Misogyny Free Dating Guide is a book written by an autist in his early 20s. As may be expected from the title, it's a bad book, but it's interesting precisely because it showcases how an autist may come to hold totally bluepilled, internet feminist beliefs.

I have stumbled upon the book from a memetic screenshot, and it had 5 downloads on Anna's Archive, so I think it's safe to say it's a relatively unknown curiosity on the level of obscure pdf files seen by 10 people. It's from 2012. The author, Concealed Weapon, has described himself as an "internet activist" posting about "youth oppression, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, fat shaming, drug prohibition, police brutality, class warfare and other forms of oppression". He is "anti-authoritarian", but he encourages you to call him out if he accidentally says something "sexist, racist, heterosexist, cissexist, sizeist, ageist against youths or elderly people, ableist against other neurotypes besides autism, etc.", so he believes his behavior should be constantly monitored by others, and he must submit to their judgement as long as they claim to speak for the oppressed.

The entire book follows the narratives of internet feminists. It's a piece in the feminists-nice guys conflict, with the author firmly on the side of feminists.

In most of the book the author addresses the reader as if he was a "nice guy". It's an attack on a caricature of a nice guy, a misoginistic, possessive man, a man who gets angry when he gets rejected, who believes he is entitled to sex because he is nice, or who thinks a woman is a bitch because she doesn't want to talk to him. In the mind of the author, an average nice guy is a step away from becoming the next Elliot Rodgers. He scolds you (the nice guy) for not actually being nice because you don't respect the woman's opinion, you are selfish, you pretend to be her friend, you harass women, you stalk women, you think yourself morally superior, you think you deserve a reward for not physically assaulting women, and, of course, you are misoginistic, which is according to him the main reason women don't like nice guys. Moreover, if a "nice guy" turns into an abusive asshole, that must mean he has always secretly been an asshole and was fighting to suppress this urge all the time by pretending to be a nice guy. There can be no influence of environment here, he must have been a morally impure abuser to begin with. He was always evil to the core, and it's impossible his interactions with women could have played a role in his change in any way.

Nice guys are exactly like jerks who abuse women, says the author. It's not uncommon for women to end up in abusive relationships because they gave the nice guy a chance, says the author (of course providing nothing to support his claim). Women give nice guys a chance too often. The message is clear: The nice guy is the absolute worst, he is the scum of the Earth, and women should never give nice guys a chance. Most nice guys are abusers pretending to be nice, they are a danger to women, and for women's safety it would be best if nice guys crawled into some hole and never came out.

And jerks are actually better than nice guys, says the author, thus completing the hierarchy: nice guys < jerks < bad boys. Women prefer jerks because they "respect her decision" when the woman rejects him and "move on", while the caricature of the nice guy "demands a reason, tries to make her feel guilty, and complains about being in the Friend Zone". It's not the jerk who is selfish, the jerk is actually selfless because he is supposedly "honest and doesn't expect a reward", and he "treats her like a human being", and the nice guy doesn't. According to the author "respecting her decision" is the most important trait of a jerk that women like, because it's all about respecting women, and if you just "respect women" in the myriad of ways and situations the author describes, then you will have a successful relationship.

Even a "level 0", genuinely shy and nice nice guy is a potential danger to women: "The best place to meet women is anywhere that you are able to meet them, but you can still have fun if you don't. This way, you will be relaxed and you won't overreact to a rejection."

But there is a cure for the nice guy. The author claims a nice guy can become an abuser (bad), an MRA activist (bad), PUA (bad), or achieve enlightenment and become a male feminist.

Of course, the "nice guy" dating strategy is an ineffective dating strategy. But what the author doesn't understand about women's justifications of hatred of "nice guys" with "nice guys are not nice", is that it's either an impression a nice guy may give on his date because of his poor social skills (appearing insincere), or it's a rationalization. Women who are not attracted to nice guys because of their pedestalization, lack of confidence, and general unattractiveness, may try to rationalize it by saying that nice guys are abusers, that they are stalkers, and the chief rationalization among them - that they are the real jerks, they are cads in sheep's clothing.

According to the author an ideal man is able to effortlessly move on from any rejection. If so, then that ideal man would be the player. The player, with his often innate ability to be good with women, uses his skills to maximize the number of sexual partners he has. He is not bothered by rejections because he employs, for a lack of a better term, "strategic misogyny". The women are game to him. In practice, one of the most effective methods to deal with the crippling pain of rejection is to start seeing women as just objects, "bitches", as something less than human. It doesn't even occur to the author that these "average people" he mentions are able to deal so well with rejections because they employ elements of "strategic misogyny". Players do, as author would call it, "objectify" women, to various degrees. And that is part of the reason why they are so effective at getting sexual partners.

The author says: "Sex is not a sport where a man is the contestant and the woman is the game he is trying to win. Those who are the most successful with relationships and/or sex do not have that as a goal when meeting women.". Well, let's ask an actual expert: Lundy Bancroft. The kind of a player Bancroft describes is somebody who is, obviously, highly successful with women, and also uses various "dark" game techniques. Bancroft even suggests that dread game is effective ("you won’t necessarily ever be sure whether he is really having sex with other women or if he just flirts because he enjoys the attention and likes you to feel threatened"), although, obviously, he wouldn't condone it. Bancroft, unsurprisingly, given the topic of the book, describes this kind of a player in negative terms: "Much of his satisfaction in life comes from exploiting women and feeling like a sexual animal.", "He is incapable of taking women seriously as human beings rather than as playthings.", "The Player is not a sex addict at all. If he is addicted to anything, it’s to the thrill of using women without regard for the effects on them.". However, importantly, it cannot be denied that the player Bancroft describes is highly successful with women.

The author assumes a kind of an absolute female power in relationships: A woman can reject you for any reason, at any time, and you can't complain about it, you must accept it and move on. But on top of that women don't actually need you, no matter who you are. They have endless options, no attachments, no commitments, and can end the relationship at any moment (and that's okay), and so if you ignore her she will quickly forget about you and ignore you. If you insult her she will dump you, and if she doesn't that means she was conditioned by the sexist system. It's all about whether a woman has high esteem, as long as a woman does have high esteem, then she can have sex whenever she wants. Also, if you think women would want to take advantage of you, while it's possible, there is nothing to worry about, and if you are worried about it, then that must be because you are an entitled nice guy scum.

You shouldn't try to get a woman to like you, says the author, because it's impossible. There is nothing you can do about your appearance and how you present to women to influence them. The name of the game is passivity: All you can do is wait until some woman makes a sign that she is interested in you, so that you can then act on it. Of course, this is false, but this fits into his idea of absolute female power. According to the author the people who are successful with women merely are better at recognizing when a woman is interested in them, and they are just allowed to act upon these signs. In a weird parallel to the femcel dating advice, where the woman is only allowed to be passive, passively try to make a man fall in love, and only act when the man acts first, the author advises men to be passive. But to this then he adds the dreams of female power in that the man cannot even use any tricks or influence the way he presents himself to make a woman act first, as that could be perceived as somewhat limiting the woman's power in the sphere of relationships.

In light of this it makes sense for him to recommend to always get over a crush, no exceptions. While a strong attraction should of course be managed, especially if there is a large difference between how much you like her and she likes you, it can also be turned into a motivation to present yourself to the woman in a more attractive way and develop a better dating strategy. But in author's world whether you will be rejected or not depends purely on the female, there is nothing you can fundamentally do to change a woman's perception of you. She is either attracted to you or not, and you cannot influence that. Therefore, since you having a crush cannot lead to any change in how attractive you are to your crush, having a crush is at best pointless and purely an obstacle in dating, and at worst a danger to the woman since it can turn you into a nice guy.

Essentially, what author demands is a kind of passivity. If you used the PUA strategy you would have to start casually talking with women, try to pick them up, get their number, but that might be sexist because it could make her uncomfortable and maybe she doesn't want to talk to anyone, and then you aren't respecting that. In practice any encounter with any woman you don't already know is not possible because it could be sexist, and you can't try to become her friend first because then you are not respecting her, since you are becoming her friend to get something for yourself out of that friendship. So in practice the only option you have left is passivity and waiting for women to show interest in you, which is ironically an ineffective strategy employed by some nice guys.

The author also provides a lengthy and rather absurd list of women you shouldn't date: "Do not try to pursue women who you think will be easier. This includes drunk women, younger women, women with low self esteem, mentally disabled women, survivors of abuse, shy women, less attractive women, less popular women, women on the rebound, women who are alone, women whose job requires them to talk to you, etc. If you're looking for a healthy relationship of any kind, you'd actually have less of a chance with them, because they're more likely to use subtle hints instead of directly letting you know when they’re not interested. You have to be 100% sure that you have consent, and in some cases her impaired mental state or societal oppression can make that impossible."

This is in line with certain currents in intersectional feminism. Given how absurdly restrictive such lists are, one might wonder if they aren't motivated by intrasexual competition.

The restrictions on men go even further, to improbable levels: "If there's no way of knowing whether she trusts you, don’t flirt with her. It’s possible that you respect her right to reject you, but she doesn’t know that. She most likely remembers a bunch of times when other men ignored her rejection, and she has no way of knowing that you’re not just like them." So apparently you must know how her previous dates went to even begin flirting.

His cure for friendzoning is: try to be a friend harder. The author says that if you mind being friendzoned that means you don't value her friendship: "In order for her to want to date you, she’ll have to know that you would still remain her friend even if you broke up.", "If you don’t want to talk to her anymore because she rejected your advances, you're admitting to her that you only saw her as an object in your sexual fantasy and nothing more." This also implies that it's bad if you don't stay her friend when you break up. This is contrary to the more mainstream advice that you should ask a girl out as soon as you decide you want to date her. It's rare that you would find it worth it to deal with the awkwardness and remain friends after you were rejected.

He diagnoses that the reason why you, an average, or below-average looking man doesn't get hot women is because you are too clingy and too desperate to impress them, and it's all about common hobbies. You talk to "average-looking" women when you have common hobbies, but you talk to the hot ones even when you have no common hobbies, and that is the reason for your failure.

In general, most of the advice he gives are long lists of restrictions, without much, if anything in the form of concrete recommendations. Don't do something because it's popular, don't try to fit in with the popular people, don't do something just to seem cool, or just to impress women, and it usually ends with the repetition of the mantra that you should form romantic relationships and friendships based on common interests. If you are popular with women but don't try to imitate some other group of popular people, it's because you are already doing something or have some quality that makes you popular with women, so you don't need to do that. The author doesn't seem to understand that, instead he believes that the ideal is being a pseudo-rebellious "bad boy", who doesn't try to fit in with the popular people, is sincere, and genuinely doesn't care at all whether he is rejected or not, in effect doesn't commit to relationships. What he means by his ideal of a man, the "bad boy", is basically an amalgamation of a player and some feminist idea of how feminists would wish a player to be like. Curiously, a "pseudo-rebellious bad boy" is how his look in his profile photo can be described. Long black hair, some cheap black jacket, sunglasses indoors. A cringy aesthetics.

Despite mentioning his autism in his bio on Tumblr, the author doesn't mention it anywhere in the book. This is significant, because some of the things he takes note of appear to be experiences rather limited to autists. These are the things that an average person might not relate to, or understand why the author would even mentioned. After all, it's too obvious.

There is one particular theme repeated throughout the book that is rather autistic. It's his focus on the idea that all friendships and all relationships should be based on common interests. Looks don't matter, even other personality traits don't really matter, it all comes down to common interests and/or hobbies. I would wager this is not an idea many would relate to. Now, I'm likely autistic myself, so let me explain what an autist might be thinking. An autist would like to form friendships based on his special interest, there is this thing you like and you would like your friend to like that thing too. And if he has a friend but his friend is not into that thing, then an autist may want to get his friend interested in that thing, his special interest. Hence it makes sense that he would prioritize common interests so much, and while of course it's always nice to have common hobbies, focusing so much on common interests is not something an average person would relate to. The author doesn't seem to be aware of this, and he generalizes his experiences to an average person.

He is also adamant that you have to value the friendship a woman offers you when you get friendzoned. You have to value the woman's friendship, you have to be able to stay her friend when you get rejected, it's preferable to first become friends and then become lovers. This focus on friendship seems rather autistic. This is not anything resembling an abundance mindset in the sphere of friendship, rather, it sounds more like a scarcity mindset of an autist who wanted friends who shared his interests, didn't find many people who shared his interests, and was called a weirdo in high school. And then wrote in his book about how you shouldn't come off as a weirdo.

It also takes quite a bit of conceit for an autist in his early 20s to start believing he knows enough about relationships to write a book. I see no evidence he had any success with women, if he did he would have likely mentioned it somewhere to give credence to a claim.

Most of the things in the book is what he has heard feminists say, in his own words: "If you want to know what women are thinking, you should ask feminists, because feminism is the one place where women will tell you exactly what they're thinking. [...] The only reason you wouldn't want advice from feminists is if you want to know how to manipulate them, which means you're an asshole." But apparently not all, as I doubt feminists would have said some of those things. Its conclusions he has reached based on his understanding of feminist principles and his experiences as an autist, without real life support. He really is a picture of a conceited liberal scolding you for your moral failings in an area he has no experience in.

The book is the 5 steps to become a man of the modern, ultraliberal "polite society" put into dating advice, if it can be called dating advice. The entirety of it is precisely a list of "do nots", written in a condemnatory language by an author proclaiming moral superiority. You possess all of these evil traits, and if you think that's absurd you are in denial, you have convinced yourself you are nice, but actually you are a monster.

He makes plenty of other bluepilled, unsupported and false claims, what we would nowadays describe as "woke", or Tumblr-style statements (this was in 2012), but I have covered the substance of the book.

I don't think you can accuse him of lying for the purpose of some agenda, most of it is essentially him repeating the narratives of internet feminists he took at face value. This focus on hating nice guys, these lists of things you shouldn't do, this is how internet feminism looked like back then to a naive agent.

He explains the subtext in various women's responses, for example "You’d be perfect for any girl, except me.", or "You're too nice." If he had some skepticism he would have considered the possibility that maybe there is some subtext in what feminists say as well. Why in these examples women don't tell you exactly what they are thinking, but "feminism is the one place where women will tell you exactly what they're thinking."? Why are feminists so special in that regard? Ah, it's because you are an evil, violent, dangerous nice guy whom women are afraid to tell the truth? But wait, that's a feminist narrative, feminists are truthful, but other women sometimes aren't because you are a nice guy whom they are afraid to tell the truth. It relies on an assumption of feminist truthfulness when he himself gives examples of women not being entirely truthful. So the author assumes that "feminism is the one place where women will tell you exactly what they're thinking.", but in other cases women don't have to be truthful, and it's because of what feminists told him.

He is an autist who took the narratives of online feminism at face value, and lacked skepticism and/or intelligence to see the issues with these narratives. Being autistic doesn't necessarily mean you won't get women, in fact autistic traits are overrepresented among people in power, which is a possible explanation for why they persist. But it would appear he is not this kind of an autist. He is an autist who took the narratives of online feminism at face value, and lacked skepticism and/or intelligence to see the issues with these narratives. Being autistic doesn't necessarily mean you won't get women, in fact autistic traits are overrepresented(Power and Autistic Traits study) among people in power, which is a possible explanation for why they persist. But it would appear he is not this kind of an autist. And neither does he have the ability to see the issues with the narratives he is promoting, so that he could become an actual anti-system figure.