The evolution of Game

Rollo has an excellent post on the intellectual development and broadening spectrum of Game, as well as some thoughts on its continued evolution:

For all its marginal efforts to shame Game back into obscurity, the feminine imperative found that the Game movement wasn’t being cowed as easily as it might have been in the mid 1990′s. The Imperative was falling back on the reliable tropes and social conventions that had always pushed the masculine back into compliance. At the apex of fem-centrism in the 90′s these social constructs worked well on an isolated, shamed and ignorant masculine imperative, but with the evolution of the internet, by the late 2000′s Game was snowballing into a threat that required new feminine operative conventions.

Game evolved beyond the behavioral sets, and beyond the psychological and sociological mechanics that underlined women’s psyches and larger socializations. While still encompassing all that prior evolution, Game was becoming aware of the larger social meta-scale of the feminine imperative. Game began to move beyond the questions of why women are the way they are, and into piecing together how the intergender acculturations we experience today are what they are. Game asked how did we come to this?

Game branched into specific areas of interest in its scope to answer these broader questions and solve more expansive problems. While we still have all of the prior iterations of Game, we have expanded into christianized Game, married Game, divorced Game, socialized Game, high school Game, etc.

However, underpinning all of these areas of specialization was still the need to internalize and personalize Game in a Man’s life. Game was the path to male re-empowerment; an empowerment that even women today still feel men should Man-back-Up to. Game required a reinterpretation of masculinity towards something positive, beneficial and competent – something entirely apart from the negative, shameful and ridiculous archetypes 60 years of feminization had convinced women and men of. Call it Alpha, call it Positive Masculinity, but Game necessitates the reimagining of the importance of the masculine imperative. Game needs Men to change their minds about themselves.

Needless to say, even in its most positive of contexts, the male re-empowerment that Game led to was a Threat too great for the feminine imperative to allow. Controlling the intrinsic insecurities that the feminine imperative is founded upon has alway depended on men’s ignorance of their true value, and true necessity to women. Men have to remain necessitous to women in order for their insecurity to be insured against, and the feminine imperatives control to be insured of.

This is a very good post because it helps to understand where one has been if one is to figure out where one is going.  This blog is one of the many third-generation Game blogs that addresses only a small aspect of Game, but as I have said many times, we all have our part to play in its continuing development.

While his distinction between Evil Game and Good Game being based on what serves - or at least does not too openly conflict with - the Female Imperative and what does not is a potentially useful one, I do not believe it is a serious problem.  Any attempts to coopt or divert Game that are not in line with the truth will rapidly fail, and make the parts that are legitimate stand out in contrast with it. In the meantime, those efforts will continue to publicize it.

Consider Helen Smith's new book.  She's not a theoretician of Game. She's a woman. And while she specifically makes the case for men's rights per se, not merely as something beneficial to women, she openly admits that she can only be a voice speaking up for men, she is not a male voice.  And yet, Men on Strike contains a section on the socio-sexual hierarchy and will likely do more to bring attention to Alpha Game, and by extension Roissy, Rollo, Dalrock, and other blogs featured here, than anything I've ever done.

The reason there is no cause for concern about cooption is because like Biblical Prophecy, if it doesn't reliably work, it is not Game. Even the transmission of adulterated Good Game is potentially useful because Game is also like a virus.  Very small doses are all that are required to inspire even the most abused, brainwashed male mind to ask that vital question that all of us finally asked ourselves at one point or another: why is the female behavior I am observing so different than what I was told by my mother, taught at my school, and preached at my church?

Once that question is asked, it is only a matter of time before the matrix of the Female Imperative is exposed to the questioner, never again to go unseen.