Glasgow has upset 'pickup artist' RooshV

Blogger's controversial 'tribal meetups' draw worldwide protest but Glasgow response highlighted

GLASGOW'S angry response to anti-feminist men-only meetings has been singled out by 'leader' and rape advocate 'RooshV'.

'Pick-up artist' and blogger Daryush Valizadeh, who goes by the name 'RooshV', has complained the Glaswegian response to his supporters' planned meetings has been notably hostile.

Several protests have been organised in Glasgow, where 'Roosh' supporters were planning to meet in George Square on Saturday [6 February] at 8pm. Facebook events show several thousand planning to attend, with similar events planned in Edinburgh.

Valizadeh tweeted today [3 February] "I've received more threats from Glasgow than anywhere else combined. Is it some kind of convict resettlement zone?"

The 'tribal meetups' of his supporters worldwide was organised via Valizadeh's website 'Return of Kings', which features imagery of knights wielding swords and diatribes against feminists, immigrants and governments. Valizadeh calls his movement "neomasculinist" and advises followers on how to 'pick-up' women in a series of books. In these he describes sleeping with drunk, unconscious, and unconsenting women.

Forty-three 'meetups' of his supporters have been organised online in cities across the world, sparking a wave of protest and outrage. For his comments on why rape should be legal on private property, which he insists were satirical, Valizadeh has been banned from Australia.

Valizadeh, who recently published pictures and personal details of a feminist activist who challenged him in Canada and has promised "furious retribution" for any feminists who disrupt the meetings, has been commenting on the protest plans, telling his followers to organise "underground" in private messages.

CommonSpace journalism is completely free from the influence of advertisers and is only possible with your continued support. Please contribute a monthly amount towards our costs . Build the Scotland you want to live in - support our new media.

Picture courtesy of UN Women

Comments

Christopher Reay's picture

Christopher Reay

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 13:22

actually what I said is this: "The point is that the current legal system is functionally almost no different to "rape being legal between two people on private property". Hes point of view raises very real concerns, and cuts through a lots of emotional and verbal garbarge to bring the real issue into focus."

The fact that you think it is perfectly possible for someone to argue that rape should be legalised on private property, and without actually thinking for yourself scream and shout, is the problem. People have been indoctrinated into finding the path of least resistance to express themselves. Here you have put loads of time and emotion into your post, and none into actually thinkning.

Of ****course***** legalising rape on private property is a bad idea. Its not even possible within any kind of legal system I know of (certainly a statute could not be created to enforce this). I suggest you keep reading this message round and round until the words I am using make it past the strong emotion you feel justified in releasing from your government and media sanctioned personality.

Christopher Reay's picture

Christopher Reay

Thu, 02/04/2016 - 10:54

Ive been talking aout this solidly for two days. Most of the content of this article is borderline libalous. Its a terrible article, cheap just following the grain of a load of people shouting about the wrong things because its easy. Disappointed in common space.

There's plenty to take issue with with this guy, but it should be done right, not through a veil of lies and misrepresentation, which is exactly what this article is buying into, probabaly unknowingly, whcih makes it even worse.

Keep it together common space

Christopher Reay's picture

Christopher Reay

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 13:00

There is nothing obvious about it. Its not funny. The issues are incredibly important and buried under many layers of personal and institutional smokescreen.

Its not *his* argument im talking about its *yours*. And that is the point

Christopher Reay's picture

Christopher Reay

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 11:07

Actually the man states that "in order to reduce rape, rape should be legal on private premises". He very clearly makes an argument about how rape can be reduced. The sad media frenzy around the way in which he says it just makes me sick.

The point is that the current legal system is functionally almost no different to "rape being legal between two people on private property". Hes point of view raises very real concerns, and cuts through a lots of emotional and verbal garbarge to bring the real issue into focus.

Im happy to discuss this with you

Christopher Reay's picture

Christopher Reay

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 14:15

his organisation is not about stopping rape. He spends a lot of time in the sexualised space between men and women, and has an opinion on rape. There are loads of women only organisations, so what, so nothing.

personally I think that the way to "cut down " on rape is to uneducate ourselves from a load of nonsense from the government and media, and start committing, actually committing an hour or two a day to our physically local community. Of course anything that can be done in the legal system should be, but the very founding principals, of innocence until proven guilty and evidence based, adversarial approach mean that this kind of crime is very difficult to prosecute in a court of law. The courts are not the only place a community can express its values or feelings. This is an oppressed point of view. By actually committing to our local communities, by creating a fabric of community in which rape is much more difficult, rather than the isolated sense of impending violence which is just one pickpocket away from your front door.

There is a very worrying trend towards murmurings and the beginnings of statutes which criminalise behaviour based on subjective interpretations. This is exactly created by oppressive regimes, and accepted by people having their responsibility for their own community educated out of them. Teachers are no longer aloud to hug (or touch) children in order to "protect" children. This is insane. We live in some world where the human reality of all is being oppressed behind just the *fear* of the vicious behaviour. This is a very very bad idea. We have to stop it. The definition of free speech, the magna carta, all these fundamental things which our folk language takes for granted are slipping away, and we are helping.

In terms of thinking, I don't think you have considered RooshV or whatever his name is at all, neither have you nor the thousands of people jumping on this bandwagon considered anything other than for a brief moment you feel the right to freely express your feelings. THIS is the point i have been trying to make for the last 3 days. I have been blocked, sworn at, abused as if Im advocating rape. Very few people are at all interested in what I am trying to say. People need to learn how to express their own feelings. It is the single thing which is most educated out of people by consumerism, by the way the media represents issues, by the way the government twists situations. Learn to express yourself. And please, give your actual time, and hours into building a local community around yourself. That is how you defend against rape. Real, local relationships with real people near you. Its Not going to get you more money or a bigger TV, but it might get you what you actually need.

Christopher Reay's picture

Christopher Reay

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 16:33

Yeah, I agree with loads of that. Preachy? Well.. Thank God RooshV has been silenced.

In a strong community the difference is that the potential consequences to a rapist are much more far reaching and subtle, and do not require courts. Rape is only one person's word against one other person's if you have no close friends. Just as "single parent" tends to imply that there is no network of support. Also there is a very very valuable part of the piont that rape is *much less likely to be committed* (or, however rarely, lied about) at all in a World of people who have grown up within strong interpersonal communities, than one in which people live mostly alone. This. is the point for me.

There isn't any rationale behind arguing against "putting time into local community". If people's lives make it impossible to put sufficient time into local community to build a reasonable fabric, then our world will continue to degenerate into media hyped accusations of violence (be it local rape or global muslimism) and a slow creep of the law into subjective territory. If this is the case, then people must demand reorganisation and must reorganise themselves so that there is such time available.

Im not particularly defending RooshV, Im saying that he is in no way "pro rape", he's not. That actually his job is a reasonable job, regardless of whether you like it or not. I have literally watched a man have his personal and public life crucified by a student feminist organisation who continued to publish articles about his ruthless chauvinism for months. The argument was about whether his touching a woman (person) on the upper arm whilst speaking to her was abusive given that she had not given explicit consent for physical contact. There was never any implication that his touch was sexual. The point is that RooshV "teachings" are what they are. In a world where children are brought up within a warm loving community of people, where is the space for such a weird interpretation of "men and women"? I certainly dont have space for one.

John Jones (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 09:41

Christopher, with respect sir, have you read the article referred to. You state lies and misrepresentation, yet Darius states unequivocally that "rape should be legal on private premises" and also states if a woman enters private premises she is entering with the clear intent of having consensual sex. Are you seriously defending this?

John Jones (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 09:43

Apologies Daryush not Darius.

John Fowler (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 10:54

@christopher reay What is libellous here? He did tweat that that Glasgow sent him more threats, he did say rape on private property should be legal. See linked article, that is on his own site. I read it, he shows a lack of complete understanding of people. For example he says "Women do not care about being raped", it is that, in the cases he cites, they are not worrying about it. They shouldn't have too, no-one should worry about being attacked. What he proposes in the article is that, women shouldn't worry, they should expect it. He appears to want a world where women see men as the enemy, and men see women as prey. That is a blueprint for a really crap world, so in Glasgow parlance, "he can fuck off, and his maw has baws and his da likes it."

John Fowler (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 12:57

LOL that is like saying to make the world safe we are going to kill everyone. His argument is totally flawed in so many places. Did you read the bit in his book where he had a girl down to her underwear, she was saying no, and he had decided she was not leaving until she was, in his words, fucked? He didn't care if he had to go to a Polish jail to do it. He had no desire to reduce rape in that case. This is obviously just an excuse for him to do what he wants with no consequences for his actions.

John Fowler (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 13:18

Sorry I have yet to see you put forward any argument other than his, or counter anything I have said, other than to quote him. No it is not funny, rape is not a funny subject, and this guy's attitude is not going to help anyone but rapists.

Essentially setting up areas where a man can rape any woman risk free, though not any man, that is apparently abhorrent to him, he hates homosexuals, is going to stop rape is it?

No, it is going to make it really easy. Drug a woman in your/their home and go for it is okay according to this creed? You think that is justified? Do you think that should be legal? A workman who comes to a woman's house can rape her? Its private property so by his teachings that is legal. When you break it down its the most stupid argument to cut down on rape ever.

To say its hard to prosecute so make it legal is bonkers, where do you stop? Child abuse? Murder? Theft?

So please explain how this would really help, women should not go anywhere alone, how do they work, think of all the jobs that a woman could be doing alone in a home, like carer or home help?

So wife rape is fine?

He talks about how he knew when he was young that rape was wrong, so why would he even condone making it legal?

John Fowler (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 13:57

That a few posts ago you were willing to discuss and now you resort to insults shows that your thinking is an mixed up as your posts, which are now beginning to contradict yourself.

You know nothing about me, I spent plenty of time thinking, not once have you offered anything to this than, our system doesn't work well. You admit that his solution is not workable, that you even think his solution is not serious, and that he does want to stop rape.

I have already acknowledged our system is not perfect, but here are two question for you, as you claim to have thought this all out.

How do you cut down on rape?

What sort of organisation/group looks for a solution, when they won't allow women to be involved?

John Fowler (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 15:00

Sorry I do not agree on several points you are making. Putting time into the community is unlikely to reduce rape much, it would however cut down on many other crimes. Theft for example, as its easy to see the spoils of theft, likewise murder, its easy to see a crime has taken place. It would make our communities much better in many other ways, and I do give my time to two voluntary projects, as much as my health/family/job will allow.

Rape by its nature is in many cases one person's word against another, and I totally agree some law changes are insane, like having to prove consent, its impossible. Even if you have a signed document, the person could say they withdrew consent after signing, how romantic that would be in a relationship. Morning honey, fancy a quickie please sign this legal document.

The government will always try to make the population easy to control, that is why we must always be prepared to fight for our rights, they will never give us anything.

Maybe the reason you are getting so much abuse is your tone, just some advice/how it seems to me/my own opinion take or ignore as you like, you are very preachy, you come over as quite arrogant. I would doubt you are any more intelligent than I am, and not trusting the media is getting very easy in Scotland, a legacy from the indy ref. so you should be onto a winner there.

What I will never understand is why you would defend RooshV, even if you do believe that its a male only organisation no biggie, there are female only ones after all, and actually. I would like you to list any female ones that threaten retaliatory action, suggesting violence if a man goes along, because I cannot think of one, and that is something he has done. He has also directed followers to gather personal information on opponents. That is worrying, its very Britain First like techniques, against just my opinion, do what you like with it.

John Fowler (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2016 - 18:47

I think we have generally the same views, freedom of speech, but that also includes the freedom to say someone is a nasty person and wrong. Do not trust government, they don't want us to disagree with them or voice our opinions. Many/most media organisations do not want to give us facts, but want to tell us how to interpretate what is going, you can always relying on them to tell you what they want you to think.

CommonSpace journalism is completely free from the influence of advertisers and is only possible with your continued support. Please contribute a monthly amount towards our costs. Build the Scotland you want to live in - support our new media.