Asian Male-ism II: 44s Venus and 44s Mars
24 Responses | Leave a Comment »
If PUA is just a set of social skills to make yourself better able to relate to others, they would teach you to relate to women as people, not targets.
–Tokyolovestory
…our end goal should be to capture the mainstream coverage and to change the zeitgeist.
–Jaehwan
No one on the 44s, as far as I know, embraces all PUA, but PUA has pushed our discussions in a good direction. It’s helping us to see issues that cover not only the PUA/IR related issues, but other issues that are tangentially related to gender as well. It’s a good thing that these PUAs have influenced our conversations because we’re seeing things that we didn’t see before. This blog entry will be about differences in the views of men and women that have become apparent in the course of our PUA conversations, as well as in other past conversations. Through understanding these differences, how they occur, and why they occur, I hope we can understand each other better.
I quoted Tokyolovestory and myself above. Tokyo’s quote is from a response on part 1 of Asian Male-ism, while my words come from my Kingston piece. Notice the words we use. Tokyo asks us to “relate,” while I use the word “capture.” She uses a term in which people feel and understand other people. She decries the use of the concept of women as “targets.” Meanwhile, I use the term “capture” which one would be more likely to use with war. In war, one “captures” a “target.” I also use the word “change” and “zeitgeist” together, a concept that goes beyond human individuals and aims for large scale movement. In other words, Tokyo uses words and thoughts which one might characterize as typically feminine, while I use words and thoughts which one might characterize as typically masculine.
Such is the difference I see with our recent dialogue on the issue of PUA and sexism. Most men think like men, and most women think like women. Men expect that women think like men, and women expect that men think like women, which is why we sometimes why our words are fall on deaf ears with the opposite gender. Our education is so based on “gender free” politics and the eradication of gender differences that we often don’t see how our behaviors usually conform with gender. We assume that men can easily act like women and that women can easily act like men. We don’t see the world the same way as those from the other gender. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. This is why time and time again on the 44s, we see fights break out along gender lines.
Take my Kingston article for example. When I see an Asian American studies method that harms us, it’s a cause for war. My typical male mind sees things that ought to be moved, resources that ought to be reallocated, and garbage that ought to be tossed out. I see structures that prevent Asian Americans from advancing. I don’t care to hear excuses about why it’s okay to say untrue things about Chinese culture; I care about results. Maxine Hong Kingston’s personal feelings and the feelings of the militants who support her become irrelevant because I see the people whose lives have been destroyed by the culture. I see the pain that a pathological culture has created–an out of control female suicide rate and men needing to turn to PUA because the educational system is against them–and my male mind tells me I need to fix that culture.
When Tokyo sees the PUA discussions, she probably wonders where the compassion is. She sees men who can’t see women as people. She sees the absence of compassionate relationships, the absence of love, and the perpetuation of a culture where men see women as bodies without regard of their personalities. She sees a loveless town where men rate women by their physical appearance, where men treat relationships as an economic science. She sees an Asian America where the men treat the attraction of women as a game, and where flirting becomes a contest of oneupmanship. Why can’t men learn to listen to women rather than judging them on superficial values? After all, isn’t that where our best relationships take place? It’s an ugly picture.
In this case, everyone is right, but we’re right according to our genders. Years ago on the plains of Africa, men participated in the hunt and in war. Whether we were killing for food or killing to keep the bad guys away (and bad was relative), men were task focused. Evolution-wise, it didn’t help men to be compassionate with our prey; we simply had to make sure that everyone stood in the right place at the right time and executed our actions with decisiveness and coordination. This is why today in politics, when you see something bad take place, men usually focus on fixing the problem regardless of personal feelings. When Alberto Gonzales messed up by firing attorneys for political reasons, most political men called for his ouster. They didn’t care about what he brought to the table, they just saw that he was a problem and needed to be removed. Compassion be damned.
Women, on the other hand, were gatherers and leaders of families. Their responsibilities involved abilities that taught them to discern good from bad, not only with potential suitors who would have the resources to protect them and create stability, but they also had to manage relationships among women in the tribe. They needed to develop the ability to understand small children, humans who were unable to express themselves with words. Therefore, they developed relational skills that men didn’t need. This is why leaders like Princess Diana and Mother Teresa are lionized; they had amazing abilities to understand people, abilities that most people don’t have. This is why more woman are compassionate. This is why PUA hasn’t caught on with women.
Of course this doesn’t extend to all individuals–Bill Clinton was known for his listening abilities, and Meg Whitman is known for her executional abilities. But over large populations of men and women, the evolutionary trends still exist. People write books like “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus,” “The Wonder of Boys,” and “Women and Leadership” because we tend to be different.
In terms of the charge of PUAs viewing women as targets, it’s 100% true. PUAs do view women as targets, and they view women as “conquests”–which is an interesting term, if you think about the topic of discussion and the role of war in male history. PUAs don’t try to build relationships, nor do they try to teach sensitivity. Instead, they focus on going in for the kill, a typically male way of fixing a typical Asian American male problem. Like most typically male ways of thinking, the PUA approach is results-based; you either attract a woman or you don’t. You either win or you lose.
While I haven’t endorsed PUA, I will say that their approach oftentimes mimics the way most men think and the way society expects and encourages men to think. Like it or not, most men are expected to approach women, and not vice versa. Most men need to deal with the possibility and probability of rejection, and most men have to be emotionally prepared to be told no. For men who rarely get out of the house, this rejection can be devastating. The antidote to this devastation is a kind of objectification, a kind of saying, “She’s just ONE woman who turned you down, now you just have to ask ONE more.” Women become like numbers for two reasons. First, PUAs “enumerate” them in order to protect themselves from rejection. Second, PUAs “enumerate” them because physical appearance is often the first criteria that men use when evaluating women, much the same way women use social standing to evaluate men.
From what I’ve seen, PUA creates a brotherhood that helps men not only to develop the courage to take action, but also to develop the resiliency to fall and get back up. It also teaches men to go after women who meet the enumerated criteria. It’s very much a return to the old, more traditionally male ways of thinking. There is little subtlety involved.
Now some might say that times have changed. Men don’t have to kill animals anymore, nor do women spend their time in tribes of women, gathering berries and caring for kids. Sensitive guys are popular these days, as are results-oriented women. That is true. Shouldn’t we focus on eliminating gender roles? Shouldn’t men be more sensitive?
I would say yes, but at the same time, I think it’s unrealistic to expect that the majority of men will be able to fight biology which has come from years of evolution. It’s also unrealistic to expect most women to do the asking and to face whatever public and private humiliation that may arise from rejection. Men more often than not select women for looks, while women go for power and social standing. It’s just the way it is.
I was speaking with a co-worker, a self-described feminist in my office, who spoke about her son. My co-worker is a single mother who is raising a high school son. Statewide, she’s one of the leading salespeople in our industry, a mega multi-million dollar producer, and she is an open supporter of liberal causes. At the same time, she thinks there are differences between the genders. During one conversation, she said that she felt education had flipped to become pro-female. “Boys learn better in motion,” she said. “There have been studies that show young boys learn better when they’re throwing things around. And yet we ask them to sit still during every part of class, which benefits girls more than boys. This is why there are so many male dropouts these days. We ought to make things more equitable.”
I agree with her. Boys and girls are biologically different (irrefutable), and our biology causes us to act and live differently (refutable depending on context). It would be great if boys could learn the same way as girls, but in most cases, they can’t.
I won’t ask people to adopt my way of thinking, but I will ask people to consider that there is some truth in the idea that men and women are different. I think we can ask the opposite gender to see where we’re coming from. We’re no longer living in the age of hunting wild beasts or women living among other women in tribes, so things have clearly changed. Yet if the evolutionary record holds any water, it would be hard to expect all women to live the male perspective or vice versa. Most of us are hard wired differently.
Since this is a blog post about Asian male-ism, let me close with a quote about males, and let me address PUA once more. Thinking about the PUAs themselves whom we’ve met, whom we’ve heard on William’s podcasts, who inhabit the 108’s that I endorsed, this quote takes on a special significance:
To try to teach boys to “rise above instant gratification, “become more like girls,” “be more sensitive,” “not like sports as much,” and so on without first teaching them personally fruitful and socially acceptable ways to do all those things is to shoot ourselves in the foot. Boys don’t believe adults who don’t understand boys.”
Michael Gurian, “The Wonder of Boys,” ISBN 0-87477-887-5, p. 12
Stay tuned for my next piece, tentatively called “The Recurring Frat Boy.”
(Special thanks to Val, Jen, TokyoLoveStory, evil_FUX, Akrypti from 8A, The Stealth MC, and my anonymous coworker for helping me think through some of these issues.)
(Picture from here. The plot description of the movie makes no sense.)
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
nightshade
3:28 pm | Aug 21, 2008Man, I was going to stay off the site so I wouldn’t be an asshole. But I received criticism about this piece from someone who doesn’t have an account here and who wanted to post the following:
I’m not being passive aggressive, because you all know I’d say exactly what’s on my mind LIKE A MAN. And my two cents is WTF.
jaehwan
3:42 pm | Aug 21, 2008You have very interesting friends.
So am I right or wrong? As BetterAsianMan William might say, “If I’m full of shit, tell me why!”
nightshade
4:33 pm | Aug 21, 2008jaehwan, I don’t see a point in arguing with you, but you have essentially said that women are weak and retarded because they have vaginas.
You say that you have a problem when people tell lies about China, but when called out for doing the same on Korea and Korean children, you side with the white expat who “tells it like it is.” It’s very convenient for you to just dismiss the concerns of women and Asians in order to make your point. I find this extremely troubling. When Kingston does it, it’s a lie, but when you do it, it’s simply American. What kind of logic is that?
jaehwan
5:49 pm | Aug 21, 2008You’ve completely mischaracterized my position without reference to anything that I actually said. I’d like for you to quote where you got that from because that’s not what I said at all, and quite honestly, I’m offended by your accusation (though please don’t let my offense stop you from telling me if I’m wrong! “Tell me if I’m full of s$it!”). You’re basically accusing me of sexism where none exists.
Let’s take this a step back. What do you think of the idea that boys learn differently than girls? There’s a lot of evidence that that is the case. If you think there is another reason why we’re dividing along gender lines, let me know. If you think there is a reason why guys act like frat boys and women don’t, let me know. Let everyone know.
Nightshade,
Have you been to that thread recently? Here is a link. I didn’t lie; in fact, I didn’t even make any statements. I was just questioning. And in the end, I was right the whole time to question, and you and mao were wrong, as verified by someone who actually teaches there. The author of the Times article forgot to include the fact that not everyone takes the SAT. I was right to question those dubious numbers based on the assumption that everyone was tested because that assumption was wrong.
If we’re going to be debating issues and learning about the truth, we need to put aside our “concerns” and stop being afraid to ask hard questions, especially when the questions make sense. Let’s try to be correct rather than politically correct.
Back on topic–if we assume that I’m totally wrong, what is your solution?
jaehwan
6:02 pm | Aug 21, 2008By the way, do you honestly think that I think you’re less intelligent because you have a you-know-what? If you look at my post, most of the people I referenced were women. And I said that boys learn less well when they aren’t in motion. I would think that that would indicate exactly the opposite of me thinking women are less intelligent.
No, I just think genders tend to think differently, which is why Mars and Venus is a bestseller.
Back on topic!
ShangriLa
9:48 pm | Aug 21, 2008Any man who’s ever considered a woman only for sex devoid of intimacy or feeling is a sexist. Yes, I am a sexist, many times over. And I think I have allot of company. With this logic, why would any man care if women consider PUA a sexist approach to meeting women?
JadeDragon
9:51 pm | Aug 21, 2008No, just…no.
There have been studies and books published about how girls can be as aggressive as boys, and how they can be violent bullies too e.g. Rachel Simmons’ “Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls”. I would like to know what you’ve been reading to come up with such fallacious arguments about female aggression.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with the fact there are differences between the genders, but when you start reifying them to the point of quoting John Gray, that is just plain ridiculous. And anecdotes from co-workers don’t represent studies about how boys and girls are actually performing in school.
Jaehwan, I don’t want to argue with you because it will go nowhere and you’ll just dismiss my concerns because you think you’re “right”, so I’m stopping here.
SoulSnax
11:22 pm | Aug 21, 2008JadeDragon:
Please don’t use that poor excuse. Let’s hear your argument. So what if Jaehwan dismisses your concerns? So what if he thinks he is right? Does anyone ever think they are wrong? Jaehwan is not the only one here on the 44s. The rest of us would like to hear what you have to say.
Dare I say that we all have both the obligation and the privilege to make ourselves heard?
JadeDragon
12:11 am | Aug 22, 2008Soulsnax:
The gist of my argument has been laid out in preceding replies to other entries, and I used to write a lot more when the 44s was still the new kid on the block in 2005 and 2006. It’s just too bad that the system didn’t save posts from the 44s v.1 and v.2 when I did the bulk of my writing.
Anyway, just to be clear, here’s my position on PUA. I’m not against it. While it has its disadvantages, I think it can be useful for certain groups of people, as D has mentioned, and I am a fan of David Shade’s work, especially his sexual techniques, and classic Ross Jeffries. I also think William is doing a fine job with his site; I’ve visited it several times and I can see that he’s trying to improve the content all the time, which is admirable.
It’s just that when a few proponents of PUA start characterising women as walking stereotypes and use techniques that are morally ambiguous (besides fleecing other men of their money), that’s when I feel that PUA becomes shady. (David DeAngelo comes to mind.)
So, you see, my concerns have never really been about PUA, but rather how certain people view women in the context of dating and PUA. That’s all.
nightshade
1:22 am | Aug 22, 2008jaehwan, my reference in my post was about the fact that you sided with that poster who taught at that school. At this point, your credibility for me has reached a new low.
Seriously, I give up. Your heart is in the right place, but I can’t deal with reading these illogical posts.
tokyolovestory
1:39 am | Aug 22, 2008Jaehwan-
The words I used in that particular quote are, indeed, those of empathy and understanding, but it was a conditional statement. That is, I was trying to make the point that if PUA truly is for the “social betterment” of these men, it would be taught in such a way that they would be better able to relate socially to people. It wasn’t really so much an appeal to people to empathize because the people who know me know that I am not really that kind of woman. It seems odd to characterize ME from select words. In fact, I think a lot of the people I know personally would laugh at the idea of my being particularly feminine and/or asking for people’s empathy.
Because I have no idea what ALL PUA is like, I don’t condemn PUA all together. I am just offended by what I’ve seen in the places I’ve looked.
Men and women think differently but I don’t know that this is any real excuse to let people off for treating each other like trash.
Also, that final quote is questionable.
I don’t believe that anyone here is saying that boys should be more like girls, or not like sports as much(?!), and I don’t quite see how that relates to what we’re talking about. It seems unnecessarily divisive to imply that boys are somehow less capable of relating to others with empathy and caring.
nskripchun
2:57 am | Aug 22, 2008I’ve been marinating my thoughts about the issue for awhile; unfortunately at this point, I don’t think much can be gained on both sides of the equation (though this is more for the guys) to bring up the validity of PUA because the term itself has become too loaded. It’s the new “CCB”.
As for the cognitive / emotional / perspective differences between men and women, I’m inclined to say they definitely exist - but whether it’s due to strictly biology or social conditioning, is a pretty heady issue to dive into. I guess I’ll take the easy answer and hold both responsible. Haha.
awong
3:38 am | Aug 22, 2008i’m sick of hearing about this issue…good thing there are enough sports threads by rebelazn to keep me reading and commenting
THX1138
4:33 am | Aug 22, 2008The neverending PUA debate might be best summed up here:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Xian
11:45 am | Aug 22, 2008THX: Nice.
If you think there is a reason why guys act like frat boys and women don’t, let me know.
Because they are socially programmed to be misogynist and self-defeating. Women are also programmed to be misogynist and self-defeating. That’s why you can always dig up a bushel of women to agree with you. This is the same as any mainstream argument:
White people didn’t used to be racist because at that time it was socially normal to be racist.
I can take this ridiculous argument and dig up a dozen non-white people who would be happy to support it, but it doesn’t make it true.
Pointing to the best seller status of the poorly researched, “Women are from Jupiter, Man are from Uranus” is not evidence either–it just shows how people in the status quo are comforted by reading misogynist crap.
Instead of essentializing what society defines for gender roles, and then having pissing contests about it, why not develop ideology around gender the empowers and uplifts people rather than confines them and promote that?
I’ll start: There are some biological differences between women, just as there are large biological differences between individuals. These are easily trumped by nurturing of individual agency and equitable opportunities in the society. We cannot merely shove this in people’s faces, but must respect the power of the current socially constructed gender roles and work within them to explode them.
That didn’t hurt too much, did it?
wlee815
3:08 pm | Aug 22, 2008Tokyo,
Regarding your comment:
Do you think that the material taught by the Asian Playboy is taught in such a way that students who learn it would be better able to relate socially to people?
King4aDay
2:03 pm | Aug 23, 2008Hey wlee815,
I have to say that your site is MUCH better than the PUA sites that I have perused thus far. I’m curious, do you even call yourself a PUA? Your vision seems to be much broader than the standard PUA philosophy, from what I can tell.
I couldn’t read through your entire site in one sitting, of course, but I’ll continue to look around. As I said above, I’m not sure to what degree that you subscribe to the general PUA theory of male advancement, but here are a few points that I wish that all PUAs would begin their programs with:
1) There is very little that I can do for you, as a PUA, if you are a 2-rated guy and looking to date an 8-rated girl. Even if you are “relaxed” and “confident,” the chances of that happening in real life are pretty slim. However, I am willing to teach you how to better manage your expectations in a more realistic and healthy way.
* number ratings used on humans only for the sake of brevity in this post
2) The world of dating is much more a venue for failure than success. In order to succeed, it is likely that you will fail many times over. Therefore, we will focus more on handling rejection without undue embarrassment, anger, or ego damage, and less on the “secrets of how women’s minds work.”
3 A considerable amount of effort will be devoted to the deconstruction of the Hollywood/Madison Avenue image of the “ideal femme.” Our course will attempt to reveal that the “perfect woman” (as males often perceive her) is more often the result of professional makeup, trick photography, hair extensions, dental implants, cosmetic surgery, and hours of airbrushing rather than of human genetics. By the end of the course you will have gained the important skill of delineating the difference between real women and fantasies.
4 A questionnaire will be administered to all clients and reviewed by a professional. This step is particularly helpful because the trouble that many men have in dating women is actually more rooted in their deeper (and somewhat unrelated) psychological issues) than in their dating methodology. Referrals to counselors will be provided upon request.
That may come across as a bit loony, but perhaps something less dramatic but in the same spirit?
wlee815
12:28 am | Aug 25, 2008King4aday,
I am not a pick up artist, but, as I mention in all of my posts under the “One Asian American Man’s Life” category on my blog, I DID take a class taught by pickup artists (one of whom was the Asian Playboy). This class is also referred to as “a bootcamp.”
I subscribe 100% to the Asian Playboy’s techniques for 1) being yourself, and 2) learning how to better convey yourself to women.
However, I do not know what the PUA theory of male advancement is. Could you explain to me what that is?
My vision for http://www.betterasianman.com was to show people how I became more empowered in my life by showing people what I was like before I took my bootcamp, and what I am like now that I have completed my bootcamp. I also leave things open at the end of each post to give people a chance to chime in because I DO believe that there are other ways to improve one’s love life without having to take a class with the Asian Playboy, but I have been unable to identify one that has made as dramatic, and also consistent, results.
-William
Ike
3:03 am | Aug 25, 2008Xian - Agreed.
Jaehwan - You took two random sentences out of context and applied your own theories about the innate difference between men and women to them.
King4aDay
12:35 pm | Aug 25, 2008Wlee815 said:
“I subscribe 100% to the Asian Playboy’s techniques for 1) being yourself, and 2) learning how to better convey yourself to women.
However, I do not know what the PUA theory of male advancement is. Could you explain to me what that is?”
——–
To answer your question, I’d first look at the Wikipedia definition of a Pick Up Artist.
“A pickup artist, commonly abbreviated PUA,[1] is a term used to describe a man who is skilled in meeting, attracting, and seducing women. The use of “pickup” in this context, slang for making a casual acquaintance with a stranger in anticipation of sexual relations…”
“…The term is also associated with the seduction community, a male subculture based on the goal of improved sexual and romantic abilities with women using either self-help, an understanding of social psychology and/or techniques derived from Neuro-linguistic programming.”
The basic theory of male advancement, in a nutshell, and from what I’ve been able to cobble together from reading different sites is as follows:
The better men are at persuading women to have sex with them, the more confident, happy, and well adjusted he will be.
That’s my impression from my looking around so far, but tell if you think I’m getting it wrong.
wlee815
6:39 pm | Aug 25, 2008King4aday,
Well based on your definition of the PUA theory of male advancement:
The better men are at persuading women to have sex with them, the more confident, happy, and well adjusted he will be.
I once subscribed 100% to this theory. During the initial few weeks after my bootcamp, I spent a lot of time working on the basic fundamentals of social interaction, conveying oneself to a woman in a way that a woman can understand, and “being myself” using the structure that the ABCs of Attraction curriculum recommends. That actually DID make me better able to romantically connect with women, and during that time, that DID make me more confident, happy, and well adjusted.
However, I am at at a point now where this theory is no longer 100% useful in my life. Simply being able to romantically connect with a woman is something that I’ve already been able to accomplish many times over (thanks to the life-altering realizations and lessons I learned during my “bootcamp”), and now, just doing that in itself doesn’t make me happy– I actually need that, along with a long term relationship. I believe that the only way, though, to have a healthy long term relationship with someone is to build up one’s survival value, as well as one’s replication value. I have the survival value part pretty much down pat, but I’m constantly working on building up my replication value. I understand that many of the 44s already have both of these aspects of their lives together, and thus they have no problem with their romantic lives. I, however, have a bit more catching up to do. If you’re interested, here are my latest thoughts on survival and replication value.
http://www.betterasianman.com/blog/?p=84
-William
King4aDay
6:56 pm | Aug 25, 2008Interesting.
I’m wondering if you and I shouldn’t wander over to the forum side and continue discussing there, if you’re willing?
It sounds like you’re referring to Nick Savoy’s work, “The Mystery Method.” It might be interesting to exchange ideas about it.
I, at least, am curious.
wlee815
8:36 am | Aug 26, 2008King4aday,
I’ve never visited the forums, but I would like to chat about this subject or any other with you. Which conversation thread do I go to?
-William
King4aDay
1:39 pm | Aug 26, 2008wlee815, I’ve entitled the thread:
“The PUA Theory of Male Advancement”
http://www.thefighting44s.com/forum/showthread.php?p=45222#post45222
This way we can discuss this somewhat tangential issue without unduly prolonging the responses to Jaehwan Article.
Also, others may also wish to ask questions and it may be easier to accomplish that in the Forums area.
See you over in Forums.