Does the fact that I didn't know about "tipping culture" when I was first time in the US makes me an asshole?
If you are in the US and received good service, but left crappy or zero tips then yes, you definitely leave a negative impression of yourself. Nobody will understand why you left a bad tip or just think "oh, he's a foreigner, he doesn't understand." They will just think you stiffed them. Or they will perhaps think - "oh he's from country X - they must all be cheap assholes there. I hope I don't get any more tables with people from that country."
Would it not be the same if I visited your country and was rude or insulting regarding some very basic and obvious part of your culture?
People may differ about what is "obvious." Something that doesn't exist in my country and that I've never heard of ... is not going to be "obvious" to me.
Bullet point #1. I would consider that fairly obvious.
If you can't manage to stumble across #1 cultural tip then you obviously have not done much research. You shouldn't expect people to excuse your ignorance of their culture. That goes for any country - not just the US.
This is generally what happens. I have a few friends who are bartenders/servers and they loathe Australians.
But to the average Australian - we have a very decent minimum wage and ridiculously good penalty rates (like, work a public holiday and you get double time or double time and a half). Tipping is just something that is non-existent, and I think people just don't expect that the US would treat people so much worse than we do...
[1] I've lived in the USA almost my entire life, and have never understood why "we" are "Americans" when there are many, many other countries on both American continents that aren't "Americans". Why is there not a term for us that is more accurate and less Americentric (wait, really?).
The country is called "The United States of America," so its people are "Americans." Similarly, people from "The United States of Mexico" (yes, that's its real full name) are called "Mexicans."
Languages evolve as an emergent property of people who speak them. Language usage is not subject to revision or control by self-appointed intellectual fairness monitors who unilaterally arrogate to themselves such an authority. Linguists call this practice "prescriptivism," and it is widely denigrated as (ironically) an imperialist tactic used by the power class to enforce their social position.
However, the principle itself is not limited to any particular political orientation; leftist prescriptivism is just as unsupportable in a linguistic sense as imperialist prescriptivism is.
You might see on many left-wing president's speeches, they start with "Hermanos Americanos" ("American Brothers"), which definitely does NOT include the USA :P .
I'm not a prick so I'd shrug it off as someone being ignorant of the local customs.
He was from the US, and I don't think he was being an ass-hole.
Basically restaurants are the only place where tips are absolutely expected and you can make yourself look bad by not tipping. For anything else, if I'm not sure I usually just check a travel guide or go on forums and ask other people what they do.
I would do this if I travel to any country, just ask around at how you should behave if you want to fit in.
You even admit that locals barely know what's expected in some situations!
(2) People who generalize about an entire class of people being "assholes" ... maybe should look in the mirror.
The whole PUA thing is about manipulating vulnerable people so you can have sex with them. It's definitionally assholish. Assuming that a given PUA is an asshole is like assuming an Englishman speaks English. It's not a perfect correlation, but it's certainly the way to bet.
Such techniques of course can be abused by assholes against the vulnerable as well.
All you have to do is look at the OP's profile to find this picture.[0] That sure doesn't look like some poor bloke who has trouble talking to people.
[0]: (slightly NSFW) http://www.pualingo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/herbal-ty...
Also, excellent analogy.
She didn't accurately quote from his book and may have mis-represented key quotes that she pulls from it.
He sure isn't helping his case. All of the random claims of "socialism" and "left-leaning" don't help, either.
In fact, none of his clarifications actually prove she misquoted him, and each time he quoted his book in that post, it fit exactly with the original review.
From his language (referring to women as "the pussy" instead of as, you know, actual people) to his extreme generalizations of women and cultures, it's apparent the original review was spot-on for both Roosh's book and PUA culture in general.
True, but your implication has it backwards. Tynan is not part of the vast majority. He is an outlier, one degree of separation from Mystery(Erik von Markovik) and Neil Strauss.
The vast majority of people are unable or unwilling to be so ruthlessly selfish and sacrifice healthy, stable relationships on the altar of hedonistic sex-- even if they think that's all they want (and most will admit otherwise).
The dilemma is that guys who write about attraction and having sex with women tend to benefit a great deal by having a lot of experience with women. That's not very compatible with traditional monogamous relationships, so it will always be easy to attack them from this angle however irrelevant that angle may be.
http://cdn.sett.com/images/user/201311080003dc887f36b225a18e...
The point is that at its best this stuff is about learning to evolve how you handle yourself with others to have more success in social endeavors. Ie. most things that don't involve staring at a screen.
No it isn't.
Women aren't adults who can be held responsible for their own actions and decisions; they're vulnerable children who need to be protected at every turn.
If you (as a man) visit an Apple Store just to look around, and you walk out with a brand new laptop, you're a customer. You made a decision. Yes, Apple works very hard to maximize conversions, but you're an adult, and it's silly to shame and vilify Apple for "manipulating" a "vulnerable" man into buying their products.
However, if you (as a woman) choose to have sex with a man who reads tips about how to increase his chances of having sex, you're a vulnerable victim of manipulation. That mean, bad predator who took advantage of you needs to be shamed!
Western media is overflowing with tips for women to get what they want from men. And that's okay. :)
But if you're a man, don't you dare read tips about how to get what you want from women. That would be misogynist. You don't hate women, do you, mindcrime?
The common name for the system in which men and women manipulate one another is called "patriarchy". (When you look beyond men and women, it's called "kyriarchy".) It's bullshit on both sides.
There are two reason it's seen as worse for men, both historical. One is the men have had way more power and are still substantially advantaged. The more power you have, the more responsible you are for a fucked-up situation.
The other is that people with less power are forced to be manipulative to survive. E.g., 100-200 years ago, when professional women were very rare, women focused a lot marrying well, because they didn't have a lot of other options. So there's a bunch of cultural hangover from that.
So I'll simply say that it shows a remarkable lack of empathy and understanding for you to call those desperate men who resort to PUA tactics "powerful". Almost by definition, they are acting from a position of weakness.
I realize it's currently trendy to break the world down into large, tidy, digestible traits (maleness and femaleness in this case), labeling one as "privileged" and the other as "oppressed".
Life's way too complicated for that.
As to your non-argument argument, I have plenty of empathy for the desperate. But I can still condemn them using what power they have to manipulate other desperate people.
Further: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
Wait...
---
I honestly wonder how far up your ass your head has to be to completely ignore just how saturated the PUA community is with terms designed to objectify, marginalize, belittle, and disparage specifically women, and just how many of the highest regarded figureheads of the community are throbbing dickholes whose only goal in life is to find a modicum of self worth by pandering to the most cliche stereotype of traditional, toxic masculinity.
He didn't say the end goal is "picking up conversations". Mindcrime was almost certainly taking offense to the infantilizing attitudes expressed in the quote he included, not to its reference to sex.
For the most part, the end goal is sex, and sometimes it's long-term companionship. There's nothing wrong with either of those.
---
I honestly wonder how far up your _ss your head has to be to completely ignore just how saturated the feminist community is with terms designed to objectify, marginalize, belittle, and disparage specifically men, and just how many of the highest regarded figureheads of the community are throbbing c_nts whose only goal in life is to find a modicum of self worth by pandering to the most cliche stereotype of fragile, vulnerable femininity.
---
See? It's easy to disparage large groups!
PUA strikes me as a "sales and marketing" technique to advertise yourself as an interesting casual sex partner. There are some asshats who manipulate, but then there are also high-pressure salespeople who manipulate; that doesn't make all sales and marketing unethical.
I dunno if I'd call them assholes, but I do feel sorry for them.
Why would you suggest that an entire class of people do something?
You should read "The Game", by Neil Strauss. He documents the process of becoming a pickup artist, the people he met, the stages he went through. And as you read it, you will realise something - the only surefire way to becoming a successful PUA is to improve yourself, to become the best version of yourself, and at the end of it all, that's what these guys were trying to do.
Yeah, there are assholes. There's always assholes. But at the end of the day, this so-called "PUA" culture is about turning yourself into the best version of yourself you can be. And isn't that what all us startup types are trying to do? Rising to a challenge? Stepping into those shoes? Pushing ourselves beyond what we thought possible? Closing the deal?
There are more parallels than you think. Read that book. And don't be so eager to judge people. They're more like you than you realise.
"Negging" is a negotiating tactic and you have failed to show how it is linked to misogyny in any way, shape or form.
FWIW, to be accused of misogyny is really offensive to me personally.
is this usual outcome?
What makes you say that? He's not the one throwing names around. What would constitute "reacting well" in your book? Agreeing with you?
All I'm doing is pointing out that being "negged" just seems to be making him quite defensive and angry. I thought that having his self-esteem be reduced should make him more sexually appealing and available - but that doesn't seem to be happening.
A neg is more or less exclusively meant to be used on women who are exceptionally attractive AND who have an enormous ego because of that. It's meant for women who are always surrounded by fawning men who cater to her every whim because she is beautiful. Especially in an environment, such as a nightclub, where come-ons are frequent. And even then, it usually needs to be very subtle, used in context with as light a touch as possible.
Right, but in practice it doesn't work like you seem to imagine it does.
A handful of feminists are accusing him of hating women for wanting to be more attractive to women. Nothing's new.
Just because people aren't standing up to a handful of feminist bullies ("fedorable"?) doesn't mean the community here doesn't like him. It just means that don't want to pick a fight.
I accept their rationalization might be different. But it always is. Everybody thinks they wear a white hat.
Its called Earth, where using ability to sexually manipulate women as the yardstick to measure your personal development is, for reasons which should be quite obvious, seen as misogyny (or, more precisely, objectification of women.)
But "here comes the shaming language" ...
Let me know when you are as equally hard on women for learning all the PUA tip-equivalents (for their gender) from age 5 onwards, through to the Vogue Teen and then the Cosmo years.
EVERY SINGLE women's magazine you see on the shelves at the supermarket, has the equivalent of "PUA tips and tricks" in every issue. Such as "how to make him ..." or "What he likes in bed" or whatever. It is so prevalent, women aren't even aware of it, like a fish doesn't notice the water.
Let a guy start learning some evo-psych, learn how to dress better, work on his conversation skills, and quit being a supplicative schlub ... and the Holy Hand Grenade of Guilt and Shaming gets tossed.
See, here, where you gender stereotype "women" (and not a subset of them) as equivalent to "the PUA community", that's a good illustration of the problem right there.
> EVERY SINGLE women's magazine you see on the shelves at the supermarket, has the equivalent of "PUA tips and tricks" in every issue. Such as "how to make him ..." or "What he likes in bed" or whatever.
Lots do, but, no, not every single one does. (Leaving aside for the moment whether the things you describe are actually PUA-equivalent.)
> It is so prevalent, women aren't even aware of it, like a fish doesn't notice the water.
Actually, they do notice it. For some women, its part of the reason they buy the magazines (though, usually -- unlike for self-proclaimed members of the "PUA community" -- not usually a point of pride.) For other women, its a source of entertainment, something to laugh about (either among each other or with male friends.)
For other women, its part of the reason they object to many mainstream women's fashion & lifestyle magazines as reinforces of patriarchy and traditional gender roles.
But what is certainly not true is that they don't notice it.
> Let a guy start learning some evo-psych, learn how to dress better, work on his conversation skills, and quit being a supplicative schlub ... and the Holy Hand Grenade of Guilt and Shaming gets tossed.
No, only when they proudly label themselves as members of a community whose very name is about using whatever knowledge or skills they have to manipulate women into sex.
You can't really be surprised that people react to the labels you choose for yourself.
Is it impossible for there to be such a thing as pick-up artistry amongst members of the homosexual community? I bet it's just a magical thing that happens in the LGBT community, where courtship is preternaturally effortless. Perhaps, it's not even a learned behavior, to attract sexual partners?
Are heterosexual women incapable of manipulative behavior? Is there no such thing? ...but if that's true, wouldn't that damage any purported premise of equality?
mi·sog·y·ny məˈsäjənē noun 1. the hatred of women.
misogyny n. hatred of or hostility toward women.[2, emphasis added]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogyny
That also happens to describe the mob and the serial killers community.
For me that book shone a really bright light on a community, and its two types of citizens - the "wantrepreneurs" who would try to trick their way to success, and the really serious guys who changed their whole lives to succeed.
I saw obvious parallels between them and the startup community. And, yes, I suppose, serial killers and any other community who wants to succeed.
Curious as to what you found was negative and why.
In my opinion, diluting a relationship down to scientific behaviors and applying that to your relationships is dehumanizing and disingenuous. I don't want to associate with people like that.
It's strange how half the people who read this book ended up infatuated with the over-glamorized lifestyle of the "pickup artist" and missed the tale of the value of being yourself.
Yes, he realised that the culture of trying to trick women into bed via tricks or routines was wrong, and the people who went down that path had flawed, weak personalities. It's interesting that on HN we tend to laud people who try to "hack the system" - but it's a shortcut, it's not real, and even if you succeed you can't handle it when you get there.
He realised that the real way to "win" women was to be yourself, the very best version of yourself you could manage. That is the central truth to which I was trying to refer. If you want to get the girls, be cool and confident and popular and successful. If that doesn't drive at least 50% of the startup community then I don't know what does.
I think we actually agree, except you have picked up a negative bias somewhere that I don't have. I liked that book very much. I have never been, nor want to be, a "PUA" but by god do I understand the sentiment.
If I found an asshole that does tip, would that destroy your theory?
2. The comment you're responding to says, "Anyone who is a pickup artist is an asshole", which is synonymous with "All PUAs are assholes", so you haven't contradicted his point.
Since I imagine most guys come to the PUA community because those traits relegate them to a life of loneliness and zero ass, I would think that their real goal is to transcend those traits altogether and to become better people. It's what PUA nirvana must be.
I mean, what you suggest here is that people are manipulative and sad before they become involved in the PUA community, and that the joining of said community is an attempt to free them of these negative traits?
I get confused by this logic because as far as I can tell the PUA community endorses manipulative and dishonest behavior, so what you're suggesting is that these lonely, manipulative, people, can transcend their manipulative behavior through more manipulative behavior.
I haven't seen anything "manipulative and dishonest" on Tynan's blog, nor in his books. Well, at some level everything we do to influence another person is "manipulative," but that's such a broad definition as to be useless.
All social interactions at some level of depth eventually involve pursuasion of a sort. The question is when does that become unethical?
Truly A question we all must answer for ourselves.
A subset of "the PUA community" do that, but there is nothing inherent about "learning PUA" that implies any dishonesty or manipulation. More than anything, it's about gaining confidence, learning some basic etiquette, grooming essentials, and a little bit of other stuff. It's Pareto's Law in action... 80% of your improvement at meeting women comes from 20% of the "stuff" that could potentially learn from PUAs. Better posture, better clothes, a fresh haircut, smiling more, and not being scared of, or intimidated by, beautiful women, is the heart of PUA-dom.
And to be quite frank, these days, the "PUA community" has really outgrown it's roots and become the "male self-help and improvement community". Lurk on many "PUA" forums and you'll find guys talking more about how to start businesses and make more money, than the ones swapping "routines" or whatever.
No, it doesn't. More than any single other thing, "being a PUA" is about learning not to be scared of / intimidated by, women. And about learning not to supplicate and do stupid shit, in order to try to manipulate women into having sex with you. The thing is, most so called "nice guys" are far more manipulative than a PUA! They just aren't as honest with themselves, OR the person they're trying to connect with.
Compare:
Figure 1: http://www.mendaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Katy-Perr...
Figure 2: http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/katyperrynomakeup.jpg
Picking up girls, and selling are very similar, and you can often cross use the techniques you learn.
Is selling dishonest? It is if you lie and shit. Is it manipulative? What the hell does that really mean? When we interact with the world and people, we are by definition manipulating it.
If you show up to a party and act retarded, you are manipulating people into thinking you're a retard.
If you show up to a party and act cool, interesting, fun, you are manipulating people into thinking you're that.
Is the latter form of manipulation considered "bad" because you aren't cool, interesting, and fun all the time? No one is 100% of the time, we all have different emotional states, at different times.
Why is selling yourself wrong then? There's pretty much nothing wrong with that as long as you don't have STDs (and even that's ok if you mention it) or are a serial killer or something.