Roissy seems to provide endless fodder for blogosphere discussions. I just spent an inordinate amount of time writing a response to this thread over at Hooking Up Smart, after reading the comments in which a slew of female commenters weighed in with their opinions on Roissy and his blog. At first I was just going to comment, but than realized the length of it was as long as a typical post here...so if I'm gonna put that kind of effort into writing something, may as well post it here as well.
- Heh...seems like Susan's blog swallowed my comment. Glad I copied & pasted it here before I hit the submit button over there.
Very interesting thread. The differences in male and female perspectives on Roissy and his insights is amusing and makes for compelling reading.
But two particular comments made me decide to log on and put in my own $.02 on this discussion:
That’s BS. Men get bored of the sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama or say “this is going to fast for me” or they say “I know myself. I don’t want to hurt you. We are not meant for each other.” Then you see them chasing dominant, strong bitches, who emotionally torture them and then screw them over something."
When men dump women, your typical, self-absorbed and narcissistic woman will engage her rationalization hamster to explain to herself why he left without having to face the truth of her own role in ending the relationship. While she may think to herself that she was a "sweet, feminine, hot girl with minimal drama," the man's perspective most certainly disagrees on at least one, some or all of those assessments. That's why he left.
You also fail to understand that the weighting of importance between these traits. For most men, the hot girl part is the most important trait (the biological hard wiring to try and mate with the genetically superior specimens). If you really are a sweet, feminine, minimal-drama woman, and he left you for a bitchy, demanding, high maintenance woman, it's a safe bet that your "hot girl" rating is lower than the bitch's hot girl rating, from his point of view.
He didn't leave you to chase the bitch because she's "more exciting and challenging." It's because she's hotter than you and he's willing to pay the price in dealing with that negative drama to access what he perceives as her higher sex appeal.
He wasn't bored by your sweet, feminine, low-maintenance charm. He was most likely bored with your sex appeal.
But I will concede that you are not entirely wrong. There most certainly are men who, as one of you ladies put it:
"...addicted to the highs and lows of constant relationship drama as the women. If things are too calm, too nice, too stable, they crave more and will create instability if they have to."
Not all men are like that.
But do you know where the kind of men who are like that come from?
They come from the homes of their never-married or divorced mothers that bring an endless amount of drama into their son's lives.
These are the men who grew up in a home where they watched their mothers bring home an assortment of violent and abusive men to give her the drama she needs.
These are the men who were used as weapons when they were boys in custody battles by their vindictive divorcee mothers.
These are the men who never learn to control their emotions and temper. They had no masculine role models to learn from on how to channel their natural male aggression into productive outlets. They learned to let their emotions be the primary influence on their behavior.
These are the men who were alienated from their Fathers. They are the male manifestations of their primary role models in life...their single mothers. See Myth of the Ghetto Alpha Male.
Pointing to such damaged men as proof that the female psyche's need for drama is invalid or that "doesn't apply to me," is missing the forest for the trees.
Women need social drama, which is why all women gossip. Gossip in and of itself is not good or bad. "Good" women gossip too, they just do not gossip with malicious intent.
The discussion of Roissy on this thread regarding his personal life, and speculations on how truthful he is about his success with women and his ability or inability to have a meaningful, "REAL" LTR, and the entire farcical episode with "lady" Raine "outing him" is just another manifestation of this female need for gossip and social drama. It is irrelevant in terms of why Roissy and his blog are still relevant and influential to men all over the world.
You ladies think that understanding the personal details of his life gives you insight into whether any particular advice or observation he writes about is invalid or not. This is why most of you fail to comprehend the "big picture" with regards to why his blog has struck such a chord with so many men.
Men who "get it", on the other hand, read what he writes, and can immediately recognize the underlying truths of his hyperbole because they recognize those truths and how they apply to their own life experiences with women. We men don't have the rationalization hamster obscuring our critical self analysis.
Hindsight is not always 20/20. You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't understand why you made them.
When Roissy writes something with regards to the darker aspects of the female id, men experience that "AHA!" moment of clarity and suddenly understand why things happened to them in their own past experiences with women.
Pick any thread in the Chateau's archives dealing with the topic of women, and you can find numerous testimonials of men who gained insight into their own past relationship successes and failures because of a particular point or view expressed by Roissy. His insights explained things to them that they formerly failed to comprehend.
This is why you have plenty of men who have a much different outlook on morality, still giving Roissy his just due and blogroll linkage despite religious and/or moral objections to the PUA lifestyle Roissy espouses.
Men like Vox Day, the Social Pathologist, Dalrock, Ulysses, Eumaios, Athol,.Mormon Man ..none of whom are Players participating in the great gangbang of our current liberalized, secular, feminist-driven culture...men who are self-described dedicated,faithful Fathers and husbands. Nevertheless, each in their own way "get" the point of Roissy and the truths he espouses and how it applies in some way to their own relationships with their wives and their own awareness of their own masculinity and the role it plays in their relationships.
The reason why 99% of the women who read Roissy just don't get it, is because most of you ladies read his observations of the darker aspects of the female id and you immediately kick the hamster into gear to justify how his observations don't apply to yourself.
You can't help it.
As a woman, you are hardwired to believe you are a special, unique snowflake. This is why we men who understand the big picture, are amused whenever a woman weighs in with her own variation of NAWALT.
The only difference between a woman that seeks out relationships with abusive men and those that don't, is how she's channeled her darker aspects of the female sexual id into either positive or negative outlets. If you are a woman who is not in an abusive relationship, you've found a man who feeds your base, visceral desires in a positive manner. This is why you mistakenly believe that NAWALT, especially your own unique, special self.
For instance, Susan seems to be most offended by Roissy's observation that the threat of masculine physical violence is a sexual turn-on for women. You completely missed the disclaimer he wrote along with that post saying that for many women, you do not have to physically assault her, but imply that it is possible, and that presence of controlled, masculine aggression will inspire attraction in her.
Whether women admit this to themselves or not doesn't make it untrue.
This attraction to masculine aggression is the main driver of passionate make up sex. There is no hot and heavy makeup sex if the conflict was resolved by the man profusely apologizing and begging and pleading with her for forgiveness while she's raging in anger. That just turns her anger into bitter contempt and disgust.
It is only when her anger is either matched and overpowered by his own angry response -- or he maintains a stoic, calm and detached indifference to her emotional outburst -- that makes her attraction kicks into high gear...even if she feels justified in her anger. On the instinctual level, whether she is logically right or wrong in her argument, at some level it is still a shit test.
His demonstration of having a spine in the face of her emotional aggression, satisfies her primal desire to mate with a man who would stand up for her and their offspring in the face of external sources of aggression. Women are attracted to the male capacity for violence and aggression. Just because you may not be attracted to, and in a relationship with, an abusive thug that beats you, doesn't mean there is an aspect of your sexual nature that is not attracted to male aggression. You're just attracted to the kind of man that learned how to channel it into a positive outlet. That doesn't mean your a different kind of women. That just means you were, most likely raised in an healthy, "normal" environment where you learned to be attracted to the qualities that made your mom attracted to your dad.
While it's true that this comment is attempting to make the point that "not all men are like that," while "all women are like that," that just highlights the fact that gender differences are real.
Women need drama and they are attracted to men who have masculine aggression.
Men need hot women, preferably women who channel that need for drama into positive outlets...but if she's hot enough, we'll tolerate the negative drama up to a certain point before we decide it's no longer worth the trade off.