Choices have consequences

Dear Feminist successfully flirts with logic:

before I line up behind your banner proclaiming that ‘More Than Half The Housework Is Unfair!’ I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Before pairing up with your current ‘spouse,’ how did you attempt to filter your dates to eliminate ‘domestic non-helpers’ and attract men who were more domestically inclined?

2. Who was considered more socially dominant and/or higher on the social hierarchy when you first started going out? You, or him?

3. Who explicitly asked who out first? You, or him?

4. Who was making more money when you first started going out? You, or him?

5. Who explicitly initiated sex first? You, or him?

Now, if your answers are “not really anything,” “him,” “him,” “him,” and “him,” and then I trust you can see the problem. But there are those who will read this that might be a little slower than you, so I’m going to spell it out. What you’re asking for is for your post-courtship relationship to be even-steven, even though before and during courtship you were perfectly happy to enjoy the benefits of a wildly imbalanced relationship where the man took on all the risks of overt rejection, and where your standards had nothing to do with finding a man with egalitarian values. Instead you chose one who embodied the dominant, high-on-the-social-hierarchy, patriarchal values that you now chafe against.

I'm impressed. There is literally nothing here to mock. Dear Feminist is correct, as it is both hypocritical and illogical to select for one behavior pattern pre-marriage, then expect another one post-marriage.

Of course, this applies to anti-feminist men just as well as feminists. If the woman you're dating is a hot pig, she's not going to magically transform into Little Mrs. Houseproud and start polishing the silver just because you marry her. If she can't bother to work out now, don't be surprised when she puts on 30 pounds in the next year or three. And if she's a raging nymphet who can't ever get enough, don't be shocked when she shags the pool boy, the UPS man, and your neighbor.

People grow and mature, but they seldom change at their core. That doesn't mean a slut can't reform, a player can't retire, or a messy individual can't learn to clean the house only that they will have to make a conscious and continuing effort to do so. The important thing to keep in mind is that marriage is a commitment, it isn't some sort of magic transmogrification ritual.

Gammas resist Game

Unsurprisingly, John Scalzi, a quintessential gamma male, finds the idea of the socio-sexual hierarchy to be distasteful:

Hey, dudes: If you spend any real time thinking about who's an "Alpha Male" and who is not, YOU ARE NOT ONE. #FYI
— John Scalzi (@scalzi) August 17, 2012

Mind you, for many of the people for whom the Greek Alphabet gradation of social hierarchy appears important, the working definition of “Alpha Male” seems to work out to “sociopathic assbag.” So maybe you don’t want to be one of those, either.

No, you shouldn't be an alpha male. Or even think about trying to become one. Instead, you should strive to be a soft, pudgy, snarky high nerdling who writes novels inspired by Star Trek. Like John.

This is a good example of the snippy, passive-aggressive behavior of the gamma, who resents the hierarchy because he resents his place in it. There are two primary types of gammas, the first is the sort who is bitter about women, while the second is the sort who imitates women and is bitter about men who outrank him. Scalzi is an excellent example of the latter, right down to his habitual snark, his strong inclination for the verbal over the physical, his feminine solipsism, and his preference for female forms of communication. To give one of many examples of the latter, if you ever hear a man use the word "squee" and he is not quoting a woman, you can be certain that you are dealing with a gamma of the second persuasion. Even if he claims to be using it in irony.

The first part of what Scalzi is saying here is partially true. The natural has no need to think about what he does, because socio-sexually dominant behavior comes to him naturally. However, the assertion is also partially false. Because human beings are very successful mimics and are capable of intelligently modifying their behavior, the synthetic alpha male is not only possible, but his very existence is based upon his having spent a good deal of time and effort thinking about how to go from his original delta or beta status to alpha rank.

Just to kick himself while he's down, @scalzi writes: "I'm not going to lie to you. If I was ever going to write a movie, I'd write a romantic comedy."

Ye cats.... If you want an example of how to lower your socio-sexual rank and underkick your coverage, it would be hard to do better than to follow Scalzi's advice concerning women. As his "creeper" posts show, he simply doesn't understand that being made to feel unsafe and uncomfortable is a primary sexual attractant for women. At least five of Roissy's 16 commandments touch on this in some regard. But perhaps we shouldn't judge him too harshly here, as the reason for his poor grasp of intersexual relations and his observable preference for the feminine over the masculine is not exactly hard to locate.

"Creepiness" is simply a lower rank male instilling sexual discomfort in a woman who considers him beneath her range of acceptable sexual market values. Her negative reaction to his creepiness is primarily an expression of her horror that such a man apparently considers her rank so low as to be potentially within his reach.

Renaissance Game

I compare her [Fortune] to one of those raging rivers, which when in flood overflows the plains, sweeping away trees and buildings, bearing away the soil from place to place; everything flies before it, all yield to its violence, without being able in any way to withstand it; and yet, though its nature be such, it does not follow therefore that men, when the weather becomes fair, shall not make provision, both with defences and barriers, in such a manner that, rising again, the waters may pass away by canal, and their force be neither so unrestrained nor so dangerous. So it happens with fortune, who shows her power where valour has not prepared to resist her, and thither she turns her forces where she knows that barriers and defences have not been raised to constrain her....

I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."

- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

It is perhaps worth noting that one of the men who influenced Machiavelli's classic work, Cesare Borgia, was famously successful with women and is known to have fathered at least 11 illegitimate children. And it will not escape the Game-savvy reader's attention that this is essentially Roissy's Thirteenth Commandment: Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little.

Study and the single standard

Susan Walsh cites a new study purporting to support the evolution of a single sexual standard:

The irony, of course, is that feminists seek the eradication of the sexual double standard to create a culture where there is no standard, no judgment, no shame for either men or women who engage in casual sex. Instead, we see an increasing move to a single standard of increased judgment for both sexes. Young people are becoming less tolerant of casual sex. According to Rachel Allison, co-author of the study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Department of Sociology:

"Men and women are increasingly judging each other on the same level playing field. But, gender equality and sexual liberation are not synonymous. While we’ve come a long way in terms of gender equality, it seems that a large portion of both college men and women lose respect for individuals who they believe participate in too frequent casual sexual activity."

Color me dubious. Question: how can a study which doesn’t appear to include any historical data credibly claim that “views continue to shift” or that “the traditional double standard has weakened considerably”? Moreover, how credible are the polls when we’re asked to believe that “sorority women judged men the most harshly for hooking up”? Are sorority women also the least likely to hook up? This seems rather unlikely.

Furthermore, if sorority women hook up the most, while simultaneously claiming to judge men the most harshly for hooking up, this would appear to be strong evidence in support of the core Game principle which recommends ignoring what a woman says and paying attention to what she does.

A failure to grasp Game

Cane Caldo lays a false foundation, then attempts to build upon it in a guest post at Dalrock's:

1. Game isn’t what you think it is.

2. Game means more than you think it does.

3. Christians don’t need Game.

My short response: 1) Game certainly isn't what Cane thinks it is. 2) It most certainly does. 3) Yeah, they do. But there is no more reason to accept my naked assertions than his, so let's peruse his argument.

Game Isn’t What You Think It Is

When we remove the tautologies and self-references from the my definition (which I think is very fair, and in keeping with the spirit of Roissy’s more compact ones), all we are left with is the concept of hypergamy. Even that is severely crippled with the lack of evidence that is founded upon the now-very-unstable Game. What we really see is that women want what they want, and that they want more and better, and there seems to be no end to their appetite.

Cane goes awry from the very beginning by failing to understand that Roissy does not, and does not pretend to, represent Game in its entirety. He is its foremost advocate, but he does not claim that his perspective is definitive, let alone conclusive, and he is perfectly aware that there are aspects beyond the one upon which he focuses. Game is not a lifestyle or a philosophy, it is nothing more than an analytical tool, moreover, it is a tool that can be broadly applied to a broad spectrum of human behavior. Cane isn't looking deeply enough, he is too focused on the particulars of what Roissy is advising to understand what Roissy is doing.

A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them. In Roissy's case, this is usually limited to imitating men who successfully have casual sex with attractive women. The famous 16 Commandments are the commandments of Poon, after all, not Game. Cane is confusing the subset with the set. And by further reducing it to hypergamy, he has reduced the subset to a single variable.

Game Means More Than You Think It Does

It’s the most likely fate of the Christian man that follows Game. It’s not the only possible fate, and not the worst. You could get taken over by an agent. (This is what I suspect of Roissy.) Roissy knows the Matrix isn’t real–just as Neo, Morpheus, and Cypher do–but he is intent upon using the Matrix to get pleasure. You can find it here, here, and here. Above all, you can find it in the Sixteen Commandments of Poon. Game writers all work from the point of view that the sensory experience of steak and vagina is so good, that whatever you have to do to get it, you should. And whatever betrayal you have to commit to yourself or others is just effective Game. This is being in the real world, but taking the Blue Pill.

Cane contradicts his own previous point here. How can "the concept of hypergamy" lead a man, Christian or otherwise, inevitably to hedonism? This is simply incoherent. And to claim that what everyone understands as the red pill reality is really just taking the blue pill simply underlines Cane's basic confusion here. Not only has he built upon a false foundation, but he has built badly upon it.

Christians Don’t Need Game

This isn’t what Game says! It says that it’s natural for wives to be driven by their hypergamous biomechanics to be attracted to the available alpha in their proximity. If Game is true, then a man should NEVER marry. Game writers whole-heartedly agree with that sentiment. If you’re already married, you’re simply meat waiting to be processed by the Feminist machines.

No man can serve two masters. Serving women–that is, Feminism; that is, the Matrix–is what Game is all about. Understand her desires. Fulfill her desires. Reap pleasure from her desires. This is Feminism twisted back on itself. Game attempts to use the Matrix to get in Feminist pants. Christianity means to send Feminism to Hell.

Here Cane demonstrates that he understands the Biblical view of intersexual relations as poorly as he grasps Game. Both Christianity and Game recognize women as being dynamic and malleable. Both Christianity and Game teach a man that he has to be capable of exerting authority over a woman if he is to have successful relationship with her. Not only is Game not feminist in any way, but it is simply false to claim it is "to get in Feminist pants". Even if we limit the concept of Game to the particular PUA application, its primary use is to get into "non-Feminist" pants; there are very few men who are observably less interested in getting into "lantern-jawed, hairy-armed" Feminist pants than Roissy.

Finally, in response to Cane's last question, the reason Game cannot possibly be considered "a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts" is because manning up and marrying sluts is patently not behavior of a successful natural.

Why men hate jealousy plays

Susan Walsh has compiled a very good list of 25 politically incorrect advice points for young women seeking boyfriends and/or husbands. One of the more important ones that remarkably few women recognize is number five:

5. Have eyes for no one but him.

Actively discourage attention from other men. Avoid eye contact with other men. Ignore other men who stare at you or seek to engage you in conversation. Never, ever try to increase a guy’s interest by trying to make him jealous. Any success will be temporary, guaranteed.

She subsequently explains why women don't understand this rule: "This is a case of pure projection due to cluelessness about how guys think. Jealousy is not fun, but it gets women more invested and revved up for female intrasexual competition. I was really surprised when I first read how much men hate that feeling. But every guy here has agreed with you."

The reason men hate seeing their women attempt to make them jealous and tend to be intolerant is fairly simple. Whereas women have nothing at risk except the relationship itself and therefore tend to find jealousy to be slightly titillating - other women want my man, so he must have value! - men know they are being put at risk of physical violence and harsh legal consequences.

Intentionally seeking to to make a man jealous is simply the lesser form of "let's you and him fight". Even if the woman is too innocent or insufficiently cognizant of cause-and-effect to realize what she is doing, the man usually understands, at least on some level, that he is being involuntarily placed into a position where he is potentially at physical risk. Most men do not look at all favorably on this sort of thing, especially if they are not violent men who get an adrenaline rush from feeling blood on their hands.

While there are certainly jealous men who habitually place themselves in such situations without any help from women, they are not the norm and such men will tend to direct their violence at the woman even more readily than at other men. This is, of course, attractive to some women, which is why many "abused" women can only be pulled away from their "abusers" by police equipped with a team of draft horses. These women find the intensity of the emotions and the sex is worth the occasional bloody nose or black eye; however these women also happen to be a distinct minority.

Consider the difference in consequences from the different sexual perspectives. If a woman sees an attractive potential rival homing in on her man, her first thought is that she has to try harder. So she will go and do things that she enjoys to at least some extent in order to look hotter and be better in bed. Whereas if a man sees an attractive potential rival homing in on his woman, his first thought is that he will have to fight the guy. If he loses, he'll be physically beaten, and if he wins, he might end up going to jail and getting sued.

Who can blame him if he looks at the woman, who actually has no intention of leaving him but only wants to pique his interest, and decides he's much better off finding someone who is less willing to put him and his economic status at risk for momentary entertainment at best and sexual disloyalty at worst?

So what should a man do if his wife or girlfriend is overtly attempting to make him jealous? Due to the fact that most women don't understand the different consequences to the different sexes, an explanation of them is in order. If she knocks it off, well and good. A warning should follow any repetition of the behavior, and if she still persists in doing it, in the full knowledge of how she is putting you at risk, it's time to move on. And no matter how tempting you find the thought, at no point should her behavior be rewarded by letting her see you beat up or otherwise confront the other man, as that simply creates a positive incentive for her to continue it.

A man has a responsibility to defend his woman from the attacks of others, but he has absolutely no responsibility to defend her from herself.

Game and the Decline of the Church

Dalrock has an excellent post on the way a complicit male leadership has facilitated the transformation of Christianity into feminist Churchianity:

I’ll start with an admittedly contentious question, whether Christian women should cover their heads in church. Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seem to leave at least some room for interpretation. However, what is most telling isn’t just where one lands on this question but the reasoning used to arrive there. Consider for example the exegesis on the topic by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace at Bible.org: What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today? Dr. Wallace lays out the case for several different readings. He tells us that he originally held the view that the passage means real head covering and is applicable today (emphasis mine):

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it.

Later in the article he explains his new view that only a meaningful symbol of submissiveness is required today, although he isn’t able to suggest what might function as that symbol (emphasis mine):

Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women–even biblically submissive wives–resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

His argument is that head covering was intended as a gesture of submissiveness, and isn’t needed so long as the woman is in fact submissive. Yet at the same time he declares that actually being submissive would be humiliating to modern Christian women in our feminist world. There needs to be a meaningful symbol of submission, so long as it doesn’t actually symbolize submission. This is rationalization at its finest, and it also shows that when feminism and the Bible collide Christians very strongly tend to choose feminism while conjuring up a suitable excuse for disregarding the parts of the Bible they are ashamed of.

Now, I have to admit that I've never given any thought to the whole head-covering thing, but I have come to the point where I simply refuse to attend any church in which women are permitted to teach. Not so much due to the Apostle Paul or because Christian women never have anything appropriate or interesting to say - although the percentage of female "pastors" who do nothing but talk about themselves does tend to run a little high - but because I have observed that a woman in the pulpit is a reliable indicator that the church's true allegiance is to the societal norms of Churchianity rather than Jesus Christ.

It must always be remembered that the female rebellion against nature, order, and God is natural and intrinsic to the sex. The only thing new about feminism and equality is that for the first time in history, a number of men bought into it and permitted it. This will be corrected, of course, by the same mechanism that all imbalances in a fallen world are eventually corrected, by disease and war. The tragedy is that it was absolutely unnecessary, the irony is that a celibate monk like Thomas Aquinas understood the core concepts of Game better than the average man today.

I'm neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.