In “Chateau Bullshit” Paul Elam of A Voice for Men jams a crowbar into the fault line that has always existed between MRAs and practitioners of Game – aiming his quiver at the centerpiece of the Game-MRA nexus.
There are many things wrong with Elam’s article. It tilts at windmills, it mischaracterizes, it generalizes, it oversimplifies, it shames, and it preaches. By gunning for Roissy, it unqualifiedly lumps those who discuss Game into the corny PUA camp. It creates a “with me or against me” dichotomy, and above all, it is defeatist – embracing a cop-out MGTOW tail-tuck strategy that deals with women by not dealing with them at all.
Boiled down, Elam’s argument is that Gamers wrongly assess their own value through women’s reactions to them. But Elam’s only concrete criticism is leveled through the weight of his own voice. He never shows us why a man gaining value through varied means is necessarily a bad thing. Mens’ value-assessments are gleaned through all sorts of filters. Women, jobs, wealth, peer-esteem – men value themselves through status hierarchies. Elam’s criticism focuses on women and becomes “Because I said so” – an argument that has never held water in any forum. And he levels this criticism all while trying to come off as a proponent for men’s “self-improvement”. But in my time reading AVfM or any other MRA outpost, I can’t say that “self-improvement” has been a focal point. Moreso anti-feminism and other forms of activism. So it strikes me as odd that Elam would now venture to discuss the proper allocation of value-adding endeavors.
What Elam misunderstands about Game is that it is a process of growth which lays the groundwork for further development and helps a man transition from overvaluing one single woman. Game leverages “other fish in the sea” in order teach men greater perspective. Essential to humankind, men and women will interact – men might as well learn how to gain better terms. In this sense, Game is the only game in town. MRA has nothing at all to teach men about performing essential endeavor. The movement accepts the terms and instead of trying to improve them, throws up their collective hands and runs from the problem.
Most men don’t forego pursuing women on the off chance that they’ll get screwed over just as people don’t forgo driving on the highway on the off chance that a semi runs them off the road. Men learn how to interact with women, and folks learn to use their side mirrors.
MRAs/MGTOWs, in order to steel their nerves against wanting to stick their toe back in the water, have to develop all sorts of rationalizations – a sort of protective armor – for why interacting with women is detrimental to the soul.
Elam starts with a parody of Game wisdom:
O.K., so you want to get laid? Here’s how you do it. Smell clean, get in the proximity of women, and then ignore them. When they come to fuck you, and they will, shut up and let it happen.
Being a hobby of varied focus, we can compare Elam’s characterization of Game to golf. Would Elam suggest that being good at golf only requires “washing your balls, getting near a golf course, and then swinging various types of golf clubs”? Not bloody likely.
Elam begins by characterizing Game a certain way in order to do heavy work on an emaciated sparring partner. He assumes that picking up women is an inherently easy endeavor which allows him to question why anyone would need to discuss something that is so simple. The discussion of this simple task shows the monomania behind it. All of which, sorry to say, begs the question. What does the track record for MRAs look like in this regard?
Foregone Questions
Elam tries to detract from larger questions that should have been asked up front. How do we determine ends versus means? Debate rages over which category women and sex fall into. At what point is the pursuit of a certain end too much? When is a person misguided in seeking value through certain means? At what point would a guy like Paul Elam write an article suggesting that too much time is spent at a career or on fantasy football or on writing a blog? Imagine AVfM’s response to a man-shaming polemic of unknown color-code from Jessica Valenti taking men to task for their various pursuits. Any feminist-scrawled porn critique rallies MRAs from all corners. Why the double-standard? These boundaries need to be defined before a meaningful discussion can take place. To continue without terms is to traverse through a mine field.
At the heart of this, Elam disdains Game because it requires women. With that attitude he paints himself as the male analogue to those women who argue about men and fish and bicycles. Elam thinks that men are misguided in gaining any sort of value through women, but if he grants men who gain value or satisfaction through other means or focus on other ends, he can in no way single out value-bestowing vaginas.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against the high profile PUA’s and Gamers. I also have a healthy respect for people who can sell designer lint removers when a patch of masking tape and some common sense will work just as well. But it has to be said, must be said, that both of these kinds of sales people are targeting a similar demographic; ignorant, gullible customers. And I have to admit, making a living at that could be called an art, and probably should.
This is what Elam’s article gets down to: the products that some men choose are not the products that he himself would choose. He is basically writing a Consumer Reports article about Game. But Elam’s silly analogy does require a silly response. First, I own a furry cat; I’ll take a high-fallutin’ lint remover over a role of tape any day. Second, Elam sets up a false dichotomy. Being an anti-feminist himself, Elam should recognize that many men aren’t even equipped with that primitive roll of tape that he posits. The concept of a fancy lint remover doesn’t even enter the picture. This is China. If tape is involved, it has been used to tie men’s hands behind their back – forcing them to de-lint some other way.
Enter Game. Game provides men the tools to participate in this endeavor that men are programmed to want to succeed at. This is even more essential to us than a low golf handicap. Game is an open-source codified system of seduction – a guideline to improve men’s social lives, something that Gamesters have used their big boy brains to decide to pursue.
Then Elam’s elitism:
Not much to work with, is it? And I am not really suggesting that anyone try. The men that end up here after being introduced to the Manosphere via PUA and Game sites don’t need to be fished out of the cesspool. They tend to walk out of it on their own, as would anyone who would not be Gamed by Gamers forever.
For me, there is nothing more elitist and grating than older men arguing that younger men should hold the same set of values and goals as older men. Younger men have different life circumstances, experiences, and prospects. We have a different balance of hormones running through our bodies. How ridiculous it is for an older man – Elam is in his mid 50s – to preach to men younger than himself about what they should or shouldn’t do with their time and their bodies. But the pursuit of women often does lose its luster. At such a point – which can hardly be foisted on someone – men will develop other interests. But such a migration has nothing to do with Game being a swamp and MRA being noble. These particular men make these particular journeys at particular points in their lives. Best to let them find their own path.
The Value of MRA
I’ve often asked myself, which has been a more valuable to me, MRA or Game?
MRA has opened my eyes to certain political realities that I’d never considered. It has taught me to keep a skeptical eye on the legal and penal system which undervalues men vis a vis women. It has taught me that gross injustice will go unaddressed as long as the victims are men. But while MRA has heightened my awareness of processes and pitfalls, it hasn’t improved me as a person.
On the other hand, Game has had a more personal and profound impact on my life. Game – developing a better internal valuation system and learning about what causes women to act and merely knowing that there is a proper way to handle this very important aspect of life – has freed up a vast reservoir of psychical energy for me. MRA is more of an academic endeavor, but Game is real. By my guess, more men are better-served by Game in facing the treacherous journey that many are ill-equipped to make on their own.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Paul is an older man who probably isn’t very interested in women anymore. This would be like me telling a 16 year old girl that she should just ignore boys and focus on more important things in life.
[GLP: Pretty much.]
Yeah, I think Elam has forgotten what it’s like to be 25….
….also, amongst 40 yo women, it is enough to be clean, not fat, and not hideously unattractive…so the relevance of game is without a doubt contingent upon a fellow’s target demographic.
Game gets results, Men’s Rights Activism does not. So which of the two is bullshit, again?
Beyond what Ryu said, the MRA side has more than a few voices who denigrate men who date or marry. As such, I’m not sure what the battle is about. If all the wimmenz is evil and society is doomed, why not just set up Galt’s Gulch and be done with it.
Roissy is way more fun to read than Paul Elam therefore he is probably the more influential one.
This is why I turned off A Voice for Men. I honestly feel they – Elam and Hembling, aka Dexter – have lost it. They’ve even arranged a Men’s Summit next year in Colorado, a meeting of disparate MRA’s. Guys like this, Bernie Chapin included, make valid points, but sometimes one needs to let things go.
Scratch an MRA and below the surface you will find a common man, an ordinary guy, whose wife left him. I can understand the anger, but still, one must move on with their life. To devote the entirety of one’s life to raging at women seems stupid.
So who is Paul Elam? Elam has a BA in Psychology and worked with marginalized people throughout his career, mostly men on drugs or alcohol. Psychology, just like in any career, has a chain of command, and those with only bachelor’s degrees are on the bottom and stay on the bottom. Elam could have done anything had he pursued graduate work or even post graduate work. He made a life choice.
Chapin had land in Michigan, close to 100 acres, and then one year the property taxes shot up through the roof, and he had to sell at a loss. So that makes him bitter, so bitter that it looks like he will airing youtube videos from his condo for the rest of his life. He also had a marriage that shit the bed.
John Hembling, aka Manuel Dexter is a software engineer from Vancouver who has never married, but who hates women nonetheless. I just feel it is unproductive to spend one’s life writing about how much they hate women. If you want a good MRA site, I suggest the Spearhead. Welmer seems like a guy with a grip on reality.
[GLP: "Tim", you are from Vancouver and you previously used John Hembling's name as a handle. Do you care to connect the dots for us? Anyway, I don't know if that is true about Bernard Chapin. I read "Women: Theory and Practice" and didn't see where he mentioned having been married. And I don't think that any supposed land deal gone wrong would necessarily make him an MRA. He is conservative and has naturally been drawn to men's rights and anti-feminism. Nothing more. As for Elam, I think that he's just become heavily invested in AVfM and MRA. Once you become heavily entrenched in something you become more extreme in your rhetoric. Same is true for some PUA/Gamers.]
Used to read The Spearhead and Paul went on one of his crap-on-you-people for us belittling his protege Izzey. He really is a my way or the highway kind of guy. Whatever he actually does that helps men, he can just go bugger himself over his ego.
I believe Game and MGTOW are a good one two punch at women. Sluts, you’ve been pumped and dumped by the Gamers. Now you are on your own when you go looking for a Beta chump to support you. Make better choices and be a better person if you do get another life.
As a divorced man in my mid 50′s, who kicked his live-in girlfriend out at the beginning of the year, I see myself more as a MGMOW. Yet I’m still a man and if I want to get some I wll remember what I have read of game and show up clean and well dressed.
“Essential to humankind, men and women will interact – men might as well learn how to gain better terms. …The movement accepts the terms and instead of trying to improve them, throws up their collective hands and runs from the problem. “
Obviously Men and Women will interact. But it’s not about that. It is about the chase. Game teaches men to constantly chase after hot women and value himself based on how many numbers he gets. At the same time, Game teaches that women are simple little creatures (which they are).
Thus, Game teaches men to base their value on the opinion of a simple little creature.
MGTOW is not about collectively throwing up your hands. It’s about not chasing women, which is notessential for ALL men. If a hot woman with the personality of a rock decides to ask me out on a date, then PUA’s say that I have NO CHOICE. I MUST say “yes” or else I’m a beta that is running away.
All of this reminds me of the argument that housewives have with feminists. Housewives are happy cooking and cleaning for their husbands, meanwhile Feminists hate the fact that there are women out there that make that choice.
“Most men don’t forego pursuing women on the off chance that they’ll get screwed over just as people don’t forgo driving on the highway on the off chance that a semi runs them off the road. Men learn how to interact with women, and folks learn to use their side mirrors.”
If 99% of trucks are driven by blind women, then yes, I will not drive on the highway. Oh but wait, “not all women are like that;” therefore I must spend my time chasing after pussy according to PUAs.
Ultimately, I’m happy that PUAs are happy. I’m happy that MGTOWs are happy. Neither side should be saying “you need to live your life this way”. But let’s be honest, PUAs are waaaay more guilty of trying to convince men that they are miserable and should live their life a certain way.
[GLP: I really don't get that vibe at all. As someone who has waffled between the two camps, I see Gamers as less moralizing about their lifestyle choices. It is MRAs who tend to break out the shaming language and try to tell other men how to live their lives. Go to any MRA site and feel the vibe there. It's usually negative, condescending, hateful. It is much more of a swinging dick contest than a Game site which we'd expect to be more about swinging dicks. Game sites, while competition is a key component of Game, seems more communal. I think that men there really are interested in the improvement of their bretheren. I really don't see that much at MRA sites where the objective is to rail against women and feminism and manginas.]
Wow, that was a quick shitstorm.
I never got the “Game teaches men to value pussy above all else”. Game just says “if you want to get laid, do X”. Whatever a man does it or not is his own business.
And there’s absolutely no way around the fact that the readers of MRA blogs are likely 10+ years older than readers of Game blogs. Which seems to be the core of this mess.
I, for one, do NOT look forward to read Alexnovy’s ALL CAPS CRUSADE on denouncing all Game as bad everywere.
[GLP: Yes, I will likely be gunning for Alexnovy in the future. As for this notion that "Game teaches men to value pussy above all else"; I can understand why MRAs would observe and report on that. But shit, what hobby or activity doesn't create a certain % of highly devoted advocates? Elam is railing against a caricature of Game. Another aspect of this: Elam singles out Roissy. But what is Roissy? Roissy is a guy who writes a blog about the one subject that he and a lot of other men have a shared interest in. Roissy doesn't write about his nieces and nephews or his job because nobody cares about that knowledge that he has. But the point is that Game is largely a part of some mens' internet persona. Is what we see on the internet a complete picture of what that particular man values in life? No. But Elam seems to think that some guy talking about getting pussy online implies that this is all the man thinks about in his non-virtual life. So there's that. Game can be something that men put way too much focus on, but it can also be something that men use to better themselves. It helps them add perspective to pussy. It's sort of like a person who is starving for food. They don't have to eat all the time, but it is reassuring for them to know that they can access food if they need it.]
Paul Elam is against men being subservient to white women, preferring them to be subservient to homosexuals and minorities as best I can tell.
The mistake people like Frost make in criticizing the MRM is that they think it is reactionary, in that it wants to repeal feminism. It’s not reactionary, as it wants to realize feminism.
The whole crux of the disregard to MGTOW and the clique of traitorous Boomers that got gutted by their whore wives that Elam caters to is that we aren’t atomized enough yet, and any forming of social bonds with anyone, least of all women is bad and should not be done.
We should all ‘Go Our Own Way’, except for homosexual men, minorities, et cetera, who are welcome to keep lobbying for collective spoils and building communities and creating group identity. Just not the overwhelming target of the MRMs audience. Young white men. “Go Your Own Way”. Alone. In the dark. Trust no one. Don’t breed.
Can’t help but notice the xenophilia once again with all of these older men wanting to ‘mentor’ swarthy young bucks on the best ways to get through all those cold, lonely nights without a woman for the rest of his life.
Game isn’t just useful for getting laid, it’s also useful in relationships. Roissy once tweeted something to the effect, “What if we renamed game as charisma?” That about sums it up, but it excludes other applications. I realize it’s a fluid definition depending on who is talking about it, but I think of it as being akin to dynamic leadership. As such, I’m not sure why MRAs can be so hostile to it as it is a tool that allows men to better control their lives.
And there’s absolutely no way around the fact that the readers of MRA blogs are likely 10+ years older than readers of Game blogs. Which seems to be the core of this mess.
—————————–
Yeah…this is hugely relevant. Generational matters matter.
I went to high school in a fairly conservative (ie, cracker baptist) town in the early 80′s and to college in a slightly larger but no less cracker baptist town. I think we were simply less conditioned by feminist nonsense and hence ‘Game’ was simply less necessary. That is, anytime I interacted with a woman in my cohort my assumption…my default programming…was that she was on the make for a husband and I was a pretty good catch. Who needs game when you both know that she’d be lucky to land you?
Game, like MRActivism, is a response to feminism. A guy that has been programmed to think that men and women are equal must be reprogrammed to understand that women’s attraction is very different from men’s. Game, accordingly, isn’t nearly as relevant to a guy that never had that malware in the first place.
Moreover, I suspect a lot of guys, or at least a greater percentage of guys, 40+ had better examples to follow. My dad and grandad….all the men in my family come to think of it…are relentless teasers of women and there was never any question who was the boss. My grandad especially was a classic patriarch, and my grandmother loved him madly for 50+ years.
So…generations matter. Older generations grew up watching women love patriarchs even after said patriarch was put in the grave, younger generations are growing up hearing women say that patriarchs are the evilest things ever. Makes a bit of a difference I suppose.
Some conservatives object to Game similarly to how some liberals object to gun ownership: they imagine guns proliferating and creating more crime. They don’t understand that guns in the hands of responsible citizens deter crime.
Similarly, some conservatives, including the otherwise-astute Larry Auster, imagine Game as being a further debauching if society, with everyone becoming a douchebag PUA defining innocent maidens (hah!).
They can’t get it through their sclerotic heads that we live in a world of douchebags and scum outgunning responsible guys for girls, and that those responsible men need guns if their own, in other words, game.
As to Kyle’s comment: brilliant. Two things have always stunk with MRAs: no, not the anger and bitterness. Those feelings are a hopefully passing phase at taking the red pill. No, what reeks from MRAs is their apparent latent homosexuality and their race-reality denying, dogmatic xenophilia.
Smh-
“Obviously Men and Women will interact. But it’s not about that. It is about the chase. Game teaches men to constantly chase after hot women and value himself based on how many numbers he gets”
“If a hot woman with the personality of a rock decides to ask me out on a date, then PUA’s say that I have NO CHOICE. I MUST say “yes” or else I’m a beta that is running away.”
These are blatant straw man mischaracterizations. Game teaches you how to conduct yourself in order to be successful with women, should you choose to pursuit sex & relationships with them. You can use it to be a player or to make a monogamous relationship better.
Game also teaches you to have self worth and to value yourself independently from what anyone else tells you. Do you have evidence of any respected game writers telling men they are worthless if they don’t have a high notch count? Like G.L. Piggy said, it’s all about what you value, and if success with women is one of those values, Game opens the door to it much like studying up on how to become a better fisherman or a hunter or a woodworker etc helps you become better at that.
Furthermore, in no case have I ever seen anyone advocating you go out on a date with a dumb yet good looking girl or else you’re a beta. In fact, the idea with Game is that you are high value enough that you do have a choice as to who you go on a date with- you should not only turn down undesirable girls, but celebrate it because you are exercising options and an abundance mentality. You could choose to go on the date and pump and dump her, but nobody in these parts is saying you have to go on the date or you’re a beta.
I don’t think it’s latent homosexuality entirely. I think some latent homosexuality probably gets shielded from accusation by the general tone of the MRM, but it goes deeper than that.
I think a lot of these jilted men display the classic beta characteristic of ‘neediness’ that probably helped to drive their wives away in the first place. I commiserate with their bitterness, and that they are certainly entitled to the rage (the ones that have actually been through the meat grinder) but the personality profile of MRAs does seem very narrow.
Hence Ulysses above comment:
A lot of these men are insecure on some fundamental level. The idea that you have control over your own life to such a degree dilutes their message. It’s like the kind of absolute ‘freedom’ the leftists preach. The freedom to conform to a very narrow, puritanical, universalist set of beliefs and behaviors. The MRM wants you to control your own life. In the exact manner the prescribe you to do so and no other way.
They rail against men who determine their value by the reactions of women (which is a mischaracterization of the entire mindset, but that’s another comment altogether). So what metric should a man measure his value against? Presumably the approval of the MRAs themselves. Which is why seeking the affection of women, and finding pleasure in it so galling to them. You should be seeking and finding pleasure in their approval instead.
So in reality they are just pursuing a path that seeks to dilute the self-possession of potential converts and current ‘members’ of the ingroup. I can’t blame them, as this seems to be a basic ruling strategy. The ‘feminization’ of the untermensch, for lack of better terms, by their social betters in order to make them easier to rule.
Historic rulers traded in a social (and physical) coin to maintain their heirarchy that MRAs don’t have. That’s probably where the homoeroticism comes in. Traditionally a ruler (or party, or what have you) would give the young male population a little corner of influence to satisfy their various lusts as a basic payment for their continued loyalty. The MRM doesn’t have any such coin to trade in, and inappropriate seeming overtures and suggestions are made as a debased substitute.
That desire to have a more pliable, submissive audience extends to and probably deflects obvious examples of latent homosexuality. It’s just paternalism towards their audience. It’s probably instinctual for anyone that has a soapbox, but the MRMs aren’t smooth. Their beta qualities, those probably inborn insecurities, make the message seem that much more shrill and creates much more need for orthodoxy over non-existential issues.
Men’s Rights are important to men who have assets and children to protect. If the only thing all men had to ever worry about was getting laid 24/7 then MRA would seem like a total waste of time.
I also think it is a mistake to think that Game and MRA are mutually exclusive. The stronger the legal hand men have the more power they have. True, there are some King Rat like anarchists who thrive on utter chaos by increasing the number of vulnerable women but if your “game” is good enough you don’t need the other side to play with a handicap.
Expecting equality before the law in criminal, custody, divorce courts is not some beta revenge fantasy. I consider having reliable birth control options for men other than getting snipped or wearing a Hazmat suit to be de rigueur for any guy who has sex, married or single. Getting rid of affirmative action and a bloated Government which caters to the financial needs of women by sucking off of men is natural if you are not dependent upon the kindness of others.
Many of the opponents of MRA like to attack the SMV of those who advocate the same way they try to shoot down an unwanted sexual advance. I always consider it the sign of someone who has a weak hand not a winning one.
*correction. John Hembling doesn’t go by Manuel Dexter anymore. He’s gone back to his original name, John the Other.
Tim,
Tell us again why you were using John Hembling’s name as your handle?
“Game” spawns hatred just because of the label. If it was known as learned charisma, there would be fewer hangups about it. After all, we don’t say Don Draper has game, we simply without controversy say he has charm. While the idea of charm has been around for centuries, our difference here is purely linguistic.
Men have known about alpha and beta behavior for a long time. In literature, it shows up in Gulliver’s Travels, Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina — hell, the first canonical novel, Don Quixote, is literally a satire on betas who learn beta behavior from beta entertainment.
Our conversation is not new.
Pingback: Game Teaches Men to Fish « Gucci Little Piggy
John Hembling is John the Other’s real name. He has had several incarnations. In the very beginning he was John the Other and he had a Youtube Channel called, “John the Other”. I used to watch it because it seemed absurd (and still does) to watch a grown man, a man my age, venting his frustration with women to the whole world. Youtube can be seen by anyone, anywhere, so to expose oneself like that…to look directly into the camera and tell the entire globe that you are having a problem with women…I found it somewhat shocking. I was impressed and revolted at the same time. Impressed because it takes courage to tell the world how you feel about things that are mostly kept private. Revolted because it seems unseemly to watch a grown man narrate ten minute videos lucidly breaking down his inability to forge a healthy relationship with any woman over the course of his life. It’s pitiable, actually.
Anyway, he was outed. Somehow his co-workers found out about his Youtube videos and watched them. In one of his videos, he advocates that men who happen upon a rape scene, where a woman is getting raped, he advocates that men do nothing, simply act as if nothing is happening and walk away. So his co-workers must have watched that because he immediately shut his Youtube Channel down. (He made a brief video explaining the situation)
He then started writing alongside Paul Elam under the name “John the Other”. I think he wanted to go underground and escape his youtube past so he changed his name to “Neil Hansen”. Then he changed his name to “Manuel Dexter”. As of today, I just checked and see that he has reverted back to “John the Other”. No matter, I have been following him since his Youtube days.
I don’t doubt there is a lot of truth to what he says. Women can be cruel, fickle, moody, etc etc. Still, I think he has gone too far. When I wear the John Hembling gravatar, I do so because it reminds me of what a radical looks like. A radical wears a hood and mask with eye goggles.
But he is from the same place you are from. What do you make of that?
Not much. Geography can be important, though. In this case I don’t think it means much. Elam once wrote about how much he dislikes Dr. Phil, yet they are both from Texas.
I don’t harbor any ill will toward Hembling or Elam et al. What they say is largely true. You should be wary of marriage. It can mean the loss of all your savings, even future earnings, including social security. The best advice I’ve ever read was from a comment on the Spearhead, where it was written that if a man wants to marry he should wait until he is 35 yrs old, and then when he reaches the age of 35, to add another seven years onto it.
In the end it comes down to forgiveness. There is no future in swearing off women, so the mrm can only go so far. At some point you have to forgive and forget. In the end nothing will come of the mrm. Hembling and Elam will be forgotten. It’s not a good way to spend one’s years. The Hembling gravatar reminds me of that fact.
Tim,
Vancouver is much, much smaller than Texas. That is a poor attempt. I’m seriously curious about this coincidence. This guy that you have followed for so long on YouTube and AVfM and whose name you co-opted is from the same place you’re from? A not huge city?
PA, this is a brilliant metaphor:
Similarly, some conservatives, including the otherwise-astute Larry Auster, imagine Game as being a further debauching if society, with everyone becoming a douchebag PUA defining innocent maidens (hah!).
They can’t get it through their sclerotic heads that we live in a world of douchebags and scum outgunning responsible guys for girls, and that those responsible men need guns if their own, in other words, game.
I’ve been reading game/mra for roughly 2 yrs now I think (at least since spearhead was created)…
I’ve stopped reading mra sites almost exclusively; there’s too much hate and vitriol poised at women and, to a lesser extent, the political legal and cultural system.
I’ve noticed I’m much happier now, in general and in direct interactions with women (and they me, since I no longer carry with me anti woman sentiment). No more doom and gloom, in any case.
Not that mra is worthless, as knowing the risks of marriage/divorce kids is something men should know… But reading these stories on the daily has a definite negative impact.
wp:
i have noticed the same about myself. i think that if you are going to become steeped in either camp, the one that is best for your mental health is Game. MRA still offers important insight, but it turns into that nail and hammer thing. i now watch TV with mere indifference rather than all-consuming hatred.
another thing is this: MRA is actually just secondary to Game. In this way, we can think of Game as being something that would make MRA moot. A lot of MRA wouldn’t be necessary if Game was properly applied.
I agree that it is odd for me to take another person’s real name and use it as their handle. Maybe I should go with another name, just out of common decency? Perhaps I will switch to Manuel Dexter.
However, our similar geographical situation doesn’t mean much. Sure, we are both white, we are the same age – but that doesn’t mean we think the same. I am from a french and Irish background, and so therefore catholic. There are plenty of white guys my age in Vancouver who are of British or Scandinavian heritage that I have little in common with. I like to work hard, but not so hard that I won’t live long. I drink one glass of red wine each night with supper, as well as eat a slice of garlic. Just because Hembling and I are from Vancouver doesn’t mean we are at all alike.
My thoughts are like wp’s. Hembling and Elam are doing valuable work. But if you get too involved, like Hembling or Keyster, for example, you risk falling in. Kind of like Hotel California: you can check out anytime but you can never leave. The main thing is to not let these mra sites get you down on life, that’s all.
“Tim”:
you’re being willfully obtuse. you keep saying that your similar geographic location doesn’t “mean” much. it means a lot if i’m looking at a guy who is using the name of another guy who just so happens to be from the same city – a not so large city, mind you. it means that we have a very big coincidence on our hands, and it means that i am skeptical of your motivations and your true identity.
Oh, I get it. Hmm. I can see your where you’re coming from. Since I can’t prove that I am not John Hembling, I will simply state that I am not. Additionally, if you read some of John Hembling’s, or “John the Other’s” posts over at A Voice For Men, you will probably conclude that he is not the kind of guy to randomly sockpuppet on someone’s website.
Vancouver has about 2.5 million people in the greater metro area.
Nonetheless, I can see your dilemma. There is no way to verify my identity. Well, here is a suggestion. If you do read any of John the Other’s posts, you will pick up a tone of voice, a tone which I don’t have. His is a style which stands out, and can’t be mistaken for another’s.
John Hembling is a software engineer. I know nothing of software engineering. He has tattoos and I do not. He hosts a radio program with Paul Elam, and I do not.
Actually, I’ve had people comment on the similarities of your writing styles.
And actually, there is a way for you to prove this. Picture time buddy. Now, you don’t have to do this, of course. But I will remain skeptical of you until I do have definitive proof.
Heh. Upping the ante. I admire your skillz. lulz.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know what John Hembling looks like?
Off topic: does anyone watch Alonya from ‘The Alonya Show’? Or Lauren Lyster from ‘Capital Report’?
These women are smokin. Russia Today is a great channel.
I still don’t know what MRA’s want to actually acheive beyond being angry at women.
Seriously, just pick one issue like mandatory paternity testing and stick with it. The personal vendetta bullshit poster against individual women is pointless.
the point is missed completely by both sides. game is useful for fucking. it is not going to help mitigate the situations we face in the west. your civilization is more important than game. a guy should use it a little to get laid early on in life and then get married and get out of it. this will help to maintain our civilization, which is more important than game, and it will also free up space for newcomers. there are just too many people fighting over the same nickel. do your dance, take a bow, and get off the stage.
remember: civilization is more important than you.
I disagree, but I take a more expansive view of game. Wives are inherently women and as women they respond positively to game. It’s not about tricks and routines, it’s about internalizing playful and strong leadership techniques.
But I also think game should be renamed. Perhaps classical masculinity is a more apt term.
“Tim”:
I don’t. I figure someone knows what he looks like though.
sure wish roissy would stand up and take definitive leadership over this gagglefuck of a manosphere.
but then he wouldnt be roissy if he did
Haha gagglefuck
I think if “Tim” wanted to conceal his identity as John Hembling he wouldn’t have made that his handle a while back. I’ve sock puppetted bloggers/commenters to mock their positions.
Kyle,
if “Tim” commented as John Hembling it could be because he thought about commenting under that name or just forgot to change his handle here. Not sure really. but “Tim” and John Hembling are from the same city. “Tim” knows a lot about John Hembling even though I had never even heard of the guy despite being around the Manosphere. And Tim for some reason chooses the handle of this man who lives in his city. All very strange.
Pingback: Paul Elam’s beef with Game | Generation Nihilism
Pingback: The Locus and the Locusts « Hidden Leaves
I think the point of the MRAs is that there are values higher than getting laid.
[GLP: Sure, but that begs us to question the nature of value as a concept. What is value in the first place and such. Perhaps they should start by addressing why people gain value through certain things. This is a very deep question that transcends mere shaming tactics.]
If getting laid means doing things that are not consistent with male self-respect, then is it worth it? Is getting laid worth becoming a contemptible human being?
[GLP: Contemptible to whom? What is "male self-respect"?]
Posed like that, the question becomes whether game is actually a set of behaviors that are characteristic of people with low self-respect. More, it is about the very concept of game – changing your behavior in ways that you dont necessarily approve of in order to fit in with what women desire you to be. Can such a thing ever be consistent with male self-respect?
Of course the argument is you do it to get laid, but so what? – the slave might argue that he becomes a slave in order to put food on his table. The bully might argue that he submits to the bully to avoid a beating.
[GLP: So we are all slaves to our desires. Is that your point? This involves a loose definition of slavery and essentially makes all of us slaves. I *do* have to eat and drink and maintain my sanity if I want to die in my old age, fat, happy, and full. You guys are the ultimate utopians, thinking that human nature is much more malleable than it is.]
Just because you do something in order to get something you want does not mean you are not acting contemptibly.
[GLP: Moral relativism.]
The point is, the guy who submits to the bully does so for an obvious reason, to avoid a beating – but he sacrifices his self-respect. The slave who submits to his master does so to eat – but he forfeits his self-respect. Entire nations have died rather than submit to slavery, because self-respect was seen as a supreme good.
That is a point that stands all on its own, but there is a second, deeper point as well.
CAN changing your behavior to fit in with what women want POSSIBLY be something that is attractive to women, since it obviously is a form of supplication and a lack of self-respect on the part of men?
[GLP: There is quite a bit of difference between changing behavior to get women in order just to please women and changing your behavior to get women for your own pleasure. But it doesn't really matter. If a man derives value from a woman then that is his deal. He can do that if he wants. I suppose you'd rather he derive value through other worldly pursuits. But what is the right mixture for him? How much MRA reading should he balance his Gaming with? How much classical music do you deign that he should listen to? You don't and cannot have the answers to these questions.]
And if it can be shown that women really DO like men who change their entire behavior to be liked by women, must we not then conclude that women do NOT like high status men or confident men, because the last thing a high status or confident man does is change his entire behavior in order to be liked by others?
[GLP: If you are born with a 90 IQ, don't read books. Don't study. Just work the job that you were fit to work. If you strive for something that people with higher IQ have then you are a slave to material wealth and knowledge. *Let men do what they want to do*.]
Would we not then have revealed a massive contradiction at the heart of game?
[GLP: You truly have not.]
Now, of course gamers say they change their behavior in the direction of being confident. However, this is palpably false. Confidence IS not giving a shit what women want. It is doing what YOU want. The moment you stand a certain way because women like it, you lack confidence. The moment you are aloof when you are feeling cheerful, you lack confidence. The moment you are mean when feeling kind, you lack confidence.
[GLP: Men have not learned the proper template to derive "proper" behavior from. Masculinity is devalued and demonized. Game helps teach them what they should have learned in the first place.]
What gamers do is change their behavior in order to SEEM confident, not BE confident. The problem with this is that this is a contradiction in terms. Confidence is doing what you like regardless of what others think. The key point is that there *congruence* between what YOU like and what you DO. What people look for when to see if someone is confident is this congruence, and nothing more. Thats why for some guy being aloof and cold is confident, while for another guy being charming and garrulous is confident. The behavior is not the point, the congruence IS.
So *faking* confidence seems to be a term with no meaning since confidence is DEFINED by not faking. A subtle point, but a crucial one.
One more point, GL – you say men seek esteem through hierarchies and various ways. What you fail to consider that seeking esteem through others responses – ANY others, work colleauges, women – might be something that is not consistent with self-respect.
The idea that one should seek esteem from inner sources, and not others, is something so strange and radical that you cant even seem to imagine it! You claim MRAs are merely inconsistent, because they allow seeking esteem through some others responses, just not womens responses. But it has never occurred to you to question that idea that it is legitimate to seek esteem through ANY source other than your own mind and own approval.
[GLP: Funny then that MRAs *only* pop up to talk about gaining value through inner means whenever value is derived through women and sex. Where are you when men place too much emphasis on their jobs or on gaining value through their blog networks? You pop up when you want to stick your eye in those men whose value is gained through women. Please explain to me why this is the case and why these men are not consistent in their criticism?]
THAT is what is masculine self-respect.
[GLP: Nothing I have read through MRA has increased my self-respect. Almost everything I have read through Game and Roissy has helped my self-respect. Only one testimony, but it seems to be the pattern among all men who've experienced both camps.]
Harry – But what if getting laid does create a positive feedback loop and increase self-respect? As to your congruence point, if you like pussy and you do things to get pussy, then it’s congruent. You assert that doing so requires the adoption of contemptible behaviors, but you don’t back up the assertion.
I agree with your final paragraph, but I think you too narrowly define what achievements can contribute to that state.
I have to concur with K(yle). One also wonders what the average straight man has in common with the ex-Satanist homosexual Jack Donovan on the Spearhead. Donovan once wrote a post on Alternative Right claiming that it was better for a man to commit suicide than ever share his feelings with others:
“But it truly is a grave error to discourage stoicism in men, simply because it forces some of them to shut down and eventually kill themselves. The alternative—a nation of weepy, hyper-sensitive, impotent men who share far too much—has much graver consequences.”
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/jack_donovan_manly_suicidal_faggot_to_the_right/
Ullysess, if getting laid created a positive feedback loop that increased self-respect, then your self-respect would be a result of others reactions to you. Get it? You would be at the mercy of others perceptions and reactions to you – in a sense, you would be their psychological slave.
And it is clearly not just the mere act of sex you are talking about (since I presume you dont think getting prostitutes would create that feedback loop?), but rather that you have managed to win the approval and desire of a woman.
Is self-respect something that comes from within or something that others can give you, through their reactions to you?
Self-respect CANNOT be generated through getting laid, or through anything else that requires the reactions of OTHERS. It must come from WITHIN.
Congruence means expressing what is inside you. It means not faking. If you like pussy, going after it is being congruent. But the MANNER in which you go after it might be a betrayal of congruence, for example if you decide to fake yourself. Get it?
The mere ACT of pursuing pussy can be congruent if you like pussy. But if you then FAKE yourself to get pussy then you are no longer being congruent, and you are no long BEING confident, because confidence is DEFINED by refusing to be fake.
As for my final paragraph, I would say the ONLY achievements that can help build self-respect are ones that YOU respect, and not ones designed to win the approval or affection of others. See the difference?
One more think, about the idea that game is the ability to get women so it is really a *power*, and thus empowering of men.
It is a power only in a sense that the slave has the *power* to avoid a beating by his master by *obeying* him.
Using game to get women means *obeying* women in the sense that you do what THEY want, not what YOU want.
Obviously, game means SURRENDERING power, not gaining it.
I can see the point in his article, but I am absolutely disgusted by the claims in his comments that Game is a placebo and that “a random confident guy would have the same success rate as PUAs”. Sure, there’s a lot of bullshit in game, but this is even greater bullshit.
Ergo, the good old “just be yourself” argument that never got anyone what he wanted.
Marmot – who starts be just *being themselves*?
By the time we reach adulthood, we are programmed to NOT *be ourselves*. We are programmed to do all sorts of things and compromise our personalities and values to be liked by others, including women.
So *just be yourself* has almost NEVER been tried by men before they turn to game. Its always just going from *supplicate through being super nice* to *supplicate through game*.
What has never been tried is precisely *just be yourself*.
Marmot,
What really is the crux of the issue is that Paul et al don’t want men to compete against each other. I venture to say that this is rooted in Marxist idealism. But I don’t want to go that far with it just yet.
Lol, right, whats the point of these debates, people just ignore points they dont wish to address.
Bottom line is, either self-respect is a value for you, or it is not. Either you have a desire to be a confident and autonomous male, or you dont.
Guys who have genuine back-bone stay away from game, but the thing you cant give someone a back bone by argument and persuasion. He has to WANT it.
For me, a guys acceptance of game is an index of just how *beta* he is, to use that absurd game term. Game is one giant failure to pass a shit test, lol. A persons willingness to adopt game is a measure of how little chance he has of ever developing into a confident human.
Its the old story – alphas are borne, and you cant argue people into it.
Cheers
Harry,
You’re basically arguing for some sort of Zen Buddhist transcendentalism as it pertains to women. Problem is, I don’t hear this same ideal touted as it pertains to anything else men might place value in. So why draw the line when it pertains to men placing value in women?
GL, transcendentalism means above this world, when I am talking about the sources of confidence being in YOU, not others. Nothing transcendentalist about that.
And you are perfectly correct, I DONT draw the line at women. I was clear about that. Its not just about women – men should draw their confidence from INSIDE, from their own values and personality, and not OTHERS, whether a woman, a boss, another male, a work colleague, a family member. OTHER people and their opinions of us are not legitimate sources of self-confidence, if we are not to be slaves to others.
@Harry
I thought about that argument, and frankly, it sounds like a bunch of bullshit to justify throwing your hands on the air and say “I just can’t control it”.
And it also sounds like the same broken record of “I can’t believe that guys that don’t fit MY idea of being a man are getting laid.”
PS: Game is an attempt to cash in on the chaos, to adapt to the current sexual marketplace. Of course that older guys won’t like it, but the pre-1960 world is DEAD. We have to deal with it.
gx, what are you controlling? A womans opinion of you. How? By conforming to her desire of what you wish to be rather than being what you wish to be.
Clearly, you are in control here. Uh-huh.
Harry, what should men try to control then? What should we actually spend our time doing?
*When a woman uses makeup she isn’t what she wishes to be.
*When a man uses his money to buy hookers he isn’t what he wishes to be.
*When a sport star gets laid because of his fame he isn’t what he wishes to be.
*When….oh, you get the point.
Harry – Do you not realize that your sense of self-worth is still derived from others? You simply derive it from your indifference to their opinions rather than from positive feedback.
Ulysess, where did I say I derive my self-respect from my indifference? Obviously, merely being indifferent to others opinion is not SUFFICIENT for self-respect. It is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition.
Clearly, if I fail to live up to MY standards, and fail to honor my personality by living out my ideals in the real world, I can still lack self-respect.
While self-respect can NEVER come from others opinions, that does not mean that ALL I have to to is be indifferent to others opinions to HAVE self-respect. I still have to live up to MY ideals.
GL, men should spend their time living our their ideals and values in the real world. In other words, we need to live up to OUR OWN ideals, not those of others. Lets say YOU value philosophy or literature, you should not hide that just to be liked by women (to use an example). Lets say YOU value kindness and enjoy being cheerful and social, you should not pretend to be cold and aloof to be liked by women. Conversely, lets say you DONT enjoy being social and outgoing, you should not pretend to be *charming* and outgoing in order to be liked.
In other words, pursue YOUR values, dont let women (or other men) supply your values for you.
We should also try and get those things that give us pleasure, without giving up our self-respect (the supreme source of pleasure). Sure, go get women – I do! But not by giving up who I am. I FIND those women who like what I value. Anything else would mean surrendering my self-respect. Sometimes I find myself in environments where clearly none of the women like what I represent. I promptly leave.
Not very much at all. AlternativeRight did/does host him as well. Perhaps a case of adversity makes for strange bedfellows in a marginalized “movement”.
It’s a shame really. He’s not wrong about a need for stoicism, but of course takes it to an absolutely absurd level which speaks to his lack of ‘normalcy’ in not knowing how off-putting the suggestion is.
This actually isn’t confidence at all. It’s at least mildly antisocial.
A perfect example are nerds, who rarely give a shit about what anyone thinks they should be doing, except possibly other nerds who they also cannot help but to rub the wrong way due to their defective, antisocial personalities. They have no confidence though.
Doing whatever you want contrary to anything else is a very odd definition of ‘confidence’. In fact I’ve heard it over and over again. This male “confidence” sounds exactly identical to female “empowerment”, which is again not about confidence at all but being deliberately antisocial and can be exercised right alongside an extreme lack of confidence.
K(yle) – ever hear the idea that your rights stop where others begin? Of course your right to do as you wish is valid so long as it does not trample on others rights. Thats why its not in the least anti-social.
Hardly what we are talking about when we talk about game.
Deliberately trampling on others rights can be an expression of insecurity, sure, because it shows that you are still defining yourself according to how others react to you (hurting or shocking them becomes important to you).
Not what I am talking about here. I am talking about pursuing your values without hurting others or needing a reaction from them.
THAT IS confidence, and not in the least bit anti-social.
Far from being anti-social, it is a gift to others, as others know exactly who we are and where they stand with us, since we dont fake ourselves. We become reliable.
I’m assuming Harry is K.
To start off with, there is no such thing as rights. You don’t address what I said at all. Nerds for the most part aren’t trying to deliberately shock anyone. They just don’t give a fuck to adhere to social norms. They adhere to a norm for their own nerdy subculture, of which there are thousands, but even there this is a lot of chafing due to this “confidence” they have.
I don’t really give a shit if you aren’t faking yourself. No one does. It’s better for everyone if you just kept yourself to yourself except where appropriate. This is ‘lying’ by omission of course and is being ‘fake’. I think it important that you bring attention to what sites you read on the Internet to everyone you know and everyone you will ever meet for the purposes of full disclosure. Make sure you cover the MRA thing with your professional associates and employers. Otherwise you are being fake.
I’d rather spend time with a charming yet duplicitous person than an abrasive prick that is “confident” enough to not consider what is going on around him or how he makes others feel with his actions. So would the vast majority of sane people. By no means do I actually expect you to confess your erotic dreams about your co-workers daughter for the sake of disclosure, as it might cost you your job. Of course not doing so is being fake, but it also for the best that you just keep that shit to yourself, and lying by omission. Just like it’s for the best that AFCs keep the minutia of their boring non-sexy lives to themselves when talking to women they want to…do anything with.
Personally, I’m confident enough to not believe that putting on airs at some social function to make others around me more comfortable is somehow compromising who I am as a person. I’m not so invested in projecting my “True Self” to the world that I find a constant need to do so. Histrionics and calling attention to ‘who you really are’ are other aspects of a personality disorder.
GLP has you nailed though. Where are you advocating this complete honesty line in men’s professional lives or anywhere else but with potential romantic interests?
I pretty much agree with your assessment. In terms of value–since I have no real use for game myself–I can say that both the MRA world and the game world increased my understanding of men and women and the dilemmas that modern men face. Roissy (etc.) is also really fun to read, whereas many MRAs are not–with some notable exceptions.
Like I said, avoiding causing pain to others through pointless impoliteness, say, is perfectly compatible with self-respect.
Let me try to put it to you this way. Refusing to hurt others in pursuit of your values puts people on the same level as you. Changing yourself to be liked by others puts them above you. Hurting people in pursuit of your values puts people below you. Self-respect merely demands you dont put people above you.
As for nerds, out of high school, they are not disliked. Lots of guys you think are nerds are liked and get lots of girls. And besides, having values and having a back bone means not giving a shit if you are liked or not as long as you are doing what YOU believe. Most of what is objectionable about nerds is that they are timid and weak – UNWILLING to assert themselves and be who they are. If they started trying to be liked, that would make them even weaker.
Aside from that you pretty much did not understand anything I said and your post is mostly about how much more pleasant fakers are to be around (which I emphatically deny, fakers generally come off as oily and ingratiating and irritating), but which is merely a side issue – funny how you latched onto that and made it the central issue. You simply cannot get past your obsession about how others see you. The main point, however, is not about whether fakers are more pleasant or not, but whether it is consistent with self-respect or not. Funny how you barely touched on that. You might want to consider that there are actually higher values than whether you are pleasant to other people? And yes, I made clear that it is not just about women, but in ALL social relations you should express who you are and not care what others think (aside from causing pain).
Good luck, Kyle, though, I doubt you have the capacity to grasp anything I say. You define yourself by how others see you. Self-respect and confidence are not concepts you are at a stage of development to apprehend. Good luck, though.
@K
That’s a really high horse from the guy that needs a sockpuppet to have discussions on the Internet.
Actions speak more than words.
Fully support GLP and his arguments. Sorry Harry you’re missing the boat.
Smh–
Nope. Game is the art of being good at getting hot girls for flings or relationships, when you want those things. Roissy himself has said many times that the best thing for him is to be falling mutually in love (while keeping a couple of other girls “in the kitty”, or relationship pipeline – and avoiding getting locked into exclusivity). At the same time he has said repeatedly that slightly altered versions of game can and should be used to keep a marriage or other LTR vital and full of her continuing attraction to her mate.
That’s total hogwash. That’s not what Roissy teaches at all.
But hey, if you want to be a self relegated (perhaps because you have little other choice) omega, go for it. Omegas are never gonna get a lot of societal respect though.
Harry–
Total rubbish. Your whole argument is a dog pile of sofistry.
Doug1, I dont think Sofia would like you using the name of her blog in connection with dog shit. Cut that shit out, dude. Show some respect.
Pingback: Elam vs Frost: Texas Death Match – Round 1 | A Voice for Men