Keep in mind that the article is written by a woman. I didn't look for that first, it just became obvious to me by the way the article is written so I scrolled down to make sure and indeed it was the case. I'm not going to go through her entire text because frankly I don't significantly disagree with more of it than what I've quoted, although I don't necessarily agree with the reasons
she gives for what she says (example - I think RooshV is full of sh!t anyway, but I don't think he/PUA salesmen are entirely wrong in that game could've helped people - even if not psychopaths like Rodger)
Rodger was a “Nice Guy,” a man who feels he is entitled to sex based on positive personality traits known only to him.
Wrong. This is the solipsistic, wilfully ignorant female perspective. Let's begin with some boring but essential basics and then I'll move on:
Rodger like most guys got hit by a testosterone high that defines masculinity, aka. puberty, which jacks up his sex drive, something which he is only free from moments after orgasming when his hormones change. Before puberty, girls were a curiosity to Rodger but not a physical need. Furthermore, no guy starts out knowing what girls want them to do so they can have sex with them - they do what girls say as this kind of logical process makes sense to males (go find out what needs to be done and then do it) and the fortunate ones - "naturals" - simultaneously discover what girls actually respond to and reject what girls/brainwashed males tend to say they get aroused by. And considering all the opportunistic reasons why women have sex it's hardly a far shot to consider that a woman may well manipulate a man who she wants to put into place by not responding to him consciously (at least not if anyone will know) because she knows what he's trying to do (just look at all the female comments to "this guy gets laid a lot" articles) - even if this probably isn't common, it's possible in theory and that testifies for the fact that women have the power sexually and they know it.
Rodger was probably taught to be a good little boy, which means that he's more likely to reject or find it hard to relate to what naturals tell him because being nice etc. molds better with what he's already been taught than being a bad boy.
Guys that aren't significantly mentally damaged, unlike Rodger, don't feel entitled to but are frustrated by their lack of sexual gratification because it's a physical drive to have sex and not just an esoteric drive.
If Rodger wasn't taught a bunch of pig sh!t so he can be a good little boy and reject what girls are aroused by, if he was taught what girls are aroused by and how to behave to bring that out, if girls stopped lying and then believing their own delusions as it suits them and if girls like the article writer herself didn't view him as despicable scum for wanting to sate his sex drive, no one would have a problem because girls would be getting f*cked by the men they have their rape fantasies about and Rodger would get the girl. The problem is that female intervention to make that happen is usually impossible because girls view helping in the making of a man
the same way Bismarck views laws and sausages (unless they want to credit themselves with an already successful man's new accomplishments or they're telling their friends about how much of a little pvssy they've finally managed their beta provider to become). Although, as always, if you actually told this to a female she would be able to consciously deny this so it can look like you're wrong.
The mere fact that there exists such movements as PUA for men and their mass appeal proliferation in society implies that getting sex is not straightforward for the average guy, for whatever reason. If it was, there would be no need for these things. A comparison would be how girls focus on
landing the man they want - it would be ridiculous to make a magazine that suggests sex isn't straightforward for girls, but the fact that there are magazines about landing the perfect catch implies that the perfect catch is not easy and straightforward to land. The perfect catch for a male meanwhile is a mentally stable and physically attractive girl, but no male needs some web page telling him how to find out if a girl is physically attractive - like women searching for sex, guys don't need to do anything to know if a woman is physically attractive.
When Amanda says that PUA-hate "isn't interested in putting an end to the objectification of women, just complaining that the tips and tricks don't work", what she's actually implying is that finding out how to get laid with the girls you want is wrong as if wanting sex is insubstantial and not a need men feel. As for male objectification of women, the reason why it exists is because men want sex and relationships with what they're
aroused by too like their biologies program them to be, and it happens to be physical. So male objectification of women is really just an evaluation of how sexually desirable that woman is as decreed by the male's individual biology.
