“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - Krishnamurti
This is a good quote for all the Gamers, who - in their disgust at society's debasement - have chosen to debase themselves, instead of working to change society for the better.
H/T: Hope.
**UPDATE, AUG. 30, 2009**
If you click on the Comments below, Chuck and I have a comprehensive dialogue on the subject of "Game."
3 comments:
Todd:
it's interesting that you quote Krishnamurti; he's one of my favorite philosophers.
anyway, you don't seem to understand. you want to make society "better", but you fail to realize that men have been trying to do that forever. the ability to do this is slipping away with each divorce and each woman who decides she's able to raise a family on her own.
Game, or rather, an attempt at shoring up deficiencies in social status, seeks to fill the void that was once our ability to provide for our families.
If women postpone marriage for longer, get more divorces, and decide that they don't need men to get by, what happens? You have to answer that question and analyze the result to figure out what's going on. Yes, there are still plenty of stable homes and plenty of relationships founded and maintained by following the traditional model of relationships. But that model is becoming obsolete.
Men are being pushed down the ladder. This will leave a huge swarm of men at the lower end of society with no partners, and it will mean that men will have to "settle" for a woman slightly "lower" than what a comparable man had in the past. how do we reverse this trend to forgo a huge movement of celibate, angry men?
well, the restoration of Male Providers won't happen. Instead we seek to improve our abilities in other aspects of attractiveness. We increase aggression, we increase physical attractiveness, we increase social dominance. We can also become smarter, nicer, and all that, but women don't really care for those traits compared to the aforementioned.
Game isn't so much a *trick* as it is *finding the trick* to a woman's attraction.
My question to you is: what would you have men do? Do you think that anything needs to be done at all? If so, what is the solution? I await a post on this. Thanks.
That's cool, Chuck. Krishnamurti is one of my favorite philosophers too. I'll try to respond to your comment point-by-point...
C: You want to make society "better", but you fail to realize that men have been trying to do that forever. the ability to do this is slipping away with each divorce and each woman who decides she's able to raise a family on her own.
T: I understand that. Really, I do. The first essay I wrote on this topic, "Sex, Love, and Marriage" (8/20) was very sympathetic to the predicament of Gamers (mostly single young men and divorced middle-aged men). Where I disagree with the Gamers is how we deal with this predicament.
C: Game, or rather, an attempt at shoring up deficiencies in social status, seeks to fill the void that was once our ability to provide for our families.
T: I hate to quote myself (it seems pedantic) but I’ll indulge myself: On Aug. 25, I wrote: "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.”
C: If women postpone marriage for longer, get more divorces, and decide that they don't need men to get by, what happens? You have to answer that question and analyze the result to figure out what's going on.
T: Yes, I agree with you that I need to do some more thinking about this phenomenon (and I will), but for now, as it pertains to Game, I feel comfortable stating that I’ve given that subject enough attention and analysis to state that it ain’t the answer to our predicament. Why? See above.
C: Men are being pushed down the ladder. This will leave a huge swarm of men at the lower end of society with no partners, and it will mean that men will have to "settle" for a woman slightly "lower" than what a comparable man had in the past. How do we reverse this trend to forgo a huge movement of celibate, angry men?
T: I’m still working on that, but whatever the TRUE answer is, I'm pretty sure it'll be something more complicated and challenging than “Game.” Also, there’s probably a limit to what we – as men – can do, anyway. As I wrote on Aug, 21: “It is really women, not men, who are the heart of the problem, and thus, at the heart of the solution. It is the behavior of women, not men, that has changed most drastically in the past half-century, starting with the Sexual Revolution in the '60s, and accelerating with another, albeit quieter, Revolution in the '90s). Therefore, our best chance for America's renewal rests in the hands of women.”
[to be continued]
[continued]
C: The restoration of Male Providers won't happen. Instead we seek to improve our abilities in other aspects of attractiveness. We increase aggression, we increase physical attractiveness, we increase social dominance. We can also become smarter, nicer, and all that, but women don't really care for those traits compared to the aforementioned.
T: I think increasing physical attractiveness, aggression, and social dominance can – on the margins – be quite helpful in terms of attracting women. I’m fine with that. Of course, I wouldn’t discount the importance of being “smart” or “nice,” but if you’re already a “smart, nice guy,” (and still unsuccessful with the ladies) then yes, maybe working on those other qualities might be prudent.
C: Game isn't so much a *trick* as it is *finding the trick* to a woman's attraction.
T: I think the best “tricks” to a woman’s heart can be done without “Game.” Honestly. As I wrote to Novaseeker on Aug, 25: "You wrote, 'Game is rather empirical – people use it because it works.' Works? In what sense? In terms of having more dates with women? Sure, thats possible. In terms of having more casual sex? Oh, certainly. In terms of increasing a man's happiness?...Umm...Look, that's what I care about: The happiness of men. I honestly do not believe that Game can increase a man's happiness because it rests on a philosophic assumption that men and women are animals and that the best way to have a relationship is to treat her like an animal too.”
C: My question to you is: what would you have men do? Do you think that anything needs to be done at all? If so, what is the solution? I await a post on this. Thanks.
T: Yes. I frankly admit that I need to do some more thinking about this topic (I only became aware of it about 10 days ago). And unlike some critics, I do think this is a genuine problem that deserves our careful attention. At the moment, I don’t have a 10-point plan for my fellow betas, but I tried to set an intellectual foundation in my essay, “What is to Be Done?” http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-is-to-be-done.html
Sorry for the long reply, Chuck! I hope at least some of what I wrote might be useful to you. I appreciate your constructive approach and willingness to engage me and keep an open mind. We're dealing with a tough issue. And we’re nowhere close to solving it. That’s why we need good men like you to keep learning and keep communicating. Thanks.
Post a Comment