Post: #1

susan walsh is well liked and respected around the manosphere by other bloggers. badger and rollo tomassi both read her blog and value her opinion. most of the things that i read of her are ridiculous and have obvious hamster rationalization. why do intelligence men like rollo even take her serious? i don't understand.. what do y'all think of her?

Post: #2

I respect her work.

Post: #3

The enemy of my enemy...

Post: #4

ehh, I don't care for her. Her tone of writing is insultingly saccharine, though I suppose that's inevitable when writing for women. The woman earned an MBA from Wharton, but you'd never guess it from her writing.

She takes what male game/MRA writers say, misunderstands half of it, and then relays it to her female readers. Many of those readers, by the way, seem to be there for her patented 12 Step Slut Rehab Program™.

When I read her site, I feel like I'm reading "How to Manipulate Men for Dummies." It feels like the goal is not a successful satisfying relationship with a man she loves, but rather how to "get what you want" out of dating, how to have the relationship on "her terms." The man is merely an accessory, to good feelings and status among her peers. It feels like the impetus for the site is sluts get pumped and dumped, and they want to know how to keep Mr. Alpha around.

Even with all this, it constitutes an improvement over most dating advice, which just goes to show how fucked up American women are. As was said in another thread, American women have this mindset of seeing romance as a battle, where the woman must constantly guard her "power," and maintain the "upper hand."

I can outdo all these advice columnists with a few words' worth of advice: be sweet, pretty and available, and don't fuck him until you're both ready for a monogamous relationship. Roosh said something similar in his advice for his sister. If your advice for women is tactical or complicated, it's probably manipulative. If a woman is truly intent on improving herself, I'd recommend that she remove the things from her life that lead her to see men as lesser beings, eg not go out to bars and clubs, avoid misandric media, etc.

My criticism is a little exaggerated, but it's all there.

Edit: Off-topic, but this reminded me of something I've always thought - how attractive women in America almost always seem about 15 IQ points dumber than they actually are. By the time they seem like sentient beings, they're wrinkly.

Post: #5

(11-08-2011 01:42 PM)basilransom Wrote:  ehh, I don't care for her. Her tone of writing is insultingly saccharine, though I suppose that's inevitable when writing for women. The woman earned an MBA from Wharton, but you'd never guess from her writing.

She takes what male game/MRA writers say, misunderstands half of it, and then relays it to her female readers. Many of those readers, by the way, seem to be there for her patented 12 Step Slut Rehab Program™.

When I read her site, I feel like I'm reading "How to Manipulate Men for Dummies." It feels like the goal is not a successful satisfying relationship with a man she loves, but rather how to "get what you want" out of dating, how to have the relationship on "her terms." The man is merely an accessory, to good feelings and status among her peers. It feels like the impetus for the site is sluts get pumped and dumped, and they want to know how to keep Mr. Alpha around.

Even with all this, it constitutes an improvement over most dating advice, which just goes to show how fucked up American women are. As was said in another thread, American women have this mindset of seeing romance as a battle, where the woman must constantly guard her "power," and maintain the "upper hand." I can outdo all these advice columnists with one sentence's worth of advice: be sweet, pretty and available, and don't fuck him until he's ready to commit.

My criticism is a little exaggerated, but it's all there.

Brasilransom pretty much summed her up. She is a fifty-something woman who reads game sites and offers her spin on the game advice she reads. I have only read her site once (don't know how I found it), and that was enough for me.

Post: #6

(11-08-2011 01:53 PM)Easy E Wrote:  Brasilransom pretty much summed her up. She is a fifty-something woman who reads game sites and offers her spin on the game advice she reads. I have only read her site once (don't know how I found it), and that was enough for me.

yeah basilransom is right on! i avoid her site too.. but she's an active commenter on rollo's, badger's, and dalrock's.. so i have read a lot of her comments.. and i'm like wtf.. this bitch don't know what she's talking about!!!

Post: #7

She is an ex-slut herself, turns out.

Post: #8

I don't see why all the hate towards her here, I find her opinions very reasonable and well-researched. Sure, there might be things that I don't agree with her on, but mostly she is a very refreshing voice from the other side, and one that many girls would do well to consider rather than Jezebel brainwashing.

Post: #9

(11-08-2011 03:45 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I don't see why all the hate towards her here, I find her opinions very reasonable and well-researched. Sure, there might be things that I don't agree with her on, but mostly she is a very refreshing voice from the other side, and one that many girls would do well to consider rather than Jezebel brainwashing.

it's not hate. it's more like criticism. i personally don't agree with a lot of the things that she say and is just curious if others feel the same way. i'm sure none of us hate her as a person though.

Post: #10

Women reading Susan Walsh is better than women reading Jezebel or Feministing (anyone else notice the word "fisting" in "Feministing"?).

Her blog seems to be directed more towards helping women instead of men, and towards having a relationship instead of sex. This isn't good or bad, from reading her writing, it just seems that her target audience is women (or young women).

When women are young, their at their sexual peak, and the world is basically their oyster. They could have almost any man they want (barring aloof alphas), especially in the Anglosphere. When women complain about a lack of good men, I don't have any sympathy.

Here is why I have no sympathy for women's complaints:

I have actually looked at demographic data in the United States comparing the numbers of single men and single women (thanks Dalrock). I don't have the link or remember the post, but I do remember that young men outnumbered young women in the U.S.. I believe the ratio was around 102:100 or something like that. Then, as one goes down the age bracket, the number of men and women equalize at around the 30-40 age range, and from then on, the women outnumber the men. But then, who wants old, aged, unattractive women anyway. Men want young women!

Here are some more reasons why I have no sympathy for Susan Walsh's fans and American women in general:

1) Contrary to popular belief, there is no man shortage! In fact, doing a search on Dalrock, one can see that America is just the opposite. It's a sausage-festival. This is not Russia or Ukraine where the men drink themselves to an early death. This is not Mexico where men are getting killed by drug lords and criminals. The gender ratio in America is quite balanced, if not even favored towards young women. (The only exception may be the college campus, but that's another post.)

2) A young woman failing to get married is like a running back fumbling the ball 2 yards from the goal line with no enemy players in a 20-yard radius. C'mon, it's not that hard. There's plenty of nice guys (not the pushover type) who are relationship-minded. The problem is that these guys don't make their ginas tingle as much as the alphas they've previously slept with (they don't have game or enough game).

3) Women have become entitled and have too many high standards.

4) 60% of U.S. women are either overweight or obese. Just by being an average-looking thin girl will get a woman hounded by three blocks of guys. Seriously, as a woman, if you're not fat, you've literally blown away over half of your competition!

On a side note, does anyone else notice that when couples have a fat person and a skinny person, the fat person is almost always the woman, and the normal-weight person is almost always the man? I've noticed this pattern. Even fat chicks can score.

5) The days when people married young and built lives together are over (exceptions are the rural, conservative areas in the U.S.) If you didn't see the potential of a young, awkard, shy, introverted, and nerdy guy in high school/college, why should men that have been burned by the dating market have to settle with women their age? Men need a measure of self-respect. This is nothing about being bitter or angry or whatever. This is about respect and self-worth.

6) Why should men commit or marry women if they're going to divorce them anyway? (Remember, women are the cause of 90% of divorces; the woman files 70% of the time, and the man files the other 20% due to abuse or adultery.) That's like a child begging for an expensive toy but then shortly tossing it away or complaining about it.

7) Why should a man marry a woman that's already slept with other men? That's like buying a used car at a new car price.

It is hypocritical to ask for the old system's demands on men (provider, loyal, family-man, protector, etc.) while the old system's demands on women are not applied (not being a slut, being a virgin, a good mother, nurturing, caring, etc.)

8) Feminism has really fucked up society. 'Nuf said.

9) Why should a man commit if his role in his children's lives is going to be diminished? (Especially in case of divorce) Pregnancy and motherhood are way overblown. Sure, a pregnancy is a time of celebration, but women here make too much of a big deal about it. They use it as an excuse to stay fat and out of shape. They call it a "job." "Being a mother is a full-time job."

But what about fathers? What if a man decided that a decrease in his job performance is O.K. because "being a father is hard" or "being a father is afull-time job." If a man said being a father was tough and it was a job, he would be shamed and told to man up. Notice the double standard here?

Magazines, books, and articles about motherhood are saturated in the U.S. But what about fatherhood? How come there aren't as many articles on fatherhood? Simply put, motherhood is elevated and fatherhood is devalued. The father's role in U.S. culture has been so undermined that he's seen as basically a sperm donor and a wallet.


In conclusion, Susan Walsh's fans need to shut up, lose some weight, learn how to be feminine, stop playing games, let a man be a man, and she'll quickly be scooped up by a relationship-minded man. But, of course, we know that's not going to happen due to their hypergamous nature for alphas.

Post: #11

(11-08-2011 01:38 PM)Roosh Wrote:  The enemy of my enemy...

This.

She's trying, in her own way, and having just a few women sort of on our side helps the cause of attempting to undo the damage feminism has done.

I like her blog because its interesting seeing how women digest the manosphere ideas. Its like backstage passes to the hamster wheel.

Chef In Jeans
A culinary website for men

Post: #12

Quote:(anyone else notice the word "fisting" in "Feministing"?)

3 years ago...

Roosh Wrote:(Side note: am I the only guy who sees the word ‘Fisting’ in ‘Feministing’?)

Post: #13

(11-08-2011 12:17 PM)JoyStick Wrote:  badger and rollo tomassi both read her blog and value her opinion. most of the things that i read of her are ridiculous and have obvious hamster rationalization. why do intelligence men like rollo even take her serious? i don't understand.. what do y'all think of her?

Don't get ahead of yourself. Aunt Susan is a useful sounding board for topics, but don't think for a moment I value her opinion.

Susan is a site traffic whore and she knows this. The only reason she gets 300+ comment posts is because she panders to the NAWALT element. Honestly she'd do better to promote on a forum like loveshack.org. She'd find all the enthusiastic sycophants and 'mature' manginas she could ever want for her echo chamber there.

She's not on "our" side, she just wants to build a better beta.

Post: #14

(11-11-2011 11:56 AM)Rollo Tomassi Wrote:  Don't get ahead of yourself. Aunt Susan is a useful sounding board for topics, but don't think for a moment I value her opinion.

Susan is a site traffic whore and she knows this. The only reason she gets 300+ comment posts is because she panders to the NAWALT element. Honestly she'd do better to promote on a forum like loveshack.org. She'd find all the enthusiastic sycophants and 'mature' manginas she could ever want for her echo chamber there.

She's not on "our" side, she just wants to build a better beta.

sorry for assuming you value her opinion. thanks for sharing what you think. i agree with you.

Post: #15

Watch her call us all creepy pedos and sexual mating losers:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/10/15...ket-value/

There's a reason many of us don't want women involving themselves in the manosphere.

Women are much more loyal to their gender than males are. When it matters, women will always side with one another.

Think of all of the times your moms nagged you to get married. Why would you mom want you to make some female happy when that would make you miserable?

Post: #16

"Susan Accuses me of Deceptive Machinations"

http://www.justfourguys.com/hus-accuses-...hinations/

Post: #17

(10-24-2013 11:39 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  Watch her call us all creepy pedos and sexual mating losers:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/10/15...ket-value/

There's a reason many of us don't want women involving themselves in the manosphere.

Women are much more loyal to their gender than males are. When it matters, women will always side with one another.

Think of all of the times your moms nagged you to get married. Why would you mom want you to make some female happy when that would make you miserable?

The 'ol "Women are hot at 50, younger women suck. Really, please believe us." article.

Then the sheep all high-five and the ad hominem's come out (basement, bald, small penis, fat etc).

If you see this Susan, it doesn't matter how many times you write it or how many ways you spin it. Women your age are not attractive. Women over 40 are not attractive, women over 30 are not even close to the average attractiveness of a woman in her late teens and 20's. Get it through you and your readers' thick skulls.

It's the equivalent of ROK posting a feature titled, "Hey guys, it doesn't matter how much money you make women of all ages will still want you."

Post: #18

She sounds like a loser.

Post: #19

(10-24-2013 11:39 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  Watch her call us all creepy pedos and sexual mating losers:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/10/15...ket-value/

There's a reason many of us don't want women involving themselves in the manosphere.

Women are much more loyal to their gender than males are. When it matters, women will always side with one another.

Think of all of the times your moms nagged you to get married. Why would you mom want you to make some female happy when that would make you miserable?

I'm going to have to agree with Susan in that article, but it's not because Susan did any work. She quoted a man:

Quote:This is never going to make an impact, but as a PhD statistician I am going to tell you why all this red pill crap is wrong. Women peak sooner, but men have a broader peak. Those graphs are wrong because, with a fixed number of people in the world, equal between the sexes, you have to scale the curves so that the area under each one is the same. E.g. the top valued man is not a “10,” ever. He’s some relatively lower value scaled by the fact that men’s sexual prime lasts longer. Why is this, for the non math geniuses out there? Because if there are 50 men who are 7.5′s, and there are only 30 women, then men’s actual score and actual value on the dating market is downgraded because he can’t just choose a 7.5 and take her. He is downgraded by competition in the market.

Not only does the male curve have a broader prime, and therefore more area, there is another factor at play – women hit menopause around 55, but most men want to keep having sex into their 70′s. So there are even more men competing for the same women. Finally, consider that “alpha” males often have several girlfriends, taking more off the market. And women are out of the game for longer to recover from being dumped. And women are more likely to focus on their kids after divorce and stay out of the dating market. Lots of factors mean that there are more men competing for the same women. This all serves to downgrade men’s real value on the dating market.

So take that blue curve, and shrink it until the area underneath is the same as the area underneath the women’s curve. This is why women tend to date men 5 years or so older, rather than 16 years older. A lot of this red pill stuff is wishful thinking. There is a little truth to it, but the relative less availability of women overall makes it a weaker effect. If you looked at the curve and said to yourself, “I am going to be a 10 at age 36!” you are probably only going to be a 7.5 because your whole curve has shrunk, due to you competing with a whole lot of men. So that’s the red pill for you. Enjoy it!

Let me add that there is even less area under the female curve because the super attractive part up until age 18 is not even legal for dating. There is a giant tranche of men who are 6′s and 7′s who are going to be competing for a much smaller tranche of 6-7 level of sexual attractiveness in women. So a lot of men will have to either settle or be alone.

The above is true. It reminds me of "The Ratio Factor" blog (which has disappeared). Men do not have it easier in the dating game simply because we last longer. It means the opposite. We have more work cut out for us because the sexual market place is a zero-sum game. There are winners and losers.

The entire point of learning game is to be one of the winners; in today's market for every man who wins there are probably 3 or 4 losers behind him.

If the dating market was stacked in men's favor, we wouldn't need to learn game. It would be like it was for American men in the 1930's-1960's; a pussy paradise where the only game necessary was to make the approach.

Post: #20

(10-24-2013 11:39 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  Watch her call us all creepy pedos and sexual mating losers:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/10/15...ket-value/

There's a reason many of us don't want women involving themselves in the manosphere.

Women are much more loyal to their gender than males are. When it matters, women will always side with one another.

Think of all of the times your moms nagged you to get married. Why would you mom want you to make some female happy when that would make you miserable?

Susan Walsh says "Not All Women Are Like That".

But she actually proves that in line with Sailer's Law of Female Journalism, they are, in fact, all like that.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #21

From what I've been able to gather, Susan Walsh was pretty on-board with the basic Manosphere premises two or three years ago, but since then the hamster's been gathering steam. By all accounts the comments have become heavily moderated against any bubble-bursting disagreement.

Post: #22

(10-24-2013 06:27 PM)Aurini Wrote:  From what I've been able to gather, Susan Walsh was pretty on-board with the basic Manosphere premises two or three years ago, but since then the hamster's been gathering steam. By all accounts the comments have become heavily moderated against any bubble-bursting disagreement.

This looks to be the case. I just checked a few of her more recent posts now to get a feel for the site, and it is feeling much more blue pill than I remember. The site seems much more like an echo chamber for more femcentric viewpoints (and the hamsterism that goes with with).

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/10/15...ket-value/
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/09/27...older-men/

I guess it makes sense given her target audience (relatively conservative, middle/upper class, college educated white girls).

Post: #23

she tops from the bottom.

Post: #24

From her site policies:

Quote:I understand that this comment policy won’t be a good fit for everyone’s communication style, and I’m fine with that.

Susan Walsh is a dully censorious cunt who encourages aging women to entertain delusions about their sexual value and whether it's stupidity or a typically female solipsism that forces her to do this is a deeply unrewarding question.

She's the kind of "older gal" that is very easy to steer into a men's room, if you know what I mean. She has a pronounced case of swinger's mug.

Has she done much porn?

Post: #25

(10-25-2013 10:35 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  From her site policies:

Quote:I understand that this comment policy won’t be a good fit for everyone’s communication style, and I’m fine with that.

Susan Walsh is a dully censorious cunt who encourages aging women to entertain delusions about their sexual value and whether it's stupidity or a typically female solipsism that forces her to do this is a deeply unrewarding question.

She's the kind of "older gal" that is very easy to steer into a men's room, if you know what I mean. She has a pronounced case of swinger's mug.

Has she done much porn?

I recently posted a question and a statement on her site regarding the release of 50 Shades...(movie) - nothing ugly, rude or crude. It was promptly removed (no surprise). It's pretty bad when grown adults can't question or debate a topic without being locked out of the conversation. It shows me that she hates to be wrong and she hates it when anyone questions (or criticizes) her work.

And women talk about men needing to "grow up".