Katie Baker wrote a great article for Dissent that I wish had been published on Jez. Pick-up artist Daryush Valizadeh (aka Roosh) has travelled around the world plying his gross tactics to get women to sleep with him and writing about his successes. Unsurprisingly, he finds that disadvantaged women are more receptive to his, um, charms:
poor favela chicks are very easy, but quality is a serious problem.
Ugh, thanks gross dude. Please kindly shut up while I get the brain bleach. And here's an image of this guy, just in case you weren't scarred already:
But in Denmark, his trademark moves fail him. The women in Denmark, which ranked 7th globally in the 2008 Global Gender Gap Report, can rely on the "mostly pacifist nanny state" (Roosh's words) to "take care of her and her cats, whether she is successful at dating or not". Yes, if only Denmark would think of the predatory men and make fuckability a qualification for welfare payments!
So because Denmark values women and creates an environment where they can get a good education and support from the government when they need it, those same women are no longer reliant on men to help them financially. And without that financial incentive, these shrews - "the most unfeminine and androgynous robotic women" - have the audacity to decline Roosh's advances. (Note how they become unfeminine and androgynous after they refuse to sleep with him. Apparently they don't have a single "feminine drop of blood coursing through their veins" because they have enough self-esteem to ignore his negging.)
I love this article because it shows so clearly how PUAs aren't just about getting laid (hey, I like to get laid! I'm cool with getting laid!) but they want to exploit the gender inequalities that exist in society to manipulate and take advantage of women - and that they do it intentionally and explicitly. Most of these guys spew bullshit about how women want sex as much as men (this can be true!) and PUAs are as much about female pleasure as male pleasure (this part is very not true!). I don't think I've ever seen one of these guys make such clear-cut statements about how PUAs need women in general to be disenfranchised and financially dependent upon men in order for them to get laid, and anything that gives women independence and agency (education, state support for parents, etc) is a serious threat to their methods.
Now excuse me while I go pack for Denmark.
ETA: I also found this gem on his blog - an entirely unoriginal polemic on how "no" sometimes means "yes". Lovely.