Over at Wise Man’s Heart, Hermes proposes what he sees as a fatal flaw in the logic of Game:
- Men are moral agents capable of choosing deliberate actions based on rational thought processes (e.g., choosing to run game and succeed with women or wallow in loneliness), while women are animals who are totally incapable of doing anything but blindly obeying their genetic programming to seek out and mate with the highest-status male they can find.
- Women are to blame for our current situation.
He sees these propositions as mutually exclusive. That if women are animals, then it is solely the men that are to blame, and not women. In particular alpha men.
Let’s take this apart. Let’s start with women, instead of describing them as an animal, see them as a force of nature. Say an Earthquake. Substitute earthquake for women in the above questions. If an earthquake hits a town, is it to blame for all the deaths that occur there? Of course it is.
Do men have responsibility for at least part of it? Surely. Can men stop the earthquake? No. Can they choose to live somewhere that has less of them (MGTOW)? Yes. Can they decide to build in such a way that they can withstand the earthquake (Game)? Yes.
In the same way, if you wish to take an extreme position that men are capable of changing their behavior and women cannot (a position I do not endorse) then a woman’s nature is indeed to blame for the situation, even though it cannot be changed.
The analogies Hermes uses is a dog biting the postman and the owner being responsible or the Captain responsible for the neglect of the sailor because he is Captain. That assumes the man has authority over the woman. In our current culture he does not. The dogs have been let loose, there is no leash, there is no restraint upon them, in fact the opposite has occurred. The men have been leashed.
This came about because of a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of men about the nature of women. If there are responsible parties, then it rests mainly with old and dead men. Calvin is a start, and so to the founding father’s of the United States for not recognizing the danger, as are the men that allowed suffrage and finally the baby boomers (The locust generation) that foolishly embraced the sexual revolution.
The men that are currently in positions of authority are in thrall to their feminist masters. They know where the votes come from. It was single women that handed Obama his victory. He answers to women, not men as he did with the stimulus bill and NOW.
Are men that are ignorant responsible for something done in ignorance? No, they are not, unless that ignorance is willful. Men that now deny Game and deny the nature of women, despite all the information to the contrary, are at some point acting willfully ignorant. I place most conservatives in this camp, I place all liberals there.
This leads me to the responsibility of women for the ways things are. I believe they do have the capacity to control themselves. The fact that they only do so when there are consequences does not mean that they cannot, merely that they do not want to. If they could not control themselves, they would be unable to accept the dictates of the various societies and cultures they live in.
There is a problem that women face that men do not. Men understand their sexuality. Women understand their sexuality (there are those that believe they do not, I disagree. There are moments where some women when pressed will acknowledge the truth, even if they hedge and say “other women” or I am not like that. They know what they are, they just don’t want men to know it), but for obvious reasons want to deny it. To state that they want a dominate man is going to engender (and I picked that word intentionally) behavior in all men that they do not want.
It is something they are afraid of. How comfortable can they be with this idea? That is the source of the feminists anger and rage: Fear. The fear at their very core that their secret will get out, for once it does the idea of female power becomes undermined.
How do women and feminists define power? They define it on a very sexual level. Abortion is about the power of a woman to choose. They define rape as a crime of power, because again it takes away the woman’s power to choose. Some go so far as define all sex between a man and a woman as rape, because on a fundamental level they recognize that in every sexual pairing there is a level of submission by the woman.
To understand feminists, to understand women in general, a man must understand the way they look at relationships. They may not say it overtly, but all relationships are seen by them as power dynamics. All of them.
Watch the fights between a mother and a daughter: They fight over dominance and control. This is why women raise betas and not alphas, it is power. They judge men in an instant on their level of dominance. They judge all people this way.
Women see things as zero sum, while men do not. In their minds it is an either/or. You have power, or you do not. You are either more dominate or less. There is no such thing as equal in a woman’s mind. When they use that word what they are really saying is the man should be subservient.
A beta is subservient. If the sexuality of women becomes understood by all men, then it becomes obvious to all betas that there is no reason to be subservient to any woman. There is no reason to pay for dates, or to do favors, or fawn over women because it gets the man nothing. No reason to rescue, no reason to help a woman. No reason to listen to her complaints. Yet women want these things. It boosts their egos to get them, it serves their emotional needs to dump on men.
However what would be worse for women, is men starting to expect that the relationship be reciprocal. Something women have not had to do. In the past, placing women on a pedestal made the relationships imbalanced. The woman starts the relationship with the advantage of merely being in the relationship got her points, while the man had to work to prove that he deserved merely to have her around.
He provides, she simply needs to be and nothing more.
Further, the idea that women don’t really like sex gave them yet another advantage. They were “giving” the man something he wanted that they did not. If she was not satisfied in bed, it was his fault. The man had to earn points by making her happy. Something he could not do, so he was always at a deficit.
However, if you acknowledge that women are sexual beings that dynamic changes. The woman isn’t giving the man something, she is sharing an experience she values. Her satisfaction is not dependent upon him, but is on her shoulders as a sexual being.
Take the woman off the pedestal, and the situation is even worse for women. What exactly does she bring to the man? If she is a sexual being, then sex isn’t a gift, then there are no points in her favor, if she is not superior, then there are no points for that either. What does the woman offer in a reciprocal relationship?
Loyalty? This is a thing that men value, but if women do not control their emotions and instead live in the moment, loyalty is not something she offers. Children? There is a drive to have children, but in today’s political climate, having them is no promise of being involved with them, and the costs are exorbitant.
If you ask a woman they will mention cleaning, but if men cared about that, they would do more of it, the reality is that married men end up doing more chores than they would if they were single. This is a minus, not a positive. Home cooked meals? Again, if men valued this they would do more, further women do less and less of this. Money? When they spend more?
How about intangibles? Friendship? Is the friendship with a woman as rewarding as the friendship between men? Or is the wife someone that nags, and harps and tests the man? Do friends test constantly? No they do not, so it is not friendship that women offer. The idea that a spouse becomes a person’s best friend is a lie, or if it is true, it is because the relationship has killed all outside friendships.
Cold is the counsel of women.
This is a problem that women face. Men have always been the givers in most relationships and women have been the takers. Yet their sexuality makes them yearn for a dominate man. If they acknowledge their nature, they can to some extent control it. If they deny it they are at the mercy of it, it becomes even stronger at controlling their actions.
Yet to acknowledge it places them in a weaker position socially. It places them at the mercy of at least one man, perhaps more. This is the contradiction and quandary women find themselves in.
