George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist, argues that seemingly disparate groups which form political coalitions share underlying metaphors based on family structures. On the conservative side, he says that social conservatives and libertarian conservatives don’t really have conflicting agendas because both share what he calls “strict father morality.” They assume that we live in a harsh and dangerous world where men have to run things in a natural hierarchy, while the womenfolk and the children have to stay subordinate to men for their own protection. Strict fathers have the task of disciplining and toughening their children for the task of becoming self-reliant adults in the harsh and dangerous world. Therefore they oppose sexual freedom, on the social conservative side, and the welfare state, on the libertarian side, because both of these tend to weaken people’s character and make them less capable of personal responsibility and independence.
This organic affinity also sheds light on why PUA bloggers have started to sound like Dark Enlightenment bloggers and Neoreactionaries: By getting all that exposure to the ugly way women behave when you remove the traditional constraints on their real preferences, you can see that our conservative ancestors had a legitimate point of view when they enforced patriarchal norms to keep women in line. Women’s sexual freedom basically damages their ability to maintain a stable society.
It’s not clear to me why this is a better explanation than the obvious alternative from, so to speak, the other side: the PUA bloggers were already thinking of women as objects, to be used and manipulated for the benefit of men, which is right in line with a “Dark Enlightenment” view that men should be controlling them and keeping them in line. Same attitude to women, just on a societal rather than an individual scale.
I was a fan of PUA, but I never thought about “women as objects”. For me it was more like: all humans are imperfect, but it is okay to speak publicly about imperfections of men, while it is taboo to discuss imperfections of women. Still, I want to understand the whole homo sapiens species with all its faults. Otherwise, I will be constantly surprised, which will prevent me from reaching my goals. One of those goals is a mutually satisfying heterosexual relationship. If my model of female psychology is wrong, I am walking on a minefield. And looking at the divorce statistics (and also an evidence from my previous relationships), the minefield is full of mines.
I fully understand that other people may study PUA for completely different reasons. For me, this feels like saying that some people study chemistry for evil reasons, so we should never mention atoms and molecules. Sorry, the information is already out there, and those people have enough opportunity to study it elsewhere.
For me, this feels like saying that [...] we should never mention atoms and molecules.
What does?
(From what you write, one would think that someone’s saying that because the PUA community sometimes/often/generally treats women as objects, we should never mention any of the things they talk about. But I don’t see anyone saying anything like that.)
George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist, argues that seemingly disparate groups which form political coalitions share underlying metaphors based on family structures. On the conservative side, he says that social conservatives and libertarian conservatives don’t really have conflicting agendas because both share what he calls “strict father morality.” They assume that we live in a harsh and dangerous world where men have to run things in a natural hierarchy, while the womenfolk and the children have to stay subordinate to men for their own protection. Strict fathers have the task of disciplining and toughening their children for the task of becoming self-reliant adults in the harsh and dangerous world. Therefore they oppose sexual freedom, on the social conservative side, and the welfare state, on the libertarian side, because both of these tend to weaken people’s character and make them less capable of personal responsibility and independence.
This organic affinity also sheds light on why PUA bloggers have started to sound like Dark Enlightenment bloggers and Neoreactionaries: By getting all that exposure to the ugly way women behave when you remove the traditional constraints on their real preferences, you can see that our conservative ancestors had a legitimate point of view when they enforced patriarchal norms to keep women in line. Women’s sexual freedom basically damages their ability to maintain a stable society.
It’s not clear to me why this is a better explanation than the obvious alternative from, so to speak, the other side: the PUA bloggers were already thinking of women as objects, to be used and manipulated for the benefit of men, which is right in line with a “Dark Enlightenment” view that men should be controlling them and keeping them in line. Same attitude to women, just on a societal rather than an individual scale.
I was a fan of PUA, but I never thought about “women as objects”. For me it was more like: all humans are imperfect, but it is okay to speak publicly about imperfections of men, while it is taboo to discuss imperfections of women. Still, I want to understand the whole homo sapiens species with all its faults. Otherwise, I will be constantly surprised, which will prevent me from reaching my goals. One of those goals is a mutually satisfying heterosexual relationship. If my model of female psychology is wrong, I am walking on a minefield. And looking at the divorce statistics (and also an evidence from my previous relationships), the minefield is full of mines.
I fully understand that other people may study PUA for completely different reasons. For me, this feels like saying that some people study chemistry for evil reasons, so we should never mention atoms and molecules. Sorry, the information is already out there, and those people have enough opportunity to study it elsewhere.
What does?
(From what you write, one would think that someone’s saying that because the PUA community sometimes/often/generally treats women as objects, we should never mention any of the things they talk about. But I don’t see anyone saying anything like that.)
Some people have a preference to not discuss PUA on LessWrong at all.