It's the South African version of the magazine. And things like rape and sexism are a big problem there.

(01-28-2015 10:41 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 10:22 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 07:35 PM)Eddie Winslow Wrote:  

What if ROK had a printed magazine? That would be fucking awesome.

ROK guys - is this feasible? I have to believe enough money could be raised on Kickstarter to publish a few issues with little to no advertising.

I think the last magazine I subscribed to was Sports Illustrated for Kids back in the 90s. I would definitely pay for this.

The most watered down version of RoK that I can think of is
- masculine
- hetero

No hyperbole, I don't think you can have a print magazine with that agenda in America/The West in 2015.

Advertisers and cultural critics would demand that you have some kind of woman on the team. And undoubtedly that'd be in a crucial area to men, not something superfluous like interior decorating.

WIA

Roosh could not get a print version of ROK even if Christina Sommers was the editor in chief. The problem is that print publishing is a racket owned by our enemies. The Internet is the replacement for print media anyway. The website is a big middle finger already, just have to keep applying pressure like a choke hold.

To this day, Tucker Max's shitty books about manipulating emotionally broken teenage sluts and making them cry are not only sold, but SHOWCASED, in every Barnes and Noble in the world because people want to buy them. Nobody boycotted Barnes and Noble or the publisher.

Sure, 99.9% of corporations would be way too scared to advertise in a monthly publication (at first), but we could definitely get somebody to print something. Like I said, I bet this could be crowdfunded overnight, maybe even enough to cover the costs of advertising.

(01-28-2015 03:25 PM)Menace Wrote:  Oh please. When women will step out of the house without doing hair, makeup, spanx, push up bras, then you can talk to me about no "manipulation." But this is all part and parcel of a female-centric world view. What women do is by definition ok and normalized, but men better not dare try and say or do anything that might improve their chances. Maximizing female sexual options and minimizing male options is what this is all about. Women are strong and independent yet lack agency and are easily manipulated. It truly is Orwellian 1984-style thinking: having two diametrically opposed ideas in your head at the same time and believing both can be true.

If you want to ban manipulation why not implement this law:


"All women of whatever age, rank, profession, or degree, whether virgins, maids, or widows; that shall impose upon, seduce and betray into matrimony any of his Majesty's subjects by scents, paints, cosmetics, washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish bolstered hips, or padded bosoms shall incur the penalty of the law enforced against witchcraft and the like misdemeanors and that marriage, upon conviction, shall stand null and void."

-An ordinance of British Parliament in 1770

the whole premise of Men's Health is ridiculous. a monthly periodical that supposedly talks about fitness for men. what, are there regular advances in weight lifting technology or cardiovascular health for the average guy that require a regularly updated perspective every 30 days? pick heavy things up and put them back down. do it again tomorrow. there, I just saved you a magazine subscription.

I much prefer Woman's Health aka Yoga Pant Monthly.