Sunday, January 26, 2014

God, Game & The Shape of the "Men's Movement"

"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 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.


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.

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.

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.


Unknown said...

I think a lot of it can be summed up in what Samuel Johnson said: "Nature hath given women so much power the law wisely gives them little."

Imbalances in power. Everything else flows from that.

Justin said...

On which do you spend more time: convincing men to adopt Game, or convincing men to adopt Christ?

Are you attempting to guide men towards a prudent life of Biblical Manhood, or are you promoting Game?

You were more forthright in the old days, when you were all pro-Roissy, and rallied along with all the other immoral Gamers against us "socons".

But, you are the one posting pro-Christ messages lately. Hopefully Christ will kill that pathetic little hamster in your head that is telling you can compromise Him.

Anonymous said...

"...Roissy is not it's prophet."


No apostrophe.

Keoni Galt said...

@ Bob - excellent quote.

@ Justin -

On which do you spend more time: convincing men to adopt Game, or convincing men to adopt Christ?

Neither. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. The only thing I'm telling everyone to do, is GO YOUR OWN WAY. The things I blog about are the things I've observed, done and experienced. YMMV.

Are you attempting to guide men towards a prudent life of Biblical Manhood, or are you promoting Game?

The only thing I'm saying is: This is what worked for me. It may work for you. It may not. Figure it out for yourself.

You were more forthright in the old days, when you were all pro-Roissy, and rallied along with all the other immoral Gamers against us "socons".

I've always found your perspective interesting, but your vitriol tiring.

But, you are the one posting pro-Christ messages lately. Hopefully Christ will kill that pathetic little hamster in your head that is telling you can compromise Him.

Where's the compromise? I can chew gum and walk at the same time. I can read the Bible, pray to God and still think about other topics too.

Keoni Galt said...

- @ Anon,

Thanks again. I can always count on teh Interwebz for editing and proof reading. I'll give you a percentage of my profits I make here for your good work! :-)

Keoni Galt said...

But seriously Justin, thanks for dropping by and registering your dissent... made me realize that your excellent blog has somehow been taken off my blogroll. I don't recall when or how (probably when I had to rebuild my blogroll from scratch awhile back), but now I've added you back. Good to see you're still at it.

Anonymous said...

@Keoni Galt

Lead,follow or get of the way. The new barbarian is here to stay:


jonw said...

We do not adopt Christ- he adopts us (Romans 8:15)

I agree that we need to put aside our differences in sphere,but I doubt it will happen. I am more than ready to unite with the religious legalists against feminisms war on masculinity but they will once again more than likely miss the forest for the trees

Matt Forney said...

Arguing about the validity of game is so 2009.

Seriously. The issue was settled. The manosphere and the Flat Earth Society/anti-game types agreed to live and let live and ignore each other. The argument will never be won by either side, because both sides are too entrenched in their belief systems to arrive at any common understanding (notwithstanding trolls who are deliberately trying to poison the discourse).

Arguing about game with these prigs is the equivalent of sneaking onto the short bus so you can play 52-card pickup. You're just beating up on people who aren't bothering you, have no effect on your life and can't even defend themselves adequately.

Live and let live. Let the Flat Earthers have their myths. Don't read their blogs, don't acknowledge them. Go out there, get laid (or get married or whatever), enjoy your life.

Matt Forney said...

Another thing: given how the manosphere has entered popular consciousness, this "game debate" is made even more absurd. It's fairly obvious who came out on top from a popularity perspective:

Manosphere: Subject of ABC News smear piece, which was pulled due to backlash. I was denounced by the Washington Post a couple days ago (as was Roosh) and equated with murderous neo-Nazis. Return of Kings has had multiple articles go viral and been denounced by multiple celebrities. Roosh and I have had our sites DDoSed by white knight hacktivists, and in my case, I've had my phone number leaked online and been stalked by feminists in real life.

Anti-Game: *crickets*

If a homeless guy accuses me of being a member of the Illuminati, do I stop to argue with him? Or do I walk on by and ignore him, save for maybe a passing comment to my friends that night?

When you argue with "anti-game" people, you're doing the equivalent of arguing with schizophrenic bums. Do you think you're no better than a collective of losers who don't have a single substantive achievement to their names?

Eric said...


Spot on.

I'm MGTOW. The way I see it, our foci are different and we're not all in the same village, but we are on the same side of the border.

We have Positive Masculinity in common. We have a more-or-less shared understanding of the degraded state of American and/or Western society, especially regarding men. We have a common enemy. Our differences are minor compared to what brings us into the Manosphere, together.

Granted, MGTOW is introverted, which means I'm more about live and let live and less about arguing social and political oughts and ises these days. But I am socially and politically aware and don't see where progress in one part of the Manosphere sets back the rest of us. There's a bigger picture where we can build on each other's progress. Whether or not we ever ally in common cause, we certainly shouldn't be tearing each other down like crabs in a bucket.

Different T said...

This post read like a translation of the libertarians NAP into the intellectual.

Deep Strength said...

@ Keoni

Thanks for the link.

You are correct in that we agree on more than we disagree.

I would indeed agree that "game" is in some ways praxeological. I do not see anything wrong per se in the knowledge of game, rather in the implementation of many concepts especially with those without a firm foundation in Christ.

I'm sure you would agree with these two conclusions:

First, "This is precisely the reason why as Christians we should not espouse game as something that all Christians should know, at the very least until each one of those that we know has a firm foundation in Christ and seeks to please Him above all. It is only then that showing them knowledge of the [human nature of women] can be a learning experience without a temptation. You shouldn’t give a man the components to build a house without first ensuring that he has a rock solid foundation to build on."

And second,

1. It is good to know to learn about what to do and what not to do from the nature of intersex relationships from the Scriptures, godly mentors, prayer, fasting, meditation on the Word, etc.
2. It is good to know what not to do from knowledge of the nature of the flesh such as game.
3. But I would be very, very, very careful about what learning what to do from something inherently selfish like game.

For example, "game" teaches many things which fathers used to pass to their sons about what not to do: pedastalize women, think women think the same as men, think women will think logically in an argument or other emotionally charged situation, think the women wants to lead the relationship or be an equal, etc.

But you need to be very careful about what knowledge of what to do from game, because if you use something like "dread game" and you make your wife jealous enough to sin... do you want to stand before God and say that because she is mine and I want her to be more attracted to me it was OK to make her jealous that she sinned from it? That's not something I would want to stand before God and have to justify, but each man to his own.

Obviously, for many of the prominent Christian bloggers in the 'sphere who are well grounded in the Scriptures the knowledge of human nature that "game" provides will almost inevitably be a good thing if it takes off the blinders fed to them by Churchianity. But I am concerned because there are many who have fallen away from the faith because of game because of the nature of the temptation. It is something not focused on God, and without the foundation of God it's very easy to stray into the world because of it.

Markku said...

We're men, we fight. It's ok. That's what men do.

Unlike women, we can do it without having it become a neverending cycle of vendettas, where others are seen entirely in terms of black and white. We are able to cooperate with men, with whom we would viciously disagree with in some specific area.

For example, in the near future, I'll fight about Calvinism with Vox again, and I expect it to be vitriolic. But I don't expect to affect our business dealings in any way.

Anonymous said...

Baker & Forney:
As Fidelbogen is his epic lecture on this subject: "PUAs who wish to impose their cultural frame upon the entire pro-male world and to define their own relationship to the rest of that community accordingly. In short, they wish to dominate the pro-male world and remake it in the PUA image."

Thank for proving Fidelbogen right.

As the problem with Game, as Keoni correctly observed: "Game is not a religion and Roissy is not his prophet." But most Gamecocks seem to believe otherwise.

Voodoojock said...

I would argue that there doesn't need to be a collective "men's movement". I've maintained this from day 1, and stated that the ultimate victory for me will be the method described as "death by 1000 cuts".

Our movement isn't a movement, it's an insurgency. We're seeking to destabilize the central collective, the "cathedral", the bureaucracy, the strong central government machine that acts contrary to men's interests. We do this by being PUA's. We do this by being MGTOW's. We do this with a marriage strike. We do this by going off the grid.

The prevailing theory of herds is that there has to be a central leader organizing and coordinating. This is wrong. Mauboussin wrote in "More than you know" that markets might seem centrally coordinated when millions of actors act individually towards the same goal. Much like the termite mounds he described (whose singular goal was to remove the interloper), all agents acting individually towards an individual goal that is similar to the goal of other individual actors (in his book this was "profit") can achieve the same effect as a force centrally planned. I'd argue that the former is more efficient than the latter as well.

The tribes and sects in Afghanistan fight with each other as often as they fight the common enemy, be it Soviet or ISAF. They still have been able to hold a very large, centrally directed enemy to a stalemate for multiple decades. I wouldn't put much emphasis on bickering between the various manosphere camps. Ultimately, the individual man is the catalyst for victory, not whatever camp screeches the loudest.

Chad said...

Thanks for the link.

As far as Going Our Own way and Doing Our Own Thing... I know myself and Deep Strength are. I'm not wasting my own time or space on my blog to address 'Game' and I would be surprised if Deep Strength does either. Heck, I wouldn't even bother talking about my beliefs on the subject if other bloggers weren't posting on it and having discussions in the comments. I've stated my views multiple times and am mostly as tired of the debate as it seems most other people are.

Instead, I'd rather just show how it's done.

Most people involved don't seem to want to do that. The whole thing is a big unknown in terms of how effective it will be, what shape it will take, or anything else. Mostly, I'm operating on a leap of faith because The Lord says he'll provide for us and that everything we need is in his word and his teachings. I'm taking him up on that promise, with no guarantees to all the people crying out, "But show me a 'system' I can use! Something to do!" To those people I say that they're missing the point of their faith involving searching for God - He who searches shall find.

But whatever, until they're men looking to me for leadership they're not my concern. Once they are, I'll do what I can for them and while learning from The Lord.

I'll say I'm glad we're not at odds, as I don't really feel like dealing with it. Hopefully we can learn from each other. If not, I'll be over there, doing my own thing by following The Lord and learning how to be a Patriarch.
- Chad

Anonymous said...

Great post!

Sometimes I wonder whether the faction-esque nature of Manosphere is more the result of men simply liking to fight each other, or Feminism doing its best to divide and conquer.

Either way, I agree, and ultimately I believe this is why the "mens' movement" will have no real, significant impact outside of an individually-unplugging basis (about which I hold no delusions that someday, all men will be free).

There is no mission statement, no agreed-upon action plan; just a general consensus that things are fucked up for men and a small army of people educating and inspiring those they run into (for those, like me, who talk about this stuff with people in real life).

I think regardless of faction, any unplugging is good unplugging.

Anonymous said...


You can liken men to packs of wolves rather than herds of sheep. Therefore we cannot be easily be controlled or co-opted.

endwatcher said...

I don't debate on the validity of game's effectiveness. Almost anything works if you look like a commodity to women. (You are like bread to her)

I bring up whether it is following Christ to use it or not. Thus I don't argue with Roosh or Rooisy, but with Dalrock and others like him. The heathen need to be more concerned with salvation rather than the walk.

I believe game is not following Christ if you are a Christian. If you need to game your wife she is not a Christian and you are better off alone. If manosphere means a relentless quest to get sex then it is nothing but a distraction from any real living. There is no peace when your soul is sold out to your fleshly lusts.

Churchian really means following false prophets. Follow what the Word says in context and in the proper spirit rather than sniping off scripture you twist to justify your desires.

Manosphere does a good job often in identifying what is wrong with the West and its women, but often ends up just being male feminism in its answers.

You won't win the war by following lusts, they will leave you in as much bondage as prostrating yourself to women will, in fact by following game that is exactly what you are doing. You are enslaving your whole being into being what women want instead of being what you or God want.

Martel said...

I have no problem with factions or disagreement, I just get sick of the vitriol.

I support increasing awareness of game, and I'm Christian. If somebody wants to rationally try to explain to me that I'm wrong, have at it. If somebody tries telling me I'm one of Satan's minions doomed to eternal torment, we've got issues.

Likewise, I invite those who find my faith to be useless, destructive, or worse to calmly bring their case my way. Accusing me of buying into desert fairy tales will get you nowhere.

Respectful disagreement can actually help STRENGTHEN that which we still have in common, whereas vitriol will only divide us.

But vitriol's more fun sometimes, eh?

Novaseeker said...

It's very entertaining, to say the least, to watch the Game issue get redebated every 6-12 months, with another faction taking issue with it. Entertaining because it proves the case, again and again, why there is never going to be anything like a "men's movement". The reason is that men simply don't unite as a group for the interests of men as a sex -- they unite well with men around issues, religions, tribes, ideas, competitive interests (athletics, work competition with other entities, etc.) and so on -- but this is largely against other groups of competitor men. Never as "men per se". That's alien to us. We're too competitive with each other for that.

Key sex difference: women, in the face of a threat from men, bond together (even with women they don't like or with whom they disagree) as a show of force in unity. Men, in the face of a threat from women, cut each other down to gain advantage over each other, thereby gaining favor of the women over other men, and eliminating competitors. How it always has been, and even is today.

I do find the religious discussion about Game interesting -- not very convincing, mind you, but interesting. It's been brewing for some time -- some of the main instigators of this recent debate have been quite anti-Game for a long, long time, but have more recently been gaining traction among some newer members of the manosphere. It's all fine, I think, really -- people are going to disagree about these things, inevitably. It's fine because there is no programmatical "movement" here -- it's really just a grab-bag of ideas which guys are free to take and leave as they wish, as they find useful. I think the emergent anti-Game Christian manospherians are also using the grab-bag approach (doubtless learning about Game has influenced Donald's "LAMPS" ideas, and even Deep Strength does not take issue with the "do not do" aspects of Game), which is fine, because this is the nature of what the manosphere is. It's fine if people choose not to adopt entire "systems" -- that's the nature of the grab-bag, I think.

So, yes, entertaining as always, but not earth-shattering or surprising in any way.

Eric said...

Novaseeker: "it's really just a grab-bag of ideas which guys are free to take and leave as they wish, as they find useful."

That's how I approach the Manosphere as a MGTOW.

My filter is, if what I read rings true with my life experience and serves to illuminate a mystery from my life experience, or at least can be closely extrapolated from personal experience, then what I've read can be applied to my life. Otherwise, it's just an interesting item.

'Clearinghouse' is another good description of the red-pill community, which I believe Keoni has used.

It seems some people approach the red pill as Neo, with an open mind to learn. Others approach the red pill as though they are Morpheus with The Truth to teach and little to learn. And that's fine, or else how would I learn if others didn't share their varied The Truth's?

Critical inquiry is constructive and an essential feature of the red pill. However, at the same time, we do all share an enemy. Thus, we should be wary of the 'you and him fight' phenomenon to which we are vulnerable by nature.

We're not in a socially-culturally dominant position in our society with a comfortable margin to absorb self-destruction.

The problem with voodoojack's Afghanistan insurgency analogy is that we're not competing with an outside force that lacks the intrinsic sources of local power that characterize our advantage. Rather, our enemy is local, too, and they are superior to us as insurgents. In voodoojock's analogy, we're the Afghans who were defeated by the Taliban in the 1990s. The notion that fighting amongst ourselves is our key to victory over them is based on a flawed premise.

We aren't holding the strategic high ground in this contest and we shouldn't pretend that we do.

Eric said...

Respect the enemy.

Anonymous said...

HL said, "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.")

I was a little confused by this... Zed is the sole author of Eye of the Mind, which he wrote back in the late 1990's before, ahem, telling the MRM to "fuck-off" for a few years.

The Wisdom of Zenpriest was written happen-stance on various forums and websites by him around the early to mid-oughts.

He is still active, currently on "MGTOW Forums," I believe - although, I'm not sure that forum represents MGTOW too well. It sure doesn't seem like anything "the old MGTOW crew" would endorse to me.

Keoni Galt said...

Thanks for the clarification, Edwin. It's been awhile since I read all the compiled knowledge and wisdom at No Ma'am....I thought all of Zed's works were under Zenpriest. In fact, I had forgotten mostly about EOTM. I simply googled "Shovel the fuckin' gravel'" to try and find the article I was thinking of, and when the top link was to the EOTM entry, I just thought EOTM was a compilation of various authors. Did not know it was all Zed.

Now you got me...I'm going to go and re-read EOTM again, it's been a few years.

Fidel said...


Way off topic for this blog post of yours, but .....
I looked for your e-mail, didn't find, and are now forced to comment openly.
I've followed all your posts since your 'Dave in Hawaii' comments at Roissy's. Not only that, but I use your blogs on the side as a launching point for interesting reads.
Since Athol got his forum running, I've spent some time there. I am now leaving that place alone, for the reason I'll state below. But first, it looks like you have taken his site off your blog list. Is that so?
If so, is it because of why I am not going there anymore : that being, as Vox says, "women ruin everything".
The forum is a place where men whose marriages are failing go to talk and rant and vent and get advice. The place has been taken over by women, whose main reaction is shaming language, and a smug "it's the man who has to fix things", no matter whose behaviour caused the problem.
This sentiment is true, but it grinds coming from a woman.
There is no man place .nthat will ever be left alone, and it looks like Athol condones this situation.

Keoni Galt said...

Fidel - I haven't removed MMSL from my blogroll, Athol simply hasn't made any new posts since mid-December of last year.

My blogroll only shows the 25 most recent posts by everyone on it, but if you click on the view all link, you'll see the last time Athol made a MMSL blog post.

I noticed the same thing over at his forums, and I'll say this - at this point, Athol is in the gig to make money to support his family and not have to go back to his old job of nursing.

Therefore, it looks to me like he's much more concerned with writing and selling books and providing personal coaching services, rather than moderating his forum or writing blogposts on a daily basis.