pjeby comments on Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics - Less Wrong

62 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 July 2009 07:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (647)
Tags: gender meta

Comments (647)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pjeby 13 April 2010 10:44:32PM 2 points [-]

"Order them around" is what they need to hear while the more abstract "taking charge" crosses too much of an inferential gap.

I've seen more than one bit of PUA literature cross this gap by carefully pointing out how behavior X might seem asshole-ish among men, but is in fact perceived as positive quality Y when received by women from men, and further pointing out that it's an error to assume this means one should act like an asshole in general.

Certainly, I don't think teaching material should do any less. It's likely that a properly framed discussion here relating the venusian arts to, say the Dark Arts, advertising, consent, consistent decision theories, etc. would also need to discuss both sides of that perceptual gap, at least in passing. (Albeit without so much detailed how-to info in between.)

Comment author: wedrifid 13 April 2010 11:11:49PM 1 point [-]

I've seen more than one bit of PUA literature cross this gap by carefully pointing out how behavior X might seem asshole-ish among men, but is in fact perceived as positive quality Y when received by women from men, and further pointing out that it's an error to assume this means one should act like an asshole in general.

That is a good way to teach it, even though it is somewhat of a lie (similar to teaching Newtonian physics). It usually isn't healthy to teach about things that are actually perceived as a negative quality by women can also give desired results to men. That darker truth is best left until after people have developed their social skills and let go of their tendency to bury their frustration behind a façade of righteous indignation.

Comment author: pjeby 13 April 2010 11:19:06PM 0 points [-]

It usually isn't healthy to teach about things that are actually perceived as a negative quality by women can also give desired results to men.

Huh? I don't see the connection between this and what I was talking about.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 April 2010 11:48:26PM *  2 points [-]

More explicit:

[What you were talking about] is a good way to teach it, even though it is somewhat of a lie (similar to teaching Newtonian physics). It usually isn't healthy to teach about [the other part of the asshole equation that is glossed over by that approach,] that things that are actually perceived as a negative quality by women can also give desired results to men.

There are two messages to convey:

  • Some things you (naive guys) think will be a bad experience for women are actually a good experience, healthy for them and perceived as desirable.
  • Some things that are absolutely bad, unhealthy and perceived as undesirable by women can also be used to attract them.

The first of these (and the one that you mention) is a better subject of education. The second is a recipe for excuses, passive aggression and bitterness for people who don't already have an appreciation for the first point.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit