Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Game Round-Up (8/26/09)



Roebuck at VFR:

Game is just about gaining control of women in order to have sex, not to bring them into a virtuous lifestyle, much less to re-order civilization along conservative lines. Theoretically, Game could be a tactic used by a conservative man for conservative purposes, but since the basic premise of Game is that women are genetically programmed to be slutty, he would have to apply the tactics while totally ignoring their theoretical underpinnings.

Gamers think Evolution is all, so they cannot conceive of any way to engage in direct action that will change the way society is ordered. "We're just acknowledging reality," they say, instead of understanding that the direction in which Western civilization will go is currently up for grabs, and that societies change in response to the ideas that are acknowledged to be true. A true conservative would understand the power of ideas rather than claiming nothing can be done to change the Zeitgeist [...]

Clark Coleman at VFR:

The claims about what women want are hopelessly over-generalized. All women want "bad boys" and other poor definitions of alpha males? I have observed a lot of women in my life. Some want overly rugged-looking men and some go for boyish looking men. Some go for the Marlboro Man Cowboy in jeans and a flannel shirt with boots, others for metrosexuals, and others for shaggy hippie types. Some put their emphasis on a man's looks, some on his money, while others go for an artistic or musical type with no money and not much prospect of making any money any time soon, and others go for the man in uniform with no concern for money. And on and on and on. The Game discussions I have read by following links from VFR have a ridiculously narrow view of what "all" women like [...]

Masculine excellence can be exhibited by men in many ways
...Earn to speak in public and lead. Read and write and speak well. Be bold in the workplace. Learn to fix things. Develop excellence in some area other than your job. Don't project "I'm aimless and spending my time on TV and video games." Instead, think about the man you want to be, in terms of your character traits and abilities, and start striving to be that man. You will seem like a man exhibiting masculine drive and confidence and boldness, because you will be doing exactly that! You won't have to learn to pretend to have such traits.

One of my comments on Roissy's essay, Jealousy...

JR: I'm fine with studying biology (I'm a science buff, myself), but from what I've been reading, it seems that a lot of guys are drawing the wrong conclusions from biology (as explained by "Game"), while neglecting some other very important facts about women that have very little connection to biology (the idea that EVERYTHING in life can be explained by biology is reductionist, and I am not a reductionist). I posted this on Ferdinand's website last night, but its worth repeating here. "When you say it like that, Game sounds very innocuous, even beneficial. But as conservatives, we know you can’t judge something by its intentions, you judge them by their RESULTS. I can’t speak for you, or every single person who comments here, but I’ve read enough of Game through Roissy, Ferdinand, and Mystery to know that Game does more harm than good." Why? See my post above.

Clark Coleman at VFR:

If Game is to transform our society and save Western Civilization, it will have to be utilized by huge numbers of the "beta males" (as they define themselves) in order for a big impact to be made on family formation. But the success of Game depends on its being a secret, an act that the women do not realize is a charade. If the Game movement were to grow by a factor of 10 in coming years, surely magazines for young women would start running articles exposing it. I think it is also likely that Game succeeds partly by making the practitioner different from the norm, hence intriguing, mysterious, etc. But how can Game then become the norm for huge numbers of males?

It seems that the only possible success of Game can be to enable a minority of men to fly under the radar, using it while women are unsuspecting. Hence it cannot transform the whole society.


[END]

9 comments:

Hope said...

"Game is not the answer because it fosters an attitude in which men objectify women, casual sex is excused or even encouraged, and as it pertains to married couples, it doesn't facilitate the emotional, spiritual connection that is the key to true happiness. Of course, knowledge is power, and it is worth knowing what makes women 'tick' inside. But that’s independent of Game, which has – for whatever reason – morphed into a chauvinistic pseudo-religion among the men who preach its gospel. The bottom line is: There are better alternatives to Game."

I agree with this completely. The emotional and spiritual connections are overlooked by those who espouse "Game," because all they focus on are the evolutionary and biological underpinnings of human behavior.

As a lifelong atheist recently turned onto spirituality (sans personified God), I must say that I also think Game has become a pseudo-religion. Religion involves dogma and unwillingness to look outside the doctrines that are taught.

Spirituality, on the other hand is open, accepting of change and remains fundamentally skeptical. It constantly refines itself by embracing those values which one finds worthwhile and purging those values which are no longer conducive to a moral and positive path.

You will not be changing any minds, however. I've been watching the PUA/game community for over two years, and they have never switched their tune. In fact, the preaching has only gotten louder as they gain more traction in the mainstream.

In my opinion, those who learn of game and subsequently reject it are simply a different group of people, in consciousness and in disposition. The man I am with is one such person. This is what he wrote:

"I feel bad, in a way, for the pickup artists. In their single-minded devotion to being all things alpha they lose their deeper self and therefor any hope of ever truly connecting with a woman. They lose the ability to truly love or be loved. They abandon their humanity for excitement of the flesh and stagnation of the soul. Yes, I feel bad. And I wish them well."

Todd White said...

Hope: Thank you VERY, VERY MUCH for your comment. Throughout this online discussion, feedback from women has been scarce, which has made the whole debate almost surreal (since, at its most basic level, the debate is ABOUT women). It sounds like you are precisely the kind of woman that these Gamers should be pursuing (if they regrew their brains), and I'm glad that you are currently seeing such a smart, centered man. Your love is a testament to the power of shared values and emotional/spiritual commitment, which is where I've tried to steer this online discussion (so far unsuccessfully). It sounds like me, you, and the man you're dating are sympatico. On a related note, your website looks very interesting. I've bookmarked it, and look forward to visiting it often.

Etsijä said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hope said...

Etsijä, I think that depends on one's definition of Game. I did learn some things from Game-related blogs. Some of what Game adherents say makes sense. But they are not original concepts.

For instance, most heterosexual women are attracted to dominance and masculinity, not submission and femininity. I cannot and do not dispute this. Nor can I dispute that women respect men more when they are confident, self-assured and stand up for themselves.

To read Game advocates write about these "truths" reminds me of the writings of a comedic character named Captain Obvious. Of course men who are manly will be respected more and get better results. It works on both men and women. It is modern society that attempts to equalize everyone which made young men and women forget the importance of masculine and feminine energies -- yin/yang.

There are men who used and applied this part of Game knowledge to their marriages and long-term relationships, and they speak glowingly of Game. But that is not the essence of Game. Here is where the definitions will begin to wildly influence one's opinion of Game.

When most people refer to Game, they are talking about a set of information put forth in The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, by Neil Strauss. Mr. Strauss met with Mystery and Style, learned about the various tricks to bed women, and wrote about personal transformation through his learnings.

That is where the term first originated, so it would be disingenuous to try to disentangle Game from the PUA and seduction community, which is fundamentally interested in pumping and dumping women for sex. According to Wikipedia:

"He teaches workshops and becomes a proficient pickup practitioner. He feels enlightened and content as a pickup artist. At the same time, Mystery has a depressive episode and requires hospitalization.

He is inspired by an interview with Tom Cruise, convinced that the Mystery Method, like Scientology, could become a Hollywood hit. Style launches Project Hollywood, a cult-like subculture in Hollywood, California. With the rehabilitated Mystery, he and the group rent a mansion there and gain fame dating the hottest celebrities in the city.

The Community as a whole reaches a peak in popularity and Mystery becomes a speaker on several media outlets during early 2005.

Style is left dispirited after Mystery leaves. He leaves the mansion now run exclusively by Real Social Dynamics (today run by Papa and Tylder Durden). The anticipated "cultural revolution" he and Mystery hoped to achieve now existed as detached groups across the country, each run by former students."

The Game advocates talk about how Game is morally neutral and can be applied to long-term relationships and marriages. But this is like saying Maoism is applicable to Western democracies because it is a morally neutral, combining Confucianism and Socialism, both of which are just "tools." Sure, the West might learn a thing or two from Maoism, and might even put some of its premises to good use, but in the end they are talking about completely different things.

Todd White said...

Hope: You replied very eloquently, so I won't add anything beyond one quick story: As I've mentioned before, I saw a few episodes of VH1's Reality Show, The Pick-Up Artist (featuring Mystery). In one episode, Mystery bragged to his students that one time he approached a woman in a supermarket, and after 10 minutes of talking, they walked to his apartment to have sex. He then boasted that through his teaching, this "power" would soon be available to his students. The students obviously loved it. Over and over again, the Gamers insist that Game is NOT about casual sex, but of course it is. The philosophy behind it almost demands it.

Hope said...

Todd White, there have been plenty of women who object to the premises of Game. But they are often disparaged as being harpy feminists, ignorantly delusional, suffering from cognitive dissonance, unwilling to admit to their own biological impulses, and parading as unique, special snowflakes. I've been accused of all of these at one time or another on Roissy's blog.

I participated in discussions with Game acolytes when I was in my early 20s to try to understand men's perspectives. I agree with many of their critiques of modern female behavior, and I think that the many injustices that men suffer under the current social systems are outrageous.

However, I disagree with their bitter, antagonistic and negative world view. They are often dismissive view of females' ability to change their own behavior. To be drawn into their worldview is to believe that women could never grow up or take responsibility for their actions. They say that all women are ruled by the burning in their loins and their animalistic natures. They talk about the Madonna/Whore complex and then state that all women are whores. QED: Game works on all women.

The Game community is ruled by a lot of high passions and emotions -- chief among these are explosive rage and frenetic sense of revolution. Many of them will be angry at you for daring to challenge their world view. Others will feel smugly superior to you for being such a puny idiot who failed to see the Truth. I am generalizing a bit, and it is only the most vocal among them who are like this. There are lots of women in the PUA community who try to learn from these men, too.

I stuck around to see if I could try to be a positive influence, to no avail. So these days I try to stay away and catch the periphery, attempting to show people that male-female relations do not have to be adversarial or full of mutual hatred. As I said, taking them head on will not change their mind. It will only stir the hornet's nest and cause them to lash out at you. Save yourself the time and energy.

Todd White said...

Hope: Once again, we are sympatico. I agree with everything you said. Throughout this discussion, I've tried to avoid psychoanalyzing my opponents (because I think it's bad taste) but I'll indulge myself in this instance (especially since they're so eager to psychoanlyze me). I think a lot of these men (even Roissy, the Master) experienced a lot of rejection by women in their teens and 20s (or they underwent a divorce, etc.), and they've allowed those negative experiences to turn into misogyny. Misogyny is usually interpreted as "hatred" for women, but I think a better description is "contempt for women." I think a lot of these Gamers have genuine contempt for women, and that contempt motivates their behavior.

Jennifer said...

Very rare and great wisdom here.

Todd White said...

Thanks Jennifer. You've inspired me to read some of these old blog posts again (plus the comments) and I agree there's some first-rate discussion here - in this blog post, especially.