In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Auctionocracy | Main | Karaoke Smackdown »

November 01, 2007

Blogging Smackdown

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

It's Clio vs. Roissy (in the comments). At stake: the future of the 21st century male-female thing. Is "game" a necessary survival toolkit for the new hetero male, or a cynical ploy that feeds ego and poisons relations? Clio's own blog is here.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at November 1, 2007




Comments

Roissy certainly has a way with words, even if this little worm of doubt tells me that perhaps not everything he writes is 100% Gospel truth. Take, for example, his description of his first interracial sexual experience:

I loved how aesthetically pleasing was the contrast between the white jizz and the black skin. Like modern art, the geometric arrangement and bold ejaculatory strokes set against the dark canvas of her smooth skin prompted me to admire my handiwork like I was pausing in front of a particularly abstruse painting in a museum to contemplate its majesty.

I believe he meant "abstract" instead of "abtruse," but that's a minor quibble. And he ends his discourse on a practical note:

Plus, it made finding the mess easier for cleanup.

Posted by: Peter on November 1, 2007 4:55 PM



Wow--A debate between a fortysomething woman who claims not to have met anyone "suitable" for marriage in over twenty years of dating, and a guy who claims to go through women like toilet paper, arguing about the state of modern man vs. woman!

Perhaps somebody who doesn't see the other sex as a continual stream of amusement or "unsuitable" might make a contribution to the debate? Perhaps not. A modern version or Sartre's No Exit? The two deserve one another, in my opinion.

Posted by: BIOH on November 1, 2007 9:36 PM



Peter -- Funny. I wonder if it'll turn out that "Roissy in D.C." is actually being written by a 12 year old girl. As for the jizz-as-art thing ... There was a bio of Jackson Pollock out maybe ten years ago that made a related case -- tried to draw a connection between pissing in the snow in the great West and flinging streams of paint around on canvas in NYC. In all seroiousness it was offered as a Freud-Citizen-Kane like charater sum-up. Well, there is actually something of a writing-your-name-in-the-snow quality to Pollock's paintings...

BIOH -- You wouldn't expect people who command some real writing flair to be anything like normal, would you?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 1, 2007 9:41 PM



I don't know about the writing flair of someone who uses the phrase "She orgasmed freely". I never considered Penthouse Letters to be a model of literary sophistication, but maybe I'm behind the times.

But yeah, what BIOH said.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on November 2, 2007 1:11 AM



I don't get the tone of these comments, my dears, really I don't. Why would the experience of twenty years of dating not be a good basis upon which to write about what Michael calls the "male-female thing"? After all, somebody who marries once, especially when young, will only have his/her knowledge of one person to draw upon.

If I had been married, and divorced, and remarried, would I have a greater right to speak with authority?

I ought perhaps to point out that my comments were in no way meant as a final summary of the present state of the war between the sexes. And that there are a great many reasons why people may find marriage difficult to achieve: those who are lucky enough to have made happy ones should not gloat so nastily over those who were not, especially as there was nothing in what I said that suggests a contempt for marriage, men, or "normality".

p.s. Michael, tarnation, why did you drag me into this? You do love to put the cat among the pigeons, don't you?

Posted by: alias clio on November 2, 2007 2:06 AM



Dating is a godawful business that all sensible people avoid like the plague.

The newly hatched singles society copies the habits of gay men. The problem (among many) is that the women want to adopt most of the conventions of gay life, with the exception of the over the top promiscuity. This is call "serial monogamy" and it is a lie. Women in the singles culture try to convince themselves that they are not whoring because they dispose of one man (in theory) before moving on to another. This seems to be remarkably important to women... for what reason? I suspect that this is just an attempt to maintain the moral upper hand over men. Women love to brow beat men with their self-assumed moral authority. See the past 50 years of feminism.

The gay worship that won over NYC in the past 15 years reflects this reality. The hetero singles want the same wide open sex life as gay men. This leads to the same vacuous, trendy type of relationships gay men usually experience. Everybody's just a piece of meat... although the women have been trying furiously to pretend otherwise.

Note to furious respondents: I don't have anything against raw meat sex. I do, however, continue to believe (and feel) that the traditional hetero roles are the best bet for human satisfaction. And, no, in your short lifespan, you haven't come up with a better idea than humanity was able to conceive in thousands of years of experience.

I avoid people who live the "dating" life. They are empty shells. I've got more respect for married couples who find a way to resolve the dilemma of how to nuture both sides of sexuality: the desire for play and adventure, and the desire for relationship and romance. These people are the real adventurers. And, there are damned few who are wise enough, and socially adept enough, to find a resolution to this dilemma.

You'll know them when you see them. They are middle aged, walking down the street holding hands and smiling at one another.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 2, 2007 9:57 AM



"... somebody who marries once, especially when young, will only have his/her knowledge of one person to draw upon."

That is exactly what I did, and as I read these discussions I literally thank God for my good fortune.

Posted by: Lexington Green on November 2, 2007 10:10 AM



Am I the only one whose world-view is basically a combination of BIOH and Shouting Thomas, who finds the Alias Clio v. Roissy debates enjoyable and fascinating?

Posted by: PA on November 2, 2007 11:18 AM



Grrr. Before I was only irritated. Now I'm angry.

Did you even read what I wrote in my responses to Roissy? I was trying to say what I think is wrong with the dating life, not praising it. It's as if all y'all have a template inside your heads in which there is a multliple choice question asking "why is a woman not married by forty?" and it only has four options: empty, slutty, picky, ugly, and if you don't pick one it's because you're lying.

What in heaven's name is going on here? I am a) NOT an empty shell (I live with and take care of my elderly father who is blind and crippled in one arm, and my brother who suffers from schizophrenia - is that an empty way to live?); b) I didn't fail to get married out of choice; a number of personal crises and family issues had an influence on my dating patterns; c) I DATE, I do not sleep around; d) the main reason I had so much trouble in the dating world was that I met mostly men whose approach to love and sex required me to sleep with them/live with them first, something that was morally and emotionally very difficult for me.

That group would probably have included all the men who are writing here to sit in judgment on my supposed pickiness, sluttiness, emptiness, and whatever else it is that you are nagging me about. Oh, and as far as I can tell from levels of male interest, it wasn't because I was hideous either. (Roissy's group's fallback option when a woman says she can't find a mate.)

Posted by: alias clio on November 2, 2007 12:08 PM



No PA, I do too. I get the same feeling from it that I do watching ethnographic films of strange primitive rites. And I understand it about as well.

And clio, as someone who married early and stayed married, you are quite right, I don't have any insight into these issues. But in the thread in the other blog, the comments have an unmistakably desperate tone, on both sides. Roissy just does a good job of hiding it behind his jaunty smugness. But then what else could be behind that?

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on November 2, 2007 12:11 PM



I do in fact find Clio to be a much needed voice of traditional morality (and common sense) on Roissy's blog.

His blog, without this kind of ballast, would float off into the Beavis and Butthead zone, Roissy's obvious intelligence and insight nonwithstanding.

Posted by: PA on November 2, 2007 12:29 PM



I am amazed anew that respondents on this site do not read the masthead: "2Blowhards." Can it be any more obvious?

This site, like any weblog, is reserved for BS.

Note that I did not name any specific person in my posting.

When you get all teary and offended by this stuff, I think you are really missing the point... if there is one.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 2, 2007 12:39 PM



Grr, again. I'm not teary. Or offended. I'm irritated. And it is, in part, a play irritation; if I didn't within certain limits enjoy this kind of debate, I wouldn't read/post here. Nor, Heaven help me, at Roissy's!

I know this is a site for Blowhards, and enjoy the fact. But even Blowhards need to use their noggins, it seems to me. The mere spouting of indignation, without thought, is what's pointless. And some of the comments I've read on this post, today, strike me as being no more than spouting. For myself, I take part in this kind of debate in order to change and be changed by it; it keeps me from allowing myself to go off the deep end of annoyance at the follies of life in the 21st century because I get to "meet" the critics/enemies/eejits who would normally make me blow a fuse, and realise that they can be interesting, fun, human, etc. And as a result I'm less tempted to "blow" in Real Life and in places where it might do me an injury.

Incidentally, I have what may well be the most politically correct job on the face of the planet. It's all right, it's necessary work in some ways, even good, but - well, the environment is not one in which we are encouraged to speak our minds. And we are easy to fire. So - Blowharding is good for me. Is it good for you too, Shouting T.?

Posted by: alias clio on November 2, 2007 1:37 PM



Clio, you just noticed [the template], huh? Illustration: the story about the death of Megan Mc.Ardle's dog. Nuff said.

PA, if I were you I wouldn't advertise your worldview as combination of those 2 sources. Takes you right out Sane People' circulation.

Posted by: Tatyana on November 2, 2007 2:01 PM



oops, sorry, the link is from previous post (which applies, too, but you wouldn't know who she's talking about w/o reading the whole thing0
Here's a more comprehensive link.

Posted by: Tatyana on November 2, 2007 2:09 PM



PA, if I were you I wouldn't advertise your worldview as combination of those 2 sources. Takes you right out Sane People' circulation.

I disagree, Tatyana. Almost Americans prior to the 60s and most conservative Americans today would probably agree with BIOH and ST on most things.

In other words, the sane people are on my side.

Posted by: PA on November 2, 2007 2:12 PM



"So - Blowharding is good for me. Is it good for you too, Shouting T."

Jesus, is it ever! But for a different reason.

I'm sitting here solving difficult technical problems all day. Blowharding provides me with a bit of human interaction.

My computer is rather predictable.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 2, 2007 2:24 PM



Hey, this is a propos of nothing in particular, but did any of you see this footage of Sarkozy walking off of "60 Minutes"? Gotta love him for it. Why don't more people do that?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 2, 2007 2:54 PM



Sometimes I wonder if Roissy is actually a woman, and makes these outrageous postings as a way of drawing out Angry Nerd types for ridicule.

Posted by: Peter on November 2, 2007 3:05 PM



I think clio's nailed Roissy on one very important point: the utter sadness that underlies the dating life, and the ever-growing inner despair of those who live it for too many years.

Posted by: PatrickH on November 2, 2007 3:18 PM



"...Dating is a godawful business ..."

Sure looks that way.

I don't envy my children, who will all too soon be making their way in the utter snakepit of modern life and love. Roissy's blog is valuable, because it lowered my already rock-bottom view of young men these days. The truth hurts, but the truth will set you free. He is jaunty and funny, and astute in a cynical way. His depiction of his behavior will allow me to some degree to be able to forewarn my daughters what type of creatures they are going to run into out there in the jungle.

Posted by: Lexington Green on November 2, 2007 3:18 PM



Maybe the youngsters are a lot tougher and wised-up than we know: "Pre-teens Enrage Parents By Wanting to Dress Up Like MTV Sex Stars for Halloween". Not that this is a good thing, of course ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 2, 2007 3:46 PM



PA, with which qualities of the 2 personages mentioned above you think all Ameicans agree: racism? anti-semitism? misogyny? "template thinking" (thank you, Clio)? militant anti-feminism? endless strawmen erection as means of debate? Inability to listen to anybody but own ranting? Being a serial widower of Filippino women? Homophobic paranoia? I sincerely hope this isn't the case.

Of all people here, I thought you'd cringe when every disagreeable comment, no matter what, is argued with by connecting it to Marxism and Communism - or sticking labels based on a country of origin of the opponent. It's Bush Derangement Syndrome in reverse.

I thought this all doesn't require explanations...


Posted by: Tatyana on November 2, 2007 4:39 PM



Tatyana is the Third Blowhard!

Posted by: american fez on November 2, 2007 5:45 PM



Oh no Stephen, I'm a bitter communist/feminist/modernist/Evil Republican/Naive libertarian/member of Israel lobby/scheming immigrant/anti-immigration advocate/[what have I missed? additions welcome]. All at once, according to commenters here.

Besides, this position is filled. Even overbooked, I'd say.

Also, blowhard and vintage port are incompatible; you should know.

Posted by: Tatyana on November 2, 2007 7:00 PM



Tat: [what have I missed? additions welcome]

Well, for one...you're a nasty piece of work. That comment about 'serial widower' was beneath contempt.

Though I do still feel contempt for it anyway.

Posted by: PatrickH on November 2, 2007 9:30 PM



Dear PatrickH, I can say much more about above mentioned asshole (not my definition - it's a consensus per link I supplied above). But being a nice, kind and tactful person, I'll avoid giving more appropriate description. After all, unless someone is dead, there is always hope for improvement.

Posted by: Tatyana on November 2, 2007 11:56 PM



I mistakenly clicked on the comments without reading any text/context. I feel like I've entered some bizarre, intellectual telenovela.

I think this is the part where someone gets slapped. All parties freeze with serious looks on their faces, and we go to a commercial.

I'm getting a snack.
sN

Posted by: sN on November 3, 2007 2:51 AM



Tatyana,

I think I saw your fangs flashing on that last one.

It must have been something I said, right? If adjectives were knives, I'd be dead.

That "serial widower" thing... it's catchy.

I've been trying to write a song about this. "One Foot in the Grave." Got any good rhymes for "grave?"

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 3, 2007 9:20 AM



It always struck me that the most virulent homophobes were those in denial or struggling with their own sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Guys who are extreme anti-feminists as well as homophobic may find sexual release with women, but their exaggerated disdain for non-subservient women and gays proclaims their emotional and intellectual attraction to men ... macho macho men.

Tell it like it is Tat.

Posted by: Chris White on November 3, 2007 9:58 AM



clio: What in heaven's name is going on here?

You're attempting to explain and defend yourself to assholes and idiots, that's what. Why in heaven's name are you doing that? You should take a break a go work on a perpetual motion machine for a while.

I am a) NOT an empty shell...

Why no, you're not. So what's a classy dame like you doing going over to some internet gin-joint where (so I'm told) some two-a-penny "expert on women" bloviates to a circle-jerk of pimply-faced admirers? It can't be for the pleasure of being shocked, now. There were taverns in Ur dedicated to that sort of thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if their contemporary analogues outnumbered honest porn sites. (Hey, I can understand the urge for a little seediness in a humdrum workday. But, to my taste, you're lookin' for louche in all the wrong places...)

[...]there are a great many reasons why people may find marriage difficult to achieve: those who are lucky enough to have made happy ones should not gloat so nastily over those who were not, especially as there was nothing in what I said that suggests a contempt for marriage, men, or "normality".

Absolutely. Though it's true that there are people who don't marry or whose marriages fail because they have idiotically wrong-headed ideas about marriage, it's obvious to anyone who is actually paying attention to what you write that you don't fall into that category. But this just brings us back to Lao Tsu's wise advice about time, assholes, and idiots.

Posted by: Moira Breen on November 3, 2007 3:14 PM



Tat:

Thank you for providing me evidence to safely place Shouting Thomas into the "people I don't have to take seriously" bin without any second thoughts.

It takes quite a bit for me to put people in there, but the sheer lack of common human decency to strangers combined with the fact that even commenters on Steve Sailer's site think he's a loony idiot has convinced me that it's the right choice despite not being on the receiving end of him.

Also, I like women with razors. No doubt if I had a blog, you'd eviscerate me since you've quite different beliefs than myself, but oh how entertaining it would be!

Back to the original point, I read Roissy's blog with a grain of salt. It's entertaining, but it doesn't describe a life I could lead, nor would I want to lead. I'm just not that sex-driven. In any case, despite all his humor, I often get a deeply buried vein of intense despair and lack of true human connection in Roissy's posts. The guy's got trust issues so deep I really wonder if he even completely buys into his whole schtick. He's almost like a character out of Dickens or Dostoevsky.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on November 3, 2007 3:17 PM



Well, I don't read Roissy's blog, or comment there, simply for the pleasure of being shocked. The unmarried and never married have pains and problems in common that lead to a certain sense of fellowship, even in the absence of any other kind of connection. Roissy, for all his crassness, is an intelligent man. And because there are so many impressionable young men who read him, I have an older-sisterly wish to add a little balance to his view of the world. What surprises me is the way people here chose to react to my comments.

Posted by: alias clio on November 3, 2007 10:31 PM



If anybody here is not reading an excellent blogger Neoneocon, allow me to introduce her [professional and personal] view on the topic, tangential to the original discussion sited in this post (in 2 parts). Very educational, especially the threads - or so it was to me.
SpikeGomes: charmed. But I don't think women with razors should come near people called Spike. Not a healthy combo.

Posted by: Tatyana on November 3, 2007 11:14 PM



Also, I like women with razors.

Not me. Razors are used for shaving, and I find any discussion of women and shaving to be very, very disturbing.

Posted by: Peter on November 4, 2007 12:40 AM



for the record, i advocate both the freewheeling pickup lifestyle and the joys of falling deeply in love and being in a relationship. i don't find them mutaully exclusive. i generally choose girls who are OK with me occasionally spicing up my love life with a little fun on the side.

Posted by: roissy on November 5, 2007 10:07 AM



My 18-year old nephew, possessor of the Aryan good looks of an Abercrombie & Fitch model, left the nest and his cheerleader girlfriend to brave the wilds of college life.

I saw him at my brother's two weeks ago, and he launched into a Roissy-like rant on the excellence of college women and their no-stings, hook-up lifestyle. He admitted that he's had multiple partners after two years of monogamous dating. He says nubile young things actively angle for his attention, and they ALWAYS end up in bed.

I may be a cantankerous old crank, but there is something seriously wrong here, and to blame young men for their sexual behaviors, when they're actively encouraged by the young women they meet, is just wrong.

Posted by: Brutus on November 6, 2007 12:33 PM



Sorry, Brutus, you've lost me. What on earth is supposed to be wrong with young people - or older people - ending up in bed? "Blame"?What "blame"? You said you may be a crank. Yeah, possibly.

Re the Roissy site, it seems kind of unattractive to me. Dividing men and women into "alphas" and "betas" seems to reflect abysmally bad observation of how humans actually work, even when competing. And especially when sexually competing.

Very few people can be categorised in this way except for specific times in specific situations. People are so fluid in their interactions that trying to stuff them into those boxes inevitably means missing most of what's going on.

For example, there are men who couldn't pick up a woman at a bar to save their life, but who, at a party, have a good chance of going home with the best-looking woman in the room. Me, I'm deadly in a dance club, unless they turn the music up to a level that you can't talk at all with the person you're focussed on, at which point I'm hopeless. So the distance between alpha and beta, in those terms, is one click on a volume control.

Moreover, male dominance heirarchies have little to do with sexual success with females. Primate females see to that in species like gorillas, chimps, and especially bonobos and us.

Also, the contempt poured onto "betas" from boys who have labelled themselves as "alphas" is reminiscent of adolescent Ayn Rand or Nietzsche fans talking about "the herd". It's not wrong in a melodramatic way, like people calling themselves Aryans and labelling the "others" as, oh, too short, puny and too intelligent for their own good. (These items, familiar enough in another context, are singled out on Roissy's site as the characteristics of beta men.)

But the Roissy Alpha/beta stuff isn't really siniser. It's more wrong in a nerdish way, like Star Wars fans insisting they are sexier than Star Trek fans, can benchpress more and get laid more. Still with the Star Wars/ Star Trek vibe given off by the site, there's the special language designed to distinguish insiders from outsiders. (The diss, the phaser, the wingman, the chadich, and so on.)

But most of all, there's an overall contempt for women, and in particular there's fear of women who might talk back or look at you sceptically, like women over 30 or feminist women.

Some of them think that's ALL US women, and suggest finding more subservient women elsewhere. I've got to say, these boys'd get a hell of a shock if they tried Australia or New Zealand. But we rather like stroppy women, down here.

Give 'em hell, Clio. If you can be bothered.

Posted by: Laon on November 8, 2007 10:26 PM



Laon's tone distracts from his otherwise reasonable critique of that blog's Alpha/Beta dichotomy.

I can't speak for Clio, but I don't think she's there to "give 'em hell." It seems to me that her attitude toward Roissy is amicable and respectful through their disagreements.

Posted by: PA on November 9, 2007 9:55 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?