I have permission to write again about game and sin nature

Following my post The missing resolution, the comments took a swerve. One frequent lament on any sphere blog is that women want thugs and eschew nice guys. Commenter Eric raised that point in the comments following that post and YouHaveMyPermission (YHMP) responded with a comment that has stayed with me like a big swallowed rock.

I’m pasting YHMP’s comment here in its entirety. Afterwards I parse it and hopefully do it justice with whatever I add.

The reason you do not understand why some women go after those types of men is because you have forgotten a fundamental truth – that all men and women have a sinful nature. Does the sinful nature naturally like what is good? Alas, in our very base natures, we are inclined towards wickedness. Most people agree with it on an intellectual level, but do not have a true spiritual understanding. If not, why be surprised when a (naturally evil) woman likes the traits of a (naturally evil) man (and vice versa)? Is it not what we ought to expect? The only reason why people have any measure of goodness is because of the conscience God gave us, a conscience that has been increasingly corrupted and perverted since the fall of man, and at varying levels between individuals. And the only reason why some people have a less corrupted conscience is because of the grace of God. Those who are saved and filled with the Holy Spirit also aided by it.

Many in the “manosphere” have gone too far in treating what women like as a measuring stick of how men ought to act in order to be more attractive to women (now your idol). This is wrong. It may be coincidentally right in some cases, but only the scriptures ought to dictate how we act. If it so happened that all women only wanted foul-mouthed, arrogant, and violent men – should we imitate such men, even if it became the only avenue of attracting a wife? The answer is obviously no in this extreme example. But isn’t it true that in less extreme examples (but still wrong), we let down our guard of what is right and wrong? For example a “Christian” woman (man) on the manosphere states what she likes from a man/husband (wife), isn’t it true that we are inclined to automatically assume that the desired behaviour is okay? It might actually really be okay, but because we are not first focused on Christ, it is already a perversion on our faith. We all love to believe we place God first, but I think women have taken that place, even in the manosphere. Isn’t it also true that we have placed masculinity and “alphaness” as most important? For example, what do you think would be the reaction if a man quoted ’1 Corinthians 13:4-7′ in reference to how we ought to act? Probably not much of a reaction, but I can guarantee many (men and women) will likely dismiss the man in their hearts as probably a bit of a “beta schmuck”. It seems anyone can quote scripture, but you only gain respect by discussing high sounding (and empty) philosophy and ideas, this is easily observable. In their heart of hearts, they have more respect for the so-called and worldly intelligentsia than their own brothers and sisters in Christ. Though saved, still living in the flesh, what a pity.

Finally, a very important reason why many still don’t understand why women like bad men is because they simply cannot accept it. That reality is too terrifying to accept even for the “red pill man”. If it is true women like evil men then what does it mean for the Christian man? The true Christian cannot bring himself to imitate evil, what then, shall he be alone? This is a sacrifice most cannot come to terms with. But remember, you are only a foreigner in this world, and all will come to pass quickly. The truth is, today, most women (not all) do like men with the dark triad traits and worse. Some, fearful of admitting this truth, pretend it is only a matter of needing to be more confident and assertive (which I agree we men should be). But you and I know this is simply not the case for most women today, as you have shown in your own examples of girls going after thuggish men.

It is foretold in the scriptures people will be increasingly wicked and selfish. To those Christians contemplating how to “fix” feminism, I say you are an utter fool. Will you also figure out how to delay or stop the coming of the Antichrist and the end of days? One, the Bible says so – people will become increasingly worse, not better, unless you call God a liar. Secondly, what good does it do a sinner that he/she is rid of feminism but still bound for hell? Should the gospel not be spread to others before edifying them with your “knowledge”? The Lord’s final command before his ascension:

“All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

While we should all be aware of worldly matters and feminism and helping others out from this snare, it is not our priority, and has only become a distraction to our true goal in this life. We will all be judged or rewarded one day, and it will not be based on how many theories you came with or blog posts you’ve made. I am not saying that there is no place for discussion of these issues (I have gained valuable insight from it, and I am certainly not taking aim at this site), but it is apparent that some seem to think being an anti-feminist is equivalent of being a good Christian. I would encourage my brothers and sisters to walk in the spirit of David and Paul:

My heart is not proud, Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
But I have calmed and quieted myself,
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.
Israel, put your hope in the Lord
both now and forevermore.

Psalms 131

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified . I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling . My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power .

1 Corinthians 2:1-5

We all, male and female, have proclivity to sin. YHMP states it like this.

The reason you do not understand why some women go after those types of men is because you have forgotten a fundamental truth – that all men and women have a sinful nature. Does the sinful nature naturally like what is good? Alas, in our very base natures, we are inclined towards wickedness.

There are characteristics, features if you will, of men and of women that are designed in, unique to each, and that are good in essence. These features have, however, dark doppelgangers. These are proclivities that allow the father of lies to leverage the features for sinful purposes. YHMP is correct.

In general, the male proclivity is visual, physical, sexual while the woman’s is emotional. This is not to say that these are isolated traits to each gender, that men are emotionally incorruptible and women sexually incorruptible. But clearly sins of the relational variety normally follow these patters in men and women.

The  YHMP goes on to say:

Most people agree with it on an intellectual level, but do not have a true spiritual understanding. If not, why be surprised when a (naturally evil) woman likes the traits of a (naturally evil) man (and vice versa)? Is it not what we ought to expect? The only reason why people have any measure of goodness is because of the conscience God gave us, a conscience that has been increasingly corrupted and perverted since the fall of man, and at varying levels between individuals. And the only reason why some people have a less corrupted conscience is because of the grace of God. Those who are saved and filled with the Holy Spirit also aided by it.

Here I have to disagree. I agree that there is intellectual understanding and not spiritual. This dynamic is present across the things of Chistiandom, not just the wickedness of mankind. What I do not agree with is isolating the reason for behaviors as an equal opportunity lack of spiritual awareness and understanding. There is something more insidious in addition to that. That is the comprehensive teaching of today’s church and its coincident alignment with what would be considered secular ethical teaching. That being, the proclivities of men are worse by nature. Sexually motivated sin is worse than emotionally motivated sin, in other words. And that men’s sexual proclivities lead to pathological behaviors that need corrective action, while women’s emotional indulging leads to things that require support and coddling, like low self esteem and fear.  Sure, its a lack of spiritual understanding. But its so far askew that trying to teach people with a balanced spiritual message that we are all wicked and have sin natures is an exercise in futility. Those words are spoken in Christian teaching, and the examples given are thereafter based on men’s proclivities.

To fix that doesn’t mean stop teaching men. It means start teaching women. A proclivity both genders have is the one where we use the phrase-it isn’t fair-to rationalize a behavior. By teaching women unequivocally, the _it isn’t fair- rational is systematically removed from men’s thinking and men benefit indirectly from that teaching as well. As it stands there is a sense of hopelessness among the men in church who are even half aware of whats being said. Some are so deeply steeped in man bad woman good messages they would need the equivalent of cult deprogramming to break free of this wrong thinking.

It matters what men think. Men are supposed to be leading. Today even if they attempt to lead, they lead from the rear…in several ways. One, YHMP delves into next:

Many in the “manosphere” have gone too far in treating what women like as a measuring stick of how men ought to act in order to be more attractive to women (now your idol). This is wrong. It may be coincidentally right in some cases, but only the scriptures ought to dictate how we act. If it so happened that all women only wanted foul-mouthed, arrogant, and violent men – should we imitate such men, even if it became the only avenue of attracting a wife? The answer is obviously no in this extreme example.

In my opinion this speaks more to secular game and PUA type advice. I don’t think we have much disagreement on this. It stands as is. But he goes on to say:

For example a “Christian” woman (man) on the manosphere states what she likes from a man/husband (wife), isn’t it true that we are inclined to automatically assume that the desired behaviour is okay? It might actually really be okay, but because we are not first focused on Christ, it is already a perversion on our faith. We all love to believe we place God first, but I think women have taken that place, even in the manosphere. Isn’t it also true that we have placed masculinity and “alphaness” as most important? For example, what do you think would be the reaction if a man quoted ’1 Corinthians 13:4-7′ in reference to how we ought to act? Probably not much of a reaction, but I can guarantee many (men and women) will likely dismiss the man in their hearts as probably a bit of a “beta schmuck”.

He is probably correct. I’m guilty of thinking this myself, if not going on to write an accusation. I would split hairs here a bit though. There are typically two ways something like 1 Cor. 13:4-7 would be used. The first is it be simply dropped into the conversation, no preamble, no other extra comments, no extra emphasis or dilution of parts of the scriptures.The second is more common. It is used to feed the beast of man bad woman good because it aligns so perfectly with the image of women’s emotional natures necessarily being good, and the image of men’s cold logic coupled with physical proclivities being necessarily bad. The mention of that scripture is used to buttress how fallen men are and how naturally wonderful women are, and therefore the scripture is in the tool kit made for man fixing. THAT is beta shmuck talk because it is pure lift chasing and not motivated by the spiritual understanding of which YHMP writes.

In that sense, the man quoting those verses in a vacuum is stating something that is at once profoundly true and utterly lacking utility in terms of teaching. Its like handing someone a towel while they are in the pool and telling them to dry off while submerged in water. Christian men hear that all the time in church. It serves no purpose to mention it without some context in a Christian manosphere venue because the application of even that scripture is corrupted by evangelical feminism. Its easy to see that his important emotional contribution is not HIS emotions and actions that follow, but those he evokes in her when she sees him. Harmless and cute, still cold, like a snowman brought back to life with love and magic.

Alpha is an unfortunate term, and game is an unfortunate strategy, still woefully undefended by even the most strident Christian manosphere writers that embrace it. Its an elusive thing that seems to find definition by what it isn’t. And what it isn’t is anything its critics charge it with being. “You misunderstand…that is not what game is” is the ubiquitous charge. The idea that (certain types of) women have been put on a pedestal (I will not say to a place equal to God, with that I disagree because the evidence is insufficient as it consists solely of what men write and we do know know what they DO), by some in the sphere is irrefutable. The feedback loop between the women who claim that, but for their alpha husband that they crave and his charisma and leadership, they would be unhappy in that aspect of their marriage (There is a fine line here, because some of the men were/are the way they are, period, and others have had to adapt. I do not disparage a woman’s attempt at honesty about her taste regarding this, necessarily) and the men who insist that game is a must to keep a wife and to keep her happy, that feedback loop is closed.

Here is my take on this. YHMP is making a sage comment mentioning the scriptural basis for how to love and juxtaposing that with game. there IS a point there, and its a big one. A man should not be dismissed as a beta schmuck for quoting a scripture that speaks into the very heart of love and relationship. But the problem is systemic, its not just a manosphere mistake that can be addressed as such. In other words I understand why men react the way they do. That doesn’t make it right or good. It may be neither. But it is also not wrong or bad. Its part of the miasma created by failing to recognize what YFPM opened with, that being the sin proclivities and man kind and their unique manifestations in men and women.

Some may ask, if men can expect their wives to stay attractive by not gaining weight or simply by doing their best with what they have, then why is it off kilter to foist game on men as an attraction requirement? Because one is working with what you have, and the other is changing what you are, or faking it.

YHMP goes on:

Finally, a very important reason why many still don’t understand why women like bad men is because they simply cannot accept it. That reality is too terrifying to accept even for the “red pill man”. If it is true women like evil men then what does it mean for the Christian man? The true Christian cannot bring himself to imitate evil, what then, shall he be alone? This is a sacrifice most cannot come to terms with.

I’m going to do what i accused Christian game defenders of doing and, not really defend game, but assert that this representation of it for Christian men is not correct. This comment fits secular game and PUA discussions, but it doesn’t fit the majority of Christian married game advocates advice at all. They are not recommending becoming something evil or even imitating evil. This is a difference of great degree. It doesn’t bring game into the light for me, but it takes it out of that sort of darkness that is implied by YHMP.

Something else he said happens to be something I’ve openly commented about on many blogs:

It seems anyone can quote scripture, but you only gain respect by discussing high sounding (and empty) philosophy and ideas, this is easily observable. In their heart of hearts, they have more respect for the so-called and worldly intelligentsia than their own brothers and sisters in Christ. Though saved, still living in the flesh, what a pity.

I’m going to meet YHMP more than half way, just not all the way. There are wonderful ways to apply wisdom found in things other than the direct quotation of scripture. One of the most frustrating things I encountered before I became a believer was to have Christians debating (arguing) with me about my beliefs using scripture. I didn’t accept scripture. I know that “the word shall not return void”, but that is not the application for that statement, though its been the steady proof text handed me as Ive made this criticism over the last 18 years.

There are things to learn about societies and systems of governance and economies and laws and the like that are interesting, not contradictory to scripture…in fact complementary in the cases i would support, and discussing these can be harmless. But what is not harmless is when it becomes intellectual peacocking and nothing more. Intellectual AMOGing is a hobby in the manosphere, and frankly its mostly harmless because its what men do. Its male in hue and nature.

On the positive side, this is much more prone to happen in discussions between unbelievers that happen to be occurring on ostensibly Christian blogs. I’m not denomination of faith brand discriminating when I observe that certain faiths can make even scriptural discussions seem like debating ancient philosophies, as dry and dead as the parchment or stone on which they are written. I’ll leave it at that. Its the same AMOGing using scripture. In my opinion, that’s worse. Id rather see political and philosphical debates citing historical works than the same citing scripture. I dislike, strongly, arguing using scripture. Discussing, even disagreeing on it is one thing. Peacocking with scripture is another entirely.

Finally he touched something I recently wrote at Dalrocks in response to Vascularity who was reacting to one of those philosophical debates that was centered on societal collapse and rebuilding. Basically who cares because:

It is foretold in the scriptures people will be increasingly wicked and selfish. To those Christians contemplating how to “fix” feminism, I say you are an utter fool. Will you also figure out how to delay or stop the coming of the Antichrist and the end of days? One, the Bible says so – people will become increasingly worse, not better, unless you call God a liar. Secondly, what good does it do a sinner that he/she is rid of feminism but still bound for hell? Should the gospel not be spread to others before edifying them with your “knowledge”? The Lord’s final command before his ascension:

“All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Basically it gets worse before it gets better and it wont be us rebuilding that makes it better. Amen.

Being anti-feminism is one thing, and it certainly is not the same as being good, or especially as being a good Christian. But being anti evangelical feminism, while not at all the same as being a good Christian, is neither a distraction from being a good Christian. I am vehemently against divorce. That is tangentially anti evangelical feminist. But it is a righteous posture in my opinion. i should neither conflate my posture with how good my Christian walk is nor with me being wrongly distracted from same.

YHMP, you said in the comment you were not taking aim at this blog. It never crossed my mind, I am very glad to have your comment(s) here and that was an especially good one.

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “I have permission to write again about game and sin nature

  1. YHMP, you said in the comment you were not taking aim at this blog. It never crossed my mind, I am very glad to have your comment(s) here and that was an especially good one.

    I suspect that it was my blog, and/or those like it, which was the target of his comment.

  2. Donal, I have no idea the context or history behind his comment nor where it was aimed. I really don’t even want to know because its an issue with zero profit potential, profit in the Christian sense.
    I see no issues with blogs fixating on those things if in a Christian context, which is why I wrote we cannot know what folks do, only what they write on the blog. People write about all manner of things from a single issue standpoint. Its coincidence, I hope, that framing relational matters and feminism against the backdrop of Christianity can seem like supplanting Christianity. It is a valid concern to express, in my opinion, though because it has the potential to be analogous to how churchians are focused on gays and abortions while the church burns down using divorce decrees as kindling.

  3. Guys, I have to say this. The situation is not that hard to understand. Women like men who like power, because women want power and for basically all of human history, they got power by emotionally controlling a man who has it. In any case, it’s about power.

    This was rediscovered by Nietzsche, but early thinkers understood that the desire for power would eliminate the ability of a society to function, because they all order themselves through inequalities of power, leading to natural instability and making investment impossible by making long-term predictability impossible. Groups of people work in hierarchies, which unite methods and goals. Freedom, from this perspective, is the anti-thesis of order and people must be restrained. So in order for society to have a hierarchy among people who want power and have a deep-seated hatred of being told what to do, there must be legitimacy. Philosophically, the most common way to create that legitimacy is with the idea of God.

    Christianity grounds itself on the idea that man shall be subordinate to the rules of God. Empowerment itself becomes wickedness. It’s wickedness because the supposedly natural order of God – the conservative status quo – is being undermined. You either have control, or you don’t; Christianity justifies, and establishes the value of, subservience, self-abnegation, the loss of autonomy. It justifies turning yourself over to Holy commandment, and acting as a lamb who would rather die than stand for one’s own wishes, lusts, and commands. Nietzsche called it “slave morality.” People were to follow rules and rulers more than they follow their own desire for power.

    To understate, the interpretation of these rules, through the Bible, has been somewhat inconsistent historically. This is always going to happen because he who controls the interpretation controls people, meaning that the interpretation of scripture is system of power. Saying that men should be subordinate to the will of God is saying that men should be subordinate to the MAN who interprets that will. Being that guy is three-fourths manipulation and one fourth using the materials at hand, and since the Protestant Reformation, the situation has become fluid and gone to the level of the lowest common denominator. That was inevitable when faith in the Catholic hierarchy died.

    Christianity is, by nature, a feminist religion, because subservience is a classically feminine trait. What you want is to bring women into an institution – family – that is under the control of a man… but that control is supervened by servitude to the will of God. In theory. In practice, empowered men would not have submitted to Christianity without retaining their power. There is much to be said here about institutionalized sexism, if you choose to look at it that way; since I am pro-hierarchy, I see these realities as inevitable and even desirable. But everyone wants power, and the advent of feminism is the coming-out party for women who now want to pursue their power like men do. Marriage, like any institution, doesn’t function in a state of equality, without a hierarchy.

    If you think you can separate the will of your subconscious desire for control from the will of God, then congratulations. You’ve lied to yourself in order to acquire power, the only way a Christian with a conscience can have it. It’s a mess. It’s a disaster. It doesn’t work anymore, and never had a chance of working without the ideology being controlled by a hierarchy that could decide what was moral and what was not. “All things are subject to interpretation; whatever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power, not truth.” -Nietzsche.

    When you accept that moral truth is a matter of interpretation, then you’re in trouble as a Christian. But that’s the explanation that makes the most sense, far and away. The real question is, do you want to be the head of a Christian household for the sake of having that power, or do you want to be the head of a Christian household so you can do as you’re told, a middle manager for God? I promise you, there are lots of men lying about the nature of their motivation on this, just like there are lots of feminist women who are doing the same thing.

  4. “Many in the “manosphere” have gone too far in treating what women like as a measuring stick of how men ought to act in order to be more attractive to women (now your idol). This is wrong.”

    I’ve said before, many times, that those who support the evil of the “Dark Triad” and think they are Christian, are nothing of the sort. They support evil.

  5. SGT Caz, the motive’s, his for making the comment and mine for writing about it, was not to seek understanding. We understand whats happened. You’ve just happened to go beyond the scope of his comment and my post, and that’s fine. I just wanted to be clear, no lament was made as to it being hard to understand.
    Maybe I’ll try and unpack your comment more later, but its massive and deserves more than quickly parsing it.

  6. Women are wired to submit, which means they’ll seek out something to submit to. Those who chase the “bad boys” do this partly because they (seem to) provide the leadership that the supplicating beta-boys don’t, and partly because they’re sinners.

    A “Christian alpha” would be a man under Christ, who practices outcome independence in following his Lord, leads those in his life in the manner that God created men to do, and conducts himself the way God created men to act.

    A “Secular alpha” operates under a different mandate, since following Christ is only possible if one has faith. He may act in a masculine manner to a certain extent however he won’t have the same power or purpose that a “Christian alpha” would have.

    “Betas” are men of any belief who try to gain female acceptance by, well, acting female. And we all know how that turns out.

    The stuff about idolatry et al – quite the fascinating observation. Thx for posting this.

  7. ANO, I have to disagree that women are wired to submit. I know that’s part of the theory and all, and I’m certainly no psychologist, but I can see no evidence of this. If women are wired to submit to something, where does that leave the woman married to the beta guy who is unworthy of submission, but she stays? She makes life hell on earth for the guy, but she stays. She is submitting to chasing a certain feeling. Some would say that she is living out one huge shit test. That description makes some sense except he literally never passes. If he does pass one its so out of character it can lead to divorce because she thinks he has become an a$$hole.

    No, I would say that women are wired for drama, and drama affords them empathy. At the root of the whole thing is empathy craving. I say this in spite of the fact that not a single woman has ever agreed with me overtly. Its my own quirky theory, though I’m not suggesting its my original theory, I just have not come across it elsewhere and I read anything I can find that deals with empathy.

    Consider, the woman who is under the secular version of alpha has one form of drama, or source of empathy. the poor dear is under that guys thumb. She faces consequences for her rebellion, those being he doesnt give a crap. And she likes the hotness of the guy based on his status among men. She gets that, plus empathy from others, especially from any beta men orbiting her.

    The true Christian woman who is in submission to God has her need for submission met, her need from drama under control, and her craving for empathy supernaturally sated. Its not about the man. That the man is a Christian alpha, a real one, is certainly a plus for the whole arrangement. But no matter what he is, if she is submitted to God the man is her alpha. Surely you’ve seen this dynamic.

    too many iterations to address each one. i just cannot go along with the idea that women want to submit to something. Its too close a cousin to the idea that women really really truly want to be led….a notion that is really popular in the manosphere. I’d say that if being led got her more empathy than not being led, yes she would prefer that. If not being led is more a fount of empathy, then that is her desire. The cliche is apt, she is happiest when she is unhappy. Empathy craving is analogous to sexual craving.

  8. SGT Caz

    Women indeed want control control men to have power themselves. Its more than vicarious.

    Christianity grounds itself on the idea that man shall be subordinate to the rules of God.

    That is incorrect as stated. Par for Friedrich.

    Christianity is, by nature, a feminist religion, because subservience is a classically feminine trait

    Close. Christianity has elements that appeal to women uniquely. Its not by nature a feminist religion, its just easily corrupted by women because of those things about it that appeal to women. The whole Personal Jesus idea is a construct of the fact that the proclivities of women are somewhat congruent with the aspects of Christianity that appeal to women. The old adage about the way to a man’s heart, its taken on by the father of lies who knows mens weakness for women and women’s weakness for emotional things and… Fasil Shazam! …wicked influence manifest.

    the advent of feminism is the coming-out party for women who now want to pursue their power like men do. Marriage, like any institution, doesn’t function in a state of equality, without a hierarchy.

    Agreed

    If you think you can separate the will of your subconscious desire for control from the will of God, then congratulations. You’ve lied to yourself in order to acquire power, the only way a Christian with a conscience can have it.

    But we needn’t think that at all. I reject the premise.

    When you accept that moral truth is a matter of interpretation, then you’re in trouble as a Christian. But that’s the explanation that makes the most sense, far and away. The real question is, do you want to be the head of a Christian household for the sake of having that power, or do you want to be the head of a Christian household so you can do as you’re told, a middle manager for God?
    I promise you, there are lots of men lying about the nature of their motivation on this, just like there are lots of feminist women who are doing the same thing

    .

    I like this closing paragraph, especially the part I bolded. Its something we need to be ever mindful of and pray to avoid.

  9. @ YouHaveMyPermission:

    Outstanding points. Your post is clearly from a Christian perspective.

    @ Emp:
    Outstanding blog that is providing a venue for iron to sharpen iron.

  10. Empath:
    “Alpha is an unfortunate term and Game is an unfortunate strategy.”

    Admittedly, I’ve been guilty of this too. I don’t believe much in Game at all; but sometimes employ these terms as sort of a shorthand way of describing a general personality type since they are so commonly in use in the Manosphere anyway. Hannah threw me a curveball on the other thread by sticking to the more precise definitions. Actually I think most men have elements of all these archetypes, with one somewhat predominant.

    To clarify a little, the scheme would work something like this:

    1. Alpha—a man who exhibits masculinity and other masculine men follow (e.g. Vladimir Putin)

    2. Beta—a man who wants to be more masculine but defers too much to women (e.g. Dennis Rainey)

    3.Omega—a creep with whom no real man would associate (e.g. Justin Bieber)

    4.Zeta—a criminal/psychotic thug (e.g. James Holmes).

    As you can see from that list, their appeal to women works about in reverse order as their appeal to men does. Therein lies the problem.

    Probably though I should break the habit of using those terms, since their meaning isn’t often clear.

  11. Empath:
    Another thought that occurred to me from the last thread, regarding YHMP’s post: I think there’s too often a tendency among Christian men to frame the problem of women chasing undesirable males in these spiritual terms. One point that he made in particular stuck out:

    “If it is true that women like evil men, what does that mean for the Christian man? The true Christian cannot accept evil, what then? Shall he be alone? This is a sacrifice most cannot come to terms with.”

    The problem I see with this line of reasoning is that the crisis men are facing (that of INCEL) has really nothing to do with Christianity. We’re not being socially ostracized and alienated because we are Christians and practice Faith: we’re experiencing this because we are MEN and are practicing masculinity. That’s why I said on the earlier comment that the ‘sacrifice was pointless’. If we were suffering because of our faith; then we could justify it in that it was an issue of Liberty of Conscience or Standing for the Faith. But it isn’t. It’s a sacrifice with no purpose because there’s no higher goal to gained from it. YHMP’s point is like drawing the analogy that famine is the same as voluntary fasting, which some Christians practice. A closer parallel would be that of the Jews during the Holocaust; they weren’t persecuted for practicing Judaism, they were persecuted because of their ethnicity. And men today suffer discrimination and social contempt because of their gender—nothing else.

  12. Northern Observer;
    “Women are wired to submit, so they’ll seek out something to submit to.”

    No—they are wired to submit, but are educated not to. That’s why 1/4 (according to the CDC) are on prescription psychiatric dope because they’re constantly in conflict with their biology and their education.

    “Those who chase the bad boys do so partly because they (seem to) provide the leadership that supplicating beta-boys don’t”

    No—they chase those kinds of men precisely because they don’t provide leadership. Women are taught that they are superior to men—morally and in every other way—and it isn’t hard to feel superior to most bad-boys. Besides that, femihags teach women that THEY are the real leaders anyway, so naturally women don’t want to compete with a man who is genuine leader.

    “And partly because they are sinners.”

    That sounds far too close to the feminist argument that ‘abused women’ are victims of their own lack of self-esteem &c. We may all be sinners, but that doesn’t preclude the responsibility to rise above the animal level and exhibit civilized behavior.

  13. @ Eric:
    “No—they are wired to submit, but are educated not to.”
    I agree totally. Females are socialized to crave control. They are taught that they are less than adequate if they do not either control their man or at least rebel against any real leadership by a man. No—they are wired to submit, but are educated not to.

  14. Empath: Historically, Christianity found its initial favor, long before the Council of Nicaea, among women and slaves. It was populist, anti-hierarchical, anti-power by nature, close enough to the female gender identity to call it a feminist religion. That’s particularly true when factoring in everything Paul wrote about love.

    And I wasn’t quoting Nietzsche directly. It was a paraphrase and a bad one.

    All of the comments about whether women are subservient by nature: if by subservient you mean that women’s survival strategy is a mutualism of sorts, then sure. If by subservient you mean craving in more literal terms someone to control them, then that’s lunacy and you haven’t known enough women on honest terms. Consciously or not, women in relationships are playing a strategy rooted in emotional exchange; they do not enjoy absolute servitude, any more than men do. Empath, the element of your thinking that fascinates me is how empathy as a characteristic more pronounced in women can be used as a method of control: it strikes me as deeply set into the human mental model of groupish behavior, with its loyalties and establishments of trust, that people will be vulnerable to having their sense of camaraderie and faith exploited. Combined with expectations of longer term loyalty from others and a hypocritical unwillingness to provide such loyalty themselves, the degenerative and corrupting effects of abusing empathy seem much more dangerous than any kind of violence or economic exploitation. It attacks the entire social structure of the human mind. Men, at least, are usually honest.

    The fundamental element of the will to power we can probably disagree on without issue, so long as one understands that power has ihncentive value here. Great comment, and thanks for the respectful reply.

  15. Vasc:
    I think that their education about controlling a man is one of the biggest reasons why they chase weaklings and scumbags. Despite all their fake bravado, most ‘bad boys’ couldn’t survive a week without female support.

    I remember back last Spring, there was a riot here in Seattle, (maybe you remember it, it was on national news), and guy who lived down where it was happening videoed about 2 dozen scenes from it and posted them on Youtube. I noticed watching those, there were more cute girls present than you’d see on a weekend in a typical nightclub here! And they weren’t supporting and admiring the police, either…it’s like as soon as the street vermin start congregating in one place the shout goes up from every female within 20 miles:

    “OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SCUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    And they can’t even resist running through gas-grenades and flailing nightsticks for a chance to be with those dirtbags!

  16. I’m very comfortable not having a woman. I have my son about half time; otherwise I can come and go as I please. The type of woman that would attract me enough for me to opt out of my comfortable solitude most likely does not exist, at least for a 49 year old.

    Eric, does Seattle have additional problems due to marijuana being so available now? I imagine Colorado will change much over the next few years as some families leave and stoners arrive to relocate. I was once very much for the legalization of weed, but now I am not so sure. I try to be libertarian when possible, but the lifestyles of individuals effect the community as a whole.

    In contrast to my above perspective, this occurred today:

    This is no joke: At Starbucks today there were two young ladies in line in front of me and I listened to them chat while in line. One bought the other her beverage for an early birthday present. While she was paying for their drinks I interrupted with a smile, “It is my birthday tomorrow.” They both caught the jest. The birthday girl turned around, smiled at me and asked how old I will be. I replied that I will be 20 tomorrow and flashed a smile back. They both giggled as the birthday girl said, “You don’t look 20”. I just laughed in response. After placing my iced tea order I sat down to wait for the Batista (spelling?) to call my name to pick up my tea. When my name was called the birthday girl ran up to the counter and brought my drink to me at my table and smiled. I thanked her and smiled back. Then they both left while giggling. I wish I could go back in time to me being 19 years of age with the knowledge I have now (and of course somehow have my son in that make believe scenario).

    That was so much fun for me. That pic of me is about 14 years old. I now look more my age. But two pretty young laddies considered me “handsome” enough to flirtatiously act silly with me. I felt great for the remainder of this day.

    I don’t know why I’m sharing this. I guess Emp would say that I experienced quite a “lift” from that experience.

  17. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/08 | Free Northerner

  18. Vasc:
    Well, Seattle had a lot of problems before pot was legalized (gay marriage was legalized at the same time, and now we have a fag mayor). The retail stores here don’t open until Spring; and there’s a loophole in Washington’s law that allows communities to opt out of having retail stores in their neighborhoods.

    This area has always had a huge drug problem—it has the highest per capita rate of prescription psych drug use in the world. To make matters worse, the retards here also elected members of the Communist Party to the City Council in 2013:

    http://kuow.org/post/socialist-kshama-sawant-delivers-blistering-speech-inauguration

    So, all things considered, I think we’re about to become a mecca for every bum, drug fiend, and pervert in the world—moreso than already! I’m thinking that in 2014 I’m really going to have to consider relocating. The suburbs still aren’t too bad; but it’s a big decision to have to work out.

  19. Vasc. I agree that feels great when it happens with the girls. Because I am so outgoing I get that kind of thing from time to time. Ive held my age pretty well, and I don’t wear a trench coat with bare legs and no socks nor do I snicker cartoonishly. The young women are not necessarily flirting, as in expressing real interest, much of the time. But they are enjoying the interaction with someone confident enough to bring them into his joking sphere for the moment because he really doesn’t care how they react. Its good clean fun.

    Eric and Vasc. I don’t care about marijuana sales. Brand me still libertarian on that. I do not smoke it (not hat I never did, I was a veritable white small town Cheech and Chong in my early 20’s) but not too concerned about those who do.

  20. Eric makes a good point commenting on how it is not ourChristianity but our masculinity that is hated.

    Feminism has done a very good job of playing upon people’s fears and doubts which already existed about marriage and relationships. One of the reasons why I doubt Game as the absolute in responses is that throughout history men have expressed confusion about women and stated the need to socially control them. I have two thoughts about this.

    First, it makes the notion of the all controlling patriarchy a joke. Oppressed people in history have at some point demonstrated their desire for freedom through violent action, however futile. Women as a social group have only seized power through male cooperation.

    Second, if men who had the power of life and death over women still had to deal with hypergamy, adultery, deception, manipulation then we have to conclude that the likelihood is not going to be reduced. The Bible tells us that the character of the woman is important in having a good marriage. Feminism and Christian feminism teach that all women have inherent good character and that they WILL respond if the man finds one kind of Holy Grail of good behavior.

    So I think that good points were made in what was quoted, but I also agree that we need to point out how much feminism has corrupted the church. Thought would also say the same of greed and ignorance of what the Bible contains, without which feminism would have no foothold.

  21. I agree with that, its not he faith its the gender. It takes on different forms, often worse ones, when its a male Christian, not just a male. So in that sense there is an added degree of social contempt.

  22. @ Eric:
    I live in Southern Arizona, in a small town just outside of Tucson. I very much like the hot, dry climate. Others very much dislike the dessert. Jobs in Tucson are hard to obtain and the pay is very low. Phoenix might be better. There have always been a lot of drug use here due to the Mexican border being so close, but if one stays away from the dopers, there isn’t really an issue. If you ever decide to check out Arizona, you can contact me if you want.

  23. Vasc & Empath:
    Actually I don’t think marijuana is all that dangerous either, no more so than alcohol. The problem is that too many people don’t stop there: a lot of users nowadays are also into things like meth. But even worse are the ‘legal’ drugs: the percentage of people taking prescription psych dope—which are really mostly amphetamines—is off the charts here. And small wonder, since most of the local politicians are on the take to Big Pharma! LOL

  24. Empath:
    “It takes on different forms, often worse ones, when it is a Christian male.”

    I’m not totally sure that may be so—I think that being a Christian is just another canard that the man-haters can throw at certain men who are of Faith. But I think they would find other reasons to hate a man who wasn’t a Christian just as much.

    While at the library some time ago, I came across a book titled: ‘How to Spot a Dangerous Man.’ One of those ‘guidebooks’ bitter femihags publish for gullible young women. Looking at the warning signs listed, it was obvious that no male—maybe other than the lowest, most effete and latently gay metrosexual—had fewer than 20 of the 100 or so warning signs posted. It was obvious that the author spent a couple hundred pages just to say that all men are pigs and should be avoided.

    But that’s what today’s women believe, whether they admit it or not.

  25. Vasc:
    Thanks—it’s been a long time since I’ve been to Tuscon, but Arizona is on my ‘short-list.’ I’ve heard some good things about Phoenix too. The only drawback to that state seems to be that it has a reputation for psychotic law-enforcement officials who hate outsiders and a lot of racism (which would be an obvious handicap for guys like me who prefer foreign women to American ones). I don’t know if that’s true or not, it wasn’t too bad when I was there several years ago. Has it changed much?

  26. Eric:
    I believe the racist tag is due to the sheriff of Maricopa County (Phoenix), Joe Arpaio. He is known as a no nonsense law enforcement professional. He was for checking the papers of illegal immigrants for the purpose of identifying them and deporting them. He also made the inmates in that county jail wear pink colored underwear. I really do not have issues with him. Tucson is very much different. Phoenix is more conservative; Tucson is much more liberal. If you are not into any criminal activity you won’t have anything to worry about in Phoenix. If you have an immigrant wife you won’t have anything to worry about either. The liberal press, I believe, overstates issues like this.

    No chicks utilizing me for eye candy today at Starbucks. (hahahha).

    Regarding weed. I’ve gone back and forth over the years if it should be legal or not. In Colorado so many are lined up to buy the stuff. My concern is that folks who like to smoke weed have a tendency to smoke it all day long. If they would just use it four or so times a month then it would be harmless. I’m leaning toward the opinion that it should not be legalized. I think the legalization will further drive our culture down the toilet bowl. So much for libertarianism.

  27. Vasc:
    I’ve noticed that the media does intentionally portray certain areas in a distorted light. The more conservative a place is the more negatively it’s portrayed and vice-versa. For example, Seattle is always depicted as a ‘city that never sleeps’ with a vibrant social scene and a mecca for hip singles. LOL. check what this expat says—it’s a lot closer to the truth:

    http://blog.happierabroad.com/2010/06/seattle-freeze-bellingham-curse-and.html

  28. @ Eric:
    I read that link. I will read more of the Global Dating link later. I have a word of caution for you my friend. Be careful as the ladies in other countries are primarily seeking financial security and a visa to this country, or other western affluent countries. Nonetheless, you may find a wonderful wife via that approach. I HOPE YOU DO!

  29. Vasc. The notion that certain foreign women are doing that is true, but overstated. When i was digging into all that a few years back, the divorce rate for men married to women from certain countries was 19%. Thats worth it.

  30. 19% is definitely a hopeful prognosticator. There you go Eric. I’m attracted to the women from Thailand. I like the fair skinned Asians. If I didn’t have a son I would be vacationing there.

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