How most men, even good caring men, have no clue what women go through

[Verbal Mike]

People are crazy assholes about different things. Some people are crazy assholes about their politics or religion. Some people are crazy assholes about the Illuminati. Some people are crazy assholes about being entitled to women's interest.

But just because they're crazy assholes doesn't mean there isn't a SECOND problem involved, which is the spread of the ideology they are an asshole about.

Just like we don't say Ray Comfort is just an example of a crazy asshole and doesn't have anything to do with a deeper societal issue of dishonesty and denial of science and groupthink,
we can't say this crazy bicycle man is JUST a crazy asshole and doesn't reveal an issue of men thinking they're entitled to women's interest.

once again, i'm hoping my posts make any sense at all.

This. I don't see anyone in this thread saying that power imbalance between men and women is the only issue involved in the OP story, but it certainly seems to be one such issue. And if the women here are calling the crazy guy only "an extreme example" it sounds to me like this kind of thing might be a bit more common than us dudes would like to think (but ymmv). Sounds like "most cases are more mundane but yeah that kind of stuff happens and we have to deal with it". (If this is the case, ladies, kudos for having such awesomely metallic gonads.)

Like Epimethius wrote in his other post, insecurity seems to also be a big part of this equation, probably the state of mental health care in California is relevant too, etc etc., but the story still seems to highlight something most guys aren't aware of and many women are apparently confronted with daily. Seems to make a lot of sense to me as part of a feminist discussion.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

People are crazy assholes about different things. Some people are crazy assholes about their politics or religion. Some people are crazy assholes about the Illuminati. Some people are crazy assholes about being entitled to women's interest.

But just because they're crazy assholes doesn't mean there isn't a SECOND problem involved, which is the spread of the ideology they are an asshole about.

Just like we don't say Ray Comfort is just an example of a crazy asshole and doesn't have anything to do with a deeper societal issue of dishonesty and denial of science and groupthink,
we can't say this crazy bicycle man is JUST a crazy asshole and doesn't reveal an issue of men thinking they're entitled to women's interest.

once again, i'm hoping my posts make any sense at all.

This. I don't see anyone in this thread saying that power imbalance between men and women is the only issue involved in the OP story, but it certainly seems to be one such issue. And if the women here are calling the crazy guy only "an extreme example" it sounds to me like this kind of thing might be a bit more common than us dudes would like to think (but ymmv). Sounds like "most cases are more mundane but yeah that kind of stuff happens and we have to deal with it". (If this is the case, ladies, kudos for having such awesomely metallic gonads.)

Like Epimethius wrote in his other post, insecurity seems to also be a big part of this equation, probably the state of mental health care in California is relevant too, etc etc., but the story still seems to highlight something most guys aren't aware of and many women are apparently confronted with daily. Seems to make a lot of sense to me as part of a feminist discussion.

The bolded is exactly what I mean. Yes, it's more common than you would imagine, though it's not usually expressed in that extreme a degree.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

But how "socially sanctioned" IS that stuff in a public place?

Some guy starts, we tell him to fuck off, he calls us bitches under his breath. His day is ruined, not ours. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

If he KEEPS calling us bitches, NOBODY wants to hear it. I've had guys thrown out of libraries, bars, and yes, off of buses. I'm sure you've done similar. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

Wasn't the point of feminism to make US stronger instead of acting like helpless little things who jes' cain't do nothin' cuz we warn't raised to be rude to menfolks?

How did you get that from my post? Or from anything I've posted? The whole point of the dialogue is culture change, in multiple ways, including outgrowing the "be nice" conditioning (culturally, not just individually) AND outgrowing the reinforcement and acceptance of male entitlement (culturally, not just individually).

And while it would be nice to imagine that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", the reality we live in is that having anger directed at us does have an effect, both psychologically and physiologically. Stress hurts.

Not from your post, I quoted because I was riffing on the socially sanctioned male entitlement bit. And I agree, it still exists, but nowhere NEAR the extent it used to. We're under no obligation to put up with the harassment and assaults we used to be expected to swallow as recently as the 70's - early 80's.

But I'm seeing a pattern in this thread, and the one before it, and the one before that, (and again, this is NOT a Nigel thing  ) where we're supposed to be SO helpless and intimidated by men, and if anybody says "be assertive/carry a weapon/learn self defense etc." they're BLAMING THE VICTIM.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have the patience to wait for "dialogue" or whatever to somehow MAKE CREEPY PERVERTS GOOD AND NICE AND STOP BULLYING THE WOMEN. And if I give a rat's ass about anybody else, I wouldn't advise them to wait for this to happen either.

I understand phobias and trauma, and that some women JUST CAN'T. I JUST CAN'T walk on railroad trestles without being scared as fuck and freezing every few steps. I avoid them. I swam a river once to keep from walking on a goddamn trestle. It's irrational (unless it's a long trestle and a train might come before I can get across it) but that's how phobias are. Some women are like that with men. In that situation, somebody else needs to step up. In ANY situation that starts to escalate, somebody needs to step up, even if it's only by whipping out a phone and calling 911. But the expectation that it shouldn't even be suggested that ANY woman should have to get a backbone EVEN IF SHE'S CAPABLE OF DOING SO strikes me as southern belle stuff and it's been said a few times in these threads.

[Epimetheus]

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

Makes sense. Figured the same, but figured I'd ask, because I don't think "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a healthy guideline. At least not for all persons and situations.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

In regards to people earlier in the thread wondering how you can change these things.

During the PUA OM that never really got off the ground I remember someone created a Discordian Pick Up Artist blog with the hopes that it might turn in to something in the future. Why not make a project out of infiltrating Pick Up Artistry and inserting subversive feminist memes into it?

Of course youd have to be semi-sneaky about it, instead of framing it as "this is kinda disrespectful and degrading/threatening" you frame it as "this behavior is totally hyper beta and it sends signals to the womans ovaries that you have small testicles and causes her to friendzone you" or something really asinine like that.

[Epimetheus]

In regards to people earlier in the thread wondering how you can change these things.

During the PUA OM that never really got off the ground I remember someone created a Discordian Pick Up Artist blog with the hopes that it might turn in to something in the future. Why not make a project out of infiltrating Pick Up Artistry and inserting subversive feminist memes into it?

Of course youd have to be semi-sneaky about it, instead of framing it as "this is kinda disrespectful and degrading/threatening" you frame it as "this behavior is totally hyper beta and it sends signals to the womans ovaries that you have small testicles and causes her to friendzone you" or something really asinine like that.

Cool idea. Spreading the idea that treating another human being as another human being is true Alpha behavior.
Because it is.
Would have to avoid stating the implied conclusion that A true Pick-Up Artist isn't trying to Pick Up at all. At least in the beginning.

[Cain]

AFCs get friendzoned when their beta behaviour betrays a weak social frame.

And now I want to punch myself in the balls.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

But how "socially sanctioned" IS that stuff in a public place?

Some guy starts, we tell him to fuck off, he calls us bitches under his breath. His day is ruined, not ours. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

If he KEEPS calling us bitches, NOBODY wants to hear it. I've had guys thrown out of libraries, bars, and yes, off of buses. I'm sure you've done similar. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

Wasn't the point of feminism to make US stronger instead of acting like helpless little things who jes' cain't do nothin' cuz we warn't raised to be rude to menfolks?

How did you get that from my post? Or from anything I've posted? The whole point of the dialogue is culture change, in multiple ways, including outgrowing the "be nice" conditioning (culturally, not just individually) AND outgrowing the reinforcement and acceptance of male entitlement (culturally, not just individually).

And while it would be nice to imagine that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", the reality we live in is that having anger directed at us does have an effect, both psychologically and physiologically. Stress hurts.

Not from your post, I quoted because I was riffing on the socially sanctioned male entitlement bit. And I agree, it still exists, but nowhere NEAR the extent it used to. We're under no obligation to put up with the harassment and assaults we used to be expected to swallow as recently as the 70's - early 80's.

But I'm seeing a pattern in this thread, and the one before it, and the one before that, (and again, this is NOT a Nigel thing  ) where we're supposed to be SO helpless and intimidated by men, and if anybody says "be assertive/carry a weapon/learn self defense etc." they're BLAMING THE VICTIM.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have the patience to wait for "dialogue" or whatever to somehow MAKE CREEPY PERVERTS GOOD AND NICE AND STOP BULLYING THE WOMEN. And if I give a rat's ass about anybody else, I wouldn't advise them to wait for this to happen either.

I understand phobias and trauma, and that some women JUST CAN'T. I JUST CAN'T walk on railroad trestles without being scared as fuck and freezing every few steps. I avoid them. I swam a river once to keep from walking on a goddamn trestle. It's irrational (unless it's a long trestle and a train might come before I can get across it) but that's how phobias are. Some women are like that with men. In that situation, somebody else needs to step up. In ANY situation that starts to escalate, somebody needs to step up, even if it's only by whipping out a phone and calling 911. But the expectation that it shouldn't even be suggested that ANY woman should have to get a backbone EVEN IF SHE'S CAPABLE OF DOING SO strikes me as southern belle stuff and it's been said a few times in these threads.

I don't agree with your assessment, at all, but then I've felt most of my points have been largely ignored in these threads.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

In regards to people earlier in the thread wondering how you can change these things.

During the PUA OM that never really got off the ground I remember someone created a Discordian Pick Up Artist blog with the hopes that it might turn in to something in the future. Why not make a project out of infiltrating Pick Up Artistry and inserting subversive feminist memes into it?

Of course youd have to be semi-sneaky about it, instead of framing it as "this is kinda disrespectful and degrading/threatening" you frame it as "this behavior is totally hyper beta and it sends signals to the womans ovaries that you have small testicles and causes her to friendzone you" or something really asinine like that.

Cool idea. Spreading the idea that treating another human being as another human being is true Alpha behavior.
Because it is.
Would have to avoid stating the implied conclusion that A true Pick-Up Artist isn't trying to Pick Up at all. At least in the beginning.

Heres an idea. The current PUA model is basically the Leary model with only the second circuit. Strength-Weakness, Alpha-Beta. We could add the second dimension of the Leary model, Friendly-Unfriendly. We differentiate Postive-Alphaness(being respectful yet confident at the same time) from Negative-Alpha (Being a dickwad).

While Neg-Alpha behavior is needed in certain situations (particularly ones where you have a gun to your head), it tends to send bad signals to women. It DOES attract some women but they tend to be of the crazy Daddy-never-loved-me type. Pos-Alpha is the ideal mate, so in romance situations you want to project those traits.

PUA is already deeply infused with the "being nice = friendzoned" meme, so for the sake of subversion well have to emphasize the difference between Friendly Weakness(nice guys, the type who get friendzoned) and our Pos-Alpha concept.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

Makes sense. Figured the same, but figured I'd ask, because I don't think "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a healthy guideline. At least not for all persons and situations.

We're not talking about all persons and situations, we're talking about hitting on total strangers on public transportation.

I think that in that particular situation, "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a VERY healthy guideline.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There's some guy out there, can't remember his name, who is basically doing that, with using PUA-type language to try to teach the kind of guys who are susceptible to PUA brainwashing how to be decent, happy, truly successful men. It's basically a real self-help book disguised as a PUA book.

God, I can only hope that somewhere along the line the whole "alpha" and "beta" thing gets dropped, or at least made fun of for being stupid and wrong.

[Epimetheus]

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

Makes sense. Figured the same, but figured I'd ask, because I don't think "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a healthy guideline. At least not for all persons and situations.

We're not talking about all persons and situations, we're talking about hitting on total strangers on public transportation.

I think that in that particular situation, "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a VERY healthy guideline.

Agreed, but that detail wasn't in his post, and he was responding to posts about men talking to women, not specifically hitting on them.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

But how "socially sanctioned" IS that stuff in a public place?

Some guy starts, we tell him to fuck off, he calls us bitches under his breath. His day is ruined, not ours. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

If he KEEPS calling us bitches, NOBODY wants to hear it. I've had guys thrown out of libraries, bars, and yes, off of buses. I'm sure you've done similar. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

Wasn't the point of feminism to make US stronger instead of acting like helpless little things who jes' cain't do nothin' cuz we warn't raised to be rude to menfolks?

How did you get that from my post? Or from anything I've posted? The whole point of the dialogue is culture change, in multiple ways, including outgrowing the "be nice" conditioning (culturally, not just individually) AND outgrowing the reinforcement and acceptance of male entitlement (culturally, not just individually).

And while it would be nice to imagine that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", the reality we live in is that having anger directed at us does have an effect, both psychologically and physiologically. Stress hurts.

Not from your post, I quoted because I was riffing on the socially sanctioned male entitlement bit. And I agree, it still exists, but nowhere NEAR the extent it used to. We're under no obligation to put up with the harassment and assaults we used to be expected to swallow as recently as the 70's - early 80's.

But I'm seeing a pattern in this thread, and the one before it, and the one before that, (and again, this is NOT a Nigel thing  ) where we're supposed to be SO helpless and intimidated by men, and if anybody says "be assertive/carry a weapon/learn self defense etc." they're BLAMING THE VICTIM.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have the patience to wait for "dialogue" or whatever to somehow MAKE CREEPY PERVERTS GOOD AND NICE AND STOP BULLYING THE WOMEN. And if I give a rat's ass about anybody else, I wouldn't advise them to wait for this to happen either.

I understand phobias and trauma, and that some women JUST CAN'T. I JUST CAN'T walk on railroad trestles without being scared as fuck and freezing every few steps. I avoid them. I swam a river once to keep from walking on a goddamn trestle. It's irrational (unless it's a long trestle and a train might come before I can get across it) but that's how phobias are. Some women are like that with men. In that situation, somebody else needs to step up. In ANY situation that starts to escalate, somebody needs to step up, even if it's only by whipping out a phone and calling 911. But the expectation that it shouldn't even be suggested that ANY woman should have to get a backbone EVEN IF SHE'S CAPABLE OF DOING SO strikes me as southern belle stuff and it's been said a few times in these threads.

I don't agree with your assessment, at all, but then I've felt most of my points have been largely ignored in these threads.

Wasn't trying to ignore anything and I'll go back and re-read, but yeah, these do turn into people talking past each other.

Also,  Cain.

[Verbal Mike]

I don't agree with your assessment, at all, but then I've felt most of my points have been largely ignored in these threads.

I'm sad to hear you felt that, since I've definitely been paying a lot of attention to your points and I get the impression that a lot of us have (but obviously not all of us.) If you had specific people in mind who have been ignoring your points, I for one would appreciate not being sweepingly generalized with them. :/

Heres an idea. The current PUA model is basically the Leary model with only the second circuit. Strength-Weakness, Alpha-Beta. We could add the second dimension of the Leary model, Friendly-Unfriendly. We differentiate Postive-Alphaness(being respectful yet confident at the same time) from Negative-Alpha (Being a dickwad).

While Neg-Alpha behavior is needed in certain situations (particularly ones where you have a gun to your head), it tends to send bad signals to women. It DOES attract some women but they tend to be of the crazy Daddy-never-loved-me type. Pos-Alpha is the ideal mate, so in romance situations you want to project those traits.

PUA is already deeply infused with the "being nice = friendzoned" meme, so for the sake of subversion well have to emphasize the difference between Friendly Weakness(nice guys, the type who get friendzoned) and our Pos-Alpha concept.

There's some guy out there, can't remember his name, who is basically doing that, with using PUA-type language to try to teach the kind of guys who are susceptible to PUA brainwashing how to be decent, happy, truly successful men. It's basically a real self-help book disguised as a PUA book.

It's really cool that someone's doing that, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have a blog doing it as well, although it might hurt the person who has to write it.
I have to confess though, as a (late-)teenager I read a lot of PUA guide material, which fortunately I was too timid to put into practice (except for stuff that I could use for actual positive correction of my social interaction in general, rather than "pick ups".) I recall very clearly that the stuff I read often emphasized on the practical level paying close attention to facial expression and body language; on the philosophical/justification level, the rhetoric was a bit creepy but often emphasized that women want sex just as much as men do but social conventions and conditioning stop them from expressing that, and that the PUA stuff is a way to fix that situation.

I obviously understand now that it's kind of the opposite of a way to "fix it", and that the whole project is essentially a coordinated assault on women, one for which emphatic consent of the target is a means but not an end. But what I'm getting at here is that these materials and the way of thinking involved in them does try to be somewhat sex-positive and not overtly rape-oriented*; so I can actually see a modified, feminist version of the philosophy coming across as an improved version, more palatable to both user and target. Basically, the PUA philosophy is already littered with anchors for positive, non-asshole/creep/rapist thinking, so there's something to build on there.

*I'm pretty sure I just missed or half-consciously avoided the really rape-oriented stuff. There was a scandal in Israel a couple of years ago when a student of a PUA school publicly boasted on the school's forum about a clear-cut case of rape he committed, and his instructors and classmates applauded him.
There was a viral campaign looking for the victim so the piece of shit could be taken to court, I wonder what happened with that.