The Label Trap

As some of you may be aware I recently moved to Madrid Spain at the beginning of April. And you may have presumed that I would be writing about the experiences of living here. In a way I will be…but I am not going to discuss Spanish food, culture, and the various everyday experiences one has in living day-to-day life. That’s what Facebook and other social media platforms are for. There are many wonderful books available as well as the experience of moving to Spain itself to be had. Instead, I will begin this new chapter in my life’s story by discussing The Label Trap and sharing my responses to a recent Hyperallergic article titled: What Happens When a Feminist Artist Interviews a Pickup ArtistI’ll begin with The Label Trap.

What is The Label Trap?

The Label Trap is the trap we create for ourselves and others with the application of any word label given to oneself and or others which restricts/confines/delineates and is used by oneself and others to create a false sense of identity. Some of these labels are ‘good’ and some are ‘bad’, although I do not believe in either ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but all foster misunderstanding, fear and suffering with oneself and in others. The methodology of the trap manifests itself in stereotyping, bigotry, and other false positives. We can see the detriment of labels in how insidiously it imposes itself in the aforementioned Hyperallergic article and that detriment is boldly declared in its title. And what we see are two false positives, a being who identifies with a feminine sexuality and set of feminized beliefs and a being who identifies with a masculine sexuality and masculinised belief system. Both of whom are neither, but perceive themselves to be so. By examining Roosh V and Angela Washko’s true natures, as an example of other beings who are also subject to such a falsity in understanding their true selves and nature, we may come to understand that what both are doing has nothing to do with sexuality. Their words and actions have everything to do with being, a desire to justify their learned and biological emotional responses, an unwillingness to address their true selves and the resultant feelings of inadequacy, loneliness and suffering. We create the ties that bind us, cinching them tighter and tighter, believing that in doing so we will be free.

If you are not familiar with Roosh V or skipped reading the Hyperallergic article, I suggest you take a moment to go back and read it. Otherwise, whatever you read beyond this point may make no sense to you.

What Happens When a Feminist Artist Interviews a Pickup Artist.

After reading the article I composed this response speaking to Angelo Washko who self-identifies herself as ‘female’, ‘artist’ and ‘feminist’:

Girl, your project failed because you fell for his psychology which played upon your female emotional response. Do you think Roosh V cares about your feelings, respects who you are as a person and your views of the world? He does not.

By his own admission he says he is not emotionally invested in his own arguments but clearly he is. You said, ¨he told me that he didn’t like the tabloid/sensationalised element of it and that it was disconcerting that women would publicly share the details of the sexual experiences they had with him.¨ He banked on you sympathising with him (which is what women do and why so many women will forgive a man for cheating on them or abusing them) and then employed social group psychology using his loyal group of yes-men and followers to make you feel as though you should abandon your project. Simply put, he used your feelings against you to protect his interests.

What about your interests?

I guess your project really doesn´t mean all that much to you.

You say, ¨I was not psyched about the conversations within the forum centered around whether or not forum participants would bang me.¨

So what if his yes-men and followers objectify you as a sexual object. You´re going to let THAT stop you? I´m not a Feminist and I too laugh (as I´m sure he and all his little groupies are) at how easy it was to throw you off your game. I thought Feminists were all about opposing the view that they are weak and helpless? Your decision to abandon the project instead of work through the challenges perpetuates that way of thinking.

My advice: Stop being emotional. Look at your project and reconsider your approach objectively and get back in the saddle. And most importantly, objectify the f*ck out of him and sally forth.

The response to my comment included applying the word labels of “narcissist” to Roosh V and his response to Angela Washko as “gas lighting”. My response:

I too am bothered by how often the Angela apologizes, it reiterates a tone of victimhood, throughout the article. She claims moral superiority over Roosh V because she was just a nice somewhat naive girl trying to see and appreciate who he is as a person hoping that he would understand her art project and give her the names of women he slept with so she could show what a terrible human being he is. How could she have known that that he would ‘manipulate’ the situation and ‘attack’ her? Puh-leeze.

Why did she do this interview? What is the point of this article?

The point of the article is to shame Rooch V for not fulfilling AW expectations and participating in her so-called art project. And to exonerate herself for abandoning it. And why did she think he would participate? Because she was nicer to him than other Feminists who stalk him and want to show the world what a terrible person he is?

This is the problem I have with modern Feminism. Their woe-is-me attitude and claims of moral superiority over others. That claim to moral superiority merely serves to foster an Us vs. Them mentality, which only causes more ignorance, misunderstanding and suffering. Modern Feminism is as ‘bad’, if not more so, than the male sexism they proclaim is oppressing women. Feminism’s sexist attitude and actions are equally as sexist, towards men, and just as morally reprehensible.

If you don’t want to be a victim, don’t be a victim.

Another comment addresses Roosh V’s use of censorship in his forum:

“What interests me most about this article is the claim that Rooosh likes to censor opinions be does not agree with and that his regular forum members gene to get dirty and personal on attacks.

Having read some comments on his blog, I would not be surprised. Some were certainly extreme and misogynistic.

What I find most interesting is that’s this is a mirror image of some extreme feminist blogs and commentators like Mary Sue and Jessica Valenti.

Quick to censor opposing conditions, quick personal attacks and misandrist statements. (Got kicked off Mary Sue for merely noting that men are statistically more at risk of attacks from strangers)

Kind of reminds me of the Israel Palestine conflict where both sides do horrible things and then calls the other side monsters.” ~douglass44

To which I respond:

One must take care in fighting monsters, lest ye become one.

The censorship piece is, to me, utterly dull. It is the least interesting thing about Roosh V, utterly typical and illogical. Censorship is a fear-based reaction which goes hand-in-hand with power and control. There isn’t a group or individual that doesn’t do it to one degree or another. You have extreme examples of censorship like North Korea and milder ones such as hiding a post another person has shared on one’s Facebook wall. As individuals we censor and restrict ourselves constantly by saying things like, “I’m the kind of person who (insert descriptive limitation here).” or “I’m a (insert word label here). We censor and restrict ourselves to justify what we do and say.

Roosh V uses his tactical approach to sleep with women, his teachings, and forum, to gather followers and justify his existence before discovering game. The creation of a tactical approach and study of the psychology of women is a base and narrow way of interacting with women. Roosh V does not truly understand women or try to understand even one because he only seems to consider one aspect of what he can get from them, his own sexual satisfaction. He may have discovered that in order to have sex with women he needs to understand how to sexually satisfy her, or not, which may or may not be why he didn’t want AW to interview his past or present sexual conquests.

Roosh V’s books teach other men this tactical strategy of ‘dealing’ with women with what he calls ‘game’. One will most likely find that Roosh V and all his followers are all the same. They all have no inkling of how to interact with women, are sexually frustrated led by their biological impulses, and lonely. His followers follow because his methodology does work but it will never achieve that which Roosh V truly wants, to have a women in his life, his sexual needs fulfilled and to not be alone. Everything Roosh V does is to justify his resentment of his so-called former self (the one that could not get sex or have a relationship with women), his biologically-driven sexual needs, and his methodology with women.

Roosh V’s ‘church’ of followers, their misogyny in the forum, and the censorship aspect are typical of and unsurprising for any fixed way of thinking. Roosh is the ‘Pan’ of his group and he takes a very typical leadership approach to it. Encourage those who are more extreme than he to control and bind them to him while censoring any dissension to prevent subversion. Will he allow himself to meet a Wendy? With his current attitude towards women, absolutely not.

Nothing that Roosh V is doing is new or innovative. He’s taking the same approach that many groups have in dehumanizing and objectifying what he doesn’t understand. Does this make him a terrible person? No, he is simply a more articulate representative of hierarchical, close-minded and self-serving ways of “thinking”, of “socializing” and, in “understanding” others. No one can break the chains that one binds oneself with, other than oneself. Thus, nothing that Feminists say or do will have any effect other than to further ingrain Roosh V’s and his followers’ resentment and methodology in his so-called relationships with women. Conversely, Feminists are equally at fault because they are doing the same exact thing to men and binding themselves with the same chains..

To strive for a truly free and democratic society is to support the free expression of oneself without expectation and negative recourse. To be a member of a truly free and democratic society one must have compassion, understanding and acceptance. To be compassionate is to care about others. To understand is to be open-minded and love. Acceptance is the stepping stone to logical discourse to discover how two opposing or different expressions of self and group can coexist peacefully.

Another comment, in response to this, by one who identifies as ezra.jones says:

“I agree with everything that you said except this:

His followers follow because his methodology does work but it will never achieve that which Roosh V truly wants, to have a women in his life

“Roosh does not want “a women in his life”. He wants some sort of neurotic/erotic fantasy in intermittent moments of his life. I can bet you any woman that’s slept with a man like him wakes up in the morning to a totally different person who wants nothing to do with her at all; and probably who goes so far as to hate her even. He’s easily a narcissist and definitely lacking emotional skill at all levels. To be honest, he’d probably be happier just ****ing himself.”

My response:

“He wants some sort of neurotic/erotic fantasy in intermittent moments of his life.”

I agree with this in that Roosh V is conflicted in what he wants and needs. He wants emotionally fulfilling relationships with both men and women which he does so with ‘game’. The game he plays is with both men and women. What is ‘game’? It’s a psychological analysis of others to understand what behaviors are required to connect with others in a way that achieves specific goals. With women, he analyzes them and uses specific tactics and behaviors that he has learned appeal to women sexually and emotionally: tells amusing stories, uses certain words and mannerisms to be charming, etc. With men, he shares his methodology and results to garner their admiration. He teaches to gain their loyalty. Because he relates to men and women driven by these goals, realized or not, his interactions with others will always be neurotic, fictional and one-dimensional. Roosh V is his own puppet.

When one relates to others in one-dimensional ways one will always feel alone. Roosh B has mentioned in his other writings how much energy it takes utilize ‘game’. This is indicative of the fact that he on some level realizes that ‘game’ is not a genuine and truthful connection; In the way that people who perform interact with an audience. Only showing aspects of one’s true self and a fictional being altogether. When two people truly connect there is an exchange of energy. Some people give more, some take more, and with some we find a balance and equality. Roosh V expends a lot of energy to have sex with many different women to fulfill his physical biological needs. He maintains long-term sex partners because he truly desires an emotionally fulfilling relationship. Women’s physical biology tends more to emotions, thus women usually need an emotional connection in order to facilitate a sexual one. And ‘game’ is about connecting with women on an emotional level so as to access them sexually. The tools of ‘game’ are just that, so using ‘game’ is and will become a burden to those who play due to the imbalance of energy expended to do so, and eventually one will tire of of the sport and playing it.

To balance this equation, women are just as guilty of using ‘game’ and also subject to unfulfilling one-dimensional relationships. I think this goes without question. Women use various tactics to fulfill their emotional and sexual needs: emotional manipulation, timing, the ways they dress, and tailoring their behavior to meet expectations. But beyond the sexual needs of men and women is a desire in each of us to connect emotionally and physically with others which transcends being man or woman. So why do we play games? We -think- it will facilitate a genuine, meaningful and fulfilling connections with others. But the simple truth is ‘game’ takes one farther away from having those fostering fleeting moments of positive self-worth, despair, and loneliness. To have truly fulfilling, genuine and meaningful relationships with others, one must have that with one-self. One must ‘Love thyself’.

“I can bet you any woman that’s slept with a man like him wakes up in the morning to a totally different person who wants nothing to do with her at all; and probably who go so far as to hate her.”

Of course. And if one is not secure and loving of oneself, one may also take on another’s neurosis. Some of the women Roosh V has had so-called relationships have probably had the experience you suggested. They wake up to a different person (the real one that is not as charming and sweet as presented), they recognize his hate (which is really his own self-loathing) and disregard of her (he’s done playing the game) internalizing it, supplanting his opinion of her for her own. This is why it is absolutely imperative that one does not base or place all of one’s self-worth in other’s hands.

One could say that what men and women do are ‘bad’ when they utilize ‘game’ but that is not so. It is only as ‘bad’ as the one who utilizes it is in conflict with oneself. Meaning, that if Roosh V truly felt that ‘game’ was The Way he would not feel the imbalance in energy expenditure nor would he resort to attacking others that disagree with his point of view. That defensive reaction is a reflex to defend that which he knows on some level is in conflict with who he truly is. Is it then also ‘bad’ to value oneself only through external measures of validation? Again, only if it is true and without conflict with one’s true self. If the feelings of conflict arise then I can only say, perhaps.

Let’s look to Nature as our teacher:

A tree, a blade of grass, a stone lying on the bed of a river stream, the deer and fox….flora, fauna and all that is does not “try” “to be” anything other than what it is. It is only ‘human nature’ to wonder, then question and be in conflict with one’s true self.

As for your opinion, “He’s easily a narcissist and definitely lacking emotional skill at all levels. To be honest, he’d probably be happier just ****ing himself.”, maybe and maybe not. Who are you and I to judge the actions and words of another. Analysis, understanding, and being true to oneself without harming others is, in my opinion, a much better way to be. Although admittedly, what some perceive as harm is nothing more than their reaction to a truth they would rather not face. Many dead philosophers much wiser than I have all agreed. They would also agree that Feminists should focus less on what others are doing and more on what they are doing to themselves and others. You can’t control what others do, only what you do. Hence my reiteration of Nietzsche’s words in a previous response. Here is the quote in full:

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

Alas! My conclusion of word labels, their application and utilisation, and effects…The Label Trap

The mind can only perceive that which it is able to comprehend.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s