A new article in the NYT, "Seeing HBO’s ‘Girls’ Without Buying a Television," somehow fails to mention that all four girls on Girls are white. Could this be a cultural turning point?
By the way, when is Roissy going to get his own sit-com?
I don't know that Lena Dunham is directly channelling Roissy's blog, although I would think the odds are at least 50-50. Her characters certainly live in a Roissyesque universe, although perhaps that's because it's Roissy's world and we're all just living in it. (I like to hope that's not 100% true, but what do I know?)
Dunham has an interesting skill set. It's not hard to find young women who claim they will endure any humiliation onscreen to further career ambitions, but Dunham will do it while being overweight, funny, and smart. Plus she learned from her mother, an art photographer of dollhouse scenes, how to light sets and where to place the camera. (That's the point of calling her debut movie Tiny Furniture: her mother's career sounds silly, but helping your mother at a young age on her miniaturized sets is a cheap way to learn part of how to direct. Compare how grown-up looking Tiny Furniture was to, say, the Duplasse Brothers' Puffy Chair.)
Dunham's character in Tiny Furniture / Girls is self-centered, obnoxious, and sluttish, but the sex lives of young women are so inherently important (this is where the next generation comes from) that there's a trainwreck-like fascination to it.
One key to making a Roissy sit-com work is to film it in Washington D.C., not L.A. or N.Y.C. There is so much money in D.C. these days that it's a now glamor destination for young white people, while also being comically unsexy: "C'mon, just one more drink" "Oh, you're so sweet, but I have to pull together some talking points for the Congresswoman on the helium subsidy."
One key to making a Roissy sit-com work is to film it in Washington D.C., not L.A. or N.Y.C. There is so much money in D.C. these days that it's a now glamor destination for young white people, while also being comically unsexy: "C'mon, just one more drink" "Oh, you're so sweet, but I have to pull together some talking points for the Congresswoman on the helium subsidy."
The main issue with how Roissy could have his own show is that what makes him such an amazing blogger -- his infinite fecundity of lines in response to his acuity of observation, his sheer superiority and the obvious impossibility of mere mortals following in real time such advice as: "If she says X, just make up something that's witty, tailored to her, yet subtly discombobulating, like A, B, or C; but if she says Y, then make up something like D, E, of F; while if she says Z, then ..." -- would also make him insufferable as a major character in a continuing series.
The solution might be to make Roissy a legendary offscreen expert who has condescended to advise via text message three or four hopeless Big Bang Theory-like acolytes / losers in their quests. But in the presence of real live girls, they constantly fumble Roissy's lines to comic and endearing effect.
The solution might be to make Roissy a legendary offscreen expert who has condescended to advise via text message three or four hopeless Big Bang Theory-like acolytes / losers in their quests. But in the presence of real live girls, they constantly fumble Roissy's lines to comic and endearing effect.
Posts
129 comments:
I like it.
"Roissy's Betas":
An army of beta warriors with a mysterious guru, slay p*ssy using seduction skills and Game technique.
What the fuck are you on about? I feel I want to agree and disagree with you about Roissy both and once at the same time.
It's either you or me and at this point I'm thinking you. Unless Whiskey can come along and explain it all.
Till then, how about a post script you cryptic prick?
Not that interested in seeing a Roissy sitcom.
Since it would only cannibalize the market share of the Dunham sitcom I'm serenely confident of it not happening.
Currently Roissy is not that bad, but don't you think quality has declined from a few years ago?
At some point it seemed like it was just rehashing the same material.
Also the style seemed to change, like maybe it was a new writer or different writers blogging.
"Roissy's Angels"
you hit on the touchy nerve of the show Girls, and that is the (almost literal) elephant in the room: the rotund and unattractive Dunham.. Whenever I almost find myself getting into the show, the white flabby belly of the main actress comes crashing through the fourth wall and I find myself thinking, "there's no way any of these guys she's with would be interested in her in real life." Nor would she have such attractive girlfriends. Roissy would say that Dunham, in casting herself as the habitually nude main character, is confusing male sex appeal (humor, intelligence) with female sex appeal (looking good naked). She reminds me of another awkward looking yet smart and funny Jewish New Yorker who cast himself as a character who had much more sex appeal than was believable: Woody Allen. The difference is, an ugly man can do ok for himself if he's funny. An ugly woman, well, if Dunham reads Roissy she should know that's a one way street.
I previously noted how Roissy-esque Tiny Furniture was. Dunham's character was the beta female who pants after two alpha male jerks until one eventually deigns to screw her (once, in the most unromantic setting possible). Dunham blurts out "Pull my hair!" at the crucial moment, indicating the female desire to be dominated rarely shown on our screens which Roissy constantly harps upon.
By the way, when is Roissy going to get his own sit-com?
That's gonna depend upon whether or not Roissy ultimately proves to be Scots-Irish.
If it turns out that he's not Scots-Irish, then the answer would be, "Never."
How about a sitcom based on this guy. (I was rather impressed with TSG's pithy write-up: "His rap sheet runs 14 pages. Which apparently impresses the ladies.")
"By the way, when is Roissy going to get his own sit-com?"
He already had one: Two and a Half Men. At least the original first few seasons before feminist writers turned Charlie Sheen's character into a beta.
Nawh, Roissy is not a genius.
The key to his blog is that unlike most blogs, its goal is not to make the readers comfortable by telling them things the want to hear; but to reveal truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
Notice how that Justin Wayne vid brought all the butt hurt racists out of the wood work.
Roissy doesn't care. The Chateau is not a white male fantasy theme park, even if the racists try to kake it into one.
The solution might be to make Roissy a legendary offscreen expert who has condescended to advise via text message three or four hopeless Big Bang Theory-like acolytes / losers in their quests. But in the presence of real live girls, they constantly fumble Roissy's lines to comic and likable effect.
I seem to recall that Steve Martin did that one with Darryl Hannah - it was called Cyrano Something-or-Other...
I think you can do a Roissy influenced sitcom but not actually bring him into the mainstream by being the subject of a sitcom. That's an instant shark jump. I also don't think you can mainstream the guy without an overwhelming backlash.
I agree about the impossibility of following the advice in real time. He reminds me of the "Dog Whisperer". No matter how many times I see the show and hear his basic principles, I can never predict what he is going to do. It's like he's going on instinct and thinks he has presented a coherent reproducible system but hasn't. He fails to notice because, after all, the system works for him.
I've never quite gotten the Roissy fad. But, I'm an old guy. My days of being out at night chasing women and trying to get laid are long over.
I think you've got something here.
I read Roissy's blog about three or four times a year, because it's always the same thing. Strip away the pretensions of Deep Think that Roissy and his readers aspire to, and it is good for some laughs.
So, sitcom is probably what it deserves. It's "Seinfeld" but just a little dirtier.
For a guy who claims to not have cable and to, unlike Obama, make "thoughtful, interesting observations" you certainly seem quite obsessed with a lightweight tv show about 20-something skanks.
In a way the Roissy analysis is more embedded and intrinsic to this site than it is as pop culture irony or antipode and, likewise, as nothing better than what he (and Game) manipulates (for what is Game without players?) and you (pretend) to deride. Amalgamation seems to be the truth here: at some point one has to ask about cultural debasement's roots, and there's no better place to look than G-dless Darwinism, AKA HBD.
So far as what this means for your site, well, what it leaves us with is something no better than the pop culture trash you smirk at.
This place, and your public persona, are basically a compendium of self-satisfied talking points on subjects so anodyne they aren't worth analysis in the first place.
Obama as volcano god? Jeremy Lin's ascendency-as-mystery (Mike D'Antoni+hand check rule was the obvious answer all along)? Countless articles on Girls? 'America's Half-Blood Prince' (a book that completely misses the mark by believing Obama is telling the truth and revealing his life rather than hiding it; or that he wrote the thing at all)?
And unlike a talent like Hitchens, the prose stylings (lack of, really) aren't overcoming the dearth of interest in the body. No style. Little to no substance.
In other words, Anthropology For Dummies is what this site offers more and more of. No wonder people from The Colbert Report are suspected of coming here (by, well, just you). Circular, really: ytour message is your audience, your audience is your message (even if it is just self-satisfied perception). Aim any lower and you'll have People magazine articles.
HBD at its apex?
I think you're right, Sailer. G-d must be dead.
Steve, this post is so fucking beta.
Also, I agree, Roissy is awesome. I'm guessing his productivity is the consequence of moderate amphetamine use and having a somewhat bullshit government job where he has plenty of time during the day to fine tune his acute social observations. I rant that wittily when I pop Adderall while 'working' at my dull sinecure as well. *With almost as much wit, at least.
Frankly a show about a pick-up-artist coach would be pretty funny.
You would have ample opportunity for the lead character to regularly throw out one-liners, and an excuse to reel through a parade of amusing random freaks and losers seeking help.
similarly, this guy should have his own show:
http://deadspin.com/5911163/meet-the-boxing-coach-whose-specialty-is-training-a-bunch-of-fucking-nerds-wall-street-guys
Roissy i the voice of a generation...hmmmm
Don't forget Steve,
The sitcom runs its course, is not funny anymore more sad/pathetic, then the main character dies alone.
Dan in DC
I think Roissy’s shtick has gotten pretty stale. If you’ve read him for a long while (and I have) you can practically write the posts yourself just by seeing the title in your feed reader.
While he can be entertaining to read and was certainly enlightening to this reader at first, ultimately his hedonistic/nihilistic message rings pretty hollow. In addition, his unyeilding belief that beta males can break out of their chains by adopting his tactics is obviously wrong. For a guy who believes in all things deterministic when it comes to female beauty and desirability, he’s unable to grasp that males have similar natural limitations. As he has pointed out many times, a girl who’s a 6 and wears nice clothes, makeup, acts nice, etc will still be a 6 at the end of the day. This is no different for males. His blog is as if Alex Rodriguez set up a blog about hitting and couldn’t understand why his A-ball readership keeps missing that slider.
So far there have been two instances in which young men have hooked up with one of the characters for sex: Matt the summer-camp friend with Shoshana, and Eric the pharmacist with Hannah. Neither one used anything remotely close to what a Well-Known Sex Blogger would consider "Game." Matt said "we should hang out" and Eric said (in essence) "do you want to get together tonight?" Direct approaches, no negging or other Game aspects involved at all.
Dunham's show is great. I am a huge fan. I agree, it's obvious that some of today's best shows are using material in the blogosphere to help flesh out their visions. Let's hope Dunham IS using Roissy; he's a great read. I hope (think?) Steve's blog has some famous readers, too.
On another note, let's not forget to notice the influence of Apatow. Judd is a huge fan of the awkward to get laughs; don't forget Jason Segel's flaccid member constantly played for laughs in "Forgetting Sara Marshall". It makes sense that we would constantly see Lena Dunham's body (as well as her mom's (!) and Peter Scolari's (!!!)) in attempt to shock us/make us laugh. On that level, it works. It also serves as a stark reminder that Brian Williams' hot daughter will never, ever take off her clothes (at least in this series).
In an interview with NYMag yesterday, Marnie's (now) ex-boyfriend claims that he never read about, nor particularly cared that the show was about 4 white girls. This is such a "white people freaking about white people problems" issue that I have to laugh. As Steve has mentioned, anything to separate yourself from prole whites is fair game.
Excerpt:
"The questions that keeps coming up are the questions of privilege and race and how they’re depicted on the show. The general consensus is that they’re going to have be addressed next season. What are your thoughts?"
I haven’t been too involved. I’ve heard about it via other people, but I haven’t read any articles or anything. Lena is writing these stories, and I don’t think it’s anything more than that. She’s telling a story about a group of people, just like a movie might tell a story about a single father and his two kids. Whether they’re privileged or not, it’s just the story of them.
"So, why do you think the show has generated so much rage and discussion?"
I don’t know much about that.
I think we have just witnessed a historic event. The moment when new media has reached the next level.
All we need now is a vlog where someone generates realistic video of Steve's suggestion.
Perhaps the Taiwanese animators could be convinced to do it.
Roissy could be like Charlie in Charlie's Angels. Roissy's Angels? Well no, not angels. Never angels. What then?
"...although perhaps that's because it's Roissy's world and we're all just living in it."
A couple of years ago I chuckled at the following description while reading War and Peace:
"...in his behavior to women Anatole had a manner which particularly inspires in them curiosity, awe, and even love--a supercilious consciousness of his own superiority. It was as if he said to them: "I know you, I know you, but why should I bother about you? You'd be only too glad, of course." Perhaps he did not really think this when he met women- even probably he did not, for in general he thought very little--but his looks and manner gave that impression."
Roissy is different from this eternal type in that he does think a lot. 99.99% of the guys who can live that sort of lifestyle would not be able to write like he does if their lives depended on it.
"If she says X, just make up something that's witty, tailored to her, yet subtly discombobulating, like A, B, or C; but if she says Y, then make up something like D, E, of F; while if she says Z, then ..."
It would take a shocking level of narcissism and self-deception for an average man to convince himself that he was following a whole-hog Roissy program.
"his infinite fecundity of lines in response to his acuity of observation"
What does this even mean? How can writing "respond to" the writer's observations? Presumably they're based on the observations.
And is "infinite fecundity" a roundabout way of saying "verbosity"? One might also note that it's the writer's imagination vel sim. that's "fecund", not his prose.
Oh, and as for the notion of portraying "Roisy" on television, you thing you've failed to mention is that fact that his periodic denials notwithstanding, the man clearly has serious problems with women as a category, and really does seem to dislike them in a serious way. He's a very bitter and malevolent character, and while what he says certainly has some merit (even if it's a rather tiresome one-trick pony), I don't see anything redeeming about his in-your-face nastiness, which is apparently directed at more than half of the population of the planet.
I have no idea whether his view of the world gets him laid as often as he claims, maybe it does. But I don't have the least desire to see him in person or see whether he or any of those other PUA advocates get as much pussy as they claim. As far as I can tell from the personas they project in their writing, they're thoroughly disagreeable characters (and one might add that it's easy enough to pretend to be whatever one wants on the interwebz). Presenting uncongential "facts" is one thing. How you go about that is quite another.
The notion that they'd make good television as they stand may be an amusing shtick, but as a practical matter, few unredeemedly nasty characters can be the main lead. And, no, Roissy is no Richard III (though perhaps he'd be more appealing if you gave him a hump!).
I saw an interview with Ms. Dunham where she was asked about the sexy bad boy/boring nice guy aspect of her show. She said it's an eternal theme and cited a few examples. Jordan Catalano/Brian Crakow from My So Called Life was one of the examples I remember her naming. I don't think it's a given that she's ever heard of Roissy. Both real life and pop culture are full of that stuff.
You must really love this show.
The solution might be to make Roissy a legendary offscreen expert who has condescended to advise via text message three or four hopeless Big Bang Theory-like acolytes / losers in their quests. But in the presence of real live girls, they constantly fumble Roissy's lines to comic and likable effect.
Big Bang has already been there and done that. There was an episode where Howard was doing the PUA thing (wearing an eye-patch and "negging" Penny) to comedic and likable effect.
so inherently important (this is where the next generation comes from) that there's a trainwreck-like fascination to it.
Like they were trying to fulfill some biological destiny only dimly perceived.
It's as if people were meant to be fruitful and multiply, but can't figure out how to do it right. It is for sure a train wreck. Except among people like Mormons who seem to know this stuff.
I haven't seen "Girls" but I'd read a little bit about it. And what struck me was that no studio would ever greenlight a project which involved a group of young white men talking extremely graphically and crudely about their sex lives.
For some reason that which is cute or daring or funny in young women is just disgusting in young men.
Roissy is a misogynistic sicko and I'm surprised you link to him. Girls sounds pretty scummy too.
I find it curious that Roissy has yet to comment on the show. Maybe he's moonlighting as a script consultant.
I'm the anonymous who mentioned War and Peace. Madame Bovary is all about the sexy bad boy/boring nice guy contrast. That novel is about nothing else but that. Emma cuckolds her meek nice guy husband with two bad boys, while pining for even bigger bad boys whom she can't have. I'm guessing that Flaubert was not what we'd call player because he made Emma pay for her sins in the end.
I'm guessing that this is a universal human theme. If I ever end up learning ancient Egyptian and start reading their literature and find plots like these in it, I will not be surprised.
>fails to mention that all four girls on Girls are white. Could this be a cultural turning point?<
No. Someone slipped off message. You may be sure this will be a serious discussion in someone's personnel review.
The point of propaganda is that it be full-spectrum. A schtick in an op-ed is nothing. The line must be pushed (or reflected) on every page of the newspaper (sports, comics, ads), every TV channel, show, and commercial, every billboard, every textbook, for years. That is propaganda. Everything else is just an argument.
I saw your video interview on one of the other paleocon sites. Interesting. You are obviously quite intelligent, albeit still a rightwinger.
http://observer.com/2012/05/feel-the-pinch-sans-ceo-new-york-times-stock-slumps-and-labor-battle-grinds-on/
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/wh_leaks_for_propaganda_film/singleton/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/shoplifter-went-on-piggly-wiggly-rampage-789304
Oprah if she were poor.
That assumes Roissy doesn't already have his own sitcom which, considering the wealth of conspiracy theories that revolve around him, may be false.
Indeed: is isteve merely a sideline for the Chateau, or vice versa? For all Roissy's talents, this sitcoming career may not be such a priceless idea. Whit Stillman is a good conservative, writes well, lights well enough; but as an artist, he's no Classicist. Story and character don't congeal, often don't make any approachable sense. What plays on the page as advice may not work as art. Perhaps Dunham will be Austen to Roissy's Dr. Johnson.
All absolute systems must come to grief, and Roissy has almost a Spinozist confidence in systematizing. That usually doesn't bode well for fiction. Like Dante's Virgil, Roissy is someone who can well survey the infernal plains, but there is a something (which he hints at himself) beyond his purview (or perhaps just the Chateau's) which escapes.
A lot depends, I figure, on whether he *seriously* believes infidelity spices marriage, or else is one of his Valmontean affectations. Laclos seduced the woman he wed because he heard she wouldn't admit to her company the author of so immoral a book, and later complimented her on gaining weight by telling her, "there'll be more of you to love." Even Roissy, perhaps, would balk at so mystical a libertinage.
Incidentally, I've wondered: just who does Sandra Fluke date in Georgetown whereby the two of them together (for it takes two to tango) can't produce the cash for contraceptives?
Or what is her dating life? Does she just occupy one of those stepstools in the law library, hitch up her hemline, and wait for all comers? I don't get it.
Drinks or dinner would pay for a U-haul's worth of pills or condoms. If "the personal is political", why can't we ask how cheaply Sandra dates?
Perhaps part of the reason the "Girls" whiteness crisis has abated is that Dunham has announced she's adding non-white characters next season.
Agreed about Dunham's talent with composition and directing in Tiny Furniture. Her writing skills weren't as developed in the movie, but some of the shots in her mother's white, modern apartment reminded me a tiny bit of some of the shots of white interiors in 2001 (the space station, the Discovery, the bedroom in the "Beyond the Infinite" sequence). Not saying she's the next Kubrick, but Dunham is precocious.
As for your idea of a Roissy sitcom: Aren't there insufferable characters in sitcoms already? You mentioned The Big Bang Theory -- isn't the Sheldon character insufferable?
Your idea of an unseen Roissy reminds me of Charlie in Charlie's Angels.
http://youtu.be/AQ1Mn2f5c7g
" Could this be a cultural turning point?"
I hope so. It will give you more time for movie reviews; maybe they'll be carried in mainstream publications. Not likely, expect more vibrancy in the show next season.
In a way it’s surprised me that you’ve emerged such a fan of Roissy’s. I suppose that’s because you didn’t mention him much at all long after he’d rocketed to becoming a major blogging phenomenon in not just the strict game sphere, but also in the gender realism sphere just as much.
The early Roissy blog was one of the top philsophical works of the past decade.
"Dunham's character in Tiny Furniture / Girls is self-centered, obnoxious, and sluttish, but the sex lives of young women are so inherently important (this is where the next generation comes from) that there's a trainwreck-like fascination to it."
This is the kind of insight that makes Steve such a good blogger.
Roissy will NEVER have his own sitcom: the audience for sitcoms is at least 85% female, possibly as high as 95%. That is why one of the Big Bang actors is an openly gay guy (the tall one) and the guys are portrayed as losers because they are smart. It feeds the female contempt for IQ unmitigated by testosterone.
TV is essentially a female-gay ghetto now, save say the History Channel now catering to White guys with new scripted series. Roissy is just too male oriented, too male, to appeal in his essential world-view to women. The essence of TV is telling comforting lies to women about how the world works, designed to flatter their own desires.
As far as "Girls" goes, I too think the caving (non-White leads) is the desired effect.
Yes, the next generation will come from mostly single women over-pursuing bad boy Alphas; with a generation of guys turning into the Roissy-esque characters women love. Which means the traditional nuclear family is largely dead, dead, dead. [The whole point of "Girls" basically, the unsustainability of their lives depending on parents money/support.] And yes it is a train-wreck.
Edwards was flirting shamelessly with an attractive female juror at his trial; and apparently it worked -- the judge booted the press and the public to address "a jury issue." It IS Roissy's world. That should shock no one. The pill, the condom, anonymous urban living, mass media (oriented around female consumption) are radical in their effect on Western (and Eastern) society.
"Dunham's character in Tiny Furniture / Girls is self-centered, obnoxious, and sluttish, but the sex lives of young women are so inherently important (this is where the next generation comes from) that there's a trainwreck-like fascination to it."
This is the kind of insight that makes Steve such a good blogger.
Or, on the other hand, "this is where the next generation WON'T come from".
One of the things that I liked about the "old" Asia Times Spengler - before he decided to abandon his universalist themes, and to become instead just another hyper-partisan Scots-Irishman - was that he was willing to talk [very frankly] about the great extinction of peoples which the nihilism of modernity will necessarily induce.
I realize that Steve tries to keep an upbeat, fairly cheerful [even whimsical] tone to his blog, and I know that many of my posts are rejected by Komment Kontrol simply because they're so damned dreary, but, well, whatever - the tone that Steve chooses to adopt is the tone that Steve chooses to adopt - it's his blog and his style and his tone [obviously].
Whiskey: 60 percent of the audience for "Girls" is...male. HBO's female viewers are all drooling over the sexy vampires on "True Blood."
I agree with everything Anonymous at 7:12 AM said. In defense of Roissy I'd say that he's a great prose stylist, a superior craftsman of the typed word. And his portrayal of the female psyche is spot-on. But yes, as the 7:12 guy correctly points out, Roissy exaggerates how much his advice can help betas. A lot of this stuff is inborn. And the word hedonism has negative associations for a very good reason. There should be more to life than chasing pleasure.
Whiskey: 60 percent of the audience for "Girls" is...male.
Sunday nights on AMC - with shows like Breaking Bad & The Walking Dead and whatnot - would be a good time slot and channel for the kind of male-oriented cynicism which a Roissy series would have to be peddling.
Maybe it could have the cinematographic look and feel of Christian Bale with the power tools in American Psycho [or Rob Lowe in Bad Influence] - I bet the AMC suits would eat that up.
The world Roissy describes isn't exactly a new discovery. From British folk songs
"My days were honey and my nights were the same,
Till a man called Cobb from the ocean came,
With his long black beard and his muscular frame,
A captain on board of a whaler."
to Schubert's mill-girl
"To where are you going so quickly, so ruffled and wild, my dear brook?
Do you hurry full of anger for the arrogant hunter?
Turn around and scold first your millermaid,
For her light, loose, little flirtatious mind,
Didn't you see her standing at the gate last night,
Craning her neck toward the broad street?"
, literary classics - (Heathcliff vs Linton, poor beta M. Hennebeau in Zola's Germinal, right up to the daily paper :
"She was an Oxford undergraduate, watching a TV documentary about the rock band Def Leppard, when she took a shine to their American manager, Peter Mensch. "I thought, he's so arrogant, so full of himself – I'm completely attracted to him!"
we see female hypergamy all over the place.
"clown said...
you hit on the touchy nerve of the show Girls, and that is the (almost literal) elephant in the room: the rotund and unattractive Dunham.."
It's ridiculous to refer to Ms. Dunham as rotund. She is not fat - her figure would be perfectly at home in an 18th or 19th century painting. She is not unattractive either, rather I find her quite pretty (although she'd be prettier without the trashy tattoos).
As Steve pointed out, this show is important in a way, as it appeals to young elite women, and they have an important influence on society, both in their mating habits, and in the influence they exert on the (young, elite) men in their lives. That said, it's still just some passing TV ephemera about a bunch of snotty girls in New York City - a place which may as well be a foreign country, as far as I'm concerned - so I don't really care.
You go too far in your critique, it's not a crisis and the Liberal media never portrayed it as such. There were no marches and no screeching nags or anything.
It's what the Prestige press does.
"Whiskey said...
TV is essentially a female-gay ghetto now, save say the History Channel now catering to White guys with new scripted series."
The History Channel doesn't even have any history documentaries anymore. The only white guys it appeals to are those who watch wrestling - which it may just as well feature.
I don't get it. I'm referring both to Girls and Roissy's blog, and I don't understand where all this attention is coming from, positive or negative. I've seen the first episode of Girls, and I took a tour of the Chateau. Both were enjoyable enough, and either of those would make a decent companion on a flight to Europe, when one needs some light entertainment. But how can anyone feel strongly enough about this show or that blog to hate it or gush about it? What's even more confusing to me is how can anyone who's ever left the house suggest with a straight face that either Girls or Roissy's writings come anywhere close to reflecting reality. The voice of a generation??? I was a very recent immigrant and a little child at the time when it was already about over, so I don't remember what people said about it, but did Baywatch generate similar response? Did Beverly Hills 90210?
On another note, let's not forget to notice the influence of Apatow. Judd is a huge fan of the awkward to get laughs; don't forget Jason Segel's flaccid member constantly played for laughs in "Forgetting Sara Marshall". It makes sense that we would constantly see Lena Dunham's body (as well as her mom's (!) and Peter Scolari's (!!!)) in attempt to shock us/make us laugh.
It was the contrast between the two sex scenes that was the point. First we see two 24-year-olds, Hannah and Eric the pharmacist, having plain vanilla roll-on-roll-off sex in bed, and then we see Hannah's 50-something parents having wild monkey sex in the shower. As I see it, the contrast was meant to show that while members of Hannah's generation think that they're hip and trendy, in reality the old fogeys aren't anywhere near ready to be put out to pasture.
http://youtu.be/VBj2vqL1lbQ
Hmm, pro-western Ukrainians are for cultural nationalism.
"It's ridiculous to refer to Ms. Dunham as rotund. She is not fat - her figure would be perfectly at home in an 18th or 19th century painting. She is not unattractive either, rather I find her quite pretty (although she'd be prettier without the trashy tattoos)."
I'm sure there are young men in Ms. Dunham's life who also find her rather pretty, and her figure is perfectly at home on the streets in the 21st century. This, however, doesn't change the undeniable fact, that Ms. Dunham is quite fat.
If Lena Dunham stops showing off her flab every episode, the show can be bearable.
Prediction: the animal has female issues, preferably mommy.
"Matt the summer-camp friend with Shoshana, and Eric the pharmacist with Hannah. Neither one used anything remotely close to what a Well-Known Sex Blogger would consider "Game." "
They are not worthy of it, unlike the hot chick with the beta bf. Even she is naive, the girl who needs it the most is the british one.
"But I don't have the least desire to see him in person or see whether he or any of those other PUA advocates get as much pussy as they claim."
Exactly where do they claim this?
The following is from the recently-published autobiography of Steven Tyler:
"With membership in a gang you got protection from the more thuggish elements in high school. It also attracted girls, who are always into that kind of asshole."
When a beta loser says that chicks dig jerks, he is liable to be accused of being bitter and biased. But here is an actual rock star saying the same thing. Arguing with Steven Tyler about what attracts women would be quite silly.
Dunham need not have heard of Roissy. These ideas are everywhere.
"you hit on the touchy nerve of the show Girls, and that is the (almost literal) elephant in the room: the rotund and unattractive Dunham.. Whenever I almost find myself getting into the show, the white flabby belly of the main actress comes crashing through the fourth wall and I find myself thinking, "there's no way any of these guys she's with would be interested in her in real life." Nor would she have such attractive girlfriends."
So they keep telling me. Yet everywhere I see not particularly pretty women with good looking men. I work with a lady in her 50s, overweight, mother of two grown sons, never pretty even in youth, who's boyfriend is ten years younger, and handsome. Now this, I'm sure, is not common, but it happens. They met in a church. Maybe that makes the difference.
But I have seen many similar couples. A plain woman, Fanny Brice notwithstanding, will not likely be the icon of odd-sex-appeal that Woody Allen could be (at least he could 30 yrs ago), but she may generate quite a bit of sex appeal that lures more men than you would think. Meanwhile, I know some quite attractive ladies who don't attract men so easily. It may have to do with some kind of inner need and projection. Or maybe if she had a strong relationship with some male in her formative years, that has created a permanent forum for male closeness.
I've noticed that the more people write about these matters (or read about them for that matter) the further they seem to be removed from what people are actually doing. 55 yr old plain women cannot expect to get good looking younger guys as a rule, nor should they (indeed, those younger guys are needed for younger women seeking family-formation) but it happens more often than you think, and in the cases I know of, money is defintely not a factor. They just find something about each other fascinating.
The solution might be to make Roissy a legendary offscreen expert who has condescended to advise via text message three or four hopeless Big Bang Theory-like acolytes / losers in their quests.
But the male loser comedy isn't as fresh. As I noted over at Half Sigma: "[Girls] seems to be part of a new trend in entertainment that might be called the female loser comedy. This began last year with Kristin Wiig in Bridesmaids, and Cameron Diaz in Bad Teacher, and Charlize Theron in Young Adult. The uniting thread in the female loser comedy is dysfunctional beta females who can't support themselves very well with a job, but also have too unrealistic dating standards to snag a suitable provider husband."
Female loserishness is just as funny, in its own way, as male loserishness, but it dropped off the entertainment map roughly after 'I Love Lucy' [where Lucy consistently played the beta fool to Ricky's alpha husband], to be replaced by an endless string of dumb, oafish television dads, and their attractive, competent wives.
By the way, Chuck Lorre's beta male comedies, Two and Half Men and Big Bang Theory, are nowhere near as funny as HBO's male loser comedy, Flight of the Conchords.
The new non-white characters in Girls will probably include a well-built black guy to put the wood to the chubby Ms. Dunham.
What could be more real world than that?
One of the things that I liked about the "old" Asia Times Spengler - before he decided to abandon his universalist themes, and to become instead just another hyper-partisan Scots-Irishman - was that he was willing to talk [very frankly] about the great extinction of peoples which the nihilism of modernity will necessarily induce.
Yet for some strange reason David P. Goldman aka "Spengler" never mentions in this context things such as border controls that would mitigate or ultimately reverse "the great extinction of peoples" in their territories. This is so obvious, and yet it's like he's trying to deliberately conceal this.
In fact he basically cheers and promotes globalization. He doesn't oppose open borders - he doesn't even acknowledge it's a problem or issue - and he supports unrestricted trade and capital flows, often gleefully writing about how foreign capital will be able to sweep in and buy up the declining countries.
The propaganda out of NYC these days is getting so ridiculous that I can’t believe younger women are buying into it anymore — and older women know, first hand, the reality the propaganda is trying to hide but no one really cares what they think anyway.
In the example of “Sex and the City 2” which came out a couple years ago, the attempt at “realism” fails when the women manage to hang together — with a junket to north Africa, speaking of concubines — despite the financial panic and the lead concubine manages to get pregnant just in time to head off the loss of her Last Chance Texaco man so she doesn’t have to blow her brains out.
BTW when I first heard "Last Chance Texaco" circa 1980, it struck me as not only an outstanding piece of music but, thematically, the only song, even till today, to have placed the fate of boomer women in appropriate perspective. And she did it more than a decade before that fate was being played out. It struck me hard at that time because I could foresee it looming at that early date as well and also saw how taboo it was to so prophesy not only at that early date, but even now to openly recognize. We're supposed to go along with the "Sex In the City 2" and now "Girls" view.
"Last Chance Texaco" is not entertainment. It is tragedy made even more poignant on the scale of civilization by its solitude in a vast ocean of "popular media".
I've seen a couple episodes of Girls. All I can say is, if Girls is a realistic depiction of 20something life, we are doomed.
As for Dunham, I think she would be pretty if she wasn't tattooed. I don't care what their defenders say, the mainstreaming of tattooing is a sign of societal decline.
Stop with the Roissy Worship. Promote his blog sure. He makes good points. But he's not God.
Ultimately teaching white men game is teaching white men how to Be Black.
Game is just that. An evolutionary response to the Blackification and Slimification of the U.S.
It's not good to promote Roissy's lifestyle. He tells white men to sleep with non-white women. Let me tell you....Nice white girls will never marry those men who follow Roissy's advice.
We need to stop it with the sex crap. I don't need to worship some girl whose made a funny show about sex.
Do you know how easy it is to be funny about Sex?
Sex is the LOWEST, EASIEST form of humor.
Characters are hard. Funny history sketches are hard.
Sex sketches...not so hard.
"Or, on the other hand, "this is where the next generation WON'T come from".
These white women experiment endlessly in their prime breeding years. Too much chubby, deep, dark navel gazing.
"What's even more confusing to me is how can anyone who's ever left the house suggest with a straight face that either Girls or Roissy's writings come anywhere close to reflecting reality."
That's my feeling. How have Roissy and his adherents done in the reproduction department? How about developmentally arrested white college girls? I'm guessing, not well. Were your parents like these people? I demand data.
" Truth said...
You must really love this show."
He is calling you out as a fanboy. He might be right.
Also the style seemed to change, like maybe it was a new writer or different writers blogging.
You can tell that the original Roissy still blogs, but you can also tell from subtle stylistic differences that he has had a few unannounced guest writers on from time to time.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/05/26/new-spanish-finance-horrors-shock-the-world/
When a beta loser says that chicks dig jerks, he is liable to be accused of being bitter and biased. But here is an actual rock star saying the same thing. Arguing with Steven Tyler about what attracts women would be quite silly.
What is quite silly is the notion that women are a monolithic entity with a hive mind. Some women like men who are assholes, some don't.
And of course some women like famous rockstars, regardless of whether they are assholes are not. I don't imagine that Tyler's success with women is primarily contingent on his asshole-ish nature. He could be the least asshole-ish guy on Earth and lots of women would still want to have sex with him.
I was a very recent immigrant and a little child at the time when it was already about over, so I don't remember what people said about it, but did Baywatch generate similar response? Did Beverly Hills 90210?
Those shows were PB. (Before Blogs)
I'm sure there are young men in Ms. Dunham's life who also find her rather pretty, and her figure is perfectly at home on the streets in the 21st century. This, however, doesn't change the undeniable fact, that Ms. Dunham is quite fat.
I'd guesstimate that her body-fat percentage is right around the average for American women.
In fairness to American women, American men could stand to drop thirty or so pounds themselves.
A plain woman, Fanny Brice notwithstanding, will not likely be the icon of odd-sex-appeal that Woody Allen could be (at least he could 30 yrs ago), but she may generate quite a bit of sex appeal that lures more men than you would think. Meanwhile, I know some quite attractive ladies who don't attract men so easily. It may have to do with some kind of inner need and projection.
Some men are intimidated by extremely hot women. They may worry that the women are more prone to cheating, or at least that their hottness has caused them to develop attitude problems. You can see this on Girls with Marnie - yes, she is smoking hot, but she also has a repellent personality.
I'm sure there are young men in Ms. Dunham's life who also find her rather pretty, and her figure is perfectly at home on the streets in the 21st century. This, however, doesn't change the undeniable fact, that Ms. Dunham is quite fat.
I'd guesstimate that her body-fat percentage is right around the average for American women.
There's a scene in the second episode in which Hannah is being weighed at the doctor's office prior to the STD test and is something like 145 pounds. I don't know if that's Lena Dunham's actual weight, or if the scale used in filming the scene was rigged in some manner, but if it's the actual weight she's hardly fat.
"And of course some women like famous rockstars, regardless of whether they are assholes are not. I don't imagine that Tyler's success with women is primarily contingent on his asshole-ish nature. He could be the least asshole-ish guy on Earth and lots of women would still want to have sex with him."
Lady, can you not read? He said himself, in his autobiography, that in his opinion women are "are always into that kind of asshole," the kind that joins gangs. And he was talking about his high school experiences in that paragraph, not stardom. That should have been clear from the quote.
"What is quite silly is the notion that women are a monolithic entity with a hive mind."
No, that's not silly. Women are far more conformist than men. Women crave to do what they see other women do. Because of that, generalizations about female behavior are much more justified than generalizations about male behavior.
"I'd guesstimate that her body-fat percentage is right around the average for American women."
I'd guesstimate that you're right. That's because, on average, American women are quite fat. Not trying to put anyone down, just stating facts.
"In fairness to American women, American men could stand to drop thirty or so pounds themselves."
Absolutely true. I've had more than several occasions where I had to turn down the advances of wonderful, interesting, cool guys whom I genuinely liked in every other respect because, well, my brain doesn't recognize an over fat body as male and wouldn't release the necessary hormones. Fat guys are everywhere, just like fat girls.
"There's a scene in the second episode in which Hannah is being weighed at the doctor's office prior to the STD test and is something like 145 pounds. I don't know if that's Lena Dunham's actual weight, or if the scale used in filming the scene was rigged in some manner, but if it's the actual weight she's hardly fat."
Let me tell you something as a veteran of the late 1990s (which spilled into the early 2000s in this respect) when girls would make all kinds of diet pacts, pressure each other into getting publicly weighted at sleepovers and gym locker rooms, ect., there is no way this witty, talented young lady is 145 lbs. No possible way. She used her artistic license to shave off 20lbs, at least. But if you like the way she looks, her weight shouldn't really be important.
I don't think there is a college grad, male or female, who doesn't concede to natural selection and the alpha/beta dichotomy. I think it has been inculcated to the point where it is written on their hearts and brains. Ironically, it probably makes most of them feel inadequate - if they are smart enough, they feel ugly, if they are good looking, they feel stupid or un-credentialed, in most cases they feel unworthy to reproduce by Darwin's standards. They have non-reproductive sex to get their rocks off. Some whites reproduce motivated by morbid fear just before the clock runs out. The old superstitious, religious injunction to be fruitful and multiply seems to be standing up to the test of time by comparison. The young are devoting entirely too much time to decision making. Most careers yield ephemera, get down to creating something lasting.
"No, that's not silly. Women are far more conformist than men. Women crave to do what they see other women do. Because of that, generalizations about female behavior are much more justified than generalizations about male behavior."
You just continue beating off in your computer room, sir. I hope your Chinese food gets delivered in a timely fashion and there is a marathon of your favorite TV show this weekend.
"I don't think there is a college grad, male or female, who doesn't concede to natural selection and the alpha/beta dichotomy. I think it has been inculcated to the point where it is written on their hearts and brains. Ironically, it probably makes most of them feel inadequate - if they are smart enough, they feel ugly, if they are good looking, they feel stupid or un-credentialed, in most cases they feel unworthy to reproduce by Darwin's standards."
Hi! I'm a college grad, and precisely because I happened to have taken a few biology courses, I know that the manner in which these PUA blogs use the terms "alpha" and "beta" have nothing to do with what actual scientists mean by these terms, when it comes to male reproduction patterns.
But even if we ignore the fact that "game" bloggers seem to be lacking in science education, their alpha/beta theories still don't pass even the most shallow examination through the lens of the theory of evolution. It's fine to claim that all healthy females are attracted to certain primary traits (like a penis or a cheast without boobs) since this will be key to them having any children at all and passing on their tastes. Primary and secondary sex traits are such universal attractors. But when it comes to physical traits that aren't directly influenced by sex hormones and behavior traits, evolutionary science tells us that there is a great variety in what both males and females respond to, even if some of those traits are obviously harmful to a potential mate's length and quality of life. Animals, especially human beings, possess many traits that can be of high or low quality. Evolution selects against ugly or stupid people, but through disease, environmental factors and presence of a potential mate who is similarly defective, there are still people with these traits. An ability to pick a mate who is good for more than siring a child (we're talking pure instinctive attraction here, not rational choice) is, too, an inherent trait that gets sorted through natural selection, plays a large role in mating and divides specimen into groups with different outcomes, much like intelligence and beauty. It's as silly to suggest that all women have the same hormonal responses to certain behavioral traits in men as it is to suggest that all women are equally beautiful.
Oh, and people have always felt insecure about their less stellar attributes. The awareness of evolutionary mechanisms didn't cause this.
Lena Dunham is on the chunky side in the way a lot of us could stand to lose a few pounds but hardly obese. The round face and weak chin also make her look chubbier than she actually is. My understanding is that she actually plays up her character's awkwardness by dressing in unflattering clothes. She had all of her costumes fitted while wearing Spanx, then goes without when actually filming them so they fit awkwardly.
"Hi! I'm a college grad, and precisely because I happened to have taken a few biology courses, I know that the manner in which these PUA blogs use the terms "alpha" and "beta" have nothing to do with what actual scientists mean by these terms, when it comes to male reproduction patterns. "
I'm not sure what a PUA blog is, but what I meant was that Darwin has won amongst the educated, but the educated set very high standards for themselves and thus deem that their genetic contribution might not be up to snuff, so many forgo reproducing, both men and women. They develop a if-your-not-first-you're-last attitude. It doesn't apply only to sex; how many people don't sing a song in public because they don't sound like Adele, how many guys don't dance because they can't move like Jagger, we're willing to step back and let the pros do it and we live vicariously. I think porn is a contributor. I also think promiscuity plays a role, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but what happens in courtship will be revealed to the guys/girls, many of us can't stand up to that kind of scrutiny - we have an illusion that we must be perfect in our performance or hear the critical reviews in the next day's gossip - not a big deal to the studs and hotties, but a big weight on the less secure. I once bet a super stud acquaintance of mine that I could get more girls to dance with me than he could - I beat him by a mile, he asked all the plain girls, I asked the hotties. To the hotties, it was just a dance, to the plain girls it was an unusual and threatening proposal. Our, now defunct, religious culture provided a Vegas like sanctity to marital relations, the only thing known to outsiders was the offspring.
Some men are intimidated by extremely hot women.
Or just wearily realistic. I dont believe I have a chance with super-hot women, I may as well set my sights a bit lower but more realistically. Maybe thats a lack of self-belief on my part but its also easier, more efficient if you will.
55 yr old plain women cannot expect to get good looking younger guys as a rule, nor should they (indeed, those younger guys are needed for younger women seeking family-formation) but it happens more often than you think, and in the cases I know of, money is defintely not a factor. They just find something about each other fascinating.
Im sure in some eras young men were expected to play around with older, experienced women before committing to a nice young bride. Thus the male instincts were fairly harmlessly diverted away from unwanted pregnancies and ill-advised marriages. (And provided a bit of fun for the older ladies)
"Oh, and people have always felt insecure about their less stellar attributes. The awareness of evolutionary mechanisms didn't cause this."
But does it cause them to believe they are doing the human species a favor by not reproducing? - call it evolutionary scrupulosity.
Roissy is an “amazing blogger,” now Steve? Sure, he writes well and has interesting things to say. His HBD awareness and desire to help men do better in the battle of the sexes is all good. But come on… the guy is also a sociopath who sees 13-year-old girls as temptresses who should be doable without legal repercussion. How can declaring open season on middle schoolers not put him beyond the pale for you? Is it because you have only sons and no daughters? For the love of god, why do you continue to promote this dirtbag?
"Maya said...
This, however, doesn't change the undeniable fact, that Ms. Dunham is quite fat."
With respect, dear Lady, I don't agree. Rosie O'Donnell is fat. Lena Dunham is not.
"Mac said...
As for Dunham, I think she would be pretty if she wasn't tattooed. I don't care what their defenders say, the mainstreaming of tattooing is a sign of societal decline."
Here, here. Seconded. I find it a travesty when pretty young women (or pretty older women) mar themselves with an ugly splotch of ink, as if the female form could, in any way, be improved upon.
"They develop a if-your-not-first-you're-last attitude. It doesn't apply only to sex; how many people don't sing a song in public because they don't sound like Adele, how many guys don't dance because they can't move like Jagger, we're willing to step back and let the pros do it and we live vicariously."
This comment interested me because it describes a phenomenon I first reflected on about 40 years ago. At the time (and now, at least to some degree) I believed it to be an effect of mass media, particularly advertising. It also struck me that the same people that don't dance, sing, play instruments, paint, or whatever are likely to be the same ones who think that white America lacks culture while others are vibrant. This was all long before the eruption of pornography into the public square.
Roissy exaggerates how much his advice can help betas. A lot of this stuff is inborn.
Well, if you have his skill set and you want a crowd of fawning admirers, you are hardly going to tell people "But of course, my observations will do you no good and if you buy into them, it's pretty much somewhere between pyramid scheme and outright fraud". C'mon - the guy is a sociopath and basically uninterested in helping anyone. It's an ego exercise, like any cult leader's.
Just as desirable women are all about sharing "style tips" and "personality tips" with other women, irregardless of the fact that these qualities are mostly inherent, and that the way other women can really help themselves is more to switch to a strategy that plays to their strengths.
....
What is quite silly is the notion that women are a monolithic entity with a hive mind. Some women like men who are assholes, some don't.
I'm pretty suspicious of the idea that the most women see "the jerk" as the most desirable type. Pretty at odds with evolutionary history, where male support of kids and men not getting lynched by bands of other men for being a jerkoff were pretty important. There are a few women who like that kind of guy, but they're mostly the female equivalent of that kind of guy anyway. These kind of women probably don't reproduce very much.
Re: Dunham's weight: From a strictly medical perspective, I wouldn't be shocked if she didn't even fall into the technically overweight BMI range. I think she's either on the high end of normal, or maybe up to 20 lbs. over—certainly not "rotund."
We are so conditioned to seeing stick-thin genetic outliers on our screens (yes, even accounting for the growing obesity among the general public) that we view one very brave aberration as abhorrent.
While it's true that men are hardwired to privilege women's looks, our media-obsessed, plugged-in society (life isn't lived unless it's photographed and documented on Facebook) has made us way more surface-obsessed than our forebears. This is something that Roissy and his acolytes in all their insistence that you're fat if you have a BMI over 23 fail to acknowledge.
As for the Dark Lord himself, yeah, he's a brilliant writer and a sharp thinker who shatters some annoying liberal shiboleths, but he's still evil. I've been deeply dismayed to see the fascination he holds among what I've always considered respectable conservative outlets.
Roissy swings his battleaxe at the cornerstone of the PC culture. Bravo.
Roissy is a master arsonist of our incoherent Matriarchy. He is burning it down while the posers whinge. His blog is POLITICAL.
Kudos to Sailer for recognizing a fellow writing talent even though he disagrees with the approach.
But Steve made a huge mistake crowning Yglesias the preeminent blogger of his generation. Maybe that was sarcasm? The real king is either Roissy or the guy who does Zerohedge. Sailer is the king of the first generation bloggers obviously.
(The new version of Roissy blog mentions "authors" plural so yes it's got filler posts)
poster dad: roissy may be a 'dirtbag' or maybe not but he's a warrior on the tip of the spear in the culture war.
are you a boomer? boomer dads have done everything to dispossess their own sons in this country and now the sons are going to have to fight for what boomers gave away. it's a war
"They develop a if-your-not-first-you're-last attitude. "
on the road to eusocialty?
I'm the anonymous who mentioned War and Peace. Madame Bovary is all about the sexy bad boy/boring nice guy contrast. That novel is about nothing else but that.
No. "Madame Bovary" is about the triumph of the reductionistic/materialistic world view. Flaubert once famously wrote, "I am Madame Bovary." Like Emma, he would rather die than live in a world that no longer believes in love.
"[Rodolphe,the Roissy-esque playboy] had heard such stuff so many times that her words meant very little to him. Emma was just like any other mistress; and the charm of novelty, falling down slowly like a dress, exposed only the eternal monotony of passion, always the same forms and the same language. He did not distinguish, this man of such great expertise, the differences of sentiment beneath the sameness of their expressions. Because he had heard such-like phrases murmured to him from the lips of the licentious or the venal, he hardly believed in hers; you must, he thought, beware of turgid speeches masking commonplace passions; as though the soul’s abundance does not sometimes spill over in the most decrepit metaphors, since no one can ever give the exact measure of their needs, their ideas, their afflictions, and since human speech is like a cracked cauldron on which we knock out tunes for dancing-bears, when we wish to conjure pity from the stars."
"the guy is also a sociopath ..."
It's true - if we all live remotely in Roissy fashion, what remains of our civilisation is guaranteed doomed.
On the first Feminian Sandstones
we were promised the Fuller Life,
(Which started by loving our neighbour,
and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children,
and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
"The Wages of Sin is Death."
Nonetheless, there are insights there which are valuable, and other insights which are valuable as long as you take on board that they're describing generic female tendencies, not iron laws of behaviour for any one individual.
Take what he calls the female S*** Test. It would have been useful to know aged 17 that if a girlfriend wants an argument, no amount of niceness and backpedalling will avert it, and that the answer is to fire straight back - why waste time? You're going to have the row anyway, and the more time spent retreating the worse she'll be!
Oh, come on. Roissy is a twit who is naturally lousy with women -- as shown by the sheer level of resentment he maintained toward them well into his 40s. Especially in the early years his blog was a caricature of the embittered-beta resentment most guys age out of by 30 if not before. With the effort he appears to put in, I'm sure he gets laid some these days (a single male with a steady job in his 40s has to make an effort not to) but the scars of decades of beta-dom clearly remain. More importantly -- since many writers ride the energy of embittered loserdom to success -- he's also a lousy writer as soon as he moves beyond his personal rants, as shown by the dialogue in his comically implausible recreations of supposed personal experiences. He just gets internet play from the appeal to the hordes of loser betas on the net. It's absurd to compare him to a genuine artistic talent like Dunham.
International traveler playboy Roosh is a more interesting character; he has much more ability to observe himself and others and challenges himself with more interesting experiences.
Oh, and Lena Dunham's weight is a positive aspect of the show...at about 20 pounds overweight she's pretty much a median American women. And it is more than realistic that hot female friends would enjoy having a sharp, funny but overweight friend as part of their circle. In fact, the chunky friend is a perfect complement to the hot girl...no serious competition for men, always there when you need her, and funny/interesting to have around. Several cast members of the show actually were her friends pre-celebrity.
"at about 20 pounds overweight she's pretty much a median American women. "
"There's a scene in the second episode in which Hannah is being weighed at the doctor's office prior to the STD test and is something like 145 pounds"
That's about 20 pounds less than the average.
hate on roissy if you must, but he accurately describes today's sexual market. It has always been so. The noblemen rides out over his lands and beds all the pretty girls while their fathers and husbands and brothers slave out in the fields. They raise the noblemen's children as their own, maybe the offspring of a few priests too. Keeps the good genes in wider circulation. With the middle class under assault and men isolated from other men, and often weak and emotional, women are on the look for a "real man" and find him in short supply. Roissy breaks down "game" for the PUA who becomes able to ape the status and power of the aristocrat of yore through analysis of a women's nature. If you want things to go back to the good Christian times of your imagination, fight for economic freedom that will give men a reason to have hope for themselves and the future, rather than slather morality on a lost cause. Christianity is no longer the solution, because it was founded to check masculine power and has finally succeeded. When the host dies so does the parasite.
"It's absurd to compare him to a genuine artistic talent like Dunham."
Wow. And LOL!
"No. "Madame Bovary" is about the triumph of the reductionistic/materialistic world view."
On the one hand Flaubert made a militant secularist (Homais) into the biggest villain of the novel. And there was that speech by Charles's mother where she said that the romance novels Emma reads contain libertine speeches taken from Voltaire and that this sort of stuff can only ever lead to trouble. These things support your thesis.
On the other hand Emma's wishful thinking, her romantic, unrealistic ideas are shown in a bad light. She's too ready to indulge in fantasy. He definitely portrayed her as not being realistically hard-headed enough for her own or her family's good. Is that the same thing as not being materialistic enough? Depends on who's judging. Even when her romanticism briefly turns to religion, it's shown as being silly.
"Flaubert once famously wrote, "I am Madame Bovary." Like Emma, he would rather die than live in a world that no longer believes in love."
Well, he definitely thought that the ideas of love she picked up in her beloved romance novels were silly and harmful. He had more sympathy for Charles, though some for her too. What did he mean by the phrase "I am Madame Bovary"? I don't know the context, so I could be wrong, but I suspect that this could have been self-criticism. He might have been saying that he too was vulnerable to kitschy, romantic, unrealistic ideas and that he had to fight against his natural tendencies to get at the truth of anything. We all want to fool ourselves, we all want to engage in wishful thinking, to simplify reality in the saccharine way in which the romance novels which Emma loved simplify it. He was vulnerable to all that crap too, so in a way he was Emma too, we all are, and any realism, any truth that he might have put out was won in a hard fight against such lazy thinking. To me that sounds pretty materialistic, but perhaps it wouldn't have to him and won't to you. Maybe he made an exception for Catholicism, maybe he didn't see IT as wishful thinking. Or maybe he saw it as the kind of wishful thinking that helps, and romance novels as the kind that hurts. These are just guesses.
But regardless of all that, hypergamy, the boring nice guy vs. sexy bad boy stuff is a big, big theme in that book.
"[Rodolphe,the Roissy-esque playboy] had heard such stuff so many times that her words meant very little to him."
Jaded alphas must have existed in all periods. Had secularism, materialism increased their share of the population by Flaubert's time? Perhaps, I wouldn't know. Rodolphe wasn't explicitly shown to be either interested in or affected by politics.
"...since human speech is like a cracked cauldron on which we knock out tunes for dancing-bears, when we wish to conjure pity from the stars..."
That's just criticism of the human condition, of the way things have always been.
"The noblemen rides out over his lands and beds all the pretty girls while their fathers and husbands and brothers slave out in the fields."
If "it has always been so", shouldn't all men be Roissys by now? Why are so many losers still roaming the earth?
I imagine Roissy must be vehemently opposed to abortion, paternity testing, and contraception for his model to work, if not, is procreation really his goal?
It must be terribly sad to lack both in boorish swagger and in classy eloquent dignity. Proles (even the proles who can make through higher education and fit into suits) bark and blow noses at each other. The prole women like this behavior because they see it as strength. Both male and female proles can't imagine why anyone would choose not to step on someone else if he could get away with it. Their confidence comes from the ability to put others down and they let others influence their opinions of themselves.
Men of class and dignity are a whole another species. They understand the difference between being subservient and compassionate+polite. Mother says: If you call someone a bad name, you're insulting yourself first. People of certain class understand that to consciously step on anyone's dignity is to lose your own. If another makes attempts to pettily take you down a notch, you are to see him/her for the inferior being that he or she is and to dissociate with that person. It's instinctive. If a gorgeous girl would exhibit boorish behavior by showing favor to a rude brute or by disrespecting him, he'd honestly stop being attracted to her. It's like seeing a picture of a model, feeling desire, but then realizing that it's a photo of a corps. A person of no dignity can't possibly make a man of dignity and class feel bad about himself, only his own honest self-reflection and confirmation from those he holds in very high esteem could do that. Such a man gains confidence by scoring high on his own set of values. He treats others with respect (even if he doesn't think much of them) because that's a reflection of his own self-respect. Again, this is instinctive, not some burdensome rule he has to remember. Proles might think that he is weak, but that's irrelevant to a man of dignity. He considers himself superior to them to such a degree that their opinions mean nothing to him. Coupling with prole women would be akin to bestiality or hiring a prostitute to a man of dignity. Of course, he prefers physical beauty, but a beautiful woman covered in feces, a beautiful coma patient or a beautiful vulgar woman aren't likely to attract him. Similarly, women of class and dignity wouldn't consider men who don't possess those traits to be real men. A man who feels the need to dominate, not by being recognized as the most capable in the given endeavor by his respected peers, but by putting others down is immediately seen as far below her level by a woman of class and dignity.
TL;DR: Real men like my father don't need tips on how to handle women who try to treat them like shit because they don't deal with women who try to treat them like shit. If you pine for that girl at the bar who sleeps with smooth talking jerks, your chances with a girl who can't be picked up at a bar and doesn't fall for bullshit are basically nil.
"The noblemen rides out over his lands and beds all the pretty girls while their fathers and husbands and brothers slave out in the fields."
Yessss, the phenomenon of a lord's son chasing a running girl while on horseback has been well documented. And, yes, oftentimes, all the father and husband could do was bite their tongue and raise the resulting bastard.
However, today, stupid, uncooperative women like me can elect to carry pepper spray, to lock the door and to avoid walking through secluded areas to stop the spread of such quality genes. What a loss for humanity!
"Girls" sounds like the standard genocidal anti-white cosmo-style New York media propaganda aimed at getting young white women to spend their best reproductive years not having children.
.
Roissy is slime who i assume spent a lot of years trying to be one of those "nice guys" cosmo said women wanted and is now bitter about falling for it. However he is also a partial antidote to the feminized cosmo advice to young men about being "sensitive" etc so not all bad.
.
Simply put...
Once upon a time humans lived in Africa where females could feed their children on their own. The males - i can't see them as men - competed with each other through violence or showing off. Females developed traits attracted to that.
Out of Africa required males to help provision their offspring and thus required men to evolve into the provider role. Females developed traits attracted to that.
Thus females are attracted to both and are conflicted in their attraction to a greater or lesser degree across a wide spectrum.
The solution for young men who want a wife and family is to be a provider type during the day and a bad boy type in bed.
That way you might end up with kids as perfect as mine.
Not the best TV show pitch I've read.
"Thus females are attracted to both and are conflicted in their attraction to a greater or lesser degree across a wide spectrum."
Emotionally, subconsciously, instinctively they all want bad boys, but consciously, when trying to plan their lives, they want a provider. And a lot of the time they're so divorced from reality as to be seriously expecting to find both in one man, a monogamous version of George Clooney on every street.
White and Asian women, just like white and Asian men, are better at sticking to a plan, at forcing themselves to do the things they promised themselves they'd do. Delaying gratification, not following every whim. But I suspect that even black women promise themselves to look for nice guy providers, just like they surely promise themselves to eat less and exercise and to spend money less frivolously. My hunch is that the difference in outcomes is more due to differences in the ability to follow one's stated goals, not to different goals.
"Emotionally, subconsciously, instinctively they all want bad boys"
No they don't and the ones that do don't want it all the time.
It's much more of a sex thing than anything else and it's much more about being masculine than "bad boy." Become a cop or a firefighter and get that uniform on and you'll see.
A lot of normal men feminized themselves in reaction to feminism because the various women's magazines they read for clues said women wanted men to be "sensitive nice guys" but it's not true - at least not in bed. You don't need to be a jerk you just need to be masculine.
"Once upon a time humans lived in Africa where females could feed their children on their own. The males - i can't see them as men - competed with each other through violence or showing off. Females developed traits attracted to that.
Out of Africa required males to help provision their offspring and thus required men to evolve into the provider role. Females developed traits attracted to that.
Thus females are attracted to both and are conflicted in their attraction to a greater or lesser degree across a wide spectrum."
It's much simpler than that.
BRIFFAULT’S LAW:
The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
Could somebody define "bad boy" for me? Since everyone keeps placing this type of a man as the opposite of the type who would provide, it sounds like someone who could look at his own child and say (or, at least, think), "I don't love you. I honestly feel nothing". What else makes a "bad boy"? Smoking cigars, even though CDC warns against it? Shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die? Forgetting to say "thank you" and "please" on purpose? Not washing behind the ears even though mama would be so mad if she found out?What?
Could somebody define "bad boy" for me?... What?
Cue sound of crickets chirping as a real bad boy refuses to even acknowledge that the question was asked in the first place [which only serves to further infuriate the questioner and to increase her sexual desire for the real bad boy who refuses to even acknowledge her presence].
I fail to understand the fascination with Roissy by the so-called right.
Roissy is a disgusting pervert who extols the wonders of anal sex and oral sodomy and denigrates women with open misogyny (I will grant him that a number of women are very good at denigrating themselves with their mode of life). Given these proclivities, he might as well be a faggot.
Every man who seeks after and practices anal and oral sodomy is a latent homosexual. There is truly no difference between copulating with a man or a woman in those manners. This is why you find many men who do these acts so easily falling into them in prison, or when they gain a position of authority over young boys, or when isolated among other men as on a ship or away with an army.
Glossy makes an intelligent appeal in this sideline "Madame Bovary" debate, but fundamentally the 2nd entrant in the fray, who wrote that the novel is about the triumph of materialism and Flaubert's lament about that, is correct.
I daresay Glossy understands the distinction in real time, but his entry comes perilously close to equivocating between "materialism" as a philosophical doctrine, and "materialism" as consumerism.
Emma Bovary certainly is a consumerist; but part of Flaubert's drift is that Emma (who is more gifted sensuously-- sensuality is, in a real sense, her chief talent-- than intellectually) flees into consumerism as part of her Romanticistic (as opposed to merely "romantic") aspirations.
Emma, as Allan Bloom would argue, takes the promise of Romanticism seriously. She does believe in a kind of heroic world. The cruel joke is that noone about her-- from the philosophaster Homais, to her boorish husband, to her petty lovers, can even understand such longings.
Flaubert's tremendous intellect is not, in any real sense, invested in the character; but in other respects it's straightforward enough to appreciate what Flaubert meant by identifying with her.
Note, too, that she most certainly looks for soulmate-dom in her lovers. Yes, she goads her husband on beyond his medical abilities (that much, I admit, might fall under the purview of "hypergamy"), but she's not simply swooning silently before the "bad boys", neither of whom in this case corresponds well with the American connotations of the phrase which (mis)informs "game".
Flaubert may ultimately qualify as a kind of "nihilist"; but nihilism, too, is a repudiation of the (shallow, optimistic) materialism of Homais.
"Cue sound of crickets chirping as a real bad boy refuses to even acknowledge that the question was asked in the first place [which only serves to further infuriate the questioner and to increase her sexual desire for the real bad boy who refuses to even acknowledge her presence]."
Ah, so a "bad boy" is someone who feels no attachment to his children and makes it a point to display blatant disregard towards women? I'm honestly interested since realizing that, apparently, quite a few people treat this as more than light comedy. Thank you for acknowledging me with your answer, Mr. Real Bad Boy, Sir. I know that required you to step out of character for a moment.
But I'm new to this philosophy, so I'd like to clear something up. Am I correct in understanding from what you say, a "bad boy" isn't the same thing as a "badass"? Where I grew up, a "badass" was used to refer to a person who laughed in the face of danger, won battles when the chances were slim, performed crazy acts of courage and didn't let others tell him what to do. I'm sensing that this new 'bad boy" character type is something altogether different. Yay? Nay?
Steve seems to think Roissy is some kind of basically light-hearted and lovable fellow, but to me his distinguishing feature (at least the few times I have checked him out) is his rage - often directed toward deserving targets, to be sure, but often not. Anyone who deviates from his philosophy in any way is not merely to be opposed, but to be shouted down with invective often quite disproportionate to the offense. For example, you should have seen the time he went after a woman who claimed to be asexual.
"but to me his distinguishing feature (at least the few times I have checked him out) is his rage"
And that would disqualify him from being a productive sit-com writer how?
"Steve seems to think Roissy is some kind of basically light-hearted and lovable fellow, but to me his distinguishing feature (at least the few times I have checked him out) is his rage - often directed toward deserving targets, to be sure, but often not. Anyone who deviates from his philosophy in any way is not merely to be opposed, but to be shouted down with invective often quite disproportionate to the offense."
Dude! That's what makes his blog light-hearted entertainment. Very often it takes a lot more input than an amused chuckle to illicit a response of an amused chuckle. Besides, that guy is clearly in character, for one reason or another. Again, I don't understand how people can actually hate Roissy. It's like feeling strong negative emotions towards Eric Cartman from South Park. Jesus! Just enjoy the joke or read something else. As for people being stupid enough to think it's all real and take the "advise" clearly meant for entertainment, so what? South Park once did an episode about a made up way of getting high - "cheesing", and a bunch of people tried to get cats to spray urine in their face (sometimes with success) after watching it. We can't legislate helmets for everyone.
To me the commonality between religion and Emma's romantic ideas is wishful thinking. To me these are both imaginary worlds that are more appealing and simpler than reality. I guess materialism is the wrong word for the opposite of BOTH of these things. This opposite is trying to see things as they are, making an effort to resist the temptation to fool oneself. This is what Flaubert strove for in his own work with realism.
But I don't know if he would have made an exception for religion, whether or not he would have seen it as wishful thinking. Obviously, he made the secularist Homais sound ridiculous in every scene in which he appeared, so maybe he wouldn't have made the materialist-realist connection.
As for Emma's hypergamy, besides what you've mentioned there was also the opera star (rock star of his day) Lagardy and that vicomte. She knew almost nothing about either except that Lagardy was rich and famous and the vicomte was rich, and she was smitten with them both.
"...but she's not simply swooning silently before the "bad boys", neither of whom in this case corresponds well with the American connotations of the phrase..."
I thought that Rodolphe did. Leon not so much, but he was still more masculine than Charles.
But I'm new to this philosophy, so I'd like to clear something up. Am I correct in understanding from what you say, a "bad boy" isn't the same thing as a "badass"?Where I grew up, a "badass" was used to refer to a person who laughed in the face of danger, won battles when the chances were slim, performed crazy acts of courage and didn't let others tell him what to do. I'm sensing that this new 'bad boy" character type is something altogether different. Yay? Nay?
I think you have the gist of it, madame. If you will permit me to aphorize, the defining battles in the life of a "bad boy" are with women; those of a badass, with men.
"And that would disqualify him from being a productive sit-com writer how?"
It would help to be funny.
" but the sex lives of young women are so inherently important (this is where the next generation comes from)"
"Jesus! Just enjoy the joke or read something else."
Important or a joke - pick a side.
If betas really want to know what it is like to have non-reproductive sex with a drop dead gorgeous woman, go to Vegas and order an escort, there are some beautiful South Western college girls available, looking to pay their tuition. It is a better use of your time than trying to change your nature, which is written in your DNA.
BTW I think of Roissy when I see those beer commercials featuring The Most Interesting Man In The World. That campaign has been pretty successful, so Roissy is onto something.
Some of the older readers will recall the quintessential Roissyesque characters of all time, and they weren't fictional, Robert Chambers and Jennifer Levin. Voice an opinion about that incident In New York at that time and the sparks really started to fly. It was interesting that everyone was willing to talk about it because it didn't involve the, you know, typical black against white thing. There was the religious component, so if you defended Chambers, you were an anti-Semite as well as a misogynist.
"
" but the sex lives of young women are so inherently important (this is where the next generation comes from)"
"Jesus! Just enjoy the joke or read something else."
Important or a joke - pick a side."
Well, you are quoting two different people up there. But, in any case, these two statements don't contradict each other. Just because sexual behavior of young women might be important, it doesn't mean that one can't be amused by fiction written on the subject. And just because I think that secondary education is a serious matter, it doesn't mean that I can't buy Harry Potter books for my cousins, even though their plot centers around a fictional secondary school, with fictional subjects and fictional lessons. You do understand the difference between real life and make belief, right?
Plus, Steve's statement about the importance of young women's behavior because that's where the future population originates is way too general. Most of our future inventors, doctors, dentists, professors, engineers and other useful people will not come to be as a result of some girls' whims. They will result from careful decisions made by both men and women, together. And who cares where the next generation of prisoners, charity cases and low paid labor comes from? They might originate from orphanages, single mother homes, homes with domestic violence and so on and so forth. Screw ups screw up (their children) in countless ways.
Instead of Roissy acting in a sitcom, he should be the writer or director.
" Could somebody define "bad boy" for me?"
Oh hey, HuniBunz, that's easy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDLLPW20y3U
Post a Comment