|"You're Doing it All Wrong!" "No, Game!" "No, MRA!" "No, MHRA!" "No, MGTOW!"|
Contrary to popular belief, the "men's movement" on teh Interwebz has always taken the form of a particular shape...and that shape is a circle.
Are we all set yet? Ready...aim....FIRE!
The following comes from a post written on an old MGTOW forum by Zenpriest. After re-reading the post Retrenched referenced in my comments, I had myself a nice little Lima Oscar Lima moment.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The following is a paraphrasing and edited re-post with current linkage to apply Why There Never Has Been Any Coherent "Men's Movement" and Why There Never Will Be to the current debate on Game and Christianity going on in the Christianity-concerned sector of the MAndrosphere.
And, once again, here is why there never has been any coherent "men's movement" and never will be. Women who detest everything about another woman will still stand with her as a woman against all men, while men will argue each other to death over such weighty issues as Vox vs.Chesterson or Cane Caldo is not Chesterton.
Men, in general, seem so obsessed with dividing the world into "us" and "them" that the inevitable end point of the process seems to boil down to "me" and "them".
There are far more than just two types of motivations for a man to unplug and decide to go his own way. And, there is no "the" division among the MAndrosphere on teh Interwebz - there are thousands of divisions, even though we only have a little over 100 members.
PUAMRAMGTOWMHRAWHATEVS is not any sort of "movement", or at least no sort of mass or unified movement - just like the so-called "marriage strike" is no sort of strike at all, but the visible result of millions of men turning off to the idea of marriage, and becoming so disgusted with all the secular women who have the EMF (Entitlement Materialist Feminist) mentality, and for other Men struggling with adhering to Biblical Christianity, they too are becoming disgusted with the EAP (Evangelical American Princess) mentality, that dealing with modern women is so unpleasant, that aversion to them is stronger than the normal biological drive and attraction.
That alone says a lot about the quality of women we have as our possible choices of mates.
"Understanding" does not equal getting down with someone in their self-pity pot and wallowing in it with them. If that is how they want to spend their time, they are welcome to do that, but the rest of us have better things to do with our time and our lives.
I think there is a third group which is far larger among MGTOW than either of those mentioned above - men who realized that the system was rigged against them and opted out of playing the rigged game.
I have a certain degree of empathy for divorced men who have been screwed over by the system, but it is limited. The signs have been out there in the culture for more than 30 years indicating where this is all headed.
Men who ignored those signs, or were too thick to realize what they meant, had the chance to avoid what ended up happening to them, but chose not to. I saw those signs and have avoided most of the negative consequences of dealing with EMF and EAP women, and don't see any reason why they couldn't have done the same.
Yes, I agree that the system has mightily fucked them over. What I do not understand is why so many of them continue to support and defend the very system which did fuck them over.
I view the whole marriage/fatherhood and even dating issue much like I view the de-criminalization of marijuana. Marriage and fatherhood have been criminalized, and those who go ahead and choose to do it are doing it at their own risk. A lot of people take the same approach to smoking pot - they do it, and hope that they are one of the ones who get away with it without getting caught.
Of course, for men seeking to follow the path of Christ, they are commanded to "smoke the pot" if they burn. This makes complete sense, because authentic, Biblical Masculinity and Patriarchal Marriage have also been criminalized.
So there does exist a group of both Christian and secular men of whom the legal deterrent is significant enough to encourage them to refrain. Particularly when past experience with the criminalized activity has convinced us that it is marginally worth continuing even without the legal risk.
Now, there are a lot of issues on which I disagree with [insert any MAndrosphere blogger or commenter here]. But none of them are significant enough to be worth putting energy into creating conflict about and risking polarization because there is a far greater number of issues on which we are in total agreement. Since those are major issues for men, it makes more sense to spend time and energy looking for ways to cooperate and strengthen each other's efforts, instead of wasting a lot of time and energy, and creating animosity, by trying to prove to each other that we are right and he is wrong.
As Zed aka Zenpriest pointed this out way back when, I too echo the sentiment. We live in interesting times, and men need to lower their guns, step out of the circle, and get busy doing what they need to do to get what they want out of this life. (While filed that link under "Eye of the Mind" that particular story "so shut up and shovel the fuckin' gravel." was written by Zed.)
So Free Northerner asked the Christian denouncers of Game for an alternative. In my view, much of what these guys are preaching, is discussing the same things, just using a different terminology to get away from the advocacy of sinful fornication, promiscuity and adultery the PUA advocate when discussing Game.
There are a number of us that see no inherent conflict or evil in studying this thing called Game..but there are a number who do.
I say, have at it Gentlemen. You think those of us that tell men they can learn something useful from studying Game are headed in the wrong direction? Fine. Instead of jumping into the circle and pulling out your guns and getting ready to shoot us, I say, GO YOUR OWN WAY. If what those of us who advocate the study of Game are wrong, then the rightness of your argument will win out.
Go and build your foundation and see what may come of it. In the big picture, I agree with most of you, more than I disagree. In my view, the disagreement rests on semantics and everyone trying to define "Game." Some of us see it as a toolbox...one that has zero relevance to adhering to God's laws and morality. I agree with the assessment from the blog Masculine by Design, in which he states - Game is Not a Four Letter Word.
Game has dark roots by Christian standards. It started out as guys on the Internet trading ideas about how to get laid. In particular, how to walk up to woman a you had never met before, and have her in bed before the night was out. Not using force or money, but by convincing her that it would be a fantastic idea to sleep with you—right now. And, it worked.Game is not a religion, and Roissy is not its prophet. I believe it is a Praxeology, and studying it's axiomatic truths can help many of awaken to the truth. I can only shake my head in disagreement because I KNOW what studying and applying it to my own life has done for me. In the same way all the denouncers of the Paleo Diet never ever gain traction with me, because I've done it, and the differences in my health and well being are more than enough confirmation for me to discern who's got it right, and who's got it wrong. I know what path I'm on. I know where I am going, and I know where I am from.
Then something unexpected happened. Men at the other end of the social spectrum—shy, socially inept men—started to ask how they could simply talk to a woman without her publicly emasculating them by proclaiming “YOU think you're good enough for ME!” And, lo and behold, game worked for them also. Dating, marriage, children, a family—a normal life—suddenly became a real possibility for these men.
Not despicable at all.
Game is amoral; game is concerned about reality, and men were desperate for answers about why the world worked as it did. So, they extended game into other areas of their lives—marriage, work, school, the legal system, politics, church, and economics—in an attempt to see if they could answer why these things were as they were in modern culture. Game developed a profile of men, woman, and American culture. The profile is unflattering (to say the least), and has led some to call game anti-women (and ironically others to declare it anti-men). But game isn't anti or pro anything or anyone, it's about what works. Pragmatic to its core, if something worked it became part of the profile; if it didn't it was discarded.
When it comes to men getting together and discussing the way of the world, many of us will agree, and many of us will disagree.
This will always be so. Time to accept it and move on.