How Generalizing is Stupid Behavior (Response to Return of Kings)

return of kings

What does it take to be a good man? A lot of things, but most importantly it’s about avoiding certain behaviors that harm you.

There’s a natural human tendency to create a false equation. It’s like an error in our operating systems; a mental glitch that was never fixed by nature. It goes: observation = generalization.

It’s easy to identify, “That Asian driver cut me off. Asians are bad drivers.”

It’s the least rational type of thought pattern. More irrational than religious fundamentalism or any other modern plague of the mind, and it’s the core of many of the world’s problems.

Fortunately, conscious-minded individuals can usually detect this type of behavior early enough to squash it. However, some communities appear ripe with generalizing behavior; and as such they should be approached with healthy skepticism.

One such site is Return of Kings, made by arch PUA Roosh V.

I’ve been reading this site out of curiosity; and there can be something a bit seductive about the Manosphere’s most controversial creature that keeps me clicking to the next article…and the next one…and the next one. Some primal tendency, perhaps.

But I hope most reasonable people who stumble into this site can identify bullshit by practicing even mild critical thinking skills. Every single article on that site encapsulates negative generalizations about politics, gender issues, women, and society.

As an example, let’s take a look at a very “tame” (by RoK standards) RoK post: “Why The Ukraine Crisis Is A Red Pill Vs Blue Pill Superpower Clash

At first glance, I find myself starting to agree with “The First Auarian”. Yes, perhaps Russian and Soviet influenced culture breeds less materialistic women. Perhaps emasculated western culture is a threat to eastern culture (which is the article’s thesis).

But it’s clear, as you read this piece, it’s just like every other article on the site: a rampant series of generalizations, that appeals to your desire for controversy but has no basis in reality.

The author takes a couple of his own VERY subjective experiences and tries to paint a broad analysis of Ukrainian culture in general. So, he had a very positive experience dating an east Ukrainian woman, and a less positive experience with a west Ukrainian. Who cares?

So the east Ukrainian woman he met was not messing with her cell-phone on a date… Who cares? He implies that the closer you get to Russia, the more likely every woman puts away her cell phone and becomes mature minded, social, sexual, and without narcissistic western tendencies.

But I seriously doubt that. For all we know, more east Ukrainians use cell phones than west Ukrainians. For all we know, east Ukrainian men are less aggressive than their western counterparts. For all we know, aggressive, over-machismo behavior of east Ukrainian men does nothing to increase the quality of the dating culture, at all.

In fact, according to statistics I’ve researched, many east European countries, including the Ukraine, have the highest rates of divorce in the world, outranking even the United States. It’s possible the extreme machismo “red pill” behavior of east European men is not helpful to relationships, at all.

While the article is “entertaining” enough to read, it does not hold up to any type of critical thought. It’s yet another example of a subjective experience leading to generalizations and then the preaching of anecdotal truth.

Of course, fueling controversy also fuels traffic, which is directly proportional to advertising dollars and product sales. Here’s an article with 188k likes, 24 Signs She’s a Slut.

Again, it’s just another parade of uncertain generalizations, anecdotes and opinion. Honestly, I don’t even know what the fuck a “slut” is. If a woman is sexual, please remind me why it’s somehow a bad thing now. I vaguely get the sense that RoK wants more women who are sexually active (ie: girls who will fuck them instead of reject them, which I think is the underlying frustration of many of the site’s writers) so why does that article have an undercurrent of condescension? I can’t figure out what “Tuthmosis” wants. Do you WANT more “sluts” or are you trying to shame women for promiscuous behavior?

While RoK can be written off as a boorish site designed around fanning flames of controversy and making Roosh and friends filthy rich, there’s a bigger undercurrent of irrational, generalizing behavior among men’s sites that I think is a lot more serious.

For instance, the predominant theme on RoK, and many other sites, is that the root of all evil, all aspects of the broken western dating culture, the reason Susie never went out with you in 7th grade, and a number of other woes is because of one boogeyman: feminism.

I am quite critical of a lot of weird, offensive stuff coming out of the brains of certain writers on sites like Jezebel, Skepchick, and Radfem, such as the atrociously bad Schroedinger’s Rapist logical fallacy that is being trumpeted across the femosphere, which seems to promote paranoia and divisiveness.

(Here’s an excellent rebuttal to this type of nonsense by The Factual Feminist)

However, feminism as a catch-all enemy is absurd. The unhealthy generalization thought-error manifests yet again when people bare witness to one example of crazy feminism, and then equate the entire, very broad women’s movement as being divisive and horrible.

This generalization does not hold water, either. Feminism is about a needed women’s movement. In parts of the world, women cannot vote, cannot drive cars, and routinely have acid thrown at their faces when they break rules. What the Men’s Rights crowd sometimes forgets is that women need a voice just like men need a voice. It doesn’t mean we have to be at odds. Just ignore the crazy people. Is that so hard?

These types of negative ideologies will hurt your social and love life. A woman who could be very compatible for you may also describe herself as a feminist. What will you do then? Will you unfairly prescribe your prejudiced opinion unto her, and destroy a potentially great relationship?

A mark of maturity is the power to overcome this tendency. And, by living with that sense of maturity, you will lead a happier life, with more fruitful relationships. When the world outside your home becomes painted in irreversible colors, you are limiting your own human experience.

Do not stereotype people, and do not generalize about a culture. By doing this, you are making the world a much darker place to live.

One of the reasons that I choose to go into weird places like North Korea is to further remove from my mind the tendency to stereotype people and places. Even some of the world’s most despised people, like the members of the Korean Worker’s Party, are also human beings with multi-faceted personalities (and partying with them was a great way to realize this).

Please, be mindful about the types of information you consume. Stay open-minded, and always treat one another like human beings; not representatives of ideologies, genders, or countries.

 

Comments

  1. luxminder831 says:

    Yay! I really liked this little article. Thank you so much for writing and posting it. I recently stumbled across the RoK website and I was really nauseated by the articles I read on there. I felt like a little piece of my innocence was destroyed, and I didn’t think I had much left at 35. But it’s refreshing to see another person who agrees with what I was thinking as I perused it. On the about page, the creators state that a. men are much more logical than women and that b. wealthy, successful men are more entitled to beautiful women. (They also have quite a bit to say about the irrefutable and UNIVERSAL definition of what makes a woman beautiful – which mainly is that she has to very thin and also be young enough to bear children. Beyond these very shallow and narrow confines, she has absolutely no worth.) But then as I was reading through the articles and the posts, a lot of the men kept making very derogatory comments about “gold-diggers”. And I was like, “If all you think a woman should be is beautiful and only care her beauty, how can you then go on to criticize them when all they care about are really superficial, temporal things in a man, like his annual disposable income?” This is only one of the many diametrically opposed viewpoints which abounded in that malicious site. I mean, how can they all eschew the most basic fundaments of psychology, and all the while crowing loudly about how logical they are?

    Another one of precepts that the site espouses is that a man should exercise stringent sexual moderation, listen to his bodies needs, and not allow himself to be ruled by animalistic urges. But there were many articles about how to spot whores, and many of the members who left comments on them frequently bragged about how they banged this girl and that girl. A lot of people left some really enraged replies to these (though you’ll rarely find any of these comments displayed, as they – by rule it seems – discourage people who disagree with them from participating in their “discussions”) and while I can understand the outrage, really, I feel inclined…to laugh at how ridiculous and…just silly they all are. They’re like little children desperately striving to create a world in which they always get they’re own way, with absolutely no repercussions. Case in point, promiscuous WOMEN spread STD’s, never promiscuous men. I guess only a woman has a say in whether there is a condom used? I don’t know.

    Anyways, it was nice to see a balanced perspective is all.

    Have a great day.

    • developedman developedman says:

      I’ll go back to RoK sometimes to see what’s abuzz, and every time I do I regret it, I end up reading some part of one of their articles that makes me feel physically sick. I wonder if RoK-sickness will become a clinical diagnosis in the future. Anyway, thanks for the comment–and sorry it took me a while to approve it!

  2. Kate Linnell says:

    Sharing the ever living hell out of this and it makes me sad to see there are not more comments on this article. I never understood that website, I go there every now and again to see if some kind of understanding will click but I just leave more confused each time. You shame women for being sexual yet you have no issue in sleeping with the women you shame for being sexual and having sex with you? What? Is she supposed to be pure and virginal but also fuck like a porn star when shes with you? You say she needs to be only thin and beautiful but you want her to love/respect you for your personality and not what you can give her or what you look like because that’s shallow? My other and biggest issue is that she needs to “respect” the man or men in general by being subservient to them. Sorry but we fought loong and hard not to be in that position and we’re not going back. It’s almost like they want a mom they can have sex with. Thanks for this writing though, it’s balanced and just factual- it’s not an emotional knee jerk reaction, it just is what it is.

  3. Proved Wrong says:

    You are wrong. generalizing = seeing patterns that EXIST IN REALITY.

    All stereotypes have some truth in them.

    Everything else is delusion. You are deluded, you are ignorant. Sorry, you lose.

    yes, there is such a thing as over-generalization. And saying that all generalization is bad…is precisely that. It’s not true that all generalizations are wrong. It’s false. It’s relativistic bullshit.

    generalizations are generalizations, period – they can be correct or not, and everything in between.

    All truth that can be spoken by a human being is a generalization. They are general rules, they don’t apply to every single case. generalizing = there are exceptions, but in general it is so. If you think there are no patterns in races and genders you are wrong.

    ALL MEN HAVE A PENIS = CORRECT GENERALIZATION.

    You lose. I proved you wrong. Period.

    • Proven Methods says:

      No one cares that you “won”, “PROVEN WRONG”.

      Any well-adjusted person can see what point you’re making. I, myself, agree with most of it.

      That doesn’t take away from the fact that ROK is a nauseating site with plenty of arrogant (a trait never worthy of respect) idiots who think they’re enlightened about everything to do with life. Not everyone that frequents the place (be they writers of articles or commenters) is an idiot, of course.

  4. Nate Ashland says:

    The reason why there is shaming of female promiscuity is because women ultimately set the ground rules for mating/dating as the gatekeepers of reproduction. This is why a women with no education can bag the most affluent man but a man with no education trying to bag the most affluent women is fewer and farther between. It takes no effort for women to get sex vs. for men (we’re talking in generalities here), so when women sleep around there are very different implications between the genders. There is also a strong motivation/evolutionary psychology of investment vs. risk between the genders, of which I won’t go into intense detail.

    There was a famous psychological study done on what hurts men and women more. They found that sexual infidelity is devastating to men while generally not the case for women (we’re talking about generalities, women get extremely upset too but no where near the same level, which partly explains why after divorce men’s suicide rates skyrocket while women’s don’t – they have a different connection with the relationship. For men it’s sexual and exclusive, which makes sense considering the need for men to be assured his child is actually his. 30% of babies are still illegitimate by the way and men have to pay childcare for that baby whether it’s his or not, which also explains the shaming). Women on the other hand are hurt most by emotional infidelity even if the offending party isn’t sexually active with the person (this explains why women after divorce are better able to cope, women generally have a large network of friends that they can use to fulfill the emotional need). The point of all this is that sex is VERY different in functional importance between men and women.

    In regards to RoK, there are a lot of men on that site that compose a small minority of men that are looking to sleep with a lot of women. The problem is that masses of women are going for the top percentage of men (throughout history 70% of women have reproduced while only 30% of men have), so even though women know damn well that the number of sexual partners they have is incredibly important to men, they compete and sleep with the top 10%. As such, the top men are hurting men and women as a group are hurting men that aren’t in the top 10% (in a way, it’s almost a polygamous type of environment where it’s feast or famine for most men, and feast for most women, hence why a women walking down the street could point to any man and say “let’s get it on,” and would have no problems finding someone to fit the bill. On the other hand, a man walking down the street that asks 100 women to sleep with them will mostly be met with scorn (there are videos of this kind of experiment), even in today’s more “liberated” society.

    The bar for men and women is completely different, because of the nature of sex and the biological burdens of the sexes. Despite birth control, those basic dynamics will never change as long as the dynamic of women having the womb and men having the penis remains in tact. That’s the problem nowadays, everyone thinks birth control has fixed all our problems and sex is just sex, but study after study after study continues to show stark differences between genders and sex and this should be no surprise considering the biological implications and investment of each gender when it comes to sex. On top of all of that, women initiate divorce 80% of the time, which consequently suggests that if women are sleeping around more (which they now are averaging more partners than men in many countries) then men marrying a woman that has slept with a bunch of guys becomes a huge risk, especially considering that women require the most investment. The inverse is true for women. In fact, studies have shown that women actually prefer men that have more partners (this get’s back to the idea of women competing for the top 10% of men), unless they come from a more restrained or religious background. A women willing to risk pregnancy and the time investment of that pregnancy has much greater social implications than a man that cannot get pregnant, that’s the bottom line.

    I can understand the dislike of RoK on this site, I find many of the men on there nothing more than man-sluts themselves, but you have to view their content within the context of an overarching understanding of sex differences and sex. I just felt like I had to say something in light of some of the comments I was reading and some of the articles I read on here. It seems like generally this site preaches, “sex is sex is sex…it’s all the same for everyone” and that’s not in truth how it works. Culturally that would be true, but biologically…there’s a reason birth rates are plummeting, sex is rated as the number one problem in marriages, women are becoming increasingly unhappy, neither sex is marrying anymore, and I could go on and on. The truth of the matter is that sex is not just sex for the sexes and there are very real world consequences of that view.

    I should also mention that there is a linear correlation between the number of partners people have and the divorce rate, which again skews 80% women initiating divorce, so it really should not be any wonder that women are still shamed for sleeping around. At first blush it might seem like a double standard, but if you dig into the underlying psychology and sociology of why people act the way they do, even Plato talks about the sex differences and how a female society vs male society would function within the confines of sexual morality.

    Anyway, I appreciate the post but I no longer have time left to write. I hope all of you continue to research on your own as opposed to taking my word for it or anyone else’s word for it for that matter. That being said, I can emphatically and respectfully assert that the comments here are somewhat incomplete in depth and reflection, but I wholly understand where they are coming from. Personally, I would advocate for people to get back to respecting sex as what it is: the most intimate and vulnerable act two people can engage in. It’s not something to be toss aside, used, enjoyed, etc. without the proper importance outside the realm of personal pleasure. There is a lot more to it than that and even porn stars are starting to talk about how our cultural view of sex is utterly destroying intimacy of relationships and both genders are responsible. It all comes down to accepting that sex isn’t just an animal feeling or raw response. There are deep mental faculties of child-rearing and love that come with it in order to keep people together for the long haul. It really isn’t any wonder we’re having the problems we have today with marriage and relationships.

Leave a Reply to developedman Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: