The Game over Game Continues

For the last few days, I've been exchanging emails with Fedinand Bardamu, a Game proponent (see here and here). Without further ado, here's my latest email...

Hi Ferdinand,

Thanks again for your response. I’m having fun, and I hope you are too. I will say, however, that I don’t think your last comment was very persuasive; in most cases you dived easily into tangents while refusing to address my concerns head-on. For example, on the topic of “reductionism,” you wrote, “Have you ever baked a cake or cooked any sort of recipe? Then you’ve engaged in a mild form of reductionism.” This is almost patronizing. You know (or at least should know) that Reductionism – as a cultural phenomenon – has nothing to do with baking a cake; it has everything to do with viewing human beings as nothing more than a random firing of neurons and chemicals, and that everything in human life can be explained through mechanical, material forces. I do not share this Reductionist viewpoint because it is lethal to human happiness and civilization. Oh, and it’s just plain wrong!

But I digress…Let me say again (if I haven’t already) that I sympathize with your frustration regarding the current state of male-female relations (I think you read my essay here). I’m even bold enough to say there’s a “quality gap” between the sexes (i.e, there are more “good men” available today than “good women”). This sucks for guys. No question. We are in 100% agreement on that. The question is: What to do?

If “Game” was limited to encouraging Beta males to be more self-confident around women and giving them “tools of the trade” on how to meet and date women, I would be totally fine with that. But “Game” goes BEYOND that. Think of the very term: “Game.” It deliberately insinuates that a man’s pursuit of women is just that: A “Game.” In this game, there are inevitably winners and losers. Right now, the women and alpha males are winning; so let’s try to win the “Game” by acting like Alpha Males.

And for what purpose? You say – speaking of yourself - “I do want to get married and start a family eventually.” A very normal desire. But how does Game help you achieve that desire? It doesn’t. Read the Amazon.com review of the famous Neil Strauss book, The Game: “After two years, Strauss ends up becoming almost as successful as Mystery, but he comes to an important realization. His techniques were actually off-putting to the woman he ended up falling in love with. And they never prepared him for actually having a relationship. After a while, he ran out of one-liners and had to have a real conversation.”

So if Game can’t help build a loving relationship with a woman, what is its purpose? It’s purpose is to help Gamers get laid. You basically admit this when you write, “Men need a way to sate their lusts. Game is the best way in my opinion to help them do this.”

Fine. Then just say that! Say “I need to get laid. I haven’t had sex in months (or years), I can’t keep relying upon masturbation, I won’t hire a prostitute, and I refuse to turn gay. That’s why I use ‘Game.’” Fine. I would (almost) accept that. I wouldn’t condone it, but I would accept it. What I don’t accept is cloaking Game up as a way to save Western Civilization. As a true Conservative, I find the idea that casual sex is needed to save civilization to be a tad askew, almost insulting.

Yes, yes, I know: Game is a “butcher’s knife.” But it’s not. For the reasons I said above. It rests on a philosophical presumption that women are uncivilized monkeys, and that the key to banging a monkey is to act like a monkey too. That is a sad way to view women. And it’s a sad way to see ourselves as men. And it’s so unnecessary.

I’m not a Christian, per se, but I’ve always had respect for the Christian concept that we live in a “fallen world.” In other words, the triumph of “the good” is not preordained in life; the triumph of the good requires intelligence, character, and determination. It can be a real struggle at times. But the Gamers have no interest in struggle. They expect everything to happen easily. They expect women to fall into their lap. It’s a form of laziness. It says, “I don’t have the patience to be ‘good’ for years with the hope that one day I’ll meet a ‘good woman…’ I’m too horny. So I’ll pretend being a ‘bad guy’ to meet a ‘bad woman’ today.”

This is a sad philosophy and it’s also wrong – because it’s precisely the “good women” who WILL TRULY love a “good man” and wait for him. Yes, they might be only 5-10% of the female population, but they’re out there. And they deserve better than what we’re giving them. Even more than that, WE deserve better than what we’re giving ourselves.

The premise of Game is that we, as Betas, are just not good enough to find happiness and a satisfying relationship; we must therefore become Alphas, the very thing we loathe. And for what purpose? Sex. A total degradation of character for a few minutes of pleasure? Count me out.

Yes, yes, I hear you: “I just don’t get game.” But I think I do, Ferdinand. Indeed, I’m almost tempted to say I understand it better than you. And that’s why I reject it.

-Todd

NOTE: The photo above is of "Joe D.," a contestant on the Reality TV show The Pick-Up Artist.

Why I Like the Term "Reductionist"

When describing the opinions of people I disagree with, I sometime use the terms Atheist, Materialist, Darwinist, and Reductionist interchangeably because they're all closely related . But I need to avoid doing that. I need to start using the term Reductionist consistently. Why? Because it's the most factually correct. How so? Well, take Ferdinand Bardamu, for example. Right now, I don't know if Ferdinand is an Atheist, a Materialist, or even a Darwinist. He might be a practicing Christian for all I know. But the essence of his life philosophy- as stated through his writings on romance - is clearly reductionist. And therein, lies its harm.

-Todd

A Gamer Responds

Yesterday, Ferdinand Bardamu was kind enough to post a very thoughtful, detailed comment to my essay, Sex, Love, and Marriage in Modern Society: The Clever Pointlessness of Game.

I’ve only become familiar with Ferdinand’s writings this week, but in the essays I’ve tackled, he comes across as a well-educated and open-minded individual. And so I’m happy to have this dialogue with him, even though we have some major disagreements about some fundamental issues.

I’ve posted clips from his comment below, along with my response to them.

FB: “I advocate game as a short-term salve and not as a long-term solution. As I and others have written, having men behave like indifferent cads will speed up society's destruction. The long-term goal is to topple the structures (no-fault divorce, alimony/child support, welfare, etc.) that making using game the only viable option for men.”

TW: I don’t understand this at all. The vast majority of people – even among ideologues like myself – do not make decisions about their personal life on a day-to-day basis with the goal of changing society. What can be the justification for allowing your life to be used as a sacrifice for social progress? And what is your definition of progress? Relatively parochial issues like welfare reform. I’m not a fan of welfare myself, but I can’t imagine any scenario where I would allow the most important thing in my life – my love of a woman – to be dictated by the hope that one day – maybe – through my actions – society will be motivated to change its welfare laws.

FB: “A popular myth is that the intellectual foundation of game is Darwinism. This is incorrect. Only the Roissysphere and Steveosphere hold to this view…The Mystery-Neil Strauss conception of game, the view that is by far the most popular, bases its precepts on a quack pseudoscience called "neuro-linguistic programming"

TW: Again, I don’t understand this. You casually dismiss the twin intellectual foundations of “Game” – which is your prerogative - but then you – as a Gamer - don’t offer an alternative foundation. Normally, I would say that is your prerogative too, but in your writings you clearly advocate Game to advance a larger social purpose. That purpose should have a clearly-stated intellectual foundation. I believe that Game’s foundation – whether you recognize it or not - is “Reductionism.” What is Reductionism, and why is it harmful to the individual and society? See Lawrence Auster’s posts here and here. At the age of 29, Reductionism holds no appeal to me. I’ve traveled that road before, and I have no interest in traveling it again.

From there, the discussion shifts to Spiritual Rationalism…

FB: “So this is your vaunted alternative to game - an elaborate version of telling young men to "just be themselves?" You'll forgive me if I think your advice is rather impractical.”

TW: Well, it’s a little more complicated than “just be yourself,” but I’ll accept that phrase for now. Let me ask you: What is impractical about being truthful to yourself and loving yourself for who you truly are? And why is it “practical” to dislike yourself and create a false persona to achieve morally questionable goals?

FB: "S.R. advances a philosophy of personal integrity (“Be good and be smart”)."

What happens in a world where virtue is punished and vice rewarded, "as our world does"?

TW: To be honest, I don’t think our world punishes virtue and rewards vice. I really don’t. It’s true the world isn’t perfect, but it’s also a place where – more often than not – happy, moral people thrive, and immoral people eventually discover (usually the hard way) that their immorality creates negative consequences.

FB: “There have to be tangible benefits to being a person with integrity (beyond what gratification the person gets from it) in order for people to follow that route.”

TW: Yes, of course. That’s why I recommend integrity. Because it has benefits.

FB: Game isn't about "casual sex," it's about making oneself attractive to women. What happens from that point forward is the man's choice.

TW: An important question: Why is it so vital for you to make yourself attractive to women? Think about it: Why are you judging yourself and basing your behavior on the opinion of other people – people who, in most cases, are expendable clods. Why can’t you find happiness within yourself? A form of happiness that depends on the popularity on others is – by definition – an unreliable form of happiness.

FB: A man needs to be physically attracted to a woman in order for a relationship to be possible. Looks matter.

TW: This is a complicated subject which I’ll tackle at a later time. For now, let me just say, yes, looks do matter, and there’s inherently nothing with that if looks are put in their proper perspective. Looks should never be the number one basis for determining whether or not you should date a woman. That’s silly. The woman you love is always beautiful. If you think I’m naïve, so be it.

FB: Game is not about lying. If anything, game allows a man to be more honest with himself, by enabling him to express his true desires.

TW: That’s not my understanding of game. I watched a few episodes of The Pickup Artist. Lying was definitely a part of the seduction, and proudly so.

FB: Getting good with women is the only way to be selective enough that you can afford to do this. Game helps you get good with women.

TW: I don’t agree - in part, for the reason I stated above. Lying doesn’t help you “get good with women” – unless by “get good” you mean having an unhappy relationship, which is the inevitable result of a relationship founded on lies.

FB: Unconditional love is a myth and an excuse people use to indulge in their worst habits. Should Charles Manson's parents have loved him unconditionally?

TW: Ha! I don’t think they did! Which is why he became a murderer! ;) But seriously, unconditional love is not a myth. Ask most parents how they feel about their children.

FB: Who said anything about "sex with women [you] don't even like?"

TW: Roissy did. He said it specifically.

FB: If alpha males are getting all the women, then men will seek to emulate them. The only way to change this is to change the system that gives these scumbags all of the benefits.

TW: Ask yourself: Why is it so important for you “to get all the women?” Seriously. Wouldn’t it be better to just find one wonderful woman who you love and who loves you? Forgive me, but I have a hard time understanding your premises.

FB: I appreciate your post, and as an aside, I'm interested in your philosophy of "spiritual rationalism."

TW: Cool. If you haven’t already done so, check out my post, “The Philosophy of Heather Manning.” It’s the Cliff Notes version.

FB: Perhaps I’ll read your novel.

TW: It’s a good one, I assure you! ;)

Let me say again that I appreciate Ferdinand’s response, and I hope he’ll consider writing another one. It’s been educational for me. And fun. Also, I’ve put his blog, In Mala Fide, on my Blog List, and I recommend others do the same.

-Todd

NOTE: The photo above is from the Reality TV show The Pick-Up Artist. On the right is "Mystery," and on the left is one of his Average Frustrated Chumps (AFC).

NOTE: Lawrence Auster comments on this email exchange here.

**UPDATE, AUG. 24, 2009**

See the Comments section for Ferdinand's response. And click here for my reply.

What's a Degree Got to Do With It?

I continue to be fascinated with the growing blogosphere tempest about “gaming” (see new articles here, here, and here). As I read these articles, new ideas, thoughts, and questions pop into my head. Here’s one question: What is the relationship between the rapidly growing number of women with a college degree and the decline of traditional dating?

The modern West is practically unique (from a historical and global perspective) in giving women an equal opportunity to compete in higher education. We are used to thinking this process exploded in the 1960s. That’s understandable. We’re used to blaming the 60s for everything!

But in this case, at least, blaming the 60s won’t work. In the 60s and 70s, men still dominated higher education. The astonishing advance of women in higher education (first achieving parity with men, then exceeding them) is a much more recent phenomenon.

Take a look at these stats from Thomas Mortenson’s article, Where the Boys Were, which appeared in the June 2008 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education [paid subscription required].

In 2007, 33 percent of women between 25 and 29 had completed at least four years of college (a gain of more than 20 percentage points since 1970) while just over 26 percent of men had (a gain of 6.3 percentage points).

That means in 1970, 13% of 25-29 year old women [women who would be 64-68 years old today] had completed at least 4 years of college, while 20% of 25-29 year old men [ages 64-68 today] reached that milestone]. In less than four decades, we’ve gone from having men beat women 20-13% to having women beat men 33%-26%.

Think about those numbers. That’s quite a change in the balance between men and women. And consider this: The middle-aged women leaders of today (and their male compatriots) were still educated in a culture in which college-educated men were almost twice as common as college-educated women. In my generation, however (Generation Y), the number of college educated women exceeds the number of college-men by almost 30%.

What will be the consequences of this sea change as my generation advances into power? Well, let’s put it this way: If you hate gender relations today, you’ll probably hate them even more a decade from now!

I’ve clipped a few more sections from Mortenson’s piece:

* In 1970 there were 1.5 million fewer women than men in higher education. By 2005 there were 2.6 million more women than men enrolled […]

In 1970 women earned about 110,000 fewer bachelor's degrees than did men; by 2006 women earned about 224,000 more.

Boys are in a profound education crisis that has grown steadily worse, at least since the early 1970s. That crisis is the result of the failure of boys to get the education they need to qualify for the jobs that are available in the growing private-sector service industries that require extensive postsecondary education. Over the last century the labor market has been losing jobs usually held by men in goods-producing industries […]

* During World War II, about 35 percent of all jobs were in manufacturing. Today only about 10 percent are, and if trends over the last six decades continue, American manufacturing employment will approach zero around 2028 […]

Those jobs paid men well for the work they did, and men did not need much formal education to do them. But those jobs are gone, and they are unlikely to return to the American labor force.

As a consequence, since the early 1970s the incomes of men with less than a college degree have been in economic free fall. The share of the male population that is employed has declined, labor-force participation rates have dropped, unemployment has increased, average weekly hours at work have fallen, and median income for men has flattened. Many more men than women ages 18 to 34 are still living with their parents, fewer men are getting married, and more men have never been married. Male registration and voting have dropped sharply, incarceration rates for men have quintupled (America now leads the world in incarceration rates), and the already high suicide rates for men have surged in the 15-to-44 age group[…]

The employment that is expanding in America is in service-providing industries like health care and education, business and professional services, leisure and hospitality, financial, and other services. The better-paying jobs in those service industries require a great deal of education beyond high school. The girls get that message. The boys don't […]

Thomas G. Mortenson is a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

Weekly Wrap-Up

Texts From Last Night: Funny, but sad.


Britain Becomes a No-Go Zone: A good short video on the rise of Islam in the U.K.


IBM sees future of microchips in DNA: Is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Surprisingly, no one in the I.D. community has voiced an opinion on this.


From the "Alrighty Then" Department: Twitter Site Offers Followers Line to God.


I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell is coming to a theater near you.


I've also updated the following articles...


The Medium is the Message


Science or Summer Blockbuster?: One-Celled Aliens from Outer Space


Interesting Website of the Day


Reason, Morality, and Progress


Sex, Love, and Marriage in Modern Society

-Todd

The Content of Their Character

Note: Originally, I posted this as an update to yesterday's article Sex, Love, and Marriage in Modern Society, but in retrospect, I think it deserves a separate post. See below...


To continue the dialogue, last night, I sent Lawrence Auster the following email...

As a young man (29), I wanted to tell you about some of my first-hand experiences with women of my generation (in contrast to the women of your era). First, let me say that while I don't like the terms "alpha male" and "beta male" any more than you do (I'd rather just call myself a "man," period), I'll play along with the game and identify myself as a "beta male." And by that I mean that I have no discernible superiority in the traditional masculine traits of physical strength, attractiveness, or charisma. What I lack in these traits are offset (I hope) through my intelligence, creativity, and character. In any case, what are the dating prospects of a "beta male" such as myself? Well, let me put it this way: Throughout my teenage years and young adulthood, I have been privileged to know many "good men"--men who--by any sane standard--would be considered excellent husbands. Unfortunately, I can't give the same compliment to the opposite sex. I have known very few "good women" in my lifetime. Today, most young women are a strange hybrid of men and women. They lack the feminine qualities that men have always appreciated (and continue to appreciate, even if we won't admit it). Meanwhile, women are adopting some of the worst vices of our sex (excessive drinking, casual sexual activity, ruthless careerism, etc.). Fortunately, when it comes to those few women who over the years I have come to like in a romantic sense, I've had some good success. Indeed, I'm currently engaged. But I'm lucky. Most men aren't. Therein lies the problem.

Let me give you an example of today's twenty-something "lady." About five years ago (I was 24 at the time), I met a friend of mine for dinner. He brought along his new girlfriend--a petite recent college grad--pretty in an unaffecting way--and quite shy--dare I say, almost timid. Also, she was smart. She worked for the government. In any case, the three of us had a nice evening together, and I left the restaurant thinking: "What a nice girl. She and [my friend] have a bright future together."

Boy was I wrong, Lawrence. Later on, I learned the truth of how my friend and his girlfriend met: They met at a party. And that very same night, they had sex together in the bathroom. After that, they went on a few dates. And then their relationship ended.

Sad, isn't it? And to think: Those are the respectable (!) women!

We are in trouble, my friend. Once these women (and men) advance through society and gain power, we in for a rough time, indeed. The level of their moral corruption should not be underestimated.

Mr. Auster replied:

Very interesting and disturbing (I realize I'm overusing that word lately).

I responded:

Yes, I agree. It is quite disturbing. By the way, it sounds as if you've read (or at least are familiar with) Tom Wolfe's I am Charlotte Simmons. I've read it too. The book came out in 2004. I graduated from college in 2001, so I feel comfortable standing as a witness" for the "truth" of Mr. Wolfe's book--and let me say it is true. Or at least 90 percent true. Charlotte Simmons accurately describes the dating scene at today's colleges and universities, which--needless to say--is appalling. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the college dating scene doesn't end in college; it continues far beyond. The behavior of today's college women isn't a "phase;" it becomes their very essence. I'm 29 years old, and I'm still waiting for the women of my generation to grow up. Having said all that, I don't want to beat up too much on the fairer sex. I love women. At least real women. And I'm sure many modern gals could spin a tale about how it is really men who are the ones who have debased contemporary romance. Fine. Point taken. But it seems to me--after giving this issue a lot of thought over the last few days--that it 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. I'm not terribly optimistic. And since we know that a person's sexual values is a leading indicator of his or her future behavior, I am not terribly confident about my generation's ability to lead America or Western civilization. The best we can hope for from Generation Y (which voted for Obama 66 percent to 32 percent) is that they will keep the fort running for a few more decades until a culture of reason and morality has a chance to bloom once again.

Lawrence has posted this exchange on his website.

[END]

Quote of the Day

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead