The article on Pickup Artists from the feminist "Thinking Girl" blog has generated a record number of responses for that site. In it she discusses the feminist view of the typical PUA, which is predictably negative (though likely justifiable).
The article opens with "Sam sent me a link to this article, in Aussie online mag The Age, which is all about these men who earn their living teaching other men to be smarmy in bars and other social events. I post it as fair warning to women: men are willing to pay someone to teach them how to trick you into thinking they are charming so they can get into your pants. And some men are willing to take that money."
You can stop reading there to find the problem that women face when confronted by those "evil pickup artists" they claim to hate. The "thinking girl" acts like this is a new threat, even though the internet community she trashes has been online since 1998 and before. A nine-year reaction time is glacial on the internet, and just as the "thinking girl" is espousing counter-tactics for the women, a new breed of men will develop counter-counter measures, most likely involving disowning the community themselves. This will lead to another round of women being used, another round of books, websites, seminars, and so forth, and another article in ten years from another "thinking girl" about how the evil pickup artists are now being nice guys, to where we might see that famous commercial reworded: "If a man you've never met before suddenly gives you flowers, call the cops!"
I agree with a lot of what Thinking Girl says about the need for women to wise up to these men, but she should examine what took her so long to wise up herself. It seems that once she saw an article in the corporate media, she snapped to attention. Is she saying other men didn't try to warn her before? I've had anti-PUA books out since 1999, figuring women would find the information useful. I released Why Hotties Choose Losers in 2004, and that book is a blueprint for ripping apart the pickup artist's tactics. I suppose if I had gotten a writeup in The Age, she might have noticed, but if she waits for the media for her cues, she's going to be forever three steps behind the PUA men who find the information much earlier because they go out looking for it themselves and don't need "social proof" (another PUA tactic) from the media to take it seriously, instead judging it on its own merit.
The other problem Thinking Girl will have is explaining to men why they should give up sex with hot women in the name of doing the right thing. She says in the comments that it's "not her responsibility to offer alternatives" to the PUA, instead saying he should "do the right thing" or whatever and just not "trick" women into bed. That's a lovely fairy-tale thought, but unless everyone plays by the rules, the few who do will be eaten alive by those who don't. Thinking Girl and her fans have no difficulty understanding this when advocating feminism. They claim, perhaps correctly, that they can't play nice against their oppressors, yet ignore the nice guys who say the same thing about women.
The PUAs are usually guys who were told to "be themselves" and to be good men, and most of all, that women like decent men and choose them over the "badboys." The man who buys into this and lives his life by the rules, respecting women and treating them well, first gets walked on by the women who don't appreciate his good character or good intentions, and then gets walked on again by the Thinking Girls of the world, who tell him that he's not really a nice guy if he expects to get laid for it, and that his intentions are no different than the PUA. I strongly disagree, because the nice guy is usually looking for a WIFE, while the PUA is looking to use and discard one woman after another. The nice guy wants to build a family, and should not be made ashemed of displaying behavior that is conducive to raising children, such as being hard-working and law-abiding. Of course he wants sex with pretty women; he's biologically programmed to. It's a slap in the face to tell him that his good behavior is manipulative after telling him for years it was the key to finding that dream woman.
The feminists who attack the PUAs are going to run into a wall very quickly when they are forced to address that their advice to nice guys never works and never has worked, and that telling them to accept a life of celibacy or second-rate women is not going to encourage them to change their ways, nor should it. If men should play by the rules, so should women, and that means that the promise that the best man wins should be fulfilled, with the "best" women going to the "best" men. If you notice, however, the women already do this, calling the men who "can't get women" names like "bitter" or "loser," while describing other men as perfectly simply because they choose to have sex with them.
I can assure these women, the PUAs, and anyoen else, that God does not judge men based on their ability to get laid. As for the women, if they didn't reward the bad behavior they complain about, they would have the men they claim to want, which begs the question of how women can claim not to want these PUAs if they keep choosing them after the PUA playbook has been published by Neil Strauss (The Game), with more examples soon to follow on reality shows like VH-1's "The Pickup Artist."