Speaking as a man mainly has to do with being sexist; but there’s good sexism and bad sexism, and it’s important to know the difference. Good sexism is when you’ve got it right, of course (putting a woman in her place); bad sexism is when you’ve got it wrong (treating her unfairly, in other words). Sadly, women have so brow-beaten men in modern times -- accusing us of bad sexism all the time -- that we have become so frightened that we dare not now open our mouths. Pitiful, but true.

We have allowed the very word ‘sexist’ to become so biased that it now means exclusively men being nasty to women ... as if a woman could NEVER be sexist; as if a man could never be right. This is obviously wrong, for they are far better with words than we are, and occasionally we see things more clearly than they do. Sounds ridiculous, I know -- but nevertheless it is true: they have scared us into silence.

What they’ve done is to tie up our brains in a knot of female logic: a chain of half-truths that actually contradict themselves; but we men loose the thread, and end up not being able to answer back. Here’s a link to a detailed explanation.

Powered by Google Docs

Accordingly, you must study up on each sex's strengths and weaknesses -- those differences which are supposed not to exist -- and practice thinking them over to yourself in quiet moments. Then in conversation, when you are sure of yourself, you can spring a surprise attack -- but only when you are really, really sure. For you will often have to back up your argument with another -- just to ram your message home.

In my experience, even the most butch of feminists will sweeten after you’ve knocked down one or two of her arguments. She’ll switch tactics and start behaving like a woman (trying to seduce you, in other words). This is far, far more dangerous, of course ... but it is also far more fun. Several years ago I produced a list of 113 clever arguments that young schoolgirls are now trained in (so they can slaughter any grown man), but unfortunately it is very incomplete -- only a few of the answers have been filled in -- so I cannot publish it at the moment.

The Golden Rule: Often be sexist in public, and occasionally be so at home. I recommend several times a day in public; and at home getting your wife to do something she really doesn’t want to do -- just for you -- at least once a month. This way you keep your hand in for emergencies, when you need instant obedience. Anyway, you MUST get your own way occasionally, even as you resign yourself to her winning 99% of the time. Otherwise she will lose all respect for you ... just as my own wife did.

Actually, reading this I thought you were some kind of Women's studies grad on here to take the piss. But looking at the other thread apparently you are for real.

Woman are not out to get you on any level mate. As a man you have every advantage. They want to be with you. Nut up and drop the nonsense.

I really don't like the gist of this. I am friends with a lot of women who are feminist campaigners, and in my time have been on the receiving end of accusations of having acted in a sexist way when I didn't believe (and still don't believe) I had. I agree with many things feminists say, and also agree that society as a whole has a built in bias in favour of males which we should all work to address. At the same time, I will stand up to any feminist who I think takes things too far, and I do grow impatient with certain forms of militant feminism. I'm a well balanced person who can usually see the other side of an argument, even if I disagree with it. I generally have impatience with people who don't reciprocate this respect.

However, you seem to be promoting an approach which essentially puts us at logger heads with women. You don't seem to see them as humans to be interacted with and compromised with, but rather as a separate species to be competed with for the upper hand. This isn't helpful.

I fundamentally respect a woman's right to equality, to equal life chances, and do not believe there is ever an excuse for sexism - ie, acting in a manner that discriminates against a woman on the basis of her gender. "Getting your wife to do something she really doesn't want to do" - mate, seriously, that's extremely unhelpful.

"Anyway, you MUST get your own way occasionally, even as you resign yourself to her winning 99% of the time. Otherwise she will lose all respect for you ... just as my own wife did"....

Ok so every relationship has an element of give and take. Its called compromise. But I don't think feminism is the problem, nor sexism the answer. Rather, I'd suggest the answer is acting like a grown up, and if any woman bullies you, then fight back as you would if a man bullies you.

the point he's trying to make is men are scared to take the piss out of a chick the same way they would take the piss out of there mates, women feel more secure around you when meeting them for the first time if you do a little pisstake joking as it projects that you dont want or need anything from them.

I know Duncans views can come across very skewed, I can't say I agree with all his views but I think what he is essentially saying in this particular view sounds reasonable enough to me. So I agree with TorchedFrogs interpretation of this. Simply, too many men hand their balls over to women on a silver platter, this in itself could be seen as a form of manipulation. In that if a guy shuns his machismo and acts in a more submissive way that she will open herself upto him more easily. Whilst undeniably this method would be desireable to some women, most women are turned off by this sort of behaviour in a man.

However for some reason many men think by surrendering their manliness is somehow doing them a favor with women, this is skewed logic. The polarity that exists between the 'devine masculine' and the 'devine feminine' is what attracts the sexes, the greater the polarity the stronger the attraction i.e. Men with very masculine tendencies tend to be most attracted to women with very feminine tendencies and vice verca.

Men who adopt overly metrosexual or feminate traits and suppress their masculine desires in order to please a women often do themselves more harm than good. Their is then a friction between their thoughts and desires and how they conduct themselves around women. This leads to a lack of direction and clarity in a mans judgement and action. Women sense this hesitation and lacking in the full display of your unashamed masculine role and hence this is why many guys who decide to play it safe get cast aside or pigeon-holed into the 'friends zone'.

You could argue that social conditioning and the rise of the 'metrosexual' culture has forced some men into believing they should act in this beta way. Whilst acting in this way is more desireable in creating a balance and form of harmony in the work place or in business, this type of role is less likely to have success in relationships between couples. Many women take comfort in your decisiveness and direction in your masculine role, for when you are in control of this women can relax into their feminine roles. What I'm getting at is that many women (some may not like to admit it) enjoy you being the one to call all the shots and lead the relationship. When there is an inbalance or a power-struggle and your woman is lacking in confidence in your masculine role and duties (often because the man is too submissive) is where problems start to occur.

So I think what Duncan is saying here is it's ok to put women in their place, don't be afraid to call them out on their shit and grow a pair. They secretly like you to act this way, it shows if you can handle her, you can probably handle other of lifes challenges which to women is a masculine and sexy trait.

The thing Duncan is doing is blowing things out of proportion, yes don't let yourself get walked all over by women, think for yourself but I think Duncan is trying to polarise women and make it seem like if left to there own devices then they'll leave us jibbering wrecks incapable of our own thoughts.

It's a pretty conspiratorial view point projecting what will happen based on his own assumptions and things which sound true but when you think about it aren't.
I can't remember the last time I heard someone be accused of bad sexism and where are these half-truths women use and the arguments that contradict themselves? The "detailed explanation" doesn't go into much detail.

His backup to these claims, some badly written document he wrote on the internet and a philosopher saying he was disturbed deeply by him (which sounds to me he was creeped out by Duncan) and agreeing to meet up with him then cancelling. Which doesn't prove anything and on top of that we are all just taking his word for it, there is no evidence for these events just speculation.

Where is this list of 113 arguments that young school girls are now trained in? You're telling me that people train young school girls to argue a list that Duncan wrote but isn't complete? Are these people women who train them who belong to the new world order and are actually lizards? Do Illuminati Lizards Rule? - David Icke's Case

The method seems confrontational and he seems to view women as the enemy, going on about reading up about differences then waiting to start up an argument. To me that seems pretty weird low value behaviour.

His golden rule is stupid, you don't have to be sexist to be masculine. I don't want some obedient woman I want a free thinking awesome one who doesn't need to be made to do things for me just to keep her in line. That's some pretty low value behaviour I can't believe you're jumping to his defence Hustler, in fact I can't believe i'm justifying his views with a reply.

I think what Hustler and TorchedFrog are trying to rationalise his views and turn them into something sane but if you actually look at what he says it doesn't make sense.

He doesn't make any reference about joking or taking the piss out of your mates.
He's putting some half truths, generalisations and things people perceive to be true and then saying we should be sexist all the time and make women do things for us even if we don't need them to or want them to keep them in line. It's completely different to what Hustler and TorchedFrog are interpreting it as.

Hey Tom, I'm not jumping to his defence, certainly not. I couldn't quite grasp his rather murky argument. My response and interpretation just came from his 'golden rule' and the way I saw it was that basically it's ok to express yourself as a man around your women. Certainly not to try to maniuplate her or control her in anyway.

Where are these women Tom?? I hope you're not hoarding them all to yourself!!

This post kinda reminds me of S&M. But its confusing and DUNCAN!!!! hasnt been back to clarify...

Hustler wasnt arguing for being sexist, just to be a man which is awesome.

But isnt this all related to dominance and being an alpha male. A woman loves a dominant man, true?

I've seen countless relatioships ended because the guy was too nice, did everything and the woman lost respect for him.

Women - get your act together!!!

I think there are subtelties here, but I don't think Duncan was promoting anything subtle at all. He seems to see women as one species, us as the other, and the two in perpetual conflict. Just look at the title of his other thread: "Weapons for sex war troopers". What war is this? I'm not fighting a war.

I've come into the world of Pick Up not because I want to fight against women. I want to fight against myself, and the person I currently am, in order that I might win and become someone better.

Women are attracted to masculine, dominant guys. That is true, and plain enough. But there are ways of expressing your masculinity in other ways than through conscious sexism. The ways we seem to reccommend on this forum include becoming a more authentic, centered person, with an ocean of self confidence which we don't need to work very hard to put on display. A guy in control of his own reality, who is calm and confident, authentic and congruent, surely will come across just as masculine as some guy who is 6 foot 2, built like a brick shit house and who uses sexism to show he doesn't need to bow down to women.

Two final points I'll make. The first is, does anyone think the very best pick up artists need to be sexist to succeed? All the stuff I've read suggests that, quite apart from resisting women, you'll succeed if you try and understand them, what they want, why they want it. If you can be that awesome bloke, completely comfortable in himself, you'll immediately give a woman a lot of the things she wants from a guy.

And the second, and I'm sorry to do this Duncan, but I can't help but notice the very last line of your post: "she will lose all respect for you ... just as my own wife did". I'd rather not know, probably, but I suspect there is much more going on beneath the surface here. You seem to have a score to settle, which I fear will cloud any view you take on this kind of thing.

CovertOperation I couldn't have said it better myself, awesome.

Hmm obedience sounds like manipulation to me.

I know but that's not what Duncan was arguing for Hustler's points were valid but they're not the same as Duncan's.

Yes but you don't need to be a controlling weirdo to be dominant (see Covert's post)

That's the man's fault for trying to please her instead of being genuine, would you really want to be with someone who sucks up to you and tries to please you from a desperate need for acceptance?