Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Dating, gaming and shaming

The argument about dating is almost over. At View from the Right there has been a decisive rejection of using "Game" techniques to improve men's chances of forming families. I'm not surprised at the decision to hold the line against Game at VFR. Those promoting Game as a philosophy or even as a political position do tend to have a fatalistic attitude toward social decline and they do tend to reduce human interaction to biological terms.

But if traditionalists are to reject Game as a solution, then we have to suggest a different strategy for young men. The temptation here is to recommend what was sufficient in the past. I've noticed, for instance, the idea being raised that young men should wait for a good woman to love them for being a good man (or for being a masculine, romantic man). It has also been suggested that the men who take up Game should be called out on their masculinity.

What's wrong with the idea that a man should wait for a good woman to love him for being a good man? Simply that it's not adequate as it stands and that it could potentially confuse and demoralise men.

There are certainly good women out there. But do they really select a man for his goodness? Do they even really select a man who best represents the masculine virtues?

A man should cultivate the masculine virtues because they are inherently good, because they develop his own character to the highest level and because they are needed for his role in the family and in society. If he wants these virtues to be recognised by others then he should look to other men to do so.

It's a mistake to expect women to reward you. Most women will have trouble "getting" what masculine virtue is about, let alone selecting for it.

This will be a common experience for married men. As a married man, your masculine strengths will often be called upon: you will certainly need emotional strength to stand firm when your wife is in an emotional tailspin, you will need resilience and fortitude to successfully negotiate a 30 or 40 year career, and you will need masculine leadership qualities to steer your relationship in the right direction and to take active responsibility for its success.

Will your wife give you credit for having cultivated these virtues? It's unlikely. She will probably take them as a given. I don't mean by this that she won't appreciate what you do for the family. But the higher masculine qualities that your contribution relies on will remain largely invisible to her.

So a man who thinks he will somehow link with a woman through the masculine virtues is likely to be disappointed. There is no direct link. A woman is oriented to other things. At her best, to love and family. In her everyday self, to home comforts, to back rubs, to trips to the country, to shopping, to conversation.

And what about goodness? We have to be careful here too. A good man can be successful with women. But women don't really select on the basis of goodness. In fact, it can be ruinous to a man's chances if he takes too far a feminine goodness he learns from women in his childhood. If a man is too other-regarding, too self-effacing, too deferential - in other words too "nice" - he is likely to be admired in the wrong way. He will be admired as a "friend", as a man who has been placed outside the category of possible suitors.

Imagine it with the genders reversed. Imagine a nice woman who does not project much feminine charm or appeal. She does something nice for a man she knows and he responds by saying, "Hey, you have a nice personality. Thanks." It's not really a compliment - not if she's looking to get men interested in a relationship. It's his way of saying, "You're not really on my radar as the kind of woman I'd go for. But as a woman in the non-category, I give you credit."

If she were on his radar, then he wouldn't tell her she had a nice personality. He'd be flirting a bit with her, trying to turn on some masculine charm, trying to tease out a response. What might lead him to do this? It could be a number of things: the way she walks, the way she says cute things, the way she dresses, her playfulness, the way her slender arms reach back to tie the ribbon in her long, lustrous hair.

If a man isn't after a relationship, he might not even look beyond these things. Of course, if he's looking for something serious, then (if he's wise) he'll consider a range of other qualities.

That's the level at which initial attraction operates. Being nice isn't even enough for a woman even though it's a positive feminine quality. So how can it even begin to be adequate for a man?

So here's some advice. If you think a woman is shunting you off into a category of men she's not sexually interested in by calling you nice or sweet or a friend (or by talking to you about her relationship difficulties or experiences with other men etc) then listen to your instincts - something is going wrong. You're not presenting right to her.

I think as well that it's possible to be too romantic as a man, at least in the sense of being overawed by the beauty or the idealised goodness of women. Again, this is likely to make a man too deferential and too supplicating, which then makes it difficult to project a confident masculine "play" with a woman. Most men are going to be struck at times by female beauty (it's a good thing to be responsive to this), but after the initial momentary "strike" there's no reason why a man can't then find within himself or within men in general qualities to match what women have.

Finally, there's the issue of attempting to call out Gamers on their masculinity:

And here's something that struck me in this conversation: many of these men appear "alone" not only in the sense of not having a woman. One wonders whether there are any normal male friendships here. Would your compatriots have allowed you to whine publicly in this way without calling you on your manhood? I don't think mine would have. There would be no need to bring social responsibility in, just simple taunts relating to how needy and weak you were appearing.


I think this is a dangerous strategy. It is no doubt true that the most masculine thing to do is to find a wife, raise a family and battle politically against Western decline. But the above quote suggests that the problem is with the men themselves, that they are alone because they aren't masculine enough and they just need to man up and be socially responsible and quit whining.

A lot of the men attracted to Game will have spent years doing the masculine thing, not complaining, being socially responsible and watching more feckless men reap the rewards. In fact, many will have worked harder for much less with much less encouragement than older generations of men. To then be told to man up and quit whining is just likely to provoke an angry or dismissive response.

These men will also have already experienced and rejected the shaming technique. Feminists use it all the time (e.g. if you were a real man you would accept your new androgynous role in the family etc). It's effective because men do have an instinct to stoically take whatever is thrown at them and to prefer to battle through alone to a solution. I remember trying to open up discussions with other men about feminism on campus in the early 1990s. It always failed because even if you got one or two men talking there would be a third who would pull out the shaming card: quit whining and just get on with things.

The only reason an opposition to feminism has begun to emerge is because enough men refuse to be shamed in this way - they've learned see through it.

Finally, there is one other danger for traditionalists in all this. We can too easily mirror liberals in adopting a politics of "hopefulness". Liberals commonly proceed on the following basis: policy X is just and right, therefore we must implement policy X, therefore we must adopt a stance of hopefulness that policy X will turn out alright, regardless of past experience or experience elsewhere.

Hopefulness can be misplaced. The dating situation is probably a little better now than in the early 1990s. But it will probably get worse again, once the effects of paid maternity leave schemes kick in here in Australia and once enough people forget what the early 1990s were like. We'll most likely experience another wave of feminism and a further decline in the culture of marriage - before we're in a position to do much about it.

The answer is not a philosophy of Game, but we do need to listen to men who describe the difficulties they face in partnering and to develop a realistic message of our own to improve the immediate situation these men find themselves in.

38 comments:

  1. The rules have changed and conservatives cannot come to grips with the vast amount of promiscuity at play.

    The genie is out of the bottle, this is a game changing scenario. There is nothing to resist, the dike is well and truly busted.

    There are only two options, stoic obsolescence or upping the ante. Game is upping the ante.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Niko, you're taking a general trend as an inescapable fate.

    There's no doubt there's been disruption to family formation. That's what the statistics state and that's what we can observe.

    Even so, there are still some average looking men I know with average jobs who have very nice, pretty girlfriends.

    I myself am happily married with children (though I did go through a bit to get there).

    What happens if men did up the ante? What would that change in society? Would the liberals and feminists suddenly turn and say that they were wrong and change things? Would it make women not delay a commitment to family?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Conservatives needs a philosophy and they need one that works. I did the whole be a good guy and wait for a good woman and I am unmarried at 31.

    Game seems to work. It not only works for picking up hos, but works for keeping a marriage going.

    At this point I am dumping all the stuff I was raised with and I am running game on girls. Not with the goal of bedding everyone of them (I have and will bed a few, but a good girl makes it hard to get into her pants), but rather to find a wife and raise a family.

    Conservatives are playing a rearguard action trying to slow down the collapse of western civ and as such you are not useful in telling guys how to lead decent lives.

    If you had a way to reverse the collapse your advice would be useful, as you do not men need to use what they can to live halfway decent lives. What's the point of living a lousy life with no family in pursuit of a principle that is dead when you can live an ok life doing things that are a bit under handed?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does anyone know if Game works to find a wife and form a stable family? Is bedding the woman necessary to the process of forming a stable family?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does anyone know if Game works to find a wife and form a stable family??

    Jaz
    Game is based on Evolutionary psychology so in as much as Evo-psych can explain human motivation, 'Game' can be used for navigating most social situations.

    It can be used for one-night-stands as well as marriage. It deals mainly with tuning into the characteristics women find attractive so how the 'player' chooses to use this tool is entirely their prerogative.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Grim, I understand your comment but there are several things that concern me.

    First, you don't make it entirely clear what you are using game for. You say you are "running game on girls, not with the aim of bedding every one of them" - which makes it sound like it's a pursuit of sex, but then you do say it's to find a wife. If you've found something that works, and you're 31, why not be more decisively oriented to finding a wife?

    Second, you say that conservatism can't help men lead decent lives. If you'd said that it's difficult to date by the old rules I'd understand your point better. I don't think you can define living a decent life for a man solely in terms of meeting women. That's why I emphasised in the post the idea of cultivating masculine qualities to develop your own character rather than as a means of connecting to a woman.

    Third, you talk about there being no way to reverse the collapse and about principles being dead. I don't mind a realistic assessment that things are out of order and likely to remain so for some time. But there are definitely things that can be done to improve the situation.

    There were difficulties in family formation during first wave feminism as well. The fertility rate dropped gradually from the 1880s to the 1930s. But then as we know things changed after WWII and for thirty years there was earlier marriage and higher fertility - until second and third wave feminism came along.

    Third wave feminism ran so deep for a number of years that there has been a kind of backlash against it. It's not impregnable. There are even leftist men who are a bit sick of feminist man-blaming. There's a small men's rights movement out and about now. So things are not running entirely the wrong way.

    If people think of things as dead then they won't be motivated to make a contribution. We won't then make good use of the opportunities that do exist to make gains.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mark, thank you for your very thoughtful response.

    I should have been clearer: I am still learning to use game effectively. And yes it's annoying having to cater towards women instead developing myself into something I want to be.

    On sex: If you date a decent women you can't get into to bed right away it's a good indication she will a faithful wife and someone with the will power to raise good children. Remember game works on all women, some just have the will and the training not to give in and head right to bed. Hence I don't bother dating girls who are single mothers (which seems like 75% of the girls I meet these days) nor do I date girls that are slutty.

    That's an excellent point about first wave feminism and something I am ignorant about. However, if it takes a major event such as a world war to reverse such trends what makes you think we can actually change anything? Feminists much more powerful this time around and have tremendous economic clout these days.

    For 1500 years men having a family or being part of a family motivated them to create good communities, take care of each other, and work for the common good. Take that away and yes then men don't have much of a motivation. We live in the age of broken or completely missing families.

    The key to the problem is not men, it's women current inability to restrain and temper their desires that had led us to the current epoch.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Reductionist trends never reverse. We will never have a king, feudalism is not making a comeback and jus primae noctis is unlikely to rear its head again.

    Women are rational creatures who will act to advantage themselves individually to the detriment of others. Until male behavior violently usurps that advantage and turns it into a detriment for women, the passive destruction of culture will continue.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As an anarchist I support this decision wholeheartedly. Rejecting an objectively effective method for curing a major problem in many men's lives will hasten your movement's decline.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "There are certainly good women out there. But do they really select a man for his goodness? Do they even really select a man who best represents the masculine virtues?"

    Mark, I think you're right that women don't select men for their goodness, per se, but I think 'good women' (as you put it) do select men according to characteristics that (ideally) should proceed from those virtues. The way I see it, the problem is that 'good men', the sort of men I would consider marriage-material, are exuding their virtues rather than absorbing them. The sort of man I find attractive is one who has the manly virtues almost intrinsically. What he exudes is a commanding presence, a sense of capability and strength, and a chivalry that is gallant but not necessarily deferential.

    The problem is that women often mistake arrogance for capability and promiscuity for desirability. The advice I'd give a man seeking to date a 'good woman' would be to cultivate the male virtues but cloak them in a subtle air of authority. Women may not admit it much nowadays, but deep down they want a man who is superior to them, just so long as that doesn't translate into him making his mate feel inferior.

    It's a difficult balance, but I think what it comes down to is being superior without being too cocky about it. Women like a man who doesn't have to prove himself because he knows what he is and doesn't bend with the wind. Similarly, a good woman doesn't have to project 'nice'. She's nice underneath, but she can also be playful and sexy without being a slut.

    Both sexes need to be less apologetic about what they are, more natural, and overall less self-conscious. The mess we're in was created by too much analysis and not enough active participation in the community.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is wrong. I am a very socially introverted Traditionalist male, and was never naturally good with women. What studying "game" taught me was NOT an artificial set of cheat-codes to unethically trick females, but how to be more "Male", and in that I mean to focus just on being confident with myself, and as a consequence having a full life, in short, it was successful for me in that it gave me the power to undergo an attitude shift. Think of it this way, introverted males do not sell themselves well. Being logical and analytical about what attracts females gives you the confidence to know HOW to sell YOURSELF, that's all. It helped me meet my wife of 5 years, we have perfect son, and plan on more. Nothing but positives have come from it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'll throw this question out to you conservative men. Do you think the image of conservative men in Australia in 2009 has been damaged by the likes of Matthew Johns and their behaviours. Would you consider this to be the behaviour of a conservative alpha-type male.

    ReplyDelete
  13. CWOO, I agree that Matthew Johns might be considered an "alpha" type male, given that he is a famous sports star who attracts a lot of female attention.

    But I don't see the connection to conservatism. He was caught out having group sex while married, with the woman involved later claiming to have been sexually assaulted.

    I wrote a post about the issue here that you might be interested in.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous (11:56),

    You make a good point that being socially introverted is likely to make things more difficult for a man when it comes to dating.

    I'm curious, though, to know which particular aspects of Game were helpful to you. Or was it an overall psychological effect?

    You have provided evidence that Game was useful in achieving a more traditional purpose and I do take this on board.

    However, I do still think that "Game" often comes with a particular outlook attached.

    Many Gamists seem to have adopted the idea that there has been a permanent shift in society, so that there is nothing to do but play and win by the new rules.

    This then means that you "win" not by challenging what is happening in society, or by getting to traditional goods in your own life in spite of the difficulties, but by succeeding in a dating culture in which love and marriage have been either vaguely deferred or openly rejected - which then distorts what individuals select for.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think I am missing something - what is 'Game"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I second Mr. Richardson's inquiry to Anonymous (11:56). By learning "game" did you bed a succession of women until you found "the one"? Or was it just enough to get your courage up to ask your (future) wife out for a date, and you are now living happily ever after?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Game is probably the most healthy adaptation to dating creatures such as this
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/08/27/tf.not.into.anybody.anymore/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. Niko, jus primae noctis is indeed unlikely to rear its head again, as it quite likely never existed in the first place. See here, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous (5:02) says:

    Game is probably the most healthy adaptation to dating creatures such as this

    What self-respecting man would touch that thing? Sounds like a maladaptation, brought about by desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mark & Jaz,
    I of course did not bed a string of consecutive women and dump them, reading the fast-seduction site's information just made me aware of the "phases" in attraction, and the structure, or patterns, to it. Also, alot of its success is not that it tells you what to say, but more what NOT to say, and how NOT to act.

    I think that the type of male that is ruthlessly promiscuous is not the kind of male that would need, or perhaps even read, "game" theory. I also think alot of internet lotharios exaggerate their successes out of all proportion just out of enthusiasm for feeling at least some sense of control over the dating process, however small.

    From what I understand Mark, you reject Game given a perceived set of associated values that apparently come with it. Again, the average male may SAY many such things "I'm gonna live life in the fast lane from now on, now I have the Power over women" etc etc, but I'll wager that it is just that. Talk. And that, like me, they are instinctively monogamous, and just want a decent, compatible female to settle down with. The "Playa" lifestyle is empty, and goes nowhere otherwise.

    "However, I do still think that "Game" often comes with a particular outlook attached." I think you're wrong, as I said, and that such talk is just that. Talk. E-gibber. IRL they'll just be normal blokes who now have confidence. The men who think AND ACT the way you say ALWAYS did so, and were always going to (Alphas, or whatever you want to call them, Dissatisfied derelicts is what they'll most likely end up regardless).

    So, my rambling aside, yes it was more of a psychological benefit. And to Jaz, no I did not merely gain enough courage to date & marry the first girl I could, did however gain the confidence in myself to mingle in greater circles, went on more than one date, and met many women, and it was empowering to be able to, as blunt as it sounds, have a degree of control over the picking and choosing.

    I hope I made some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mark, you are such a clueless fucking idiot. Go try to find a good wife among twenty-something women in a big city without Game, and you'll personally learn exactly what Grim is talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "you will need resilience and fortitude to successfully negotiate a 30 or 40 year career"

    No, actually, you will need resilience and fortitude to deal with wasting your education on two years of decent salary, followed by a long string of re-training and job hops.

    Nobody has a 30-year career anymore. They've been sent to India.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous, I usually delete comments with the language you used. I'll let yours stand, though, because it's so easy to respond to.

    I did attempt to date 20-something women in a big city. In fact, I attempted to date post-graduate arts women in inner Melbourne during the height of third wave feminism in the early to mid 1990s. It was a shocking experience.

    So I do sympathise with those men experiencing much the same thing. I've been there. But there remains the important question of how you respond to the situation. I'm not just going to accept everything put forward by those promoting Game as a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous (1:30) thanks for your return comment. I think I do understand how picking up better on certain cues or certain traps might make you feel more confident or more in control when approaching women.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Whilst we may conclude that it is very nice, indeed, that Lawrence takes an interest in modern manliness sieved through a prism of Game, it needs to be

    pointed out, and no doubt many wandering will agree, that as far as leading us to the chosen land he's no Moses, nor even an attendant Lord, not even one to

    set the scene. Perhaps he's more Wormtongue in his attendance at the site of this crime.

    Our boys today face the most unrelenting denigration of their virility via all forms of media. To bypass the cliche , read, newspapers, television in

    all aspects and to a far lesser extent radio. Men, and mostly White men, are derided and ridiculed from dawn till dusk. With that sort of bombardment

    of self image how can we blame the young boys wanting to be men for the less than historically admirable comparison? I don't blame them if they offer up a

    big fuck you, in fact, I would encourage it!

    Is it our boys fault that our ancestors let open the flood gates to migrant upon migrant who hated us for the very fact of their acceptance in our midst?

    When Muslims explode bombs in Madrid, London or Bali, gang rape our own girls in Oz or France who the fuck are we to judge our boys for their manliness in

    lieu of our response and our role in the cause of the problemn that rests at their feet?

    So the poacher becomes gamekeeper in the form of Roissy and his defence of the West.

    From my perspective he took a vacated place abrogated by the likes of our leaders today in the form of Rudd, Obama, Bush and Clinton. Beneath them their

    crony cuckolds, their wymin, their whores, their bureaucrats, their public servants, their lackey's their party boys and girls, their media tools, their

    Laurie Oakes and like lick spittle.

    When I look at my boy I prefer him with Game, and thus with nads, than with the sterility that is the barren Christianity offered by Auster and his ilk.

    Yet, the choice is false. Christianity was not intended to be so lame and monasticly inclined as that which Auster urges to our race's precipice. Women need

    not be tricked from their underpants. Devils need not beat out devils, Roissy versus Auster is a false dichotomy. Neither are our race's destiny so long as

    we remain committed to each other based on those things we find in common, that come naturally.

    Despise TV, public education, government, and any form of Public Service and their servants. Pursue The Good, White, absolutes, steadfastness, strength,

    muscle, lack of compassion, eternal enmity.

    Billy Nudgel

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just following up from Pat and Billy I'd like to add my bit.

    "Half the people had turned into squealing pigs, the other half were cooking
    Let me out of here, I cried, and I went pushing past
    And I saw miss Polly singing with some girls, I cried strap me to the mast"

    There's this essay written as if from ancient times and it makes me rise angry from my bed.

    I want to be a man, want to sire some kids, but all the "men" just want me to plastic jack or abstain instead.

    Henry Burke

    ReplyDelete
  27. I too want the survival of my people. And since I'm Asian, I dont need game or rally to do it. We all breed like rabbits. I say, leave the game alone. It will only make you resentful, unhappy. Better to leave game to Asians like me, who can handle it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kevin: LOLZ!!!!! You da Asian Man!

    Teddy Drainpipe

    ReplyDelete
  29. Pat, I deleted your comment because of the language, but feel free to resubmit.

    Look, nobody is denying the difficult situation. It's a question of what you do about it.

    I decided early on that the best revenge against feminists would be to establish a family along basically traditional lines and to help initiate a principled opposition to feminism.

    I wouldn't want my son to be dropped in the same situation I was put in. I would want him to know that his father did make an effort on his behalf to create decent social conditions for him to live in.

    I cannot agree at all with those directing their anger toward Lawrence Auster. It's as if he is being treated as an establishment authority figure who left young men in the lurch. This misreads the situation entirely.

    Auster was one of the first to react in the 1990s both to the immigration issue and to feminism. He's done a lot more than most to begin the task of building up a principled conservative opposition. He is not one of the "fathers" who went along with liberalism and let young men down.

    On the particular issue of Game, Auster has provided a useful platform to discuss the issue at VFR. I haven't agreed with all of his readers' comments there. Some of the men clearly didn't experience the difficulties I did in my 20s and so some of their advice sounds principled but insufficient. But there have been many comments which have helped to develop my own thinking on the issue.

    And Auster was clearly right early on to recognise the danger of some of the underlying philosophy associated with Game.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mr. Richardson,

    You commenter writes:

    "Whilst we may conclude that it is very nice, indeed, that Lawrence takes an interest in modern manliness sieved through a prism of Game, it needs to be pointed out, and no doubt many wandering will agree, that as far as leading us to the chosen land he's no Moses, nor even an attendant Lord, not even one to set the scene. Perhaps he's more Wormtongue in his attendance at the site of this crime."

    What? What is he talking about? Who does this guy think I am? A cultural setter of fashions for the last 20 years? By what logic did your loony tunes commenter arrive at this?

    I think his thought process must have gone something like this:

    (1) Auster speaks on behalf of traditional conservatism (the traditional conservatism that the conservative movement has abandoned to the extent it ever held to it at all).

    (2) Since he is an upholder of the old ways, Auster is a representative of the establishment.

    (3) As a representative of the establishment, Auster is responsible for [fill in the blank] feminism, sexual liberation, and the weakening of men.

    Thus, because I speak of defending and restoring our civilization (which actually makes me a total outsider from the liberal and conservative establishment), the fact that I have been a total outsider from the liberal and conservative establishment during the 20 years of my writing career gets changed into me being a voice of the establishment—and therefore responsible for the ills of modern society.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No worries Mark, no doubt it deserved the bin and in any case Mr Nudgel said it all for me. I appreciate your patience.

    On the subject of Feminism there are two David Stove essays worth a read. One is a challenge to feminist logic aka dogma, couched deliberately it seems in a provocative premise.

    The other gets directly to the primary motivation of the "disaster area" that our culture has become. He quotes Dr Elizabeth Gross then of the Faculty of Arts at Sydney University:

    "In other words, feminist theory cannot be accurately regarded as a competing or rival account, diverging from patriarchal texts over what counts as true. It is not a true discourse, nor a more objective or scientific account. It could be appropriately seen, rather, as a strategy, a local, specific intervention with definite political, even if provisional, aims and goals. In the 1980s, feminist theory no longer seems to seek the status of unchangeable, trans-historical and trans-geographic truth in its hypotheses and propositions. Rather, it seeks effective forms of intervention into systems of power in order to subvert them and replace them with other more preferable. Strategy implies a recognition of the current situation, in both its general, structural features (macrolithic power alignments), and its specific, detailed, regionalised forms (microlithic power alignments)...

    As a series of strategic interventions into patriarchal discourses, feminist theory doesn't simply aim to reveal what is "wrong" with, or false about patriarchal theories - i.e. at replacing one "truth" with another. It aims to render patriarchal system, methods and presumptions unable to function, unable to retain their dominance and power."


    In short, feminism has nothing to do with truth. Feminism is about dismantling our culture in the pursuit of power. There is nothing haphazard or accidental in the outcomes but rather that the catastrophe we see about us is the result of deliberate actions rooted in a strategy designed to weaken us and ultimately undo us.

    Feminist theory is merely a ruse. Gamers are symptomatic of our cultures decline, the end result of leftism and all its faculty's.

    Any way, keep up the good work and all power to you.

    Pat Hannagan

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mr Auster, I get the impression that Mr Nudgel, from what I've read of him here and elsewhere, agrees with your stance but enjoys winding you up. But that's just my opinion based on observation, I could well be wrong.

    Pat Hannagan

    ReplyDelete
  33. I find these people pinning their hopes on a dating theory to save the West to be a rather funny lot. So, your rebellion against the cultural system that castrated you and your fathers and brothers is to play by the rules of that self-same system? Hilarious!

    So the poacher becomes gamekeeper in the form of Roissy and his defence of the West.

    I'm not sure the poacher has become much of a gamekeeper. His defense of the West is what? The more horny men get laid, the better for the frat-boy West? If he fancies himself a gamekeeper, he must be keeping the wrong grounds.

    From my perspective he took a vacated place abrogated by the likes of our leaders today in the form of Rudd, Obama, Bush and Clinton. Beneath them their crony cuckolds, their wymin, their whores, their bureaucrats, their public servants, their lackey's their party boys and girls, their media tools, their Laurie Oakes and like lick spittle.

    So, you turn from crooked politicians to...a player? It would be like the African-American community turning from Louis Farrakhan to Jay-Z to save what is left of the African-American community. You don't have yourself a leader who will transform the culture you wish to save for the better. You have a guy who just wants to sell books to thousands of people, which would counter-intuitively expose all of his secrets to the wary women his prospective clientele want to trick into bed. Its like asking Krusty the Klown to be the next Charlemagne. If the sons of the West have sunk this low, then self-respect ought to be the first step in rejuvenating this civilization.

    When I look at my boy I prefer him with Game, and thus with nads, than with the sterility that is the barren Christianity offered by Auster and his ilk.

    For your information, that "barren" Christianity not only created Western culture, it is from its ideas that the fragile institutions you hope to defend rest upon. It has been far more fruitful than the handful few "alpha" wannabes "Game" has helped get laid. You prefer your boys with a dating technique over knowledge of the blue-prints of the civilization you think they ought to save? You might as well send a dog after a car. Once the dog catches it, it wouldn't know what the f--- to do with it.

    Even those "sterile" monks produced a continuing legacy over a millennium and a half old. You wouldn't even be able to tell your boy why he has rights or human dignity with "Game". If any, you've just taught him to see human beings as just another commodity.

    Fruitful indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There's this essay written as if from ancient times and it makes me rise angry from my bed.

    I've read that essay before. The problem with these "Game" advocates is that their intended solution is for the "Wimp" to mimic a "Barbarian" for the sake of a few rounds of nookie. Or a wife, although this seems to have an "underpants gnome" type plan attached to it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think Anonymous wrote something very intriguing. He said, "What studying 'game' taught me was NOT an artificial set of cheat-codes to unethically trick females, but how to be more 'Male,' and in that I mean to focus just on being confident with myself, and as a consequence having a full life, in short, it was successful for me."

    Anonymous is describing the main motivation for "Game: feeling more "Male." "Feeling more male" is understandable desire to be sure. But it's an illusion to think that Game (which rests on a philosophy - Reductionism - which states that men and women are animals and that the best way to have a relationship with a woman is to treat her like an animal) is the best way to feel "male."

    For example, most of us here would probably agree that "connecting with God" is a "good thing," but if a Wahabi Muslim terrorist came here and justified his faith by saying it makes him "feel connected with God," we'd say that's sweet but there's better ways of expressing your faith (like giving alms to the poor, instead of blowing up innocent civilians).

    No, I'm not comparing Gamers to terrorists; I'm just saying the comment "Game makes me feel more male" - even if true - is not an argument ender.

    Bottom line: There are better alternatives to Game.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This is another excellent post, Mr Richardson.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This is interesting. On the whole I'm inclined to agree with Jonathan Wolfe that talking about picking up on a political site is unseemly. That western "male" civilisation rests on such a fragile base. But that is society I suppose.

    The issue I have with something like the game is it says, you win if you pick up. How you pick up, such as perhaps by playing on women's insecurities, doesn't matter. The quality of your relationship, such as dominated by mutual suspicion and "gaming" of each other, doesn't matter.

    The idea that anything which helps you "win" over the "enemy" women, is good, is immoral and will not ultimately lead to happy relationships.

    Women today are insecure for lots of reasons so there's plenty of scope for gamers to "play" their trade. Gamers used to be called "cads" incidentally.

    Mark stated in his post that traditional male attributes are not really understood by women and so we cannot expect they will be appreciated. But women sure notice when they are missing. If a guy goes to pieces, is unproductive or unsupportive in the traditional sense the call goes out "be a man". They are utterly fed up with whimps and inadequates, nor do they see bullshit artists as an acceptable alternative. Ultimately this attitude will influence their dating and marriage ambitions.

    Having said that there's nothing wrong with being able to conduct yourself in a confident manner. Like a gentleman.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mark stated in his post that traditional male attributes are not really understood by women and so we cannot expect they will be appreciated. But women sure notice when they are missing. If a guy goes to pieces, is unproductive or unsupportive in the traditional sense the call goes out "be a man".

    Jesse, well put.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.