Sunday, September 6, 2009

Got 'Game?'

I haven't read all of the articles collected under this entry, not to mention the outside articles linked up under certain titles, and I didn't really involve myself in the debate at all, though I thought it was interesting, albeit disturbing in certain respects. I did send Auster a couple of emails on the subject, however, one in which I seconded his description of the 'Gamers' as "these kids", saying that I thought that description pretty well summed it all up and going on to explain how a real dominant male (something these man-children (male adolescents trapped in a man's body) have apparently never actually been exposed to) such as my dad (among certain other dominant males I've had in my life) would have handled me as a young man had I ever expressed to him the low view of women which seems to be the basis of the gamers' approach to, well, "manhood." Which, and as I explained to Auster, after my dad quite literally hit me so hard that I would have had to unzip to spit, he would have gone on to remind me of all the female loved ones in my life.

To refer to women in general in such offensive, degrading, and dare I say unmanly terms as the gamers use is to refer to my grandmothers, my mother, my sisters, my aunts, my female cousins ... my own wife and daughters in such terms. My dad's way of handling it is the way a real man handles that class of ungovernable punks of which we speak. Let them hope they never meet up with one and mistakenly choose to share their view of women with him. In the first place, they wouldn't know how to recognize a real dominant male, because, as I said, they've unfortunately never been exposed to one. Thus, they don't know when to speak and when to shut up; when to 'let their yeas be yea, and their neas be nea.' But in any event I suspect that about 98% of them, give or take, are just full of sh*t to start with. You can make lemonaide out of a lemon, but you can't make a real man out of an arrested (male) adolescent.

4 comments:

The_Editrix said...

Terry I haven't been here for a while, now I see you are thematizing what is on my mind for weeks now. I have been made aware of "Roissy-ism" even before VFR took it up because I browse a lot through the anti-feminist blogosphere.

You know I am a scourge of my fellow Germans, but I have never encountered anything even remotely as disgusting when it comes to the relationship between the sexes here. I am going to write a major entry, a comparative reflection, for my new blog, a treatment, that is supposed to take all the historical, social and ethnic differences into consideration and I will try to be as respectful as I can. However, I haven't yet mustered up the necessary calm to do so.

Your words are like e breath of fresh air after all the endless highbrow, theoretical, dissecting (and, dare I say it, totally useless) contemplations at VFR and elsewhere, when a couple of hits so hard that they would have "to unzip to spit" would have done the job. Roissy knows quite well why he is using a screen name.

I'll hope I'll find the strength soon to write about what's on my mind. Until then: THANK YOU!

chiu_chunling said...

What's this about Roissy-ism?

Are we talking about the argument that because there is a reproductive advantage to certain kinds of genetically predisposed behavior in men, such behaviors are therefore morally justified?

Such arguments are hardly new. But how far does Roissy-ism extend? Does it cover infanticide against genetically unrelated off-spring of a dominated female, or serial rape, or murder of competing males? All of these behaviors carry a reproductive advantage as long as society at large does nothing to punish them.

And yet, the society which permits such behaviors tends to inflict sharp costs on the reproduction of all it's members, particularly where the society has an existing population several times larger than can be sustained without a high degree of cooperative economic specialization incompatible with the "every man for himself" ideals underlying most appeals to anarchy.

In short, the near-term advantage over competitors cannot compensate for the effects of catastrophic population collapse attendant a social order in which most males have no incentive to cooperate economically.

Of course, I do not view propagation of mere genetic material as a valid object of sentient existence. Particularly genetic conditions which predispose individuals to anti-sentient activity. But even at the merely biological level, it makes no sense for any society to permit behaviors which adversely affect the total reproductive capability of a population (which happens to include the ability to raise succeeding generations to adulthood) simply because some individuals will enjoy relatively increased reproduction in the short term.

Frankly, I think that advocates of "natural selection" based theories of human sexuality who aren't willing to sanction legalizing the homicide of males of reproductive age just show themselves to be hypocrites. And, if they happen to be reproductive aged males, cowardly hypocrites at that. Heck, I don't even advocate any such theory, but I'm totally cool with the legal homicide thing.

Of course, somehow you always get these systems which, in practice, tend to kill females (at birth or during early reproductive years), which makes zero sense from any possible view of reproductive logic.

Whatever. Next time I meet someone who espouses "reproductively advantageous" male sexual morality, I might try taking him at his word and actuating the logical conclusion of his argument. It might even be fun to go to trial...I could pack the jury with fathers of teenage daughters. Heck, it might even be interesting to leave the guy alive to testify against me (or rather, testify to the practical necessity of my actions).

Terry Morris said...

I could pack the jury with fathers of teenage daughters.

LOL! Just make sure that they're involved in their daughters' lives. You know, lots of 'fathers' aren't.

God knows I've done a lot of bad stuff that I'm not particularly proud of over the course of years, including (but certainly not limited to) utilizing the principles of what the 'gamers' refer to as "game" for personal sexual advantages. But one thing I would never have done during that confused time in my life was to openly confess my temporary adoption of the gamers' extreme insulting view of women to my father, who, as I said in the post, would have wiped the floor clean with me in response, which I suppose is one primary reason I never did. What is worse, though, is that I would have been subject, after the beating, to a good father-son "talking to" in which dad would have simply reminded me of all the upstanding women in my life, not to mention my superior raising. Speaking of which, I can feel some sympathy for these lost souls based on the fact that I know that they must have been deprived of a good raising, including at least one dominant male father figure based entirely on their attitudes unfortunately on display. But you know what the scripture says: "Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not soon depart from it. And if he does, hit him so hard that he'll be forced to unzip to spit while realizing the error of his ways." Or something like that. That's a paraphrase, of course. :-)

In any event, what I find so ... laughable is the apparent belief among 'gamers' that they have somehow discovered some heretofore undiscovered set of principles regarding the nature of women and their attraction to dominant males. I hate to tell them this, but I was using certain 'game' tactics before most of 'em were probably ever thought of. ...

Nora,

I saw that you'd created a new blog the other day while visiting your other blog. I look forward to your post on this subject. And please post a link to it in a comment here when it is up.

And thanks.

Call Me Mom said...

When I was in high school, one of our teachers asked us which character from television or movies did we think would make a good spouse. My answer was the Jed Clampett character from The Beverly Hillbillies (The Buddy Epson(sp?) character-not the newer one). I got a lot of snickers for that answer, but I stuck by it.

That character was responsible, respectful, reverant, patient and secure in his belief that he was both able and obligated to protect and provide for his family. He understood that the responsiblity of being a good provider, once filled, did not exempt him from his other duties. The person who wrote that character must surely have known at least one or more of the dominant males you refer to in your post.

I wish there were more role models of that sort for our young men and women today.