Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me

The recent little fracas I started between The Thinking Housewife and The Spearhead produced some excellent discussions and commentary...not just "evil attacks" as she and her White Knights of Churchianity characterized the debate as.

One of Laura Wood's White Knights (he himself proudly called himself that, I'm not using it as a sarcastic jibe here,) than wrote several blog posts with his own perspective on our little disagreement when he responded to Laura's hysterical cry of persecution in the face of  "attacks." It's obvious to see that some of the more reasoned, logical arguments some men bothered to comment on at his blog got him to at least consider changing his mind about The Spearhead and the men's right's movement in general, as he went from ridiculing men's rights issues and game, to a more sober, serious rumination: Is the MRM wrong but useful? How then can we fight feminism?

But the reason I post on this topic is not because I wish to continue the debate between the "traditionalists" and the "manosphere," (Laura never did respond to my response, claiming that no further discussion is necessary since I refused to moderate the more extreme comments at the Spearhead...despite the fact that I do not moderator powers there,) but rather to highlight a brilliant comment by one "Kel," which was really more of a testimony of a traditional Catholic who immediately recognized the truth of "GAME" and how it changed his whole viewpoint on his religious beliefs:

As a traditional Catholic, I think there is extreme wisdom in “Game.” I was, and am, a traditional Catholic. But when I read Roissy and learned about game, it’s as if many delusions of women were swept away in one fell stroke. I realized how blinded I was to the existing culture, and how manifestly corrupt things have become, because I was pedastalizing women. In reality, Christianity teaches that no one should be pedastalized, that all are sinners. But in practice, especially today, the stink of Satan exists even in the Church and this stink has at its source the pedastalization of femininity.

Patriarchal traditionalists claim that proponents of Game are engaged in an objective evil because Game treats as its baseline assumption the idea that a woman is at her core a biological organism that primarily responds to her biological influences instead of rational/moral influences, which is dehumanizing, objectifying and therefore evil. Women listen to their “tingle” instead of morality or reason, and the science of Game is to understand that fundamental female motivation.

To this objection, I think that the patriarchal traditionalists are overreacting. Saying that a hungry man will eventually grab for food is not objectifying him by reducing him to fundamentals of gastro-intestinal chemistry. Likewise, it is not objectification to understand that a woman who wants exciting sex will therefore grab for exciting sex. Biological functions are a reality to be dealt with. If society made gluttony a fetish (and in some way, it has) and proclaimed that eating to obesity is the right and should be the desire of all women, and that 400 pound women were living life to the fullest and the subject of movies like “Eat, Pray, Eat Some More”, understanding the dynamics between that public call to gluttony and everyone’s basic need to eat would be very useful for a person looking to find a thin partner. Likewise, understanding society’s pervasive promotion of hypergamy, and how it turns a natural sexual desire into a fetish of misandry, is useful for a person either looking to avoid it or deal with it in his own way. That is what Game is about. It deals with the intersection of basic, fundamental biological urges and the cultural reality we are in today.

Furthermore, patriarchal traditionalists objectify women anyway. They treat all of them as objects. Glass objects, to be revered and fawned over, but objects nonetheless. They have made femininity into its own God, violating a fundamental commandment that they claim to uphold. Yes, to the outside observer, when the traditionalist patriarch places women on a pedestal, he is making femininity into a New God to be worshiped in violation of the First Commandment. The actual teaching of Christianity is not so blind, which proclaims that all people (including women) are sinners and that the flesh is weak in all of us (including, and sometimes especially, women). Patriarchial traditionalists, with their pedestalization of femininity, have violated their own core beliefs and mock the tenets of their own faith. And God will not be mocked.

I’m a practicing Catholic but I think that so-called “patriarchal traditionalists” are fundamentally blind to a big part of reality. In reality, Christianity is not going to improve things here. It has always failed to conserve its political strength, and it will continue to fail, because Christianity is not about practical politics. “My Kingdom is not of this Earth,” He said. And Jesus was right. His Kingdom IS not of this earth, and the world hated him and will continue to hate him. You want to be Christian, you’re going to have to bear a cross. And so Patriarchal traditionalists are chasing a dream if they think that their strong faith will produce practical results. It will not. Jesus has all but said it will not. There is NO prosperity gospel. Being a believer won’t earn you riches nor will it make society more fair towards men. If anything, it WILL get you thrown to the lions. And while a pagan society that fed Christians to the lions eventually converted to Christianity, it took nearly 300 years and the blood of countless martyrs. And unfortunately, we can’t wait another 300 years between the time Christians are fed to the lions and the State officially blessing Christianity. Men have problems now and can’t wait for the blood of martyrs to fertilize the ground.

Amen, Kel.


Kathy Farrelly said...

Game? Heh.. Just plain old common sense. Nothing new under the sun here.
Treat another person as you yourself would like to be treated..

Quite simple really..

Look, "game" is used to suck in sluts.. And, it seems to work quite well. Heck there are so many of 'em around..

And for a man who is married..The message is simple, Be assertive don't be a doormat!..

As for all the alpha beta crap..

Well, I guess my hubby could be classified a high beta.(as if I care)

I loved him long before he acquired a "tag" Lol!
He is a good husband. Good Dad.. Has a succesful business.... now..

And he is DAMN HOT IN BED!
He is not an Alpha though.. Wouldn't want one of those.

I married a gentleman with integrity and honor..Dependable and strong..A man I can rely on to make the hard decisions whilst I tend home and hearth.

Not ALL women want bad boys.. or faux Alpha's

Sheesh! get a grip..

IurnMan83 said...

We have a grip, that's why blogs such as this one, The Spearhead, and others are here and so popular. Not everyone who reads or posts takes every word as scritpure, but anyone who's practiced Game and seen the psychology involved and the natural way that 99% of heterosexual women react can verify it's validity. Seems to me that if you're husband is a great man and has you wrapped around his finger, he's already got an understanding of what all this means.

Kudos to Kel, for his lengthy comment full of wisdom. I'm not Catholic, just a believer in the bible, and what he says is true. I myself have been guilty of pedistalizing women and have lost focus of my worship of the true One. When I brushed all that crap aside and started to follow my Mighty One, my life became less complicated and more centered on what He wanted instead of trying to please the greedy, obstinate women in my life.

Elusive Wapiti said...

We've been told for ages by the Romantics how dirty and nasty men are.

Now along comes Game to reliably inform us that, gee, women are just as base as men are, in their own depraved way.

What a relief to have some Truth be spoken to the women in our midst, so that they do not consider themselves too highly. Thanks Game.

Now on to setting things right, to where beta, delta, gamma, and omega men don't have to feel required emulate alpha behavior to gain the durable attentions of a woman.

Heathcliff said...

I think Kel is attacking a straw man. Using the term "patriarchal traditionalist" and then going on to describe the faults of the most liberal of Christians is a bit disingenuous. I don't even recall in that dustup anyone even saying that game is evil. I for one came for the game but I stick around to save civilization. As someone who thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen I am amazed that that position is attacked as feminist. As for the Spearhead, in the fight against feminism, I will not abandon reason in favor of emotion because reason is on my side. I will not embrace moral equivalency because I have the moral high ground. Were you ever in a serious debate with someone and suddenly a friend who is 40 IQ points down on you both decides to "help" by jumping in on your side? You want to say, "Please don't try to help me. Argue for him instead". The Spearhead is that stupid friend.

Heathcliff said...

For educating potential new recruits Hawaiian Libertarian and Citizen Renegade are my go to blogs.

Anonymous said...

Kathy: "Game? Heh.. Just plain old common sense. Nothing new under the sun here. Treat another person as you yourself would like to be treated.. "


I am a good Christian man. I married a good Christian woman that was an EMOTIONAL TERRORIST. My fellow Christians, including my Pastor, preached this (your quote)... and YET my wife was completely out of CONTROL for YEARS - nearly two DECADES.

I discovered Roisy, and later HL's comment post @Roisy's a long time ago... that comment changed my life because I didn't yet get how game applied to MARRIAGE.

Yes, my fault for not knowing how to be a man. Yes, my fault for not being honest with my wife... but, I tried VERY hard to be loving and accomodating of her every wish and it got me NOWHERE. And, she is a good Christian woman, I promise you. The problem is that the Feminist mantra has become our General Attitude... men are pigs, men are violent, men only want sex, etc, etc, etc. This keeps men "down"... it keeps us from doing what needs to be done to be the leader of the family because if we assert ourselves and stand up to the bullshit we WILL be painted as violent or abusive. That's some scary shit for men.

MY Wife has since appologized to me... VERY Profoundly appologized. She gets it, now, too. Our marraige is MUCH better with me as the ACTUAL leader of the household and with her EMOTIONS in check. She is respectful. She's learning to be nuturing. She's learning to be submissive. These changes are hard for her... but, she understands that this kind of woman is WORTH DYING FOR... and she understand how profound that is to me and to our relationship.

If men aren't motived to DIE for their spouse then ask yourself: why? They're supposed to be... but wouldn't that be just like the devil to give them reason to NOT.

My wife has appo

Anonymous said...

@Kathy: You have clearly demonstrated with your comment that you don't understand the Alpha-Beta nomenclature in the context of Game.

@Keoni: Good post. On the whole, I think that secular people and religious people are equally clueless about Game.

slwerner said...

Workshy Joe - ”@Kathy: You have clearly demonstrated with your comment that you don't understand the Alpha-Beta nomenclature in the context of Game.”

In Kathy’s defense (not that I believe she needs anyone to defend her), the Alpha-Beta thing does get a bit “muddled” in terms of LTR’s.

I’ve never read where Keoni (Dave) has ever proclaimed himself alpha, but rather has demonstrated that “Game” highlights whatever “alphaness” a given man may have, creating the situation in which a given woman can respect him and be attracted to him.

When she states: ”He is not an Alpha though.. Wouldn't want one of those.”, I believe she is (sincerely) expressing that what is held out as markers of (true) alpha-maleness are traits which would also make a man more likely to be either a violent or an unfaithful husband (assuming I understand her correctly).

Athol Kay has suggested that a married man ought to be some combination of alpha and beta. Since few men are natural (true) alphas, the idea is to accentuate what “alphaness” they do have so as to prevent their (more natural) beta tendencies from taking over (and their wives walking all over them, etc.)

The result of using “Game” in a LTR is more likely to make a man a “high beta” (as she describes her husband), than an “alpha” – but that’s not a bad thing. Note the praise that Kathy has for her husband, despite his “betaness”.

Speaking as a married man myself, who developed a bit of “Game” (long before ever encountering the term) in response to an “external challenge” to my own marriage, I feel that I can say a man can be quite happy as a “high-beta” so long has me has his wife’s respect and admiration. One need only experience the “other side” for a time to become appreciative of marital situation such as Kathy describes.

Alte said...

Yes, I would also describe my husband as "high beta", and not "alpha". He seems very "alpha" to me though, and that's enough. Simply being my husband and the father of my children already gives him a considerable head start, and he just needs enough Game to not come off as an AFC in order for me to find him very attractive. It's not like a husband is starting from zero; as if he were just some stranger in a bar.

And he doesn't need to keep it up all the time, like in a STR. It changes over the month, and seems to lessen as I get older and calmer, and more used to his authority. You have to put your foot down firmly a few times, and after that you just need to occasionally remind her. Then she'll think, "Oh yeah, I forgot. He wears the pants here. Just checking." And then she eventually gets bored of checking and takes up some other hobby. LOL.

Like Kathy, when most Game advocates use the word "alpha", I see that they're often describing men who are promiscuous, unfaithful, or poor fathers. I'm not sure why that is, but that is the current state of things.

I also suspect the fact that Kathy and I believe in wifely submission colors the way we view our husbands. They seem more intimidating because of it, somehow. Other Christian women I've spoken to have said as much to me, as well.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Slwerner, thankyou, for your elucidation.. In your usual calm and reasoned manner you perfectly summed up my feelings about "Alpha"

I was a little over emotive and tired last night when I wrotemy comment.

"I also suspect the fact that Kathy and I believe in wifely submission colors the way we view our husband."

Very true Alte.

Keoni Galt said...

Heathcliff, thanks for your support and references, but I must say, I don't think Kel is attacking a straw man at all. He's referencing a very real phenomenon. I grew up in a household with a Father who has the female gender on a pedestal, and it is an integral part of his religious views. The church I grew up in reinforced this and most of the men in my church were pedestalizing betas with contemptuous wives.

It is why I became who I am. I lived in a home of eternal conflict because my mother despised my father for being the sackless wimp in relation to her...and she does not even realize that it is her hypergamous instincts that make her so disgusted with his pedestalizing behavior.

But after discovering this "game" and really understanding what it is all about, I see things oh so clearly now. I now understand things perfectly.

I only wish the pedestalizing Christian stereotype were but a straw man figment of Kel's imagination.

I think the Christian pedestalizers are every bit as corrosive to masculinity and promoting of female supremacy as any feminist.

As for the "beta" "alpha" debate...I think the semantics have really bogged down a general understanding of the entire concept. This is why I don't claim the mantle of "Alpha." It's become a loaded term.

For people, they've come to mean something specific to their own mind...and most people don't even agree about what it means.

To a man trying to overcome his "beta" bad habits, Alpha is a positive frame he aspires to.

To women like Alte and Kathy, Alpha represents the Roissy/Mystery cad pumping and dumping women left and right, and an utterly self-centered asshole jerk,and for them, Alpha has a very negative connotation.

I think it's best to focus on Alpha and Beta as descriptors of CHARISMA. Neither negative nor positive, but simply an aspect of charisma that is either attractive or unattractive to the female eye.

With that in mind, I'd be remiss in saying that in my own mind, I'm not "Alpha" but I aspire to be, and I actively avoid Beta behavior.

As an expression of charisma, Alpha to me is self-confident, competent and unapologetic masculine attitude. It need not be "jerkish" nor "assholish." It is an internal trait that is validated by personal success.

The Beta expression is supplicating, uncertain, insecure and looking for external validation - especially from females.

While I absolutely get the Alpha-Beta framework of Athol Kay's view of marital game, I don't think I really agree that calling certain behaviors "alpha" or "beta."

One can certainly do many "beta" identified behaviors to appeal to a woman's need for that feeling of security from a provider...but in my way of thinking, such actions should and could still be done from a "ALPHA" frame.

To me, alpha and beta are simply a good shorthand terminology to describe what is attractive versus unattractive to a female.

Why would any husband want to appear 'beta' to his wife?

No Alte, Katy, I disagree with you both describing your husbands as "greater betas." You're simply trying to avoid equating your husbands with your negative views of "alpha" like Roissy.

The fact that you both proudly admit to submitting to your husbands authority, and that you obviously respect them tells me all I need to know. They definitely have "Alpha" charisma traits.

Hestia said...

As an expression of charisma, Alpha to me is self-confident, competent and unapologetic masculine attitude. It need not be "jerkish" nor "assholish." It is an internal trait that is validated by personal success.
Just curious, would a man who is respected by other men also be part of this "alpha" definition? This might be where some of the issues come. The older man who is well-respected by wife, family, and friends and has a long successful happy marriage is likely a more appealing example of an alpha than a PUA.

There is a lot of confusion surrounding these words and Game in general, and it's certainly something I've fallen for myself. My husband would certainly be alpha by your above definition and he absolutely is a man's man, sometimes to the point of being a bit of a chauvinist some might say. (He decided to go SF so he'd no longer have to serve with females. Enough said. heh) The more I've read about game the more MT might actually be a "natural alpha" or so he was by the time I met him.

One can certainly do many "beta" identified behaviors to appeal to a woman's need for that feeling of security from a provider...but in my way of thinking, such actions should and could still be done from a "ALPHA" frame.
This statement makes the idea of balance and yin/yang pop into mind. Yang requires a bit of yin to be made full and likewise. A healthy male must have a bit of passiveness, introspection, and softness to be complete. A woman sometimes needs to develop a bit more hardness and assertiveness to make it in life. Neither are less of a man or woman because of this, but more fully human as a result.

The hard focus on biology alone in Game can be problematic as it doesn't take into account a certain mystery and ambiguity that is human nature. The alpha/beta characterization are interesting and largely true, however there does seem to be a certain dimension missing in the theories. This might be why many people who are religious or even just spiritual have a difficult time accepting Game in addition to the examples of PUAs.

Kel said...


Thank you for your kind words. I've been a silent reader of your blog for quite a while. Thanks again.

L.G. Robins said...

Wonderfully said. I echo a lot of what Kel said. Kel, you should start a blog.

Thank you for your recent articles. A lot has become crystal clear. You have my support.

Keoni Galt said...

Hestia - "Just curious, would a man who is respected by other men also be part of this "alpha" definition?"

That depends if the woman is around to see the respect and admiration of other men.

Many an Alpha in the boardroom or at the job site will come home and be a beta schlub with the wife.

Kel & LGR, mahalo!