If George Sodini wanted women to actually pay attention to and actually date him, perhaps the best way to go about it wasn't to call them "sluts," "whores," "hos," and a myriad of other misogynistic terms used to describe women. He should have, instead, actually talk to women and listen to them.
While I am not a woman, I'll venture to say from my own experiences that treating women like human beings, and actually showing interest more than just in their lady parts, will probably get them to like you more than simply just ogling and treating the intereaction with women as merely a means to and end - the end being getting a chance to take her home for the night. That is, the lack of sex and women in George Sodini's life is no one's fault but his own, and all the pick-up artists' whine about lack of attention from women isn't a result of women being "coldhearted bitches," but rather, because so-called pick-up artists have nothing to offer. Sadly for them, sometimes, the offer of a hard cock is just not good enough.
More importantly, and a bit frustrating, is that in the wake of Sodini's murderous spree, rather than asking questions about men entitlement and reevaluating a culture that expects to automatically sex-up anyone who shows interest, some men are blaming the shooting on feminism - that is, because women have been given the freedom to say no, that god forbid, they refuse the advances of men. This, once again, goes to show that the pick-up artist needs a reality check - a reality that's often muddled by misogynistic pornography, male entitlement, and the belief that all women are attracted to money, and that if a man has enough money, he would be able to impress (see "buy") her.
The problem with the pick-up artist, then, is that he refuses to see women as human beings - those who actually have preferences and choices, and is under the assumption that they all the same - that if he applied the same techniques to woman A as to woman B, he'd get the same reaction. He'll continue to go on and bemoan feminism giving women the freedom to choose, without recognizing that it is feminism in the first place, that makes it acceptable for women to be at bars, parttake in casual sex, and decide what they want to do. Sure, he'll honor the choice of her wanting to have sex - with him, but the moment she decides she does not want to have sex, or that she prefers someone else, she automatically becomes a coldhearted bitch.
Yet another problem with these pick-up artists is that the "other" women, and see women's only value only through their actractiveness and bodies. In their fantasy world, women and men aren't ever friends, that if an attractive woman talks to another man, she must be wanting to jump his bone, and his bone only. Worst, if the same woman is talking to someone else, she is also jumping that man's bone. Rather seeking relationships with and actually getting to know women, these pick-up artists' only concern in dealing with women is whether or not he gets laid. For these men, women aren't not worth paying attention to, or investing time in - and thus, not having women as friends or even acquaintances, is it a wonder why these men are seen as their potential targets as losers and are turned away because of it?
More than anything else, these men see women as, at worst, property, and at the very best, children. This is best exemplified by the belief that if one bought a woman a redheaded-slut or two, that she'd automatically become a slut - his slut, which is a good thing until she decides to have sex with someone else, then she's a slut, but a bad one. In such a culture, objects and rewards are exchanged for sexual access. But more importantly, pick-up artists also see woman as children - that given enough incentives, they can be, as the great liberal misogynist Bill Maher put it, "talked into and out of anything."
Already, many pick-up artists are making excuses for Sodini - that it was women's faults that he killed three people, and thankfully, himself. It was because women have been accepting drinks, gifts and other things without allowing these pick-up artists to fuck them that caused Sodini to shoot the LA Fitness Gym. Firstly, who the hell asked them to buy women drinks in the first place? Pick-up artists have a funny way of reasoning and excusing their behavior. If a woman refuses a drink, she's a stuck-up bitch. Yet, if she does accept a drink, she automatically owes them something.
Perhaps these answers, for these men, is actually coming over, introducing themselves and having a conversation with her, rather than pathetically offering so-called "icebreakers" that are unsolicted, and then expecting to get a blowjob for buying her a Blowjob.
But it just isn't their expectations that's pathetically troubling - it's also the way they are taught to talk and flirt with women. A lot can be say about male power and entitlement if a man thinks that just by touching or brushing against her (without a permission), a woman would get so wet that she'd beg to be fucked right then and there, nevermind the fact that women might prefer other women. Further evidence that pick-up artists see women as property is the fact that he believes it is within his rights to touch women without her consent - that poking women or stroking her hair or creepily kissing her hand are all acceptable, even if he's only met her for the first time.
Then, there's also the way in which the pick-up artist talks to women. They're supposed to be talked to like children - and according to Amanda Marcotte's blog, some pick-up artists actually use techniques of insulting women all the while commplimenting them. Their beliefs is that, especially for more vulnerable women, this will work. That is - if you like a woman, be mean to her. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same kind of tehcnique that boys and girls used back in grade school? If it didn't work in kindergarten, what the hell makes these guys think it'll work now?
It doesn't work - at least not most of the time, but if you're George Sodini, you'd think different. After all, if it's in a book - especially a book entitled, "How To Date Women Under 35," it must work. Firstly, women aren't cars - there isn't exactly a manual on "how to ..." anything women. Even the title in itself is problematic - if, just by the title alone, the author makes the mistake that all women are the same, and thus can all be treated the same way, I have to wonder what other kinds of bad advice are included in the book. Secondly, if they couldn't get women to date them while they were in the 20s, what on earth makes these men think that women will date them now? Oh, yeah - money, which again shows how much they think of women.
These pick-up artists will continue to blame feminism - and by extent, all women for their social woes. But, ladies and gentlement, I can sure you that all feminism's done is given women the choices to say no to these creeps, rather than having to be with them, as they have had to do in the past, where women had no voices or choices.
Their solution? Go to other countries, where women are more "gentle" and willing to take care of them. In short, they're not only looking for a servant, they're also looking for a mommy - and one they can fuck, at that. This is painfully obvious in the gripes and complaints of mail-order brides not being widely available and advices of going to other countries, where the plane ticket might cost a bundle, but in the end, being serviced by women who have no voices, choices or money, is much, much more satisfying.
If Sodini and other pick-up artists wanted actual partners - those who are equal to them, independent, and can make decisions on their own, all they had to do was walk up to a woman and introduce themselves, and talked to the woman like she's a human being - it would have actually gotten them somewhere. But they couldn't do that because they lacked the confidence, charmisma, and intelligence of being able to carry on a conversation with women. In short - they are losers who, instead of accepting the challenges of befriending women and truly dating them, chose to come up with other ways of deceiving and manipulating younger women, and women who have no economic choices to say no.
But, instead, they chose to treat women as objects, and thankfully, because of the hardwork of the feminists who came before them, these women had the right to reject them.
To pick-up artists: if you haven't gotten laid or a date in 20 years, and women everywhere are rejecting you, the problem isn't women, and the most certainly isn't feminsm - it's you! Or to put it more bluntly, if everywhere you walk, you can smell shit, perhaps it's time to check the bottom of your own shoes.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: George Sodini and the "pick-up" culture.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15417
and according to Amanda Marcotte's blog, some pick-up artists actually use techniques of insulting women all the while commplimenting them
Oh yes, THAT one. I am trying to remember the rationale behind that, something about turning the tables so that THEY start to chase YOU. It seems rather risky to me, and probably has a higher likelihood of getting a drink thrown in your face than getting laid.
It illustrates what's just so wrong with so much of the "pick-up" culture. I've seen an episode of that pick-up artist show with the douchebag in the big hat, and I've stumbled across so many websites that advertise themselves as "dating advice" sites - but they have nothing to do with dating at all. They're filled with super complex advice about how to appear attractive in bars, and they leave me saying, "What about just saying hi? Asking her questions about herself? Having a conversation? IS THAT REALLY SO HARD?"
The pick-up artist show had some kid on it who said he'd never been with a girl, and that he was really shy and just didn't know how to talk to them and wanted this guy in the big hat to teach him how. What guys like him need is a whack up the side of the head and to be told, "Talk to her like a person, dude" instead of being told that there's some sooper seekrit hidden way to get their attention. Perhaps there'd be fewer shy, unlucky-in-love (and potentially angry Nice Guy) guys if more people delivered these head-slaps to teenaged boys.
Slapping somebody in the head (literally and/or metaphorically) isn't a good teaching technique, pretty much as a rule.
The fact is, teenage boys learn, at a very early age, that it is very hard to persuade women to date you.
Some boys - in large part due to good looks, popularity and/or having relatively more money and/or a relatively nicer car than their peers - do not have problems with getting their female peers to date them (in fact having their pick of the young women in their social circle)
But for all the other boys, it is really hard.
And NO, it's not just a question of "just talk to her" - because if you talk to a young woman the same way you talk to your male peers, you are in serious danger of ending up in "the friend zone" - being considered undateable and inelegible for consideration as a potential boyfriend.
Add to that the ENORMOUS peer pressure these boys face from their male peers - because boys judge each other based on how much sex they are getting, with the boys getting the most sex having the highest status and the virgins being considered pathetic losers - and you can see why, to many boys, talking to young women is as easy as walking in a minefield.
And NO, it's not just a question of "just talk to her" - because if you talk to a young woman the same way you talk to your male peers, you are in serious danger of ending up in "the friend zone" - being considered undateable and inelegible for consideration as a potential boyfriend.
WRONG (in my opinion). The problem is that men talk to women they find attractive like they are from another planet, lavishing them with praise and attention FOR HAVING DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DESERVE IT.
Now tell me how over time that doesn't fuck with people's head? The only other group of people we do this with is children. And folks, every time YOU support the idea that attractive women are more deserving of YOUR attention (sex sells, men can't help it, etc, etc) YOU are creating the monster that YOU will spend the rest of YOUR life trying to tame.
Actually if you talked to us like you would another man---in essence giving us the basic respect that you give other men---women are incredibly receptive to this.
Let me ask you: Do you walk up to random men and compliment them while expecting nothing in return? No. Do you speak code with men? "Hey man, nice car/shoes/whatever." Is that shorthand for something else?
Practice makes perfect but not necessarily the pick-up way. How many people grew up eating dinner with the TV on? How many hours do young Americans spend playing video games and watching TV? Contrast this with my partner who Italian and grew up with several generations living in the home (eg. parents, grandparents, young cousins). Dinner time was story time. Everybody HAD to talk. We didn't do that at my house, lol. The TV was on.
At first my husband couldn't understand why the Northern Europeans and Americans often require absurd amounts of alcohol to have all but the basic conversation with a female in social settings. He gets it now.
Should read "Let me ask you: Do you walk up to random men and compliment them while expecting SOMETHING in return?"
"And folks, every time YOU support the idea that attractive women are more deserving of YOUR attention (sex sells, men can't help it, etc, etc) YOU are creating the monster that YOU will spend the rest of YOUR life trying to tame."
So, STC, what role do women who expect to have to world laid at their feet simply for being "pretty" or "sexy" or "built" play in this cycle? How do all the women who capitalize on their looks to get by or make a living contribute to this "monster"?
So, STC, what role do women who expect to have to world laid at their feet simply for being "pretty" or "sexy" or "built" play in this cycle?
But how do these women come to even know that they are pretty in the first place? Who tells them that they are gorgeous? (Parents don't count, lol). What experiences in life shape their entitled expectations in the first place?
And if someone expects the world laid at their feet, the easiest fix for this is to not lay the world at their feet. The PUAs get some things right, lol!
But to answer the question, the role they play is the role to be expected from being frequently showered with unearned privileges from others who implicitly expecting something in return. At this point, I hope you can see I'm not even making a statement about one gender over another.
How do all the women who capitalize on their looks to get by or make a living contribute to this "monster"?
In my mind it creates a vicious circle. But the issue at its core pits the economic interests of a relatively few women versus men's cultural expectations.
But it should be recognized that one of these groups of people responds pretty predictably to economics and comprises a small percentage of any given population (people beautiful enough to be models or actresses, etc).
"But how do these women come to even know that they are pretty in the first place? Who tells them that they are gorgeous? (Parents don't count, lol). What experiences in life shape their entitled expectations in the first place?"
I understand why you wrote "lol" regarding parents but you really can't discount their influence. In fact, we have to realize that it's their influence, positive or negative, that impacts us the most throughout the rest of our lives. I'm not implying it's the only influence, but it is the most important.
This is going to get me in a shit load of trouble with you other Feministers but I think, unfortunately, mothers have a much, much bigger role is setting these poor gender foundations (male & female) than any other person or situation in our lives. Like it or not, in most cases mothers are our primary care-givers from birth to preschool or kindergarten and therefore have the most opportunity to mold and shape us emotionally & intellectually at a time when we are THE MOST susceptible to indoctrination of any kind...good or bad. I hate to seem overly simplistic but the fact is that the human brain learns more and at a higher rate of speed between birth and four years of age than it every will again during the human life span. I don't mean to digress. My point is that since we all agree that male and female gender roles are learned we have to come to a consensus about when & how they are learned before we'll ever be able to think about solving inequality issues.
"But it should be recognized that one of these groups of people responds pretty predictably to economics and comprises a small percentage of any given population (people beautiful enough to be models or actresses, etc)."
I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here. Could you please expound?
On parental influence: this weekend I watched a movie called '500 days of Summer'. There was an interesting line that I think is relevant here.
The guys in the office are talking about the new gal. One guy claim that she must be stuck-up bitch. Another guy asks,
"Why do pretty women think that they can treat people like crap?" or "and why do they think they are better than everybody else" (I'm paraphrasing here).
The response was, "Centuries of reinforcement". Ha, ha. I think they are on to something.
You've made some good points about mothers, though. I think up until pre-adolescence what you are saying is quite valid; and up through age 3 there is good research to support how important maternal influences on many objective measures.
But my mind was changed when I read the book, "The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do". The author makes a pretty compelling point about peer influences being one of the primary factors that affect kids in many diverse areas of traits and behaviors. Other studies seem to point to the idea that regarding sexuality, while parental influences may affect kid's knowledge and prejudices, they appear to be the weakest influence when it comes to kid's actual behavior.
There are exceptions of course, but these would be considered extremes in parenting and bordering on neglect and abuse.
I don't think I'm overstepping to assert that by the time the girl reaches sexual maturity, her peers, which to some degree include stranger males, are far more important to developing her sense of self worth than mom and pop. This is true of boys as well (with peers including stranger girls). Parents strengths seem to be along the line of educating their kids to make good decisions by discussing consequences to their actions for example (or in giving their kids a lifelong guilt complex ,lol.)
I wonder if in some cases the media acts as somewhat of a surrogate peer. Incidentally, the book I mentioned was was written in 1998 before the explosion of the net...
My last comment is pure anecdote based on "seduction" discrimination based on my country of travel. Having done nothing but hop onto a plane, I am treated vastly differently by stranger men abroad.
I can totally see how this messes with your head, especially a young mind. I'm in my 30's so I just take it with a grain of salt. I've done absolutely nothing to deserve such attention and yet strangers are all of the sudden willing to give me their time, money and favors. Logically I know these advances are an attempt for the men to get sex, but nonetheless it feels like a head game: many of these men are indeed charming and insistent, for example, that they are not trying to get into your pants.
Now this treatment hasn't changed the way I feel about myself one bit. I reckon it's because I'm a grown woman with life experience and accomplishments to back me up. But if I started getting that type of attention when I was say, 12 or 13, I can imagine that it could have contributed to an exaggerated sense of self worth to then be constantly reinforced by other men and the media.
I'll answer your second question in another post as this one is quite long :)
"But how do these women come to even know that they are pretty in the first place? Who tells them that they are gorgeous? (Parents don't count, lol). What experiences in life shape their entitled expectations in the first place?"
I understand why you wrote "lol" regarding parents but you really can't discount their influence. In fact, we have to realize that it's their influence, positive or negative, that impacts us the most throughout the rest of our lives. I'm not implying it's the only influence, but it is the most important.
This is going to get me in a shit load of trouble with you other Feministers but I think, unfortunately, mothers have a much, much bigger role is setting these poor gender foundations (male & female) than any other person or situation in our lives. Like it or not, in most cases mothers are our primary care-givers from birth to preschool or kindergarten and therefore have the most opportunity to mold and shape us emotionally & intellectually at a time when we are THE MOST susceptible to indoctrination of any kind...good or bad. I hate to seem overly simplistic but the fact is that the human brain learns more and at a higher rate of speed between birth and four years of age than it every will again during the human life span. I don't mean to digress. My point is that since we all agree that male and female gender roles are learned we have to come to a consensus about when & how they are learned before we'll ever be able to think about solving inequality issues.
"But it should be recognized that one of these groups of people responds pretty predictably to economics and comprises a small percentage of any given population (people beautiful enough to be models or actresses, etc)."
I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here. Could you please expound?
"But how do these women come to even know that they are pretty in the first place? Who tells them that they are gorgeous? (Parents don't count, lol). What experiences in life shape their entitled expectations in the first place?"
I understand why you wrote "lol" regarding parents but you really can't discount their influence. In fact, we have to realize that it's their influence, positive or negative, that impacts us the most throughout the rest of our lives. I'm not implying it's the only influence, but it is the most important.
This is going to get me in a shit load of trouble with you other Feministers but I think, unfortunately, mothers have a much, much bigger role is setting these poor gender foundations (male & female) than any other person or situation in our lives. Like it or not, in most cases mothers are our primary care-givers from birth to preschool or kindergarten and therefore have the most opportunity to mold and shape us emotionally & intellectually at a time when we are THE MOST susceptible to indoctrination of any kind...good or bad. I hate to seem overly simplistic but the fact is that the human brain learns more and at a higher rate of speed between birth and four years of age than it every will again during the human life span. I don't mean to digress. My point is that since we all agree that male and female gender roles are learned we have to come to a consensus about when & how they are learned before we'll ever be able to think about solving inequality issues.
"But it should be recognized that one of these groups of people responds pretty predictably to economics and comprises a small percentage of any given population (people beautiful enough to be models or actresses, etc)."
I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here. Could you please expound?
Sorry for the double post.
Yeah, that sounds about right...
In my experience, "the friend zone" is a steaming pile of bullshit. I hear about this dreaded zone in movies and from Nice Guys all the time and as far as I'm concerned it does not exist.
All of my romantic relationships have been built on friendships. My fiance was my friend before things turned romantic. All of my friends in long term relationships were friends with their significant others prior to the relationship. Every relationship my mother has ever discussed with me were originally friendships...She tells me often that she believes friendship is a key part of any happy romantic relationship and that she would never be interested in someone she wasn't friends with first.
Your milage may vary, but I just haven't seen proof of this terrible zone. Honestly, I suspect it's a miscommunication due to the language women use when rejecting men. Before I got engaged, rejecting people was a nightmare for me (now I can just tell them I'm engaged). I always wanted to be as nice as prossible and not hurt anyone or make them feel shitty. It's not you, it's me. I don't want a relationship right now. We're better as friends.
I can't help but wonder if that's in part where all this friend zone stuff comes from. Women are trained by society to 'let a guy down easy' and not bruise his ego. A very common way of rejection is 'I see you as a friend', 'I like you as a friend'.
Unfortunately, this suggests to the rejected that the light their object of affection sees them in is the problem. If only they had avoided that terrible friend quicksand that sunk their chances at a romantic connection! In reality, 'I see you as a friend' is code for 'I'm not attracted to you romantically/sexually' and that could be for any number of reasons. You're blond. You're a redhead. You don't bathe enough. You're too short. You're pompous. You're creepy. You seem high-maintenance. You have a reputation that you're only looking for casual sex. You practically shower in Axe body spray. You appear to be unhealthily obsessed with Sailor Moon and work Sailor Moon references into every day conversations every chance you get.
It could be anything. It doesn't mean that person's perceptions are what the majority of the people you know think of you, it just means that person is not your match and you need to keep your eyes peeled for someone who is.
I have never rejected a guy because we became friends and got caught in a mystical web of brother/sister love. I have rejected guys because of other reasons and told them it was because I saw them as a friend.
Also, girls and women have trouble talking to people they're interested in too. We also get rejected. I've seen female friends of mine do the whole "He thinks of me as a friend! How can I make him seeeee me?" bit as well. You don't and you can't. If he sees you as a friend, it's because he isn't interested romantically.
Agreed.
To be fair, there's not really any template for walking up to a person you AREN'T sexually attracted to and striking up a random conversation. So, "talk to her like a person" is a wee bit disingenuous. because... what kind of person? I know I don't talk to everyone in the same way.
Some people, nice, sweet people, just don't know how to flirt. Gregory's right on that account: you talk to a woman like she's a buddy, and she becomes your buddy. same goes for men - ever have a perfectly nice guy like you and never say a thing, only to have him become your friend because your actions put him in that position? i have, quite deliberately. the friend zone is a real place, for men AND women.
Saying hi just doesn't cut it. You need followup, you need to be able to read when someone's interested or not, and you must be able to demonstrate romantic/sexual interest (flirting). if you can't flirt, you're out of the game until someone else makes the first move. Example: I was at a party, and was one of the very few (i think there was one other) under 25 women there. My now-boyfriend heard me talking about how hard it would be for a vegetarian to find food at this party, and took a calculated risk. He called out, "i hate you on principle alone!" on the chance i was not in fact a vegetarian myself, knowing that this remark would make anyone curious and draw me into a conversation with him. it had the added bonus of making him look WAY less creepy than the older guys who were hanging around me and trying a more traditional approach. after settling the whole "hating" issue, we had a nice chat - but emphatically not like buddies. that's a GOOD pickup, from someone who is pretty gregarious and friendly, but it still took planning and flair. Some guys need more of a road map for that than others. the problem is when it gets to be about "how many hos can i bang" and not "i have a hard time approaching women i don't know."
phew. long post. sorry.
the problem is when it gets to be about "how many hos can i bang" and not "i have a hard time approaching women i don't know."
No, that's definitely true, I don't disagree with the general gist of your comment. The problem is when the latter question is answered by the sort of "pick-up culture" that Marc analyzed. Lynne C.'s comment down below illustrates just what sort of behavior is being taught that's problematic. If a man has a hard time approaching women he doesn't know, the very first thing he should be taught is that they're people, to treat them like an individual rather than Generic Woman. It definitely takes social skills to figure out how to signal to someone during your initial meeting that you're interested without coming off as skeezy. But it seems like some people raise that as an immoveable objection, rather than something to be taught to everyone instead of this pick-up culture nonsense.
""If a man has a hard time approaching women he doesn't know, the very first thing he should be taught is that they're people, to treat them like an individual rather than Generic Woman. "
Which sounds all fancy and stuff, but does nothing in reality. There's therapists and dating coaches out there charging 5000$ to help men start approaching women, and we think a simple "dude, she's just human" does the same
This is a complete lack of understanding for the male psyche (in this society). Fear of approaching has nothing to do with objectifying or not seeing women as people.
Yes, creepiness does. If he appears creepy, it's because he's either anxious or sees her as an object.
But not being able to approach? Sorry, no. Its not as simplistic as reducing everything to either objectifying or misoginy.
"...I am trying to remember the rationale behind that, something about turning the tables so that THEY start to chase YOU. It seems rather risky to me, and probably has a higher likelihood of getting a drink thrown in your face than getting laid..."
I heard about that too. The impression I got was that it's an attempt to lower her self-confidence (and belief that she could get someone else she'd like more) enough in order to get her to settle for him.
"...I've seen an episode of that pick-up artist show with the douchebag in the big hat..."
I haven't seen that one, but I just remembered an article about another pick-up artist show of sorts in which the audience, to the pick-up artist's surprise, turned out to be mostly women:
"The resistible rise of Britain's No 1 chat-up artist
Richard La Ruina claims that he can teach any man to be a babe magnet," by Stefanie Marsh, The Times, July 10, 2008
"...Miller's is packed, as I said [to give a lecture on his first book]. But where is the mob of nerds? La Ruina's target readership and workshop groups are drawn from that section of society inhabited by spoddy, wordless, sometimes borderline-misogynist blokes in black T-shirts. Blokes stuck in their head or in their computers. Blokes who associate the word 'woman' with either female avatars or their mothers. Blokes who dream of hot sex with Page 3 pin-ups but fall asleep at night with damp copies of Nuts in their arms.
"Nuts readers are thin on the ground this evening, though the evidence suggests that prolonged involuntary celibacy has driven some members of the audience half mad. There are people here so shell-shocked by lack of intercourse that they have forgotten the fundamentals: 'Will asking for a phone number affect the whole gameplay?' they want to know.
"Others are angry and frustrated. 'Everything says don't be the aggressor. But that's what I am in every other aspect of my life. Why not dating?'
"Clue: when at one point the word 'spinster' trips from La Ruina's lips, somebody shouts 'Here, here!' and everybody cheers. Everybody except La Ruina. Miller's is packed with women.
"What are they doing here, these women? Most are single and approaching their forties. A handful have brought along a man 'as a joke' but it's not a joke, really, to attend a lecture by a pick-up artist if you would rather not be single and your reproductive organs are questionably fertile.
"'There will be heckling,' a blonde says with a twinkle. She knows all about PUAs, having watched the film Magnolia in which Tom Cruise plays Frank T. J. Mackey, 'master of the muffin and author of Seduce and Destroy'. Mackey's character is thought to be based on a Canadian PUA who goes by the name of Mystery, one of the Seduction Community's pioneers and the author of How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed...
"...He talks about how to approach women, about pick-up lines. In a nightclub: 'Is this area of the floor taken?' or in a bar: 'Are you confident enough to accept a sincere compliment? Good. You go first.'
"These suggestions go down badly, and not just because they are hopeless. The audience would rather know about how they can pick up a man.
'Being alpha works in my job, in my family, in my relationships with my friends,' says a curly-haired artist in her forties. 'How can I get it to work in my relationships with men?' La Ruina, who is still in his twenties and has spent most of his adult life teaching adolescents about the Power of 'Hey' as an Opener, is floored. 'My advice,' he says too timidly, 'is to be more feminine.'..."
""and they leave me saying, "What about just saying hi? Asking her questions about herself? Having a conversation? IS THAT REALLY SO HARD?"""
Great question Alixxana, why don't you answer it by doing just that tonight. Go into a club of your choice and approach the hottest guy in the club :) See how effortless it is ;)
===Teasing aside===
Yes it IS THAT HARD. The reason stuff like the community is born (and before the community, sleazy macho guys)... is because men are in fact extremely fragile and vulnerable of ego.
I know that's not like the popular thing to say, since men are supposed to be heartless creatures.
But the thing is that if you approach a woman, and just be genuine, and be yourself, and say hi... if she rejects you... it hurts for weeks.
So a lot of guys build this exterior persona, this "layer" between them and the woman they're meeting to protect themselves from hurt.
If he both
- Objectifies her
- And acts through a persona/mask/technique
When this object rejects this technique, the ego is protected.
Its mostly a defense mechanism. That's why their systems are always so overly-complex. Its a rationalization to always be focusing on the technique so they can repress their emotions.
Some perfectly decent guys are not sexually/romantically attractive to women. That's not an excuse for misogyny (including pick-up culture), it's CERTAINLY no excuse for violence, but it's a legitimate frustration. No woman is obligated to fulfill a guy's desires, but he's not wrong to feel bad that they don't get fulfilled.
i feel like this needs to be a flyer and should be put up all over the place!
Thank you for this post.
What about just saying hi? Asking her questions about herself? Having a conversation? IS THAT REALLY SO HARD?
Actually, yeah, it is. Or rather, it's difficult without coming across as an awkward creepy guy who just wants sex.
I'm not a fan of pick-up artists or anything, but I'm just saying, I understand where the demand comes from. A lot of these guys *do* want a relationship (and yes, sex), but want to approach it "smoothly".
There are all sorts of unwritten social "rules" that govern male/female heterosexual social interactions.
One of those unwritten rules is that males have to make the first move.
For socially inept males, who aren't able to figure the rules out by osmosis and/or have not had adequate guidance from male role models on those rules, approaching a woman in a socially acceptable way is a very difficult thing to do.
If that was not the case, sexist knuckleheads like Mystery and his cohorts would not sell as many books, get as many website hits, have as many students at their seminars and or get as much media coverage as they do.
"...One of those unwritten rules is that males have to make the first move.
"For socially inept males, who aren't able to figure the rules out by osmosis and/or have not had adequate guidance from male role models on those rules, approaching a woman in a socially acceptable way is a very difficult thing to do..."
...and for socially inept women in the same setting, nonverbally inviting an approach from a man in a socially acceptable way is an even more difficult thing to do. Some straight women who don't make the first move wait forever and never get approached by men.
The socially inept women part hit the nail right on the head. I know from experience, as do many of my beautiful, brilliant, strong but shy female friends.
So why are they still waiting around instead of working on that shyness? We drive shy men through torments of anxiety expecting them to perform, but for shy women its a perfect excuse.
===
...and for socially inept women in the same setting, nonverbally inviting an approach from a man in a socially acceptable way is an even more difficult thing to do. Some straight women who don't make the first move wait forever and never get approached by men.
===
So how about they start approaching instead of waiting?
God, I hate it when Marc posts. I've never seen someone so intent on blaming any group of people for anything. He doesn't even focus on women. For him, feminism is all about how terrible men are.
Hey Marc, maybe Sodini's rampage wasn't due to any bullshit "entitlement" or "male privilege", or any of your other favorite bullshit phrases. Maybe he was just a guy with mental issues, pissed off because he couldn't get a date. No different from any social outcast who walks into his or her school with a gun. Are you going to tell me these kids are "privileged" because they think they have the "right" to be socially accepted?
Because I know I'll get attacked without a disclaimer, I don't sympathize with Sodini. I just don't think you can draw a connection between "privilege" or "entitlement" and his shooting.
I think that when a person mentions, as a rationale for his shooting, that women are "sluts," "hoes," etc. then you can make a legitimate claim that privilege is a part of it. That's not the only privilege that went into his worldview, either. He made some truly disgusting racial comments - the one that's going around the blogs is about Barack Obama and don't look it up if you want to keep your lunch down.
And "Why are you feminists so concerned with saying how terrible men are!" is Feminism 101 shit. Seriously.
Hey, the truth is the truth. I'm not going to back down because some FAQ site says it's a common argument. Besides, I didn't say "you feminists", I specifically called out Marc. I just hate his posts, his tone, the obsession with blaming everything on men and our supposed privilege.
Again, I don't think that Sodini's journal- disgusting as it may be- is necessarily indicative of privilege. It's just indicative of anger. To bring up my earlier comparison, school shooters have kept writings in which they reveal their anger toward the student body or the teachers. Is that indicative of privilege? The Virginia Tech shooter talked about his hatred of Americans or whites or something. Is that indicative of privilege? Oh wait, it can't, because he was a minority.
Sodini was just angry, and angry people insult those who they are angry at. It's very simple.
But where was his anger born? He was angry because he couldn't get laid- what made him believe he should?
I don't recall where I saw it, but I read something that mentioned his online journal saying, essentially, "I'm tan, I'm fit, why can't I get a woman?" This is a problem a lot of guys have- they themselves focus on the physical, and they see that women with physical attributes can get a guy if they want one, so they assume once they have physical attributes worth bragging about, the same will happen for them. But, fairly or no, that's not how it works.
Does this speak to a sense of entitlement? Not necessarily. But it does indicate more than random anger focused on a group of people not like him. It shows a skewed sense of reality that many share but which reached critical mass in his head. That's much more problematic than a dude who's simply pissed off.
""they themselves focus on the physical, and they see that women with physical attributes can get a guy if they want one, so they assume once they have physical attributes worth bragging about, the same will happen for them. But, fairly or no, that's not how it works.""
True, and that makes him a naive idiot that has bought into what the patriarchy told him.
The patriarchy tells men "get tan, get buff, create a lot of money for capitalism and women will love you".
Now, Sodini is an idiot because he never figured that he'd been duped by the patriachy...
Yet, at the same time, don't expect us to not mention that most women didn't have the courage to be honest with him. No woman ever had the courage to point blank tell him that he reeks of misogyny, and try to educate him about it. They all delayed him.
You can't expect misogyny to be entirely eliminated by just men. I mean we're working on it. A lot of men are educating themselves and "getting it" every day... But it would be dishonest of me to say that its ideal that liberated women sit on the side and don't confront misogynists or try to re-educate them.
I totally agree with you - in all of Marc's posts, it's always an orgy of man hating and men are evil and all men should be constantly down on our knees begging the collective forgiveness to women.
He really gives male feminists a bad name.
I had to 'like' this comment. For once, GREGORYABUTLER10031 made me laugh instead of wanting to punch something.
Um, Sodini believed he was entitled to having sex with women. From his blog post, he wrote “It seems many teenage girls have sex frequently. One 16 year old does it usually three times a day with her boyfriend. So, err, after a month of that, this little [expletive] has had more sex than ME in my LIFE, and I am 48. One more reason.”
Male privilege. A man feeling he is entitled to sex with women, and if he can't get it he has a right to take it (rape) or her life (murder).
Not hard to make the connection between Sodini and the patriarchal culture which encourages violent masculinity.
Obligatory irritated note: Yes, for some people, having a conversation or even saying hi REALLY IS THAT HARD. Ableist much? (Mind you, I'm pretty sure Sodini is just an asshole, and I don't agree with backseat diagnosing - but still.)
That said, the pick-up scene is steeped in misogynstic bullshit. It's not that the rest of society isn't; it's that it makes it so fucking blatant. It's a shame, too. There really is value, I think, in analyzing conversations, body language, how one comes across, etc. in a mechanical way. Some people never learned this. But it can be done without the absolute hatred of women that drives the scene.
Genuine question here - if someone has social anxiety problems or Aspergers or similar things (I'm guessing that's what you're driving at here), are they going to be trying any of the complicated icebreakers that pick-up artists advise people to use? Or would employing techniques such as insulting-someone-while-complimenting-them-to-appear-desireable be just as difficult?
Because it seems to me (but I could be wrong) that if it's difficult for someone to say "hi" for one of those reasons, they're not going to be one of the douchebags using pickup stunts. And if it ISN'T difficult for a man to say "hi" then THAT'S what he needs to be taught to do instead of using any of the stand-on-your-head-and-spin-around-then-insert-tab-a-in-tab-b-and-do-algebra complicated bullshit that pick-up artists celebrate. Because saying "hi" is infinitely easier than that junk. These were the assumptions I was working on when posting my above comment.
Stuff like that is complicated even if you have normal social capability. Some of them, like the insult-to-compliment one, only work on a small percentage of people even if you do it right (in that case, generally women with very poor self-esteem).
"Hello" works very well if you can follow it up. Not everyone can. In some cases it's from a lack of socializing experience. In others- this would be the asshole population- it's from a distinct lack of observational skills that would allow one to continue the conversation from that point. That's why these crazy tricks exist. The idea is to make yourself unique, at least for that moment in time, and simply being able to converse better than any other guy in the place is not something everyone can do. So they try some wild shit and hope it works.
I'd guess it also comes from confidence as a result of having a magic ritual/gameplan they've been told works. The lucky rabbit's foot strategy for meeting women.
Exactly what I was getting at. As for your question, I don't know what they think, being female and never having been inclined to seek out these jackasses' "services." But I can imagine a lot of the appeal stems from working from a script, so to speak. One of the commenters on Amanda's blog (I read the whole thread until it derailed into gun control) mentioned the premise being like a "cheat code" for women, and I think that's a large part of it.
This is probably a bad comparison, but take cults. Sure, it'd be a lot easier for some people to just find a lifestyle that won't put them through expensive ritual crap, but the cults are designed to get there first and prey on their insecurities.
Of course, the script they're given is misogynistic to the utmost extreme, and doesn't even work half the time. Aside from the "all-women-are-the-same" nonsense, from what I've read about their techniques, a lot of it is drawn from NLP/The Secret pseudoscience crap. So not only is it misogynist, but it's a waste of money as well.
"One of the commenters on Amanda's blog (I read the whole thread until it derailed into gun control) mentioned the premise being like a "cheat code" for women, and I think that's a large part of it."
This. The idea that there's a way to make women react to you reliably, controllably (and most importantly favorably) is an extremely powerful lure for those who feel helpless in social situations...
I think the appeal might also be that when you do get rejected, you can blame the technique - or the woman you tried it on - rather than yourself.
""Genuine question here - if someone has social anxiety problems or Aspergers or similar things (I'm guessing that's what you're driving at here), are they going to be trying any of the complicated icebreakers that pick-up artists advise people to use? Or would employing techniques such as insulting-someone-while-complimenting-them-to-appear-desireable be just as difficult?""
Great question!! I've been observing that with the pick-up-artists...
It's actually the number-one-problem of the community. The thing is, most of those techniques are invented for frat-boy-types to throw into their whole demeanor.
When supershy/asperger guys discover the community, it screws them up even further. Since they're not socially calibrated, they just end up going around weirding/freaking people out... since they don't know the fine social subtleties.
They don't know what fits where. In fact, I think the community is the worst thing a shy/asperger's guy can discover.
For average guys its not so bad, as its just a few-month thing they try out. Its the asperger/30yearoldvirgin guys who really get stuck in it.
I agree with this. I was listening to a podcast on pick-up and it started out really positive. Basically about given men advice on being better communicators and to some degree empathizing with women and allowing me as a woman to empathize with men. Yes it relied heavily on gender stereotypes, but hey a lot of people are socialized to operate on these stereotypes.
However like all positive things, it must come to an end when profits become the bigger picture. The podcast was picked up by a major radio network and it went downhill from there. I stopped downloading the podcast because it degenerated into the lowest common denominator about regular guys bragging about "baggin" dozens of hot chicks and not so subtle references to practices like "Pump and Dump", "Fuck and Chuck", etc.
It's telling how so many guys who claim to be harmless, have no problems with this type of language. We hear you, assholes.
Anyway, having said that. I still think some of these coaches have some helpful advice. But good luck sifting through the misogyny.
I don't understand the connection between Sodini and the pickup artists. From the little I have read about Sodini, he was all but a pickup artist; he actually failed to pick up women, over a very long period of time.
That being so, Marc is being disingeneous to use the Sodini outrage to attack pickup artists.
What is wrong with pickup artists anyway? Maybe we are talking about different groups - I am talking about guys who have a way with women, who know how to talk to them, and usually end up getting what they want.
So? Women are not innocent maidens. They've heard the cheesy pickup lines, they see the artists from a mile away, and they know he's complimented others before on their hair, intelligence, eyes, intelligence, etc. And if the women succumb to the artist's charm or technique, who are you to dismiss them, Marc?
They have found a way that works pretty well, compared with non-artists, and they have a willing audience. Both sides are happy with the deal. Accept that a free market will find an equilibrium between offer and demand.
I think that's the point. Pickup artists make finding women look easy; Sodini assumed getting a woman would be as easy as looking good and offering teh cock. When he failed over and over, he never questioned his approach, he just blamed women for being coldhearted bitches.
Sodini learned that getting women would be easy from the patriarchy (society), not from pickup-artists, lol.
Pickup-artists at least deliver some of their promise. They do it through manipulation and misogyny, but they do manage to attract some shallow, gullible women.
The patriarchy however teaches men: ""If you get a job, get a car, get a tan and workout, that makes you entitled to women""
And sodini was naive to buy patriarchy version of reality. Now, most men do... but most men grow out of it. Sodini never realized he'd been living a lie... and when he lived a lie for 30 years, instead of taking responsibility and saying "boy, was I naive!?! I lived a lie all my life" he chose to blame someone else for his reality not working.
Willing audience? The whole PUA approach is about manipulating women. I hardly call someone who is being manipulated "willing."
Plus, Sodini had PUA books displayed prominently in his home videos. So, not disingenuous in the slightest to draw the connection between PUAs mentality and Sodini's mentality.
Lol, your comment had about as much journallistic integirty as a bill o'reilly article :D - take it as you will.
He did not have PUA BOOK--SS on his table... but he actually had just one booK from a dating coach who's not in the pickup community, and he had just bought it. He planned the act long before buying the book.
The book was simply one of his last naive attempts of getting a life overnight. One other desperate attempt was he also noted that if he got this 40year old woman, the day before the event...... he would cancel everything.
The issue is that there is a quite vocal group in the pick-up community who empathize with the killer and consider his actions justified. If you'd bother reading checking out the links here over the past couple of days they've linked to Jezebel, Amptoons, Pandagon, etc. etc. who have given examples of the types of conversations going on in the blogshere over this stuff.
The first day this tragedy happened I googled "Sodini and feminist blog" actually wanting to see which feminist blogs had picked up on the story and the 1st thing to come up was a pick-up blog calling Sodini a hero and blaming feminism.
Not all pick-up artists are like this. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have this conversation.
What everyone above me said, PLUS, it perpetuates this idea that women are secrets to be discovered, locks to unlock, goals to be achieved. Notches on the belt. You know, things.
It's not the act of people hooking up at bars, it's the specific techniques that are celebrated and taught as the Mystical Way to Win Women TM.
Maybe we are talking about different groups - I am talking about guys who have a way with women, who know how to talk to them, and usually end up getting what they want.
We are talking about men who own books about How To Pick Up Women, who shell out $800 at a time to attend seminars for older men on how to date women in their twenties, who give women numerical ratings on their hotness factors. We are talking about a distinct subculture that has its own vocabulary terms (such as "negging"--giving a total stranger backhanded compliments, a strategy reserved for women with a hotness factor of "9+" on the basis that they will have developed an immunity to normal compliments), and attempts to reduce interactions with other humans to a set of formulas. We are talking about men who view women as a game, and attempt to obtain the cheatcodes to win them.
That is a Pick-Up Artist, regardless of how much they actually succeed. The people you're talking about I would probably term "ladies' men."
"(such as "negging"--giving a total stranger backhanded compliments, a strategy reserved for women with a hotness factor of "9+" on the basis that they will have developed an immunity to normal compliments)"
I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at this. It makes women sound like pokemon. "Oh no! She is immune to my cheesy line attack! FLEE! FLEE!"
"(such as "negging"--giving a total stranger backhanded compliments, a strategy reserved for women with a hotness factor of "9+" on the basis that they will have developed an immunity to normal compliments)"
I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at this. It makes women sound like pokemon. "Oh no! She is immune to my cheesy line attack! FLEE! FLEE!"
Out of my own sheer curiosity over this whole incident, I did some research into the PUA world. I discovered these forums: http://www.theattractionforums.com/
Love Systems is the new name for the major PUA Mystery Method corp. It started with a former magician who called himself "Mystery." He had a show on VH1. These guys use methods like "freeze outs" which is when they're in the midst of making out with a girl, they just stop and do something else, letting her "sweat" it for a while, and then return to making out. They also have something called "negging" which is giving her a backhanded compliment. All of this sounds extremely condescending to me.. It is infantilizing and insulting to a girl's intelligence. The sad part is, they really are preying on young girls with self-esteem issues. I find it disgusting.
Incidentally, I have saved this site into my favorites, so the next guy I argue with who says that females play too many head-games, I can just send him this link, and emphatically shout at the screen "It's not just females buddy!"
Oh, they also resort back to the whole numbers rating system. Yep, we are numbers: HB4s, HB6s, HB10s, etc. I think HB stands for "Hot Babe."
Someone please tell me that these guys only make up a small percentage of the population. Because what's really scary is that a lot of guys in these forums otherwise sounded like intelligent guys when they weren't being so disdainful towards women. Some of them are doctors, lawyers, or major execs. What gives?
"Someone please tell me that these guys only make up a small percentage of the population."
They do. But they also make up a very large percentage of certain crowds. Those crowds are the ones that go out and socialize the most with random people, since they usually need to meet a lot of people in order to find a few who will hook up with them. Thus we end up with the perception that there are a lot more guys like this than is actually the case. But if you go to other social groups that deal with people on a more familiar level, like school clubs or whatnot, having a guy show up who just tries to pick up whichever girls he can is pretty damn weird.
And, of course, there are the D&D nerds.
D&D?
Dungeons and Dragons?
Yeah. I was going to expand on that slightly, but the phone rang. >_>
Whoa, gentlemen, you can tear down your "defend teh menz!" wall now.
God, I hate it when Marc posts. I've never seen someone so intent on blaming any group of people for anything. He doesn't even focus on women. For him, feminism is all about how terrible men are.
I have a huge problem with this. Marc was clearly not talking about all men. He was talking about Sodini and drawing a parallel between him and men who are "pick-up artists," and how Sodini was socialized to expect things from women because of course, to paraphrase Marc, buying her a Redheaded-slut turns her into a slut who's just dying to ride his big hard cock, and when she doesn't, there is clearly something wrong with her. She needs to be punished, whether it's by slander ("bitch," "tease," "dyke," "slut"), or something worse.
This happens. Self-proclaimed pick-up artists think this way, they talk this way, they believe these things about women. And they believe them for a reason, which Marc was investigating in his post. That doesn't mean all men do, and that doesn't mean that the men who read this blog do. When you get all defensive about any criticism directed at the patriarchy, or any loosely-defined group of men (i.e. "pick-up artists"), you are derailing because obviously, if you object to the detailed behavior and beliefs, that means the post is not directed at you so your statement is pointless and derisive.
If it's not about you, don't make it about you.
Also: "He doesn't even focus on women"? WTF. Considering the whole point of his post was Sodini and pick-up artists, why would he "focus on women"? That's not who was trying to talk about, and that's not who we need to be talking about regarding this issue. When talking about sexual assault, don't you just hate it when people talk about how men commit the majority of sexual assaults? Do you cry out, "You're not even focusing on women!" or accuse the other person of blaming all men for sexual assault? Um, I sincerely hope not.
This is Feminism 101 stuff. Please check out Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog. It's a great, informative blog and they have lots of resources.
I'm repeating this because I think it's that important and I wish everyone remembered this, because it's really frustrating and exhausting to go through this in so many "progressive spaces": If it's not about you, don't make it about you.
I've noticed that male feminists who analyze masculinity and speak more towards a male audience than a female audience tend to get a lot of this same sort of anger directed at them by other men. Hugo Schwyzer gets a lot of it, too.
I'll admit I didn't like the post. I was going to leave it alone, but at this point I'd like to point something out: What femme said about this being an investigation of why pickup artists think like they do, I don't see at all. All the questions here are rhetorical. I see a long, angry, negative lecture that feels like it had Sodini included just because it allowed for a tie-in to recent events.
That's not to say Marc's wrong. He's pretty much correct throughout. But everything he's saying seems like stuff basically everyone who would read this site will already know and/or believe. I may be wrong about that, but right now it feels like something written for the general readership to agree with, not to facilitate debate or discussion, or offer new ideas to be considered by all.
You say, "I've noticed that male feminists who analyze masculinity and speak more towards a male audience than a female audience tend to get a lot of this same sort of anger directed at them by other men." I don't doubt this is true, and I don't doubt much of it is unfounded. Even in this case, I don't see a reason why anyone should be taking personal offense. But the negativity here is thick and, with no fresh ideas to offer, without purpose, and it should be understandable if someone- male or female- is bothered by it. No, firing back in anger doesn't help, but this could have been done in a way much more conducive to discussion rather than reaction.
I have to admit I haven't followed this story as closely as I would like, but I wanted to comment on the general indictment of the pick up artist. I watched that show on VH1 once, out of curiosity and horror.
There seems to be a lot of commenters saying that it is hard and awkward to talk to a stranger. Sure. But pick up artists thrive in the bar scene. They don't want to meet. They want to get laid. And that is facilitated for them by alcohol.
I tend to avoid the bars in my city well-known as "meat markets" because all the men there are just trying to pick someone up, especially close to last call. If someone buys me a drink, I owe them a conversation (which they want to lead to sex). If I decline the drink, I'm a frigid bitch. I don't know why a woman walking into a bar automatically means that she owes every man in there something.
I would really like to see more discussion and critique of the pick up culture (which is distinction from the "meeting someone new" culture). I usually disagree with Marc, but I liked this post.
Did this read like "Feminism: It's How You Get Laid" to anyone else?
Extraordinary timing here...
http://www.penny-arcade.com/
(If you see this Wednesday or later, go back to Monday's news post.)
Their front page is a conversation between the artist, talking about understanding it being hard to talk to girls and "feminine wiles" and etc., and the writer basically picking apart what he says at every turn, essentially echoing the comments on this thread.
If you know and read Penny Arcade, the particulars may not be much of a surprise, but I couldn't believe they randomly decided to jab back and forth about this on their site now. I'm curious to see if Gabe comes back later, or Wednesday, or whatever saying he got smoked by readers, or if there was a mixed reaction, or if it comes up at all after this.
""all they had to do was walk up to a woman and introduce themselves, and talked to the woman like she's a human being""
Simplifying things always works in rhetoric and politics :D - I nominate you for senator :)
Except... I used to work with extremely shy guys in the past... and let me assure you, they did not see women as objects, but they were still rejected in the harshest manners possible that you can imagine.
What you don't seem to know about social anxiety is that its outward manifestation is VERY similar to creepiness.
No matter how well-intentioned and angelic-intentioned a socially-anxious man is, he will get snubbed by (most) women who see his approach as creepy... as social anxiety tends to create similar emotions/body-language as does creepiness.
Imagine being treated like you're the lowest dirt on the planet simply because you said hello (even if you had the best of intentions) simply because of non-verbal misscomunication.
""all they had to do was walk up to a woman and introduce themselves, and talked to the woman like she's a human being""
Simplifying things always works in rhetoric and politics :D - I nominate you for senator :)
Except... I used to work with extremely shy guys in the past... and let me assure you, they did not see women as objects, but they were still rejected in the harshest manners possible that you can imagine.
What you don't seem to know about social anxiety is that its outward manifestation is VERY similar to creepiness.
No matter how well-intentioned and angelic-intentioned a socially-anxious man is, he will get snubbed by (most) women who see his approach as creepy... as social anxiety tends to create similar emotions/body-language as does creepiness.
Imagine being treated like you're the lowest dirt on the planet simply because you said hello (even if you had the best of intentions) simply because of non-verbal misscomunication.
Oooooops... some database bug, as I was posting the comment, it gave an error. I refreshed the page... error again, logged back in, and saw this, it posted the comment 3 times in a row.
Sorry bout that :)
""all they had to do was walk up to a woman and introduce themselves, and talked to the woman like she's a human being""
Simplifying things always works in rhetoric and politics :D - I nominate you for senator :)
Except... I used to work with extremely shy guys in the past... and let me assure you, they did not see women as objects, but they were still rejected in the harshest manners possible that you can imagine.
What you don't seem to know about social anxiety is that its outward manifestation is VERY similar to creepiness.
No matter how well-intentioned and angelic-intentioned a socially-anxious man is, he will get snubbed by (most) women who see his approach as creepy... as social anxiety tends to create similar emotions/body-language as does creepiness.
Imagine being treated like you're the lowest dirt on the planet simply because you said hello (even if you had the best of intentions) simply because of non-verbal misscomunication.