Back in late 2009-early 2010, I spent a few days reading A View From The Right in a belated effort to read more of the 'game' debate that occurred during the summer of 2009. When reading fans of Roissy (such as In Mala Fide), I'd see allusions to Lawrence Auster's website, A View From The Right. Being the curious guy that I am, I checked out what Mr. Auster had to say. Though I read what others had to say about Mr. Auster, I wanted to see for myself what the man had to say; I wanted to read the other side of the argument; I wanted to see if there was any good points against game, or if there were ways I could better articulate my views. I haven't been disappointed! I agree with a lot of what Mr. Auster has to say; philosophically, ethically, and in other ways, he and I are on the same page.
During one of his debates with the pro-game crowd, he received this reply to an e-mail he sent to one of them. The exchange is below. Mark P., a reader of Roissy's, succinctly diagnoses the problems between men and women relating to one another. Mark P. articulates what I would have said if I could have found the words to articulate my diagnosis of the chasm between men & women. This is good stuff! Read & learn, Grasshopper...
Since reader Mark P. has often expressed a kind of law-of-the-jungle view of sex relations which I have found both interesting and disturbing, I wrote to him the other day:
I'm surprised you haven't had more to say about this whole Alpha male / Beta male discussion going on at Mangan's which I've been linking.Mark has replied with this very instructive comment:
I've actually been reading Roissy's site for the past year or so. It's been on my rotation of websites.
I'm not so certain that reducing women to sex objects and playing on their emotional vulnerabilities is really a good description of "Game." It is probably more accurate to call Game the re-initialization of Men as they used to be...a method of "de-programming" men from what they've become. I would suggest reading this. It's an interesting application of game by a practitioner within his own marriage. How true it is, I don't know, but it is a worthwhile read.
As far as the alpha/beta distinction and the various other theories are concerned, I believe I can explain it better without resorting to biological reductionism. Basically, what's been introduced into the relationship environment is an imbalance in how men and women interact. Within marriage, like tends to marry like. If people can be ranked hierarchically on a scale of 1-10, then we would see 3's marry 3's; 7's marry 7's; and 10's marry 10's. This is what we have scene throughout Western history when relationships between men and women were confined within a marriage. Men and women sorted each other according to comparable attributes of physical appearance, charisma, status, etc. Previous generations would've called this finding a suitable mate. When marriages occur today, this suitability principle still holds and it is rarely broken.
Cracks in male/female relationships began when men and women started interacting outside of marriage. As many of the commentators have noted, anonymous urban living, contraceptives, the breakdown of social shaming, etc., has allowed women to pursue men in bars and clubs without the worry of rumors and unwanted pregnancies spoiling reputations. This brought in the first problem threatening men: the system of like marries like breaks down. Just like men, women cannot marry above their station. Unlike men, however, women can easily date and sleep with men above their station. This means that a woman who is a 5 or 6 can sleep with a man who is a 7, 8 or a 9. Consequently, the vast bulk of men face the problem that their female equivalents do not want them, simply because the women can do better. In a sense, the women are right...up to the point of marriage. That is why women are racking up such huge body counts.
The second problem that men face is that women can out-compete men in the workplace. Affirmative action and gender quotas means women will soon make more money than men. The vast bulk of men will not only not be wanted by their equivalents, they cannot even sell themselves as effective providers.
The third problem is the divorce industry.
The fourth problem is the cultural "emasculation" of (white) men. Men are being taught the wrong things and society is reinforcing that teaching.
All of the above problems have consequences. The vast majority of women have entered a tournament where they are leveraging their prime years trying to snag a man that is either too attractive or too successful, or both, for them. When they fail and inevitably reach north of 30 without a husband, they then scramble around and marry a man they would've ignored before. Unfortunately, a woman with a history of dozens of sex partners all more attractive than her current husband is not fit for any long-term relationship. Divorce is inevitable. This is probably why women are surveying as very dissatisfied.
Larger social consequences loom, of which demographics is the least worrisome. Wives and children are the glue that holds society together. It makes men invested in the society around them. What happens when you have armies of unattached men with no investment in society? You have men who will not care what happens to that society or the women in it. This sheds some light on the recent mass killings where men did nothing to protect the women being shot. Unlike the men on Titanic, today's men see no reason to sacrifice their lives for a feminist, PC-addled girl who thinks men are rapists.
Your Roissy-like analysis of the problems, particularly the first problem, is cogent and fascinating. I don't know whether it's true, but it's fascinating.
However, once we get beyond the analysis, how does the Roissyite "Game" come in? You haven't discussed that. Based on your diagnosis of the problems, particularly of the breaking of the bonds of sympathy between men and women that you describe in your last paragraph, one must assume that the purpose of "Game" is not to end this alienation between the sexes, but to help men acquire sex partners who are above their "station," just as women are already acquiring sex partners above theirs. It's hard to see what else the vaunted de-programming you mention consists of.
And if that's all it is, then, since you mentioned Titanic, it would appear that the Roissyite Game is about nothing more than getting the most and the best sex partners one can get while Titanic is sinking.
That's as good a diagnosis as I've read WRT the rift between men and women. Mark succinctly lays out the problem, its history, and why 'game' has arisen as a response. I hope you all learned something; I know I did...