much apart from to respond with anger or roll over and play dead, and they want to not do either but do something in between, such as be confident in their own identity and dismiss attempts at emotional blackmail. Is that far off what advice you would give to such men?

 

A lot of men don't want advice from women. If I do give men advice, my reference points are usually men I like and admire. However the men looking for advice might regard those men as dicks....in which case my advice probably wouldn't be useful to them.

 

As for how to respond to baiting...sometimes it might be quite enjoyable to get into a bit of a slanging match. Habitual trolls don't have the monopoly on behaving childishly. However, it's likely to get people banned from this site. So if they want to continue posting here, it wouldn't be good advice to tell them to go for the jugular. Also, if a poster is depressed and sensitive then the likelihood is that they're going to come off worse in the exchange.

 

I don't have sympathy for men who feel depressed and sensitive, who open up "women are X, Y and Z (negative things)" on a board that contains a lot of female posters and then find themselves under attack. That's like a white person hobbling on a pair of crutches into a multi-cultural area and shouting racist comments. Unless they have a serious learning difficulty or another condition whereby they can't be held responsible for their actions (and depression/sensitivity doesn't cut it) then I'm not going to excuse that kind of wanton foolishness.

 

As for laughing off malicious attacks.... Sure, provided the person isn't using self-deprecating humour as a response to an obviously malicious attack. Well, not unless they're in the habit of rolling over and exposing their throat to anybody and everybody who takes a dislike to them.

 

If the motives of the "attacker" aren't clear (eg maybe they are just trying to introduce a light-hearted tone rather than being driven by malice) then I might try to encourage the person to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Oh, so now you're having a go at people with learning difficulties? As for the distinction between people and men, it was made by Taramere whose sarcastically suggested men - not people - need to be treated with kid gloves.

 

Eh? In what sense was she having a go at people with learning difficulties?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Taramere

[Emilia]

Oh, so now you're having a go at people with learning difficulties? As for the distinction between people and men, it was made by Taramere whose sarcastically suggested men - not people - need to be treated with kid gloves.

 

 

She doesn't have learning difficulties. No she didn't say that, in fact she stated several times that playing victim and being over sensitive is a terrible idea.

 

 

It's not my conclusion, it's Taramere's, as I see it from what she has written.

 

 

And I'm saying you - maybe on purpose - misinterpreted it

 

 

Oh right. So it's an innate quality of people and people who don't respond in anger are unreal, surreal or imaginary?

 

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

 

Are you referring to Hell's Kitchen? No, that's a soap opera with a sweary angry chef shouting at kitchen hands. A highly successful chef. As for the military, it is a role model for lots of boys and those have no experience of it are often unaware that it's not all Braveheart these days, and those of use who have lived with it know there is plenty of aggression, anger and abuse in the military.

 

 

I didn't say 'Hell's kitchen' in my post. I was referring to your 'Our Brave Boys' comment.

 

'Hell's Kitchen' is a piece of television fiction. Although Gordon Ramsay is well known for his tantrums because they are entertaining. The program is still fiction. Yes there is plenty of abuse, aggression and anger in the military, however the association should not be of uncontrolled anger

 

 

 

I agree. I was asking Taramere about her sarcastic, hubris laden comment about men being so sensitive as to need to be treated with kid gloves. Did you miss that?

 

It was more your suggestion, she said exactly the opposite

[Taramere]

It was more your suggestion, she said exactly the opposite

 

Thank you Emilia. If a man holds women to a higher standard of behaviour (in terms of demonstrating empathy and responding in a controlled or humorous manner to malicious commentary about her gender) than he holds men to, then I can think of only two reasons. Either he doesn't see the need to challenge himself for employing double standards and hypocrisy or he generally regards men as being more emotionally fragile than women.

[Emilia]

I think when it comes to how we are socialised as a gender in childhood, we as women are encouraged to deal with our emotions in a more constructive way and some men recognise that.

[betterdeal]

Taramere said:

 

Either double standards are firmly at work....or we're being asked to accept that men are more emotionally fragile than women and require more kid glove treatment than we do.

 

I said:

 

I was asking Taramere about her sarcastic, hubris laden comment about men being so sensitive as to need to be treated with kid gloves. Did you miss that?

 

Emilia said:

 

It was more your suggestion, she said exactly the opposite

 

How's that work?

[betterdeal]

I said

 

Oh, so now you're having a go at people with learning difficulties?

 

In response to

 

The way I read it is that people (men and women) that are smart enough learn to control their anger. I had to and I'm a naturally aggressive person. One of the women in our office hasn't and she screams down her phone to her children every day. Her boyfriend left her and called her a psycho.

 

It was an attempt at humour and referred to the first sentence in that paragraph. Those that aren't smart enough have difficulty learning to control their anger.

[betterdeal]

I don't agree that society conditions people to believe that anger is a strong, active response to insults.

 

Aggression is a basic drive. Whether a creature learns to manage it, in order to extend their period of survival, depends on what they learn from their environment. Or, in human terms, what the society they are exposed to teaches them.

 

My conclusion is that some people don't learn from the society they are exposed to...and that people who have trapped themselves into a state of perpetually angry victimhood are among those people who have failed to learn.

 

So anger is the innate response of people and only by conditioning do some people - maybe the majority - learn not to react angrily.

[Emilia]

 

 

How's that work?

 

It's kind of what WikeMan said not very politely.

[betterdeal]

It's kind of what WikeMan said not very politely.

 

Bitching and crying?

[Emilia]

Bitching and crying?

 

 

No, the other comment.