The recent talk of gaming Christian wives set me thinking.
Deti often refers to the nuclear option that he used, successfully, in order to bring his wife and family into line. In a sense that could be considered one big act of game, pulling out all stops, pulling up the bootstraps, manning up so to speak, and laying down an ultimatum. Men get a cool vicarious feeling from the notion of resting control so decisively. Scorched earth….or…..change.
Shall we play that game?
Or will so much shit hit the fan that there is no fan left?
Broderick’s fictional character turns down a game of chess and chooses the ultimate contest.
Whatever the situation, gamers would say that the husband should have been playing chess all along so that he wouldn’t need to play a game with such heavy consequences associated with it. Its a separate topic, the virtue of Christian game, but I want to mention the efficacy of same and draw some parallels.
We manosphere participants often and rightly speak to the fact that women have moral agency, and that the totality of their life experience serves to insulate them from it or even remove it from their pretty heads altogether. We suggest they need a dose of accountability. All true. But we differ sometimes on how to get there.
Christian game adherents would have that game’s essence is corrective and doles out accountability directly or indirectly. Cane, who is specious about game, offers an example of tossing his wife’s phone out the car window. Stuff like that is more a shoulder launched missile than full nuclear launch. And it may work. And the atmosphere set by consistently setting those kinds of boundaries may keep things between the ditches. Maybe.
The smaller missile and the nuclear exchange have the confidence to do them in common. And they share the potential for blow back. Here is the part that is off kilter. If we say a woman has moral agency, does she not have agency in general? With the flaws we discuss, emotional primacy, solipsism, etc., there is still a willful functioning person there who may not respond the way we think. I guess Christian game advocates would say, well that’s what separates the men from the boys of game. That is true in and of itself.
It is anathema to them to even ask, “what if?”. That line of thinking comes under heavy fire. The man must be flip and have a bit of devil-may-care to him, or she will see him as a poseur and his game will fail. So, let’s ask it here, in the safe confines of a blog post where its not a question of weakness but rather a point of discussion. I know that would invite the most strident to argue from the standpoint that game MUST have a certain sort of ideological purity, to the extent that even having discussion like this is the top of the slippery slope to supplication to the women. Well maybe, but open the mind a little. Undo that which is one of the most frustrating aspects of game discussions… the religiosity and feed back looped discourse that so informs the subject.
Cane’s wife COULD bring to bear the fullness of the law. He could, in the extreme, have been removed from his children, so revelatory of unchecked anger and instability that it’s for the kids own good to get him sequestered. Do not deny the possibility. Equivocate in your own mind on the chances, but lets not fuss about it because it is irrelevant. This is a programing “if – then” with options. You cannot logically block one pathway. The “if” is if she chooses to.
Now lets look at Deti’s launch sequence. It was something like, if this this and that are not sorted out, and sorted out well, I will file a divorce, run up litigation of same, drain all accounts, and ruin the finances of this family maybe into the next generation. His wife chose to sort. But what if she didn’t?
The man in this mess has, as his charge, a wife and kids. Where it’s frequently stated that if a man is not leading, including correction, with no mind to his wife’s reaction, he is failing to love his wife as he is called to do. Good so far. But consider a scenario that is probably more common than we think. We regularly say women do not consider cause and effect, they do not always do the best job of thinking through every decision to its expected end. Remember the lawyer who told me women often get cold feet when the divorce they filed is coming near it final date. This is a symptom of this failure at cause and effect, an example of reacting emotionally and facing the consequences as if they were not expected.
Now consider the situation I alluded to as being common. A man knows that his wife is prone to making decisions based on emotion. She often does exactly that. She makes decisions that make her feel altruistic, or some other virtue she seeks to feel, and later there are consequences. They blind side her. This dynamic replays daily in marriages. The women makes choices, the man walks behind with a broom. The man wants the women to stop making choices that lead to work or consequences for him, for the kids, for others in general. I see this all the time…ALL THE TIME in the people I know.
So, this woman will suddenly, if Deti’s program went south, start making good choices? She would not potentially screw up more and more as a newly single mother? Would the man then STILL be cleaning up her messes because if he didn’t, they would negatively affect his kids?
Whats the right choice, if you limit the possibilities to two? 1) divorce and the resultant problems with the kids, which are statistically easy to understand or 2) keep doing what he is doing? I did not give the third choice of “learn game” for a very simple reason. I do not believe it is a magic elixir. Gamers themselves offer this truth, keep nexting until you find reception. Would that same dynamic not also apply to married women? That some are unreceptive?
Of course it does. You can have a woman that complains one day that a man is cocky and too alpha, then the next day that he needs to man up. Assuming there is game-susceptibility among all women assigns too much consistency to them, too much homogeneity. So, men stay married. They do not launch the nuke. And in the end, they sacrifice for the good of their kids. Is that not better than frying everyone in thermonuclear war?
Chess, global thermonuclear war, or quiet suffering? Don’t let the computer do the choosing.