To set the stage…..
I’ve been reading about game for several years deploying same in my marriage for maybe two, and seeing generally positive results in doing so. In my world and life context, I’ve benefitted from game. The observational psychology (lack better term) that informs game is straightforward to most linear thinking men. I’d submit that at the level of the observations of how women ARE, you may even get buy in from white knights and ignoramuses, double betas and brainless alphas. If a man pays any attention at all to the behavior of others he will see truths in the observations that form the basis for game.
Disagreement starts here, the point at which game takes these observations and begins to posit ideas on how to exploit the observed nature of women. To do that game assumes motive behind the woman’s behavior…”she does X because she really wants Y, so let’s give her Y and how”. I am still on board with this, again, in my life context and how it describes my wife, and the tactics work on her. I dislike “tactic” but initially, that’s what it has to be.
I start deviating at the PUA aspect, not because I do not find it effective, I’ve never tried it, but because it’s not applicable to me, and I do not see it as imperative in comporting with feminists even if, as I said, the underlying observations are valid. So this is immaterial. But I also start to deviate a bit on the utility of game in any, every, and all intersections of the two genders, where feminism meets the MRM for example. Again, I am not refuting any aspect OF game theory, nor its foundational observations (though I may if I wanted to dedicate sufficient time to emersion). I am simply saying that one needn’t weigh one’s advocacy on a scale of game theory purity to measure its efficacy. And those few people I am objecting to do do that, to the point that I sometimes wonder what is more important, the rights of men, or the purity of game manifested.
What I’ve stated above is to describe where I am coming from and hopefully show that I am not interested in debating game theory itself, that I have a healthy enough grasp of and appreciation for it in the context of my life, and the case Im making is thzt one needn’t evaluate it in any other context to be an effective MRA.
The stage is now set….
The issue I have is in making everything about game; as if the most important criteria for something is, how does it gel with game. But even that isn’t exactly clear, because I don’t have an issue with someone who, in and of their own life context does make everything about game. I assert that it’s a stretch to do so. But why does it even matter if I see that one way and they another? My issue is that they insult and mock other well grounded MRA’s who do not do so (make everything about game) as if one cannot be an MRA without making game the yardstick against which their own advocacy be measured. Yes, that’s it exactly. I’ve blundered into my own explanation.
One could be the very most ideologically pure anti-feminist, MRA, red-pill-a-day money where his mouth is member of the band of brothers, doing demonstrable good works, having observable tangible impact in his sphere, and a certain fringe of game cultists would ignore all the readily visible signs that the man is on the money, men’s rights wise, and make comments about the impurity of his devotion to game. I keep comparing it to a religious faith behavior and it fits. How many Christians know other Christians that no matter how confident you are in your faith, no matter how grounded you are in your Bible knowledge, they have the ability to make you feel a little bit lesser when they start espousing their faith? Its difficult to even tell with these Christians if they mean no harm and are repeating mantra for their own benefit, as a sort of spiritual exercise regimen or so, or if they have a smug superiority that if you say anything other than strict almost spiritual utopian proclamations about your faith, you are missing something that they actually have (and it ain’t likely you will get it unless of course, you can get closer if you hang on their words long enough) Gosh I’ve known many of those, the simplistic example being something like “there is no sin for those in Christ” as an answer to someone saying they failed or were tempted in their walk.
The game equivalent would be, ok, so you got an initiative for shared parenting on the ballot in your state, great, but let me tell you, “game says you wouldn’t need that if you’d have just managed your women right from the get go”. Again, simplistic example for illustrative purposes only.
This lead in, “game says” carries the same weight ( maybe even more because its more steeped in mystery and accessible to even less people ) as “the Bible says”. The hierarchy established by those inclined thusly in Christianity is based on morality. The hierarchy likewise established by those doing this with game is based on two things, the implication they are smarter than others, and that they have through some kind of osmosis acquired the most refined and pure version of game that there is. They have put their time in the mountaintop cave, and emerged after the relational equivalent of a peyote experience with something no one else has and cannot hope to achieve, but, grasshopper, you make good progress.
Why do I think of these lyrics?
I went to see the Doctor of Philosophy
with a poster of Rasputin and a beard down to his knee.
He never did marry or see a B-Grade movie.
He graded my performance, he said he could see through me.
I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind,
got my paper and I was free.
Don’t know, the good Dr. there was like the game adherents selling superiority and demanding fealty to their “game says” mantra, lest they “see right through you” to the lesser MRA that you are. As I wrote on Dalrock’s page, if you try and express interest in these guys (there are maybe 3 guys like this by the way, so maybe my issue is much about little, its just that they are like Rush music, three dudes makin’ a hell of a lot of noise)
I’ve written myself catharsis on this. I feel better and don’t care what they say when they make stupid comments like “anti-gamers are eunuchs”. Dalrock raised Paul Elam as an example, I should have thought of that. How can anyone accuse him of not being impactful and of being a eunuch (implied, white knight)? These few guys sit in the back ground trying and failing to suck all the air out of the room.
The unintended consequence of this is it creates layers of “airs”. The air of superiority coupled with the expression of certain inaccessibility to the mortal man FEELS the same as reading a site that is about some obscure conspiracy theory that “you can’t understand this, man, because you don’t get it”
Question: “How many Vietnam Vets does it take to screw a light bulb?”
Answer: “You can’t know cause you weren’t there man”
Mocking men about game actually gives feminists fodder for mocking men period. They are going to mock men no matter what, I get that. Some are going to mock game regardless how its expressed and whether these guys deride other men with it or not. But it creates the illusion of DIVISION in the ranks of men, think about that, it creates the appearance of DIVISION, and the simplistic look from those who see life only as far as the tip of their noses see that it as some men mocking others because they are in monogamous relationships and are not active PUA’s, regardless if that’s true or relevant. Again, they are going to mock anyway, but it involves zero concession of our values to ask that some stop mocking men using game purity as the yardstick.
I am way more concerned with the simple dilemma so aptly illustrated by red pill blue pill. That’s where the action is. I know existentially if red pill CAN precede game, I’m not sure the other order works. While men may enjoy game, and even have effect in the arena, I suggest that the red pill far exceeds game as an ingredient to our mélange. You can make bread with or without yeast. If the MRM is bread, the red pill is the flour. If folks like the rising bread, add game. But the world consumes far more flat bread than not. So lets not send those who come looking for a loaf of bread away just because we think leavened bread is the only pure bread.
Looking at this whole thing as a war, a struggle, with winners, losers, collateral damage, whatever metaphor you prefer, to some degree the game must be present AND perfect among MRA’s crowd offer aid and comfort to the enemy, offer a target and a bullet. They make the perfect (as they define perfect) the enemy of the good solid generic MRA.