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.
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.