Game and MRAs

I wanted to comment on a kerfuffle( yes I used that word) that occurred between proponents of Game and a few MRAs over at Ferdinand’s blog a couple days ago.

If you read here, you know I am both a proponent of Game and consider myself an MRA.  Or, more accurately, an advocate for mens rights.  I’m not sure if writing, conversing, and thinking about mens issues make me an “activist”.  I’m not really a “take to the streets” kind of guy.  Hawaiian Libertarian makes a reasonable distinction here.

I see four main reasons why certain MRAs have a problem with Game and its advocates. 

1. They don’t understand Game.

2. They view women who require “gaming” to be unworthy of a mans attention. 

3. Religious men think it’s immoral. 

4.They resent anything short of complete shunning of worthless, entitled, “Ameriskanks” and think of men who don’t share this view as enablers.

For the purposes of this post I will leave aside #1, 2, and 3. They all tie in with each other. I’ve talked about them before and so have many others.  I’ll just say that Game isn’t only beneficial to young single guys who wear funny hats and nail polish, trolling nightclubs looking to hook up with “whores” (as opposed to madonna’s who just want “good men”).

Here are my thoughts on #4…

First let me say that if an individual man wants to shun relations with women completely, forgo sex, marriage, and children, fine by me.  I don’t have a problem with that.  I’m not here to tell anyone how to live their life. 

I will say that for the vast majority of men, this option is a non starter.  Be they young or old, religious or secular, rich or poor; men want women for sex, children, and companionship.  Complete avoidance of women might be an option for a select few, but can never be sold as an attractive lifestyle choice to most men. 

In addition, not all women are Ameriskanks.  Men can debate the numbers, but who can argue this?  Whether you want to say that 95% of women are decent, or 5%, some women are relationship worthy. ( Our legal system makes extreme caution necessary of course.)

So I ask, short of a lifetime of celibacy, what is the best way for an individual man to deal with women in the year 2009?  Without an answer to this question I will continue to think that these MRAs are unrealistic, dogmatic, out of touch and perhaps, too personally invested.

I think some MRAs opposed to Game resent it because they feel it is more male capitulation.  Women are once again benefiting from men bending over backward to appeal to the special little princess. While it’s true that women are more attracted to men who successfully run Game (intentionally or not), it is men who are benefiting much more in the long run.

Game at the margins, levels the playing field( and what an unlevel playing field it is!) and gives a man more leverage. More leverage means more options.  More options means putting up with less of her shit.  The time and effort put in to “catering” to her gina tingle is well worth it when you consider the alternative. Sucessfully pushing her attraction buttons may mean the difference between a long marriage and a divorce. Not feeling like a lickspittle, pushover, chump, herb/mangina is also an added benefit. 

Another objection seems to be aimed at alpha men.  Maybe a little bit of resentment at all the sex they are lavished with, or again,  that women are getting what they want by having sex with the men they desire.  Game is the wrong target though.  Alpha men, of which there are plenty of naturals, would be scoring in great numbers anyway.  Game may make an alpha a super duper unstoppable alpha, but it is most beneficial for guys a bit farther down the totem pole.

It seems that some MRAs think female hypergamy and an assortment of others behaviors are unique to contemporary, feminist influenced, American women.  It only seems that way because in times past a womans natural animal desires were constrained by cultural norms and the law. Game is a tool that helps a man personally constrain female behavior.  It ain’t a panacea, and its effectiveness is limited by human ability, but its better than nothing.

If men accept female nature for what it is then they will be less likely to wage a futile and unproductive war against it.  Women have always been this way and always will be. Nothing new under the sun.  It would be nice if MRAs don’t start resembling some feminists and their “all men are rapists” ideology.  As much as I rail against unconstrained female nature, I would also hate to live in a world where male nature is unchecked. That said, I still resent being viewed as a rapist and a predator.

Ive said it before and I’ll say it again, MRAs are good at pointing out inequities in the law and destructive behaviors women engage in.  Game advocates are good at pointing out why women are doing it, and on a micro level, the best way to respond. 

Both are necessary and have their place.  Female nature isn’t going to change.  The only way to curb its excesses is legal and cultural change.  Incentives are everything.  I’m not optimistic in the short term of this happening, but I do know shunning women altogether is fanciful and counter productive.

Finally, the tenets of Game can work on platonic relationships with women as well.  I may sound like a sycophantic supporter of Game when I say this, but I believe a priest can benefit from it.  Got to pass those nun’s shit tests after all.  I bet their shaming language is strong.  Think Meryl Streep in the movie Doubt.  I’m exaggerating a bit to make a point.  For a more real world example think: co-workers.  So yes, I believe even celibate men can benefit from Game.

 

I don’t see how it is productive for MRAs, who mainly focus on macro issues, to shun proponents of Game.  They aren’t mutually exclusive.  Men that use the tool of Game on a micro level can be just as supportive of the need for legal and cultural change as the guy going the celibate route.

Litmus tests don’t work for tiny outnumbered “movements” either.  It seems to me a big tent is in order if any progress is to be made.  If MRAs want to be taken seriously on the micro level, they need to offer more than isolation and celibacy as a mitigation.

I’ve made the distinction between Game and MGTOW( the micro to MRAs macro) before, and after thinking about it, dont think this is quite right.  Game is afterall, a tool.  MGTOW is more an attitude or way of life.  A man going his own way can use Game is my point. ( I believe most MRAs agree with me.)

I’ll end by pointing out that my critique was, I believe, shaming language free.  I didn’t call certain MRAs virgins, bitter, or terrible with women.  I’m sure some are.  I also believe that men more experienced with women have a much better understanding of their nature as well.  

In many cases, I believe it to be an unfair charge though.  A 40-year-old guy who did alright with women in his 20s, got married at 30, and got ass raped in divorce court at 40 is a common scenario.  An inept bitter virgin would be an inaccurate discription in this case.  MRAs also come in all ages.  A 60-year-old guy deciding to go celibate is a bit different from a 25-year-old.  Calling the former bitter and horrible with women is silly. Some men don’t have the desire, temperament, or ability to use Game very effectively.  I don’t feel the need to take them to task for it as long as they are as understanding to those who choose to go the Game route.

I welcome any criticism from MRAs that disagree as well.  Just leave out the “you are all fools and a hinderance to mens rights” please.

Four clarifications…

1.This isn’t a criticism of all, or even most MRAs.  After all, I would be criticizing myself if I felt otherwise.  Most seem to get it.

2. I don’t believe Game is the end all, be all, quick fix to everything ailing America.

3.MRAs are free to continue to dislike Game( I won’t hold it against them in other words), but I hope they reconsider their desire to excommunicate those who feel differently.  Again, big tent.

4. Criticism of how the tool of Game is used by individual men is valid and would make for an interesting discussion.

A question for MRAs critical of Game…

Out of curiosity, do you have more contempt for “players” like Roissy or Roosh, or for herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types?

I submit that the former is doing nothing to oppose (and in most cases supports in one degree or another) needed legal change, while the latter works to undermine it.

One last thing…

Talk on the danger of rape allegations ramping up as a result of Game being used with better skill and in higher numbers was discussed in Ferdinand’s thread as well. 

 A few quick thoughts…

Game shouldn’t replace a man having common sense and good judgement.

This might be a reason to stick to “10 Commandments Game” heh.

Is a woman more likely to wake up and regret sex the next morning with an alpha appearing “Gamer” or a nice guy beta? ( I realize this is just one possible false rape scenario.)

Not a rhetorical question. I could see arguments for both actually.  The “alpha” is going to be put in that position a lot more than the beta so his odds of being accused are higher, but the beta is more likely to trigger feelings of “ickyness” than the alpha.  If the beta suddenly seems insensitive to her needs, watch out.  A woman feels that a beta owes her a lot more for sex, especially the regrettable kind( and will resent the beta), than an alpha.  See: Max, Tucker.

This is the one time I would encourage a man to go the lickspittle, fawning beta route. If you were sexing while beta it is in your best interest to do so.  At least for a couple days or so.  More on this another time.

Advertisements

30 Comments

Filed under alpha, american decline, american women, beta male, female nature, feminism, game, Mens Issues

30 responses to “Game and MRAs

  1. The Fifth Horseman

    Gants,

    I would agree with what you wrote. But until a couple of days ago, I had no idea that there were MRA-types hostile to Game. I continue to believe that the two groups overlap greatly, and that most MRA-types are not hostile to Game.

    MRA types would be far more effective if they attack social cons who are totally oblivious to the feminist divorce laws. Social cons who continue to blame men for the decline of marriage (mostly out of fear of receiving shaming language from feminists, which is VERY effective against socialc0ns) would appear to be the natural enemy of MRA types.

    But your point #1 is the key. They think Game is only the PUA life, and that no such thing as LTR Game is possible (despite countless examples of LTR Game being provided). This is yet another example of Game-hatred being from a position of ignorance.

    • Hi 5h,

      Nice to see you. Yeah I think MRAs that are hostile are in the distinct minority.

      I also want to reiterate that my criticism was only for the MRAs, who in my humble opinion, don’t get it.

      Like you say, they don’t seem to understand relationship game. I might just refer them to Dave in Hawaii from now on instead of trying to explain it.

  2. I am not critical of game, but some of its derivative thinking (which shouldn’t be there), and it’s clear that you agree with me.

    Out of curiosity, do you have more contempt for “players” like Roissy or Roosh, or for herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types?

    Before the answer was clearly the herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types. Now, its both equally the herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types and SOME of the “players”. The real question is not if a man is an herb or a player, but how easily is he manipulated by women. When Roosh and Chuck start making absurd claims about MRAs and male virgins, this has shown that they are easily manipulated by women.

    One of the most important parts of game is that you, the man, should be in control. Sometimes this means dumping a woman’s sorry ass. Too many of the players are unable to do this.

    I think some MRAs opposed to Game resent it because they feel it is more male capitulation. Women are once again benefiting from men bending over backward to appeal to the special little princess.

    While there is nothing about game that should lead to this, this is a problem with some of the proponents of game. It’s important to remember there are non-feminist forms of female supremacism, and socon female supremacism isn’t the only one.

    The time and effort put in to “catering” to her gina tingle is well worth it when you consider the alternative.

    It can be, but not necessarily. One thing that I have been saying that doing work for dogshit is pointless. What guys like Roosh and Chuck were essentially arguing that a man should go after any woman no matter how crappy she is since that’s better than “being a virgin”.

    Even David Alexander has gotten laid from some pot smoking woman that aggressively pursued him. That alone is proof that the idea that virgins don’t know anything is crap.

    I’ll end by pointing out that my critique was, I believe, shaming language free. I didn’t call certain MRAs virgins, bitter, or terrible with women.

    And it was shaming language free. If the players said similar things that you did there would have not been any argument.

    I’m also not sure why this is on the MRAs. It was some of the players who were making absurd claims such as the MRA movement is filled with virgins and that male virgins are failures at every single aspect of life. Both claims have mountains of evidence disproving them.

    • Hi Pro Male,

      “Before the answer was clearly the herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types. Now, its both equally the herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types and SOME of the “players”. The real question is not if a man is an herb or a player, but how easily is he manipulated by women. When Roosh and Chuck start making absurd claims about MRAs and male virgins, this has shown that they are easily manipulated by women.”

      Respectfully, I think you might want to rethink this. Effectively using the tenets of Game greatly reduces the chance of female manipulation. If anything, it is turned on its head and men are doing the “manipulating”.

      Roosh strikes me as a guy who is rarely manipulated by women and if you take him at face value, lives his life on his own terms. He really is a MGTOW. The fact that his lifestyle may offend some is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

      From reading Chuck I get the impression that in his younger years, female manipulation was an issue (like 99% of all guys, including me) but has since learned from that. He is one of the most open and candid bloggers on this part of the net. Chuck circa 2009 doesn’t seem manipulated by women. Of course I could be wrong. Just my impression. Perhaps we are having a definitional problem?

      “One of the most important parts of game is that you, the man, should be in control. Sometimes this means dumping a woman’s sorry ass. Too many of the players are unable to do this.”

      I’m sure players like this exist, especially naturals, but I’d need a more concrete example. Most pua’s take a special joy in the power that having options give them. In other words, the ability to dump a girl on a moments notice.

      “I’m also not sure why this is on the MRAs. It was some of the players who were making absurd claims such as the MRA movement is filled with virgins and that male virgins are failures at every single aspect of life. Both claims have mountains of evidence disproving them.”

      This is where we come much closer to agreement.

      Here is what I think….

      1. A man experienced with women has a better understanding of female nature and is usually wiser in the ways of the world.

      2. A minority of MRAs have little experience with women.

      3. The insights pua’s bring to the table is valuable.

      4. Most MRAs have experience with women. A lot in many cases.

      For instance, although I have extensive experience with women, I’ve never been married and I don’t have kids. My long term relationships and um…shorter pursuits, provide valuable insights but are different and in some ways inferior, to being married and raising children.

      The unique insights these men bring are valuable and I wouldn’t attempt to belittle it.

      In other words, I think the comments in the thread critical of MRA was way to broad. It might be worth a post of its own.

      Bottom line, If men choose to exclude women from their life, fine by me. It does have a certain logic to it. It’s not something I would choose however.

      I think Game is valuable and I’ll defend it, but I won’t go to the virgin/bitter card to do it. Well unless I am called an albatross around MRAs neck. At that point any invective will be like a precision guided missile, not a carpet bombing. You haven’t done this of course, but the inspiration for Ferdinand’s post did.

      I hope MRAs opposed to Game will extend similar courtesy.

      And if not, it gives us all something to blog about. Heh.

      Thanks for your perspective, its appreciated. I’m guessing we agree on more issues than disagree.

      • Effectively using the tenets of Game greatly reduces the chance of female manipulation. If anything, it is turned on its head and men are doing the “manipulating”.

        In general, this is what SHOULD happen. It assumes that a user of game has not gotten full of themselves.

        Something everyone needs to listen to is this clip from the Tom Leykis show. In the clip a man decides to put some Arby’s horsey sauce in a used condom he threw away. This man discovered that the woman he was involved with was using the used condoms in an attempt to inseminate herself to get pregnant. This is an example of how someone using game who is convinced nothing can happen to them can get manipulated by women.

        What good is game if you stuck with 18-22 years of child support?

        Beyond that, the idea that a virgin man is a loser and a total failure at every aspect of life is a female idea so any man claiming this has by definition been manipulated by women.

        Chuck circa 2009 doesn’t seem manipulated by women. Of course I could be wrong. Just my impression.

        He is the one who has now said (in different terms), “Not all women are like that”. We have heard that plenty before.

        1. A man experienced with women has a better understanding of female nature and is usually wiser in the ways of the world.

        2. A minority of MRAs have little experience with women.

        3. The insights pua’s bring to the table is valuable.

        4. Most MRAs have experience with women. A lot in many cases.

        I agree with 2, 3, and 4, but not 1. “Wiser in the ways of the world” in this context is self referential and effectively circular reasoning.

        Would anyone take advice on women from David Alexander? He has been with a woman once. (Yes, she was a pothead who pursued him and may not have been completely mentally stable.)

        Or to use a more common example, there are lots of miserable married men. I see them everywhere. Of course, many of them will practice self delusion to deal with the fact that they walked into what is effectively terminal misery (since divorce means losing everything for men). Since they’re being self delusional, anything they have to say about women is suspect. And this can include unmarried men in relationships too.

  3. Gantt:

    very good post, especially wrt your points on the different things that MRAs and Game advocates bring to the table. outside of the hardcore MRA sites that have existed for a while, for me, Game and MRA was under one umbrella on roissy’s site. it was only a matter of time before the rift between the two “ideologies” manifest themselves.

    i should have used your diplomacy in my post on the subject today; perhaps i would have gotten my point across easier.

    Pro Male said:

    “When Roosh and Chuck start making absurd claims about MRAs and male virgins, this has shown that they are easily manipulated by women.”

    My claims about *virgin MRAs*, or the types of guys like Marky Mark who shame men for almost all relationships with women, have nothing to do with being manipulated by women. Game types and those who gain value from relationships with women aren’t manipulated. Game teaches us how to not be manipulated.

    “Sometimes this means dumping a woman’s sorry ass. Too many of the players are unable to do this.”

    And how would a virgin know anything about this? The knowledge is easily observed right? No, it’s not. A man struggles with such things, and its only through experience or talking to men who have gone through similar tribulations that they can learn that they should cut their losses.

    “What guys like Roosh and Chuck were essentially arguing that a man should go after any woman no matter how crappy she is since that’s better than “being a virgin”.”

    One of my points was that these types of guys who’d rather forgo companionship make up plenty of excuses to prevent themselves from even participating. So I’m arguing that perhaps the picture isn’t so bad. Even so, giving up before even trying (as virgins are doing) is a sign of failure. That failure cascades and emanates through other facets of life thereby making them poor models or mentors.

    • A man struggles with such things, and its only through experience or talking to men who have gone through similar tribulations that they can learn that they should cut their losses.

      A weak man who is easily manipulated by women (an herb) struggles with such things. It’s not my problem that you’re easily manipulated by women.

      One of my points was that these types of guys who’d rather forgo companionship make up plenty of excuses to prevent themselves from even participating. So I’m arguing that perhaps the picture isn’t so bad. Even so, giving up before even trying (as virgins are doing) is a sign of failure. That failure cascades and emanates through other facets of life thereby making them poor models or mentors.

      You only say this because you have declared war on good judgement and rational risk assessment. The fact is women (except for a small handful) every day bring less and less to the table and more and more risk.

      Just because you want to worship at the altar of women (particularly extremely crappy women) is no reason to go after those who know better.

      • There are many cut-and-dry instances where a man can intuitively know what to do. If his woman cheats on him, dump her. You don’t have to have been with dozens of women to know this. But there are many other less obvious instances where advice from virgins would be of next to no use.

        Let me ask you, Pro-Male, are you implying that you are a virgin? I won’t laugh if you are; I have several virgin friends. You seem to be taking the most umbrage at my and Roosh’s comments.

        “The fact is women (except for a small handful) every day bring less and less to the table and more and more risk.”

        The fact that you don’t have the tools to handle these women’s inherent risk and neutralize it speaks more to your shortcomings than my rationalization that perhaps we’re overthinking their level of “evil”.

        Roissy doesn’t seem to have trouble handling women, but that’s only because he has had experience with them and listening to many others on how to do so. If he would have listened strictly to MRAs, he wouldn’t know jack. Instead of giving up on learning about women – and going strictly MRA – he decided to learn about evo psych and Game. I’d assume it has served him quite well.

        Plus, the truth is that there are much more than a “small handful” of decent women. *Most* of the women I’ve dated are decent women. Perhaps you’ve just had bad experiences; I’d like to know the nature of those bad experiences. Or perhaps you just believe the MRAs without having had much experience. If that’s the case, you’re selling your self short.

      • We need to get you laid man! I’m offering you my custom De-Virginator Workshop, wherever you want, for only $9,997 and I guarantee you’ll FINALLY have sex with a REAL-LIFE woman.

        Your life is consumed by women as you already write and comment about them daily. You might as fuck them too instead of boo hoo hoo complaining about them all the time.

    • Hi Chuck,

      Thanks. Wish I would have noticed your comment before I responded to Pro Male.

      “Game and MRA was under one umbrella on roissy’s site. it was only a matter of time before the rift between the two “ideologies” manifest themselves.”

      Yeah I think the Spearhead is going to play a part in that as well. Alot of Roissysphere folks are over there, as well as the more traditional MRAs. I think its good because I think a hybrid of the two makes a lot of sense.

      Roissy is a hybrid in his own way. Much more focus on Game of course.

      On the other hand Novaseeker is a hybrid with more focus on MRA.

      Dave in Hawaii is kind of like a balance of the two.

  4. The Fifth Horseman

    Pro-Male,

    You think Roosh is easily manipulated by women? You can’t be serious…

    , its both equally the herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types and SOME of the “players”.

    What??? The PUA types are in full agreement that the legal system is heavily anti-male, and advocate toppling that structure by ‘starving the beast’ i.e. dating a lot of women but not marrying them. This is a notion heavily allied with MRA objectives, whereas SocialCons are in direct opposition to MRA objectives.

    Sometimes this means dumping a woman’s sorry ass. Too many of the players are unable to do this.

    What do you base this assumption on?

    Wouldn’t it be more productive (and logical) for MRA types to attack Socialcons? Socialcons are the ones who are a direct obstacle to Men’s Rights, since they still think the current state of affairs is men’s doing.

    I see the landscape as GamesMen and MRAs on one side, and SocialCons and Feminists on the other (totally unbeknwonst to the Socons). Outlier weirdos like Porky Domesticus can be ignored.

    • The PUA types are in full agreement that the legal system is heavily anti-male

      This is basically only Roissy and a few internet followers. People in the seduction community generally don’t care about this stuff. They just want to get laid and don’t much care about the social environment.

      Plus, the truth is that there are much more than a “small handful” of decent women.

      My rough estimate:
      40% of women are just terrible human beings, 30% are generally OK, but can sometimes act quite badly, 20% are genuinely good people with a few minor flaws, 10% are amazing.

    • The PUA types are in full agreement that the legal system is heavily anti-male

      I have not seen any evidence that this is a majority opinion among the PUAs. Only a minority of PUAs like roissy have said this. I’m forced to agree with Thursday for once that most PUAs don’t care about any of this.

  5. novaseeker

    I think that the creative tension between various aspects of the “men’s awareness” sphere is a good thing for all involved, and for the various strands that we each find ourselves in. Men are in a weird place today, and some of us are trying to figure out what to do about that. Each of us has his own perspective on this, and that is kind of part-and-parcel of being men — we tend towards being more individualist and independent. Tend to, but do not always act that way, of course.

    The danger of this is that each of our strands becomes a world unto its own, and dismissive of the others. For example, for the Game strand to basically discount everything a man says because that man has opted out of the system entirely is simply being dismissive. Some fairly fine philosophers, theologians, scientific and artistic geniuses were celibates, or more or less celibate. The notion that “unless you’re getting laid, you’re a failure at everything else in life, and everything you say is worthless” is therefore beyond stupid — it doesn’t reflect historical reality. It’s dismissive and divisive and is precisely the kind of carping that we men of various strands need to avoid.

    The same holds true for the MGTOW strand, where some people are dismissive of the Gamer strand for supplicating women and behaving how women desire them to behave and so on. Again, the idea that every man is set up for celibacy is another extreme perspective — most men are not set up for celibacy, and for these guys Game is the best option. To attack the Gamers for supplicating women misses the point — the Gamers are simply adjusting their behavior to gain whatever access to women they wish (sexual, relational and so on). Gamers are not really placing women in control, they are controlling, to the extent they can, the situation precisely by running Game.

    In both cases, extremes of criticism and dismissiveness need to be avoided. I feel quite strongly about this, as someone who kind of straddles a few of these different positions. I believe strongly that there is no “one size fits all” approach to life for men, and certainly no “one litmus test” for men to be authentically male or masculine, and certainly not a test of getting laid. At the same time, men who wish to get laid should not be attacked for learning the tools that help them do so. Both of the perspectives I have seen in the various blogs over the past few days are regrettable and counterproductive. As men we need to realize that there are personal solutions that make sense to each of us. Supporting each others’ decisions as to what personal solution works best for each other is ultimately much more productive than carping at each other, and trying to squeeze each other into whatever paradigm seems best to us. More support for each other, more tolerance of differing approaches, and less carping and dismissiveness — that’s what we need to see.

    I think I will write about this separately 0n my own blog.

  6. Hi Nova,

    “The danger of this is that each of our strands becomes a world unto its own, and dismissive of the others. For example, for the Game strand to basically discount everything a man says because that man has opted out of the system entirely is simply being dismissive.”

    Agreed. I think advocates of Game have the potential to be very dismissive unfortunately. I focused on MRAs on the attack because of what I saw Ferdinand post. A mans merits should (and to me) stand on the power of his own words, ideas and logic. Whether he pursues women or not is irrelevant to me.

    “Some fairly fine philosophers, theologians, scientific and artistic geniuses were celibates, or more or less celibate. The notion that “unless you’re getting laid, you’re a failure at everything else in life, and everything you say is worthless” is therefore beyond stupid — it doesn’t reflect historical reality. It’s dismissive and divisive and is precisely the kind of carping that we men of various strands need to avoid.”

    Agree up to a point. I do believe that men who have been married, have children, have added insight to the ways of women and usually other things as well. Marrying and having kids changes men and usually imparts new perspectives and wisdom. In addition, being experienced with women gives unique insights to their ways. I dont view this as superior to the knowledge a celibate philosopher could bring. Just different. And for the purposes of mens rights, worth knowing.

    Agree totally that virgins or men that shun women aren’t failures. Like I said, I don’t care if a guy pursues women or not. I think it has a certain logic to it in these times as well. It depends on their rationale though.

    “In both cases, extremes of criticism and dismissiveness need to be avoided. I feel quite strongly about this, as someone who kind of straddles a few of these different positions. I believe strongly that there is no “one size fits all” approach to life for men, and certainly no “one litmus test” for men to be authentically male or masculine, and certainly not a test of getting laid.”

    Amen. I can relate. I consider myself a straddler as well. I came to Game from MRA so I feel affinity for both groups and consider myself both. Personally attacks and shaming are counter productive. Vigourous debate is great but I hope its done in the spirit of the big tent. Just call me Rodney King I guess.

    “More support for each other, more tolerance of differing approaches, and less carping and dismissiveness — that’s what we need to see.”

    Yeah I think the differences should be focused at a policy or macro level for the most part. The best way to handle women at a micro level should have the big tent approach in mind and realize that men have different temperaments, abilities and desires. I think sometimes Game advocates have a blind spot to the possibility of contentment without women.

    “I think I will write about this separately 0n my own blog.”

    I hope you do. A couple weeks ago I almost wrote a post about Game advocates Shaming MRA’s. I might have to get around to that for the purposes of providing some balance. While Porky at Ferdinand’s needed to be called out, shaming and dismissiveness is not a phenomenon unique to MRA. A lot of Game advocates do it as well.

  7. Pingback: Misanthropic Ennui « Seasons of Tumult and Discord

  8. Roosh:

    I tend to doubt your’s and Roissy’s blanket condemnations of womankind.

    Reasons:

    1. A lot of the really good ones are found in places you wouldn’t be caught dead in, like churches.

    2. You screen out girls who won’t put out right away. Hence, you hang out mostly with lower quality girls.

    3. Making girls out to be worse than they are is a good way to justify treating them as disposable. See Wright’s The Moral Animal.

  9. to roosh:
    “less than 1% are amazing”

    you are and will reamain a fucking burnt out, spent, bitter, capital dumb ass!

    you have OD’d on your addiction to sex and now write off the quality women you happen to come accross and are too jaded to recognize.
    may I ask what makes you such a catch? please, do tell us. Is it the fact that you are without a job, without a house, without a bank account, without a masters degree, without sensitivity, without emotion, or could it be that women swoon over your ability to fuck several of them at a time without them knowing? wow, what a stud! a professional liar. aim high.

    have you had many successful relationships? or do 95% of your interactions with woman end up with dramatic, immature displays of your temper getting the best of you? if your game is so good than you would be a casonova not a boy revenge fucking his way through piles of women by lying to them. what a lonely life you must lead. but that’s your business and it will reamin that way. just don’t blame women for your stunted teenage/college years of awkwardness.

    your 1% is way off and if you are this bitter at 30 years old then please just kill yourself for the sake of the improvement of society. thank you

    continue doing whatever it is you wish, no one argues that. but take back your attacks and ridicules of women. Please, just be a man and admit that there are cool chicks out there everywhere and many who have laughed with you, drank beers with you and helped you. enough of this shit already.

    find your heart again, before it’s too late.

  10. Aaaa…(to the fucking)….MEN Thursday!

  11. mongo

    One of the problems with game is that it is a variant on Dr. Phil thinking – when a relationship breaks down, it’s the man’s fault.

    An ‘alpha’ would have seen the red flags; he wouldn’t have tolerated the bad behavior; he would have responded in a non-beta way that would’ve maintained his partner’s sexual interest. An alpha knows how to win and maintain a woman’s adoration.

    The truth is, a lot of women do terrible things and no-one holds them to account. Game proponents make them worse by labeling their victims ‘betas’, ‘herbs’ and generally ridicule them.

    If someone kills their neighbor to have his car, I guess the alpha response is to say philosophically that that’s how some people are, will always be, and holding them to account is beta-squawk. Maybe the dead-guy had it coming for being taken so easily – a real alpha would have pulled his assailant’s heart out and hung on the gate as a warning to others.

    But for all that, if game breeds disrespect for women and destroys chivalry it can’t be all wrong, so it’s clearly useful.

    • Hi Mongo,

      Very interesting points.

      I think you are talking about advocates of Game and not Game itself.

      I do think you are right that some advocates don’t focus enough on legal and cultural injustices.

      Sometimes “betas” are piled on a bit too much as well. Herbs deserve it though. heh. A little tough love can work better than gentle understanding.

      Game knocks women off their pedestal. It demystifies them. This is crucial for any progress to be made on macro issues in my humble opinion. Glad you agree.

      This makes putting up with some of the excesses by its advocates worth it.

  12. Pingback: A brief note on MRAs and MGHOWs in regards to game « In Mala Fide

  13. “4. Criticism of how the tool of Game is used by individual men is valid and would make for an interesting discussion.”

    This truly would be interesting, Gants. Any preliminary thoughts on the subject?

    • Hi Pons,

      A few. It probably deserves its own post at some point.

      I just want men to understand that Game is a tool. It’s morally neutral. Like a gun it can be used for many purposes. I don’t want it to be thought of as something only Wilt Chamberlain wanabees can benefit from.

  14. Pingback: Reactions To Novaseeker and a Response to Obsidian « Ganttsquarry's Blog

  15. You have a very intelligent outlook on game Ganttsquarry. As a woman I can appreciate this, well done. Game is and should be used as a tool and it is and should be neutral. I can not speak for all women, obviously, but my opinion on anti-feminism has resulted in me catching heat from my female friends. I have found that many men who import game into their dating techniques with women were once (if not still) socially awkward. I have found slutty women to be (if not still) deeply insecure and lacking in validation of “healthy” attention. Do you live in DC?

  16. You’re welcome. I am in DC, yes. This was a heavily relevant post to the scene here. Extremist thinking is practiced and being handed down to younger fellas. I find it a bit ridiculous. Your words, and those of some other good writers out there seem to illustrate a purer and more evolved form of game.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s