Writing about gender, power, and privilege

Game Development
421

@Drazen

I think that we all extrapolate based on our own experiences and our identities. I have no doubt that mine shape my view of the world, just as yours shape yours.

“Gender-roles are frequently held as being oppressive or destructive. I couldn’t disagree more.”

You’re right, I shouldn’t have mentioned your identity, since it seems to have derailed you from considering any of my other points and just latching onto that one sentence. I thought it was relevant to the above sentence, but thinking about it, it isn’t. There’s plenty of straight cismen who gender roles are oppressive and destructive towards. It’s an irrelevant detail and I shouldn’t have brought it up.

422

Over the years… I’ve been called many things, I’ve been maligned as a “dyke” and a “faggot” and numerous other labels I’m not going to bother repeating. But on the other end of the extremes I’ve been told that just by existing that “I make the world a better place” simply because I’m gay, and I have absolutely no f***ing clue as to what they’re talking about by saying that. What it’s enabled me to do is be an observer to a constant shift in social dynamics, and it lead me to come to one all encompassing conclusion about “gender-roles”, “gender-politics”, “sexuality”, "romance, “love”, etc etc etc… which is this:

Your preconceived notions about gender and sexuality are superfluous…

I’m not going to be diplomatic about it, I often prefer to be blunt about these sort of things, because it clears the air of ambiguity and what I often find to be pseudo-intellectual nonsense from people trying to be an authority on such issues. Now it may come off as though I’m trying to be that authority, but in fact, I’m not, I’m actually lumping myself into having just as much ignorance as everyone else. And the more some tries to define “gender-roles” or whatever else kind of jargon, I’m going to rip apart that very ideal.

Throughout history, gender-roles and sexuality have proven to be fluid. To think otherwise is to ignore hundreds of thousands even millions of years of evolutionary reality of numerous species taking on the duality of “male” and “female and what constitutes as “masculine” and feminine”. In fact, within the animal kingdom and amongst human social constructs themselves, we see males taking on passive, submissive roles while females taking on aggressive, assertive roles. In either case what you have there is males taking on what’s often viewed as part of a “feminine” dynamic, and females taking on what’s considered a “masculine” dynamic. We see men dominating women but then on flip side we see women dominating men. Such things within human society have been observed by other humans for thousands of years, hell, within the Kama Sutra you can read about the “virile” nature of women, yet the term “virile” is primarily defined by the sex drive of men.

The ideal of the patriarchy only exists because that’s become the latest social norm (and by latest I mean the last couple millennia), and the shifts are continuously slow to change to which begins to take on a more matriarchal role or patriarchal one because it takes numerous generations to alter the handed down perceptions of past generations. What’s causing these dynamics to shift so much faster in the 20th and 21st century is simply because of the advent of information sharing and having become far more globally connected; thus causing numerous cultures to interact with one another, and by proxy bleed into one another. Which leads into the challenging of each cultures current flavor of “gender-roles”.

The only real hard-line constant for “gender-roles” is that it takes a male and female to make a baby, outside of that, while there maybe “traditional” views, which one takes on the more mothering role or fathering role for raising said baby is fluid. It changes within the social dynamic, it changes with the situations of the parents, it changes with the times, it changes with environment altogether. Nature finds its own way and to think human “gender-roles” preconceived concepts aren’t dictated by that then that’s a clear indicator of being ignorant to what exactly nature is.

So by trying to define or state “this is how it is” on such a topic is utterly ignore everything that has gone on not in just the course of human history but nature as a whole. And the moment when making such claims of “how things are” you have to add a disclaimer of “I’m not a bigot but…” or “This might come off as sexist but its not”, then maybe it might be time to pause for a second and analyze a little deeper as to why it maybe perceived that way when looking at the broader context of sexuality and gender beyond the last several decades of ingrained patriarchal social beliefs. And yes, I do mean pretty exactingly the last several decades, because the years before the last few decades have little to nothing in common with gender-politics of today. Superficial similarities is one thing, true similarities are another.

So then what’s the answer for the social norms and making everyone comfortable with the changing social dynamics of sexuality and gender-politics of the current era? F*** if I know. All I do know is that the more you try to define something as fluid as sexuality and “gender-roles” the more silly it becomes as time progresses, especially when looking at the broader spectrum of human history and nature itself, because those ideals continually prove flawed. The more you try to specifically categorize something that has numerous variables, the more you’ll come up with a wrong answer.

But what does this mean for writing? Honestly it’s up to the writer, I’m not going to tell any writer to that they have to have this “romance plot” or they have must have “this LGBT representation” or they have to “think of this audience”. I often write stuff that’s entertaining to me, and I often don’t really think about much else. And as a long time PnP player who’s written campaigns for DnD, oWoD, Rifts (old PnP game not the MMO), SW, and some custom games my brothers and I created ourselves, there are times I’ve written things where I’ve had complaints and been told, “I don’t like that type of story”, to which I always say, “Well then obviously you’re not the audience I wrote it for”.

And I’ll concede it’s hypocritical of me to say all that, and still be exasperated with games where it’s yet again another male lead catering to the typical adolescent to early-twenties Caucasian demographic. But I still acknowledge that the game/story/movie/whatever wasn’t written for me, I may still play it or watch it, but I’m still not the audience they made said game or movie or whatever for, and that’s fine. But it’s also why it’s always such a breath of fresh air to be able to play a female character, because the former example is such a damn cliche these days. Which is why I think the gradual rise of being able to choose between male or female within a narrative is becoming a staple, because many others either share that sentiment and/or the writer (s) wants to broaden their audience.

Furthermore the idea that for whatever reason, even within a fantasy setting, that story needs to be altered in some form if there’s a female protagonist aspect to it. This too is absurd, most stories I’ve written for my campaigns, I’ve gotten compliments from my guy friends that I made a tale where it was possible to be “badass warrior”, I never did tell them that each of those campaigns I wrote for them was with a female protagonist lead in mind–all I did was turn the "she"s into "he"s. Even the physicality excuses are nonsense, yeah sure the average man has more upper-body strength than the average woman, but the average woman has more lower-body strength than the average man. Even this last Olympics it was demonstrated when women to train for just as long as men and they’ll perform just as good. As with anything it simply takes several generations to reach that point (hell, it was something we proved when I was kid back in freshman high school algebra class in a statistics experiment).

So in the end, whatever importance or belief of “gender-roles” or gender-politics constantly needing a forum and needing to be shown or exclaimed in some way is nonsense. There are no real answers. It’s all merely perception, whatever importance is placed upon it is simply done so by individuals agreeing with like minded individuals, but having no real bearing beyond that shown by numerous examples proving otherwise. The only importance it has is whatever amount one decides to give it.

1 Like
423

@FairyGodfeather I extrapolated that sentence because I thought it was a fine illustration of how one camp views the other, rather than how you used it in relation to my stance on gender roles. A similar typical expression would be the one you used against @2Ton: “It is something that you are ignorant about though and you’re clinging on desperately to that ignorance and not listening to what I’m saying.” - Now, I am not a stupid man, and I understand (at least, I believe I do) the rival positions to mine; yet whenever I discuss such with a person who actively campaigns for said positions, they seem to assume that I am ignorant, and that it is their duty not to debate, but to educate. We cannot tackle an issue if conclusions are dismissed as bigotry or phobia, nor if the principles are dismissed as ignorance.

And I didn’t address any of your points against my beliefs, for two reasons:

The first is that arguing why we came to such different conclusions on matters of gender and sexuality, or which position is correct, is, at the moment, irrelevant. My argument was simply that one side cannot say “This is right, they are wrong; If they don’t do things as we say, that is wrong.” - We need to recognise that multiple positions exist and are legitimate contenders, and I stated my antithetical (to yours) beliefs to illustrate that.

The second is that I’m doubtful of whether such would be productive, at present. You find my beliefs to be objectionable, as does @Havenstone in some regards, it seems - and doubtless also do many others; But you’ll have probably noticed that I am unyielding to such criticisms. If I will stick to explaining what I think regardless of whether my beliefs are found to be upsetting, and you will find my views harsh, offensive, oppressive, et cetera, and oppose them passionately, how much do you think either of us will gain from such a discussion?

So I am not averse to debating Essentialism vs. Constructivism, but I don’t think this conversation, at the moment, in this environment, is the best place to do so.

424

I like what @Apillis said alot, not being called slurs part but everything else.

425

@Drazen I have been specifically asked, by a moderator to drop things with 2ton. So can you please stop bringing it up. I am not replying to the last post he made. I am not replying to what you said. I am letting the matter drop. So please can you do likewise.

426

@FairyGodfeather I was replying to what you’d said to me, - a message which nowhere featured the request that this topic be dropped. Not talking to @2Ton about something he doesn’t wish to engage with is fine, but has no bearing on a conversation with me. But if you wish to bow out, then very well.

@Apillis I suppose my main counter-point to your position is that it is, or may be, misleading. For you are correct that there is a fluidity to this environment, and that it is a complex topic, but I do not see what bearing that has on the veracity of positions, beyond driving them away from bluntness.

For I could make a connection, here, to morality: Just because there are many different beliefs about what is ethical, and many vagaries to consider in moral scenarios, does not determine whether one is a moral Realist or Anti-Realist. Similarly, Essentialism and Constructivism on gender/sexuality have validity, and are consequential, regardless of the complexity of the topic.

427

@Drazen Honestly, I’m not going to be drawn into conversations about whatever comparisons you want to drum up for comparing sexuality to other topics like morality or realism. Because it’d just distill into evasions of directly talking about the primary topic at hand, while also detracting from the topic by getting into other topics needlessly.

The over-arching point I was making, while long-winded, is the fact that sexuality and “gender-roles” not just this environment, but throughout time has been fluid. So when you’re trying to compartmentalize “gender-roles” as you see them, it ignores the counter examples reaching back thousands of years of human social development via wide-spread migrating cultures. Some of which lasted and existed longer than the current western patriarchal views you’re accustomed to.

In effect, there is no nailed down and defined “gender-role” outside of it takes a “male” and “female” to create baby (or babies), and you know what, even that within Nature is challenged by varying species. Every generation, every era on one level or another challenges the preconceived “gender-roles” of their time for thousands of years now. Today it’s just far more wide-spread and openly discussed, thus enabling the challenge to the last era’s notions of “sexuality” and “gender-roles” to come far more sooner. That’s the only real difference (while quite significant).

Therefore going back to my original point at the top of my last post, whatever your preconceived notions are about sexuality and gender-roles, they’re superfluous in the larger scheme of things.

Within writing itself, the only importance it has–like in life, only has as much credence as you give it. If one is doing a historical piece, then naturally reflecting the social constructs of the time is important, but if that historical piece is going to be fictional, then it can be challenged whether for good or ill. Then again, there are historical realities of where those social constructs were challenged, whether successfully or disastrously. Within writing, especially within fiction, sexuality and gender-roles, much like the limitations of human history and technology, only bears as much gravitas and significance as the writer decides to give it. It’s not bound by anyone else’s ideals beyond they writer’s own. Thus how open-ended it is in terms of sexuality and so-called gender-roles is really up to the writer, and nothing more.

428

@Apillis It wasn’t an evasion, it was an analogy.

You declare preconceived notions to be superfluous. Fine. That’s because they’re preconceived; if you’re attempting to reduce all thought of gender-roles to mere preconceptions, then I disagree. Either way, I’m likewise not going to be drawn into discussing this distraction.

429

@2Ton If you want to step out of a conversation, and you made it clear that you did, you need to step out of it, not bounce back and forth in and out.

430

When discussing about gender equality, I tend to find myself thinking that the whole issue is at least partially derived from a feeling of inadequacy between both sides. As a male, I can understand somewhat about the inadequacy felt by men when they see women encroaching on traditional male gender roles.

Traditional male gender roles are generally defined by power, influence, wealth, things that, at least in the male mind, that women find attractive. But the opposite isn’t true. The majority of men don’t particularly find dominant women attractive. In fact, in many cultures, most men specifically look for partners that are less dominant than they are in terms of power, influence, and wealth. I know for a fact that many men don’t find it comfortable to know that their wives have a higher income than they do.

So the question I ask is this: is the fight for gender equality solely based on a sense of principle for women?

431

More like a better standard of living for themselves rather than reliance on another. That’s self-sufficiency via being able to fend for themselves, i.e. survival-based more than anything else. Within the last couple centuries “power, influence, wealth” and whatever else one wants to attribute to being “traditional” male gender roles. But reality is, in each culture it wasn’t merely being male that had a monopoly on this–it was status by itself. While the view of those traits being utterly male is completely skewed as human history itself discredits the notion.

While within patriarchal societies obviously men would hold the most ‘influence’, a woman could still completely trump this via influence of her own, doesn’t matter if it was a patriarch or not. In fact, that also made her quite desirable. Why? Simple. Marriage going back before the modern era was a business arrangement, if a woman was single and had plenty of wealth and influence, by marrying her–the man who did would by proxy have access to her resources. That in those days was a very, very wanted trait. In fact, it’s what marriage among nobility was all about as mothers and fathers set up marriage arrangements with their sons and daughters.

These were power deals, and women were engaged in them constantly, not as merely the brides to be wedded off, but very often as the deal brokers themselves. These were the big “company” mergers of ages past.

Now look at today even. There are many, many men would want to marry powerful women for simple economic security. Men have that same desire to feel economically secure that women do as well. While a significant portion of men may seek to gain that security on their own (like many women do, especially within the modern era), if a woman enters their life who can provide that security for them it’s exceedingly naive and ignorant to think they would turn spurn that opportunity. Just as in the days of yore, if a woman of high-born social status was arranged to be married to a man with lesser standing than she, he’d be seen as a fool and utterly discredited if he were to turn that arrangement down, and likely wind up in a worse position via being outright discredited.

That is why these notions of “gender-roles”, they’re just constructed ideals of what one believes to be how things are when there’s numerous cultural counter examples to be given. There is no true, all-encompassing ideal of what “gender-roles” are as they shift some times slightly and other times significantly with each era that passes. More so in the current times in their social progression.

432

I think you’re mixing the concepts of love and marriage. Medieval political marriages are arranged affairs and it is fair to say that many were between couples who had no attraction between each other. A man may marry a woman of wealth and he may fall in love with her. However, there is no inherent sexual value attached to her wealth for most people.

I feel that this is not the case for women. This may be a cultural phenomenon, but I used to watch this show where different bachelors stands before a group of bachelorettes in order to seek a date with one of them. More often than not, bachelorettes of equal or greater income than the bachelor would refuse to go on a date with him.

But anyways, independence from having to rely on another - that I can understand. It is something admirable to fight for.

433

It’s less income and more perceived competence, as I mentioned elsewhere. A lot of women like to be with somebody who is very, very good at something. Income is a (very flawed) shortcut for evaluating that. Wealth is even better because wealth can buy other people’s competence. This idea of super-competence is part of the appeal of starving artists and penniless poets and local musicians, who can still make feminine hearts flutter even if they can barely afford their mac & cheese. But a guy who isn’t making much money and doesn’t have much money and doesn’t spend his time doing anything more interesting than watching The Game? Doesn’t make her laugh? Isn’t good in bed? Isn’t devastatingly attractive? Probably isn’t going to win the bachelorette of his choice.

Of course, outside of tv shows, a lot of women are willing to settle for ‘not being alone’. And so are a lot of men. I think evaluating the efforts toward gender equality on the basis of romantic relationships is a bit flawed, since we’re extremely social animals and the pressure to pair off is incredibly high on both sides, but even more so on women. You suggest (and maybe it was explicit, I don’t know) that the woman with the higher income rejected the bachelor because his income was lower, but it could just as much be that the higher income reflects a more confident and self-sufficient personality, a woman who knows she doesn’t need to depend on a guy and thus knows she can afford to be choosy and only connect with somebody she really really likes.

But society in general doesn’t really approve of women being choosy…

434

Actually, those marriages I mentioned aren’t relegated to the medieval ages, they span back before the bronze age and can still be seen (though to a severely lesser extent) occurring today. The idea in those days (and still today to some extent) is that love may be immediate, or not happen at all. But the marriages in of themselves were not nearly as much on the political front unless it involved a monarchy, and far more had to do with thriving economically for the family line and wealth to progress into the next generation to maintain status. In fact, even when involving a monarchy more often than not pure economics overrides socio-political agendas, for the latter cannot thrive without the former.

But the issue of love, are you saying that a man couldn’t (or is less likely to) love a woman if she had more wealth and influence and greater status than him? I can promise you, that too is a flawed belief. For the security and protection her wealth and influence can provide and that she is willing to extend this to him, what man would be fool enough to at the very least not be flattered by such a gesture? Love wouldn’t be able to blossom from such a thing?

Queen Victoria whom the Victorian age is named after, her marriage to Prince Albert, was one blatantly of mutual love. But she clearly held the power between the two, she was thee monarch of arguably the most influential nation of the time (hence the era even being named after its queen recognized and referenced by countries no longer monarchies such as US itself taking on the social etiquette and fashion of the time (an example Annie Oakley was considered a “Victorian woman”)), and he coming from a ducal (though an influential one, but definitely not comparable to that of a queen). But even Albert’s parents were a somewhat similar situation (though they had a massive age gap) as his father a duke, failing to win the hand of the grand duchess of Russia (another situation where a man of lesser standing seeking to uplift themselves and their prominence via winning the hand of a woman of more significant status), he then sought to win the hand of the granddaughter of Princess Louise (whom her granddaughter shares the same name), who once again had greater standing than himself. So, you see, whether you’re male or female in those ages, it didn’t really matter so long as you were marrying up and not down, unless you were a monarch of a nation–then all you had was to look down as those of equal standing were of exceedingly slim pickings. And love in of itself was a byproduct, some times it happened, some times it didn’t, but in the case of Queen Victoria and Prince-consort Albert, it was there, and going by their private journals, diaries, and letters–it was genuine.

435

@Chrysola Perhaps you are right that it’s more a reflection of the bachelor’s ability than his actual income. But then again, couldn’t you also turn this around and say that great competence also implies a steady income? The reason I brought up this point was because I feel that human culture and human sexuality are inherently linked. Perhaps, like America’s gun fetish, resistance to changes for greater gender equality (by both men and women) is a result of a culturally established sexual… standard.

@Apillis Ah, you just said it yourself that arranged marriages need not be political. At no point did I say it was purely political, only that the mutual attraction between the soon-to-be-married isn’t necessarily an important consideration in this arrangement. Now, going back to the point at hand, I can tell you for a fact that there are men, many of them in fact, that don’t feel comfortable marrying a woman of greater power or wealth. Men, just like women, have certain societal expectations. And if you fail to meet those expectations, you can expect to be ridiculed. The one thing I want to point out is that these expectations can often become internalized and affect people even without societal pressure.

For example, it is very likely that a man will be ridiculed if he loses a fist-fight against a girl. However, for many men, even without experiencing actual ridicule, he will feel ashamed that he got beat up by a girl. That same feeling can be felt by a man who realizes that he will never be the “bread-winner” in the relationship. It’s a challenge to his “manhood” and it’s almost saying that he needs to rely on a woman for his livelihood.

Hm. Now that I thought about it a little more, perhaps I haven’t seen the entire picture of this issue. Gender and sex are defined differently. The male and female sexes have specific attributes attached to them. “Man” and “Woman” are different. Their definition are dependent on each other. Like big vs small, and long vs short, they have no meaning when used alone. Perhaps that is why there is resistance to gender equality. Because the very premise of it seeks to destroy the definition of “man” and “woman”. Similar to those who cling on to their religion, their culture, their national ideals, this definition is a part of how they view themselves and the world around them. And I guess for many people, such a drastic change isn’t something they can come to terms with.

436

A man has to rely on a woman for his livelihood one way or another if he’s married to one. It’s a silly notion to think spouses are mutually exclusive of another upon being married, those that do largely fail. And yes, I did say that love isn’t necessary but marriage, but I also said that even in arranged marriages it is still possible. It’s all well and good to see your own point being made, but merely ignoring the counter-point that’s simultaneously glaring there beside it doesn’t suddenly make it vanish.

The resistance to gender equality isn’t simply the definition of the wording, nor even an over-abundance of one side verse the other. It’s an antiquated minority (in regards to Western culture) clinging to a patriarchal ideal they’re largely ignorant about it themselves or the fact it never truly existed. The reality is the closest thing you can get to a purely patriarchal society (or societies) is going back to the Greco-Roman eras, but even those had been subverted in numerous ways by women and varying matriarchal social circles. But as the point I made in a previous post, sexuality and gender-politics is fluid and is constantly shifting, and by the Renaissance sexuality and gender-politics held a black and white difference between it and the Greco-Roman classical era. And for the simple reason it takes generations to bleed out the notions of the past and presumed “traditional” beliefs. Such as, for example during the Greco-Roman era, amongst the Greeks sexuality between women was something never even really discussed (outside of rarities like Sapphos) as within their culture the two genders were largely segregated from one another and it was men who largely recorded the culture and history; whereas with the Romans it was seen as abhorrent altogether for women to be together sexually. But, jump to the Renaissance era and suddenly the ideal of two women being together was seen as “fashionable”, even in their 17th and 18th centuries (the Renaissance had ended by the 17th century) there were gay marriages between women recorded; yet in a bipolar cultural whiplash during the Renaissance if a woman dressed as a man and engaged in sexual activities it was seen as a severe crime punishable by death or life imprisonment. But… then skip to the Victorian era where such things simply were discussed though possibly scrutinized, yet a “romantic” relationship with two women was highly praised and encouraged, especially amongst young women (under the hetero-patriarchal mind this was to “prepare” them for intimacy with their husband, yet seldom ever translated as such in the end, even if they married).

The point being regardless of whatever “gender-roles” and gender-politics one wants to try to enforce, whether it be patriarchal or matriarchal, whatever its perceived norms are, they are simultaneously subverted one way or another.

The ideal of the male being the supposed bread-winner at all times is actually nonsense, and largely doesn’t truly exist in the purist sense (though no doubt many men would like their egos to be soothed into believing it does and that it’s possible for them). But the reality is they can’t perform that function without said partner and the apparati that enables them to get said bread, so in reality they’re not winning said bread on their own. And the vice versa of that also applies. All of it again, just boils down to perceptions, just concepts drilled into ones head over the course of generations that in the end really, when stripped down, become meaningless and are fluid with inter-changeable functionalism. Just as there are stay-at-home-moms, there are stay-at-home-dads, and then there two working parents who are both bread-winners. The idea there is purely just the “male earner” that is how it can only be is largely dead today, but then even looking back centuries it still stood on shaky ground in many cases. Again, status trumps everything.

437

A woman once told me that it is better for a man to be respected than loved, because a man who is respected can earn love while a man who isn’t respected will eventually lose it. I think there is fear on the part of many men that their wives will lose respect for them over time if they earn less than their wives do, and after the respect goes, so too will the love. And unfortunately I think that fear is to a large extent justified because it’s not just men that have internalized their role, so too have a lot of women.

A lot of women -expect- their mates to be the primary provider, and lose respect for their men when they aren’t. And what makes things particularly complicated is that even women who may be initially egalitarian/liberated enough to cast this aside, may change their minds five, ten, or even twenty years down the road. Several men I know who married women who earned more than they did ended up getting dumped years later for alpha men who earned more than their wives. They get a story along the lines of, “You’re a very nice guy and you’re wonderful with our kids, but I need something more…”.

A lot of women are attracted to alpha males, and it’s much easier for a man to look like an alpha in his wife’s eyes when he makes more than she does. Society tends to encourage women to “marry up”, and this can cause dissatisfaction over time if a woman feels her mate is beneath her or that she could land someone of higher status. I don’t know how much of this is nature and how much is nurture, but it unfortunately strikes me as a justifiable concern upon the part of men thinking about marriage even in this more egalitarian day and age. The old gender-roles have been up-ended, but the dust hasn’t quite settled, and the shades of the old roles still cast a long shadow on -both- sexes.

438

Out of curiosity, are you pulling your definition of ‘alpha male’ from romance novel lingo or pick-up artist lingo?

I agree that whether or not it’s valid, a lot of men put undue stress on themselves about their income. This was rather a shock to me when I realized that where appearance is stressed for women, income is what is stressed for men, and it’s just as much of a life-destroying pressure. It has been the rallying cry for many feminists that the devaluing of the feminine and the overemphasizing of the masculine hurts both genders, not just women.

So… what are we talking about again? I’ve lost track.

439

@Chrysoula We all come at this from somewhat different angles so it’s not surprising if we don’t see it exactly the same way. Not being female myself, my definition comes from years of curiously observing and listening to women on the subject. That said, there is some fuzziness as women do not agree on the boundaries of the “alpha male” term as one woman’s sexily forceful is another woman’s overbearing jerk. There is also a not insignificant slice of the female population that say they want one sort of man, but always seem to end up chasing after a completely different sort of man. This in turn leads to the particular pick-up artist approach you mentioned as some men respond to that distinction, and assume it will work on all women, even when done badly. Nevertheless, If it didn’t work with a significant slice of the female population, when done well, it would get abandoned pretty quickly.

440

Well, I just wondered because an ‘alpha male’ as defined by the romance industry and an ‘alpha male’ as described by PUA aren’t exactly the same and the differences are pretty crucial. But if you’re going on your own observations, that’s an entirely different thing.

I think it’s unlikely there’s any significant overlap between the women who respond to PUA and women who read romance novels, I will say. Sure, there’s some but I don’t think it correlates particularly highly, partially because modern romance novels work on a completely different axis than PUA-- focusing on respect, trust and faith in a woman’s intrinsic worth. I think PUA moves generally work on the idea of tearing a woman down.

It’s probably worth noting that I read romance novels and I can be a bit touchy when people look down on them. I won’t mount a proactive defense or anything but I will note there’s a lot of correlation between ‘X is mostly consumed by women’ and mockery of X, and that includes romance novels. It is once again the devaluing of the feminine.