Saturday 15 January 2011

Gynotheory: An Interesting New Blog


An interesting new blog called Gynotheory has recently opened offering a number of interesting perspectives on feminism, men's rights and the impact of culture on gender relations. Gynotheory discusses these issues from a post-modern vantage, refusing to inhere to any one analytical paradigm. I approve of this approach, partly because of its intellectual integrity but mainly because it remains acutely alert to culture - a hugely significant dynamic, in my view, one central to the Anglobitch Thesis.

The men's movement is dividing into old-style and new-style theorists. The old-style masculinists broadly want to return to 'conservative' values and extol 'traditional' gender relations, citing evolutionary psychology or Judeo-Christianity to justify these beliefs. The new-style masculinists - and I am one of these, as is the Gynotheory writer - derive our perspective from cultural analysis and consider both left and right to be equally misandrist in the Anglo-American context. Further, we are wary of invoking biological arguments such as sociobiology, since these can be twisted against men to justify anti-male discrimination, even woman-worship (a grave potential danger of Male Studies, in our view).

The distinction is rather like the distinction between Generals Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant - Lee was the last of the great old-style commanders, while Grant represented the first of the great new-style commanders. In time, I believe more and more MRAs will follow our new-style masculinism out of sheer necessity. Moreover, the old-style project is daily refuted by the simple fact that Anglo-American 'conservatives' are as anti-male as Anglo-American leftists - if not more so. As we know, this is because Anglo culture - being puritanical - is inherently misandrist, reflexively vilifying men as sexualized beings. Consequently, Anglo-American 'conservatism' merely restates the age-old 'gynocentrism' implicit in Anglo culture.

Let us consider the problems of old-style masculinism at length:

Errors Political
While Angry Harry is a brilliant writer and activist, his reflexive conflation of feminism with left-Marxism troubles me. Yes, many feminists profess a strong affiliation to the left but then, a good many of these adopt a rightist affiliation and revert to gender-traditionalism where it suits them - criminal sentencing and lifeboat priorities, for instance. Besides, there is little evidence that 'conservative' governments are 'friends to men' - just consider the British Conservative party, who promote misandrist legislation at every turn and cave in to feminist demands 'at the drop of a (top) hat'. American readers will of course be aware that the Republican party has no better record, tacitly viewing all men as abusive via VAWA while unthinkingly setting all women atop pedestals, whatever their conduct. The Conservative Anglo-American media - Fox News, The Daily Mail, The Sun - all are explicitly misandrist yet all profess a 'conservative' orientation. In short, the old-style MRA obsession with 'conservatism' is absurd, since Anglo-American conservatives are just as anti-male as leftists.

Culture, not politics, best explains the misandrist nature of Anglo feminism. Both the left and the right exist within that cultural context, and it is notable that both Anglo conservatives and leftists remain stoutly puritanical and misandrist. Both the left and the right view men as rapist louts who must be suppressed, while all women are victims who must be exalted. And this misandry has a long pedigree in the Anglosphere, as might be expected - it did not erupt in the 1960s. Gynotheory implicitly accepts this, focussing on the 'traditional' devaluation of males in disasters like the Titanic.

My issue with gynotheory's historical analysis is that it conflates all empires as gynocentric, which was actually not the case. In Rome, for instance, even aristocratic women had very few rights and the Empire's expansion was motivated by a masculine desire for wealth and self-aggrandisement, not any desire to protect women. By contrast, the Anglo-Saxon empires - first the British and now the American - fit his analysis perfectly, misandrist empires where men are expendable fodder to shield the rights of hyper-privileged Entitlement Princesses. The difference? Puritanism - the Anglo-Americans have it, the Romans did not.


Errors Scientific
Evolutionary psychology is a powerful modern paradigm, especially in tandem with the more rigorous science of genetics. However, it is fraught with danger for masculinists to extol evolutionary psychology as their only working paradigm, partly because it precludes socio/cultural dynamics but also because it can be used to legitimate female advantage.

For example, it is certainly a fact that men are viewed as more expendable in most western nations. Evolutionary psychology can partly explain this - a small number of survivor males can re-stock a ravaged community, while a similar group with few females will die out. However, the presence of such misandry in modern civilization might be partly the result of social complexity processes embedding archaic mores in modern contexts. Besides, cultural factors also play a part - in the anglosphere, a female must also be white, young, upper middle-class, Anglo and virginal to be fully bewailed by the Anglo media (i.e. Madeleine McCann). None of those things are 'biological' factors as such - all are cultural.

It is also notable that Evolutionary Psychology tends to be an Anglo-Saxon discipline, and thus strongly inflected with puritanical and gynocratic Anglo values. In my two previous posts I posited an alternative interpretation of evolutionary history to explain the inchoate nature of female sexuality - and predictably drew flak from Anglo numb-skulls trying to impose matriarchal values on the slaughterhouse of prehistory. In short, the Darwinian paradigm can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the culture of the interpreter, and not all these interpretations accord with Anglo gynocentrism. To patriarchal Asiatics, for whom the rule of 'strong men' like Tamerlane and Stalin has been the norm, female mate-selection seems a rather more ephemeral force than it does to Anglo-Saxons.

Ultimately, the very fact that Evolutionary Psychology exists as a science shows men can transcend our biological programming - or at least regard it as rational outsiders. Were it not the case, there would be no men's movement the question the manifold injustices men experience. The better Game writers all acknowledge this conceptual self-transcendence, promoting a mocking, post-modern detachment from their own activities. If we just accepted that all men are expendable and all women are angels, why are we bothering to be MRAs? We would just accede to the misandrist propaganda and become manginas like Tommy Fleming and David Futrelle. The fact that we don't proves the limits of evolutionary psychology. Post-feminist women have in any case reneged on their primary biological function (child-bearing), creating an entirely new social compact beyond the scope of Darwinian thought. The New-Style MRA programme is a supra-biological response to supra-biological conditions: we can do no other.


Errors Existential
Old-Style MRAs hold a delusional view of feminism. They broadly believe it can and will be 'rolled back' to be replaced by an archaic patriarchy where all men are respected and allowed to reproduce sans Game or sperm banks. All this is juvenile thinking. Societies are complex entities ruled by non-linear processes that are effectively irreversible. Female contraception, careers and 'rights' will never be rescinded and any assumption that they will is naive and adolescent. Given this reality, invoking 'conservatism' and unqualified biological determinism are potentially dangerous, lending support to the 'rights plus privileges' agenda that women already enjoy.

What really impressed me about the Gynotheory blog is the author's implicit acceptance of the new conditions. Most men have no reason to be chivalrous in the modern context; invoking traditional chivalry in an era when most men are third class citizens is a suicidal project. Instead, the author calls for western men to build a new lifestyle that negotiates the whirlpools of misandrist gender-feminism while retaining fidelity to masculine objectivity and independence. As T S Eliot wrote in the wake of the First World War (a specific disaster for western manhood), 'these fragments I have shored against my ruins'. This is surely a commendable approach and one which will bear much fruit in the longer term.


While we are discussing blogs, I really like the turn Scarecrow's Men-Factor blog is taking. Dick Masterson taught the manosphere that humour could be a devastating weapon in the fight against misandrist gender-feminism and Men-Factor has certainly taken that lesson to heart. In the presence of humour a fool understands her stupidity instantly, partly because humour elides exposition while demanding considerable 'deconstructive' prowess on the part of the reader/viewer.

Feminists (and women generally) lack the capacity for sophisticated humour, partly because of the lower female median IQ but also because of their crass inability to think 'outside the box' - a by-product of their miniscule amygdalas. The images on that blog are worthy of Monty Python and have clearly upset the witless Peter Futrelle with their puckish drollery.

And that's got to be good.

37 comments:

  1. Something I thought of:

    It seems to me like feminists did not actually "originate" from the left.

    Rather, it seems like they "stole" the left.

    If that is true - what are your thoughts on the MRA's "stealing" a branch of government - like the right for themselves.

    Allow me to clarify a little:

    Instead of seeing a right-wing guy supporting "women first" or "men are rapists" mentality and saying to themselves, "I clearly am not right-wing" - why not instead say something like, "that person who puts women on pedestals is not right wing".

    I am in the middle of the political spectrum - I lean lightly to the right...

    I am curious as to what your thoughts are on this idea?

    Would it allow MRA's - and the mentality to "capture" a larger wing of government? Or would it turn out to be futile?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very, very interesting this gynotheory stuff, is pushing all my "yes" buttons.

    Out of curiosity, where would you place a movement like this one on your various giyno-phallo-left-right-etc. spectra? : http://www.international-mens-day.com/IMD_History.php

    and

    http://www.international-mens-day.com/

    ReplyDelete
  3. *Out of curiosity, where would you place a movement like this one on your various giyno-phallo-left-right-etc. spectra? : http://www.international-mens-day.com/IMD_History.php*

    It looks like an excuse to sell some 'man-friendly' books, friend.

    ReplyDelete
  4. *Instead of seeing a right-wing guy supporting "women first" or "men are rapists" mentality and saying to themselves, "I clearly am not right-wing" - why not instead say something like, "that person who puts women on pedestals is not right wing".*

    But that person surely IS 'right wing' (a traditionalist, at least) in that adherence to 'tradition' in the Anglosphere automatically means adherence to puritanism and in turn, a certain level of misandry. These things 'come with the territory', as it were. I myself am a libertarian rather than a conservative, in that I admire fiscal conservatism but dislike other aspects of the 'conservative' programme (especially gynocentric repression).

    So I don't think you can redefine Anglo-American conservatism so simply. It is more intellectually consistent to promote masculinism from a non-conservative platform, whatever that might be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS. you are right in pointing out the flaw in Angry Harry's connecting of feminism with marxism. Its a vacuous assumption. If you read women's marxist literature, particularly that from the 1970s-80s Marxist women speak loudly about how feminists have departed, in idiology and practice, from the marxist alliance. Feminism and Marxism should definately not be paired.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Na, its not an excuse to sell man-freindly books. i know the people who constructed it and thats not on thier agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The books should not be displayed so prominently, perhaps.

    The site itself seems to make some decent points. It is what I call 'liberal' masculinism, which is not far from the gynocentric perspective. At a pragmatic level, this approach is more likely to be heard than old-style conservative masculinism, which has a terrible public image (divorced men in trailer-parks with guns under the bed).

    That's a point I should have made about the old-style MRAs - they come over as angry, dangerous and blue collar - and no one will listen to that in our newly diamond-shaped, middle-class societies. Our challenge is to make masculinism 'normal', rational and middle-class if it is to get anywhere. That site does that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. *PS. you are right in pointing out the flaw in Angry Harry's connecting of feminism with marxism. Its a vacuous assumption. If you read women's marxist literature, particularly that from the 1970s-80s Marxist women speak loudly about how feminists have departed, in idiology and practice, from the marxist alliance. Feminism and Marxism should definately not be paired.*

    I think feminism seems to wax under big-State politics. Because that is usually leftist in the Anglosphere, one can easily conflate the left with feminism. In fact, the Conservative right is just as misandrist, if not more so. And of course, the puritan strain in Anglo culture which exalts women dates from the 16th century - long before Marxism existed. Finally, the Anglo world has its own brand of puritanical left-radicalism quite distinct from Marxism proper, an 'organic' political movement from the German-speaking world.

    In short, Anglo conservatism is no friend to men.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The books should not be displayed so prominently, perhaps.

    The site itself seems to make some decent points. It is what I call 'liberal' masculinism, which is not far from the gynocentric perspective. At a pragmatic level, this approach is more likely to be heard than old-style conservative masculinism, which has a terrible public image (divorced men in trailer-parks with guns under the bed).

    That's a point I should have made about the old-style MRAs - they come over as angry, dangerous and blue collar - and no one will listen to that in our newly diamond-shaped, middle-class societies. Our challenge is to make masculinism 'normal', rational and middle-class if it is to get anywhere. That site does that. "

    Thanks for the exchange. The books angle I understand is to promote an idiology, not the other war around. It's a fledgling movement, albiet one gaining surprising momentum, so it is aligning itself with socially sanctified literature in order to hasten the advance.

    So 'liberal masculinism', provides an idiological likeness, and has some similarities with the gynocentric perspective. Good to hear your hunch that it is not going along with the old-style conservative masculinism -divorced men in trailer-parks with guns under the bed- (gawd that image makes me cringe, its the face of popular masculism, unfortunately). Seeings I'm likeing the snippits about gynotheory guess its time I read up about gynocentrism.... is there a good book on the subject you can recommend or is it mostly in essay for at present?

    I might have to recommend adjustment to the IMD site accordingly. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think feminism seems to wax under big-State politics. Because that is usually leftist in the Anglosphere, one can easily conflate the left with feminism.... the Anglo world has its own brand of puritanical left-radicalism quite distinct from Marxism proper, an 'organic' political movement from the German-speaking world.

    Thats it, you hit it. There is a variety of 'lefts' often with nothing in comon other than the term.

    I'm liking the insistance that the right is equally misandrist..... this is the part that is turning me on. We rarely hear this, and we need to bring it to the fore in the usual forums of gender discourse.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good to hear your hunch that it is not going along with the old-style conservative masculinism -divorced men in trailer-parks with guns under the bed- (gawd that image makes me cringe, its the face of popular masculism, unfortunately).

    Well, we could have Game's public representative - George Sodini! Let's count our blessings...

    Seriously though, image is very important. A big problem with the Men's Movement is that few of its spokesmen come over as 'normal'. And you have to do that if you want to move the masses. I find the overt misogynism of too many MRAs a major problem in this regard. There ARE women like Melanie Philips or Christina Hoff-Sommers who understand men's issues.

    *Seeings I'm likeing the snippits about gynotheory guess its time I read up about gynocentrism.... is there a good book on the subject you can recommend or is it mostly in essay for at present?*

    I think Warren Farrell is the major American spokesman for liberal masculinism, but David Thomas' Not Guilty: In Defence Of Modern Man is much better than anything Farrell has written. Gynocentrism proper is still in online development, though...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excellent... never heard of him but thanks for the tip. Will follow up now.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So I don't think you can redefine Anglo-American conservatism so simply."

    Yeah - like trying to pull teeth from a mule.

    That answers that.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anglobitch - the blog for losers without game... as with all forms of MRA activity/ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 1330:

    Game - for people who think that paying $1000 to obtain a Big Mac is good value.

    It is instructive, too, how you imply that a 'loser' as somebody without this trait of spending years and years trying to seduce women who are generally subpar as individuals - which just goes to show how skewed the thinking of many Game proponents is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anon 1330:

    The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing what has no chance of success. Given the rates of divorces, abortions, child-support shakedowns and false accusations in the US, I don't see who you would-be Casanovas are to call anyone else a 'loser'.

    Besides, given the quality of men most Anglo women seem to prefer as partners; I'd worry about myself if they WERE all pursuing me!

    ReplyDelete
  18. *Anglobitch - the blog for losers without game... as with all forms of MRA activity/ideology.*

    It's an argument, I suppose. A poor argument, in that most MRAs are divorced/discarded fathers rather than the sexually disenfranchised.

    Also, it could be said the Anglo-American Game community is composed of desperate former White Knights without physical prowess or 'natural' Game who discovered too late that their social programming led to sexual disenfranchisement, and then leapt in desperation on a new conceptual bandwagon.

    Since Game concepts are pseudo-scientific (at best) and the application of Game concepts so ineffective, they are understandably touchy and fiercely defensive about their new cult, like Scientologists or Moonies. The very fact that you feel moved to comment here (and indeed, waste valuable Game time reading and commenting here) proves this assessment true.

    Besides, most middle-class Anglo-American women (i.e. the attractive ones) are now perfectly WISE to Game, blunting its (already limited) effectiveness. This is just further proof of the malleable, socially-driven nature of female 'sexuality' (as such). Thus Game is now just a straw for drowning, unattractive men trapped in the walking death of sexual disenfranchisement - in short, yesterday's news.

    As well as being ineffective, outmoded and generally the preserve of schizoid, short, unattractive losers, Game's culture-blindness seriously needs to be addressed. It is quite obvious that American Game strategies in particular have developed to bridge the homosocial gulf between the sexes that prevails in all puritanical cultures. If you were better-travelled, you would realize that your predicament is not so much a product of biology as culture.

    P.S. You're not called Fleming, are you? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rookh,

    Thomas Fleming doesn't appear to a proponent of game. He'd likely think it 'loutish' behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ah, but maybe he has 'a secret life'...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rookh, the more I read your blog, the more I agree with your basic theoretical framework. I guess that the main point we have to take into consideration is that feminism (or at least the original claims of it) is not bad per se, but the result of meeting such claims in a deep embedded misandrist culture, such as the Anglosphere. The consequences of feminism are different in countries like England and the USA from those found in, let’s say, Latin America, France, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, etc.
    You make very good in pointing out several mistakes made by some MRAs, also from the conservative ones, who claim to return to lost paradises which never existed or contradict themselves suggesting complicated arrangements. I want to mention a case in point: Marc Rudov. He’s a famous American MRA who markets himself as ‘The No Nonsense Man’. His basic line is that Feminism (and more broadly, Liberalism and Progressivism) has caused the royal mess in the American social fabric, and when he talks about politics, he calls himself an independent conservative. That’s perfectly coherent so far. But when he addresses the solutions to many issues he contradicts the labels he likes to use.
    He wants a woman to go Dutch treat with his male date in the first dinner. What?! Is not supposed that a conservative man should be a white gentleman and pick up the tab all the time?
    He says that the female sex desire and drive are much higher than those of a male. So, as a man you have to take advantage of this fact, and don’t allow to be extorted by your girlfriend or lover who would give you sex as long as you pay for them (dinners, gifts, travels, etc.). If you touch the right buttons (he calls them the clitoral hood) your girlfriend would be the one who would lead the sexual drive of the couple, of course, on your benefit. What?! Conservatives claim that women are asexual angels that have to endure the harassment of bestial men.
    He doesn´t agree with the traditional role of a woman at home (that is to be a homemaker) and he says that a married woman must work out of home. What?! The conservatives claim that the new role of women as workers has disintegrated the family unit.
    These contradictory arguments are produced for the lack of recognition that feminism only boosted a cultural hate to male traits.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Santiago

    I would broadly say that 'conservative' writers like Angry Harry are the last of the 'old style' MRAs, while culturally-aware men's rights proponents represent a 'new style' movement. I'm not criticising the 'conservatives', I think they were necessary in the last century and did a lot of good work in that context.

    However, it has become ever more apparent that 'conservative' governments have done nothing to address the problem of institutionalised pan-Anglosphere misandry. Indeed, it could even be argued that the right is even more misandrist than the left, especially in the UK. This, as we know, relates to the misandrist, gynocentric nature of Anglo culture, which inflects everything in the Anglosphere. Not that the left are any better of course, but this habitual MRA insistence on the redemptive power of 'conservative' politics has become an empty, self-defeating mantra. There is simply no reason for gender-aware males to extol conservatism any more than socialism, at least in the Anglophone world.

    British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is no friend to men, spouting feminist rhetoric and enacting misandrist laws at every turn. And as our American and Australian friends continually point out, the same is true of 'conservatives' in those countries. Yet to many MRAs, feminism cleaves solely to Marxism - despite the Anglosphere having a well-developed feminism long BEFORE Marxism existed (Mary Wollstonecraft is a good example). Moreover, most of the themes of this 'antique' Anglo feminism are present in the modern version (repression of the sexual instinct, vilification of masculine virility and a hysterical campaign to restrict 'sexual supply').

    *He doesn´t agree with the traditional role of a woman at home (that is to be a homemaker) and he says that a married woman must work out of home. What?! The conservatives claim that the new role of women as workers has disintegrated the family unit.*

    Conservatives are in knots on all these issues, as you astutely point out. This 'Double Bind' relates to a 'culture-blindness' on their part - they are simply unaware of the misandrist memes embedded in Anglo-Saxon culture by virtue of its puritanism, so their fidelity to 'conservative' values always undercuts their stated intentions. And the same can be said of 'conservative' MRAs, I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rookh;

    I've noticed an upsurge during the last few months of magina writers like Fleming and Futrelle attacking the MRM, and also a lot of their blood-brothers, the Game Theories infesting MRA blogs.

    Isn't interesting though that, while they're all attacking the MRM, they never seem to come out in print anywhere extolling the successes of their philosophy? I've not seen many of them coming here to boast, just to criticize and call other people losers.

    I recently was in a discussion with a practioner of Game Theory whom I know. He once flew into an angry tirade during a meeting and accused us all of being crazy and losers, &c.

    That was about 9 months ago. Since that time, I've been travelling outside the US, dated about a dozen young, beautiful and intelligent girls and am still in contact with 3 of them. I recently learned that my collegue since then impregnated a thrice-married 44 y/o Anglobitch whom he's already caught in bed with other men twice!

    Like wise old Ben Franklin once said: "Experience keeps a strict school, but fools learn in no other."

    ReplyDelete
  24. *Isn't interesting though that, while they're all attacking the MRM, they never seem to come out in print anywhere extolling the successes of their philosophy? I've not seen many of them coming here to boast, just to criticize and call other people losers.*

    If they were having much success with Game, why would they bother abusing others? Surely other males would be far beneath their notice? Unless, of course, they're not having much success (if any) except maybe with 44 year old divorcees.

    It's funny, but for all their huffing and puffing I never hear of a Game guy having sex with a female celebrity or fashion model. I'm starting to think that Anglo-American Game attracts lower-middle class males without the money to travel. That would explain their masochistic obsession with the obese, charmless Anglobitch (and general cultural parochialism). Most guys who enjoy contact with non-Anglo women seem to say it's like driving a Porsche: once you do it, you can never be satisfied by an ordinary car again.

    Their whole mindset is narrowly Anglocentric.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Most guys who enjoy contact with non-Anglo women seem to say it's like driving a Porsche: once you do it, you can never be satisfied by an ordinary car again."

    How true! Once you start dating "non anglo-women" you never want to go back to anglo-american women.

    Men in anglo countries need to travel to countries where feminism doesn't exist (like eastern Europe, Russia, South America and the Philippines). In these countries, you don't need "game" to get women, you can just be yourself and not memorize a bunch of "PUA" stuff!

    It's best to avoid anglo-american women like the plague! When I think about the idea of dating American women, I don't know if I should laugh ...... or vomit!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree that conservative leaning MRAs are, to put it harshly, a failure. (Though an instructive failure, therefore not entirely useless.) However, I think Game (a label I detest) has a modicum of truth and usefulness to it that ought not be overlooked. Insofar as it demystifies and diminishes the social rank of women it is very roughly in line with the gynotheory now aborning. It is, to use a phrase of Fidelbogen's, in the "non-feminist" sector. That's better than most!

    ReplyDelete
  27. *However, I think Game (a label I detest) has a modicum of truth and usefulness to it that ought not be overlooked. Insofar as it demystifies and diminishes the social rank of women it is very roughly in line with the gynotheory now aborning.*

    That is essentially true. The major plus point of Game is its refusal to cede ground to puritanism or repression, which in turn rattles the feminist pedestals. Anglo-American women perceive sex as the major male 'Achilles Heel' or 'Schwerpunkt' by which they can manipulate men into accepting their rights-plus-privileges agenda. By refusing to accept female 'control' of sex by pursuing a paradoxical policy of 'aggressive sexual disinterest' the PUA community are striking a blow for Men's Rights in the Anglosphere, albeit tangentially. My problem with certain aspects of Game is pragmatic, not ideological.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "The major plus point of Game is its refusal to cede ground to puritanism or repression, which in turn rattles the feminist pedestals. Anglo-American women perceive sex as the major male 'Achilles Heel' or 'Schwerpunkt' by which they can manipulate men into accepting their rights-plus-privileges agenda. By refusing to accept female 'control' of sex by pursuing a paradoxical policy of 'aggressive sexual disinterest' the PUA community are striking a blow for Men's Rights in the Anglosphere, albeit tangentially."

    That is a brilliant summation.

    "My problem with certain aspects of Game is pragmatic, not ideological."

    I would be interested in knowing what those pragmatic objections are.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rookh/JamesBond:

    I've noticed the same trend with mangina authors of the Fleming/Futrelle schools (which are really just variants of Gamers). They seem very short on success stories too; I don't read them boasting of women fighting over them; all impressed with their chivalric defense of the Pedestal Syndrome.

    To give the another angle on the story I posted above: I also know another business associate who practices the opposite of game. He's a chronic alcoholic who's been in jail several times for disorderly conduct. He has a business which has teetered on the brink of insolvency since I've known him because of his legal entanglements, child-support payments for hordes of illegitimate offspring, and chronic laziness and unrelaibility. This is a guy who has no problem getting Anglo women, though. Just a month ago, he watched two Anglobitches beat each other up in his front yard over which would have the priviledge of moving in with him. The winner of that contest now sleeps on the floor in his basement while he does other women in the bedroom and goes on drunken rampages through the house.

    LOL, and who says there's no way to be successful with Anglo women? It seems the only kinds of males that are attractive to them are the kinds of men whom fathers would be ashamed to have as sons!

    ReplyDelete
  30. *I would be interested in knowing what those pragmatic objections are.*

    Merely that women are not really attracted to conventional social dominance (as men understand it). Rather, if we consider:

    *I also know another business associate who practices the opposite of game. He's a chronic alcoholic who's been in jail several times for disorderly conduct. He has a business which has teetered on the brink of insolvency since I've known him because of his legal entanglements, child-support payments for hordes of illegitimate offspring, and chronic laziness and unrelaibility. This is a guy who has no problem getting Anglo women, though. Just a month ago, he watched two Anglobitches beat each other up in his front yard over which would have the priviledge of moving in with him. The winner of that contest now sleeps on the floor in his basement while he does other women in the bedroom and goes on drunken rampages through the house.*

    It would seem the exact opposite of Game applies. Not that something 'like' Game isn't going on - White Knights are strictly off the sexual menu. Maybe Game needs redefining by the Anglobitch Thesis as it has culturally redefined the Men's Rights movement. We could call it 'Bum Game' or something. Whatever, I have no doubt Anglo culture is somewhat responsible, since psycho-cultural factors influence female sexuality to a much greater extent than its more 'evolved' male counterpart.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Attractive men spook women. Women work themselves into a lather over an attractive dude, and this has the effect of spooking them, making them clam up and play hard-to- get. Repulsives, on the other hand, make women feel perfectly relaxed, comfortable and unthreatened.

    The attractive man has the odds stacked against him though, because in the course of trying to make her relaxed, he must surrender a part of that which makes him attractive. Arrogance is hot. Grovelling, friendly arrogance is not. This is where good Game comes into its own. By making her think that she's already lost, she becomes unhinged (unclammed) she lowers her guard and starts getting desperate.

    The slob that makes a woman feel so relaxed and at peace with the world, on the other hand, simply has to move beyond his lethargy to launch into a grope and a fuck and he becomes the love of her life. Easy peazy. No brain required.

    Look, what I write here is somewhat tongue-in-cheek at this point in the day, but I really think that it comes down to something as base as that. Attractive men spook women, slobs do not, and within those two extremes lies the breadth of possibilities that explains women's arbitrary choices, from the safe-but-dull beta provider to the brain-dead thug. No mystery. It's as dumb as that, IMHO. Sorry to spoil it for all you romantics out there. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Something that tends to be overlooked in these protracted, Second Battle of the Wilderness discussions about Game/culture/sociobiology is that people tend to feel most comfortable with people of their own IQ, or thereabouts. Since women tend to fall in the middle of the Bell Curve in terms of mental aptitude, one would expect them to be attracted to intellectually 'average' males. I recall seeing many posts on the Half-Sigma forum citing evidence in support of this thesis. It is also interesting that homosexual males tend to be the most intelligent of all sexually-defined groups. I wonder if their sexual orientation might owe more to being unable to secure an intellectually-compatible female partner than innate factors, at least in some cases. Just thinking aloud...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Chuckew, that was a very insightful analysis. It strikes me as a "perfect fit" as far as explanations go. I would love to here more from you. Perhaps a systematized and complete statement on these and similar themes. Have you considered blogging?

    Cheers mate!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rookh, your thinking aloud about homosexual males as well as the averaging hypothesis are on track. This is why I have a problem with Game theory and hypergamy theory. Women do not always choose the pick of the bunch. They choose for a complex of reasons that include security, circles of acquaintances, peer pressure, parental pressure, dumb luck, and so on.

    Notthmasfleming, I have considered blogging, but I tend to have opinions about a lot of things, and after several false starts, it's just too difficult to narrow things down to a specific audience without boring others. However... a new formula seems to be gestating that might enable me to bring it all together under one theme. I haven't given up just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Rookh:

    'Bum Game' seems to fit matters appropriately. Ever since I've been involved with the MRM, I've been trying to put my finger on the psycho-cultural factors you mentioned. There seems to be underlying psychological motivations (albeit culturally inspired) because Anglo women routinely follow a behavior pattern that is predictable in spite of its inherent illogic.

    For example, Anglo women's rejection of the most desirable males in favor of competing for the most worthless bums; their preference for abortion and child-abandonment rather than motherhood; their open hostility to traditional feminine roles, their fascination with bisexuality and lesbianism: these things are not only illogical, they are ultimately self-destructive and, even from a purely biological perspective, go against a female's natural instincts.

    All of this had led me seriously to consider whether the puritan/feminist culture, in addition to the social problems, is also generating neurosis on an individual level that females, with their less developed reasoning capacity fall victim to more easily.

    Anyway, anybody have any thoughts on this?

    ReplyDelete
  36. *For example, Anglo women's rejection of the most desirable males in favor of competing for the most worthless bums; their preference for abortion and child-abandonment rather than motherhood; their open hostility to traditional feminine roles, their fascination with bisexuality and lesbianism: these things are not only illogical, they are ultimately self-destructive and, even from a purely biological perspective, go against a female's natural instincts.*

    Agreed, but do women really possess many 'natural instincts'? Men are stronger in every physical and mental department because men have always 'borne the brunt' of evolutionary adaptation as hunters and warriors. The huge male amygdala links the male to his primordial instincts, since these were always essential for his survival and reproductive success. By contrast, women were always 'guaranteed' children anyway (consider the practice of male infanticide among the lower castes of primitive peoples), whatever their personal qualities - which is why women are weaker, less intelligent and lack strong 'instincts'.

    Most societies and epochs were avowed patriarchies that directed the inchoate female libido in socially-productive ways, so the illogical or dysfunctional aspects of female behaviour did not 'matter' as such - they were 'taken care of' by patriarchy. When medical science and technology began to erode patriarchy (always a weak force in Anglo culture), the female mind (as such) took centre stage without patriarchal fetters or limitations - hence the industrial scale abortion, lesbianism and bisexuality, child-desertion and divorce we now witness everywhere. In the Anglosphere, where women are worshipped, female illogicality swiftly became the institutionalised norm. The idea that women are mentally inchoate and not sexually evolved best explains the dysfunctional behaviours you describe, in tandem with puritanical Anglo-Saxon woman-worship and repression.

    *All of this had led me seriously to consider whether the puritan/feminist culture, in addition to the social problems, is also generating neurosis on an individual level that females, with their less developed reasoning capacity fall victim to more easily.*

    Lacking true instinct, women are a tabula rasa in behavioural terms, so the impact of the surrounding culture upon them is much greater. When that culture is neurotic and repressive (as in the Anglosphere), its effects will be devastating.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I hate feminism and all what they are saying and "discussing".
    Women tend to be naturally nurturing and caring for others, they like to be protected, they love confident men, they want to be loved and sexually ravished...
    But what the Anglo woman is doing wrong is going against all these natural things.
    Shame on the feminist movement for making women unnatural.

    ReplyDelete