Rattlife Game

"This is my job right here.... Make sure the sun's up and the girls are out."

This isn't a man on strike, this is a man happily enjoying the bread, circuses, and whores of a rapidly declining civilization for as long as it lasts. And who can blame him? How could working hard and being responsible provide him what he wants any more effectively?  Does anyone truly believe he would be more attractive to women if he was working retail at an Apple store?

This is what a society following the Female Imperative looks like.  The women go to work in the fields and the men laze about drinking in the sun.

The hidden costs of inequitable divorce

Dr. Helen shares Shawn Smith's thoughts after reading Men on Strike:

The bias against men in divorce and family law causes direct damage in some relationships. I’ve known dozens of men who choose to tolerate awful treatment from their wives because their only alternative is a divorce that promises financial ruin and part-time fatherhood. There is a reduced incentive for a woman of immature or low character to monitor her behavior if she stands to profit from divorce. It’s like having a job in which she will win the lottery if she gets fired. The courts have established a moral hazard for which men pay the price....

If the burden of divorce were more equitably shared, these men would have standing to push for changes in behavior, and the women in their lives would have an incentive to raise their maturity level, improve their communication, and beef up their coping skills. Not so ironically, the possibility of a painful divorce can lead to better behavior, which leads to healthier relationships. But as it stands, men who choose their wives poorly might pay the price for decades (along with any children who are involved) because the courts not only allow for bad behavior from abusive women, they indirectly encourage it.

This may be true.  But it occurs to me there is another set of unexpected consequences that stem from unequitable divorce laws, and they are considerably more significant than immature behavior on the part of some married women. The rise of "silver divorce" has been in the news of late, as "the number of over-60s divorcing has increased by over a third in 10 years."

I haven't read any statistics on whether it is disproportionately women leaving men or the other way around, but based on the fact that it is described as people waiting until the children have grown before ending the marriage, I strongly suspect that it is men who are filing more of them.  First, because women tend to be more impatient than men, second because child support creates a financial incentive for women and a disincentive for men to file for divorce when children are still in the picture, and third because every individual who has ever told me that they intend to wait until the youngest child is 18 before filing for divorce has been male.

It would be interesting to see if the 4/1 female to male divorce ratio holds up in silver divorces, as the lower the ratio, the stronger the indication that more men are simply biding their time until they can safely exit the marriage on more equitable terms.

Nor is that the only potential consequence, as it occurs to me that men who are biding their time would be well-served by refusing to work hard or to build household wealth, since they already know that they are going to lose at least half of whatever wealth they manage to accumulate. So, divorce may not only have significant negative effects on children, but on the economy as well as it creates significant disincentives for the single most productive class, the married male with children, to produce anything.

"An epidemic of gold-digging whores"

"There is an epidemic of gold-digging whores in this country. And every night, I put on the news and I'm waiting for someone to address it! Every night, never see it. Every night I talk about gold-digging whores and the whole crowd pulls back like I'm talking about Bigfoot. Like I'm saying the Moon is made of cheese or something. I'm talking about whores, people! They're everywhere! How many? How many more great men are going to get chopped in half before we do something?"

The main reason for the epidemic is the solipsistic "just in case" aspect of the situation that causes good, responsible, non-gold diggers to support laws that make it possible for women to divorce-rape and asset-strip men.  Decent women support laws that benefit gold-digging whores for much the same reason decent blacks support gun control that benefits criminal black thugs.  Most women see the injustice in the family law system and they don't personally intend to benefit from it, but they dislike the idea that their friend, or their sister, or their mother, or their daughter, might find herself forced to suffer the consequences of her actions.

Just in case they find themselves in a situation where they would have to choose between divorce-raping their husbands and supporting themselves like the strong, independent women they are, well, they'd like the option to be there.  Just in case.

"There is nothing out there to help you handle becoming rich and famous.  There is nothing for that platoon of whores that is going to form on the horizon."

And some wonder why men are increasingly prone to going on strike.

The new Chris Brown

What are the chances that Emma Roberts will be as roundly condemned for physically attacking her boyfriend as Chris Brown was for physically attacking his girlfriend?

Emma Roberts was arrested for domestic violence in Canada for allegedly hitting her actor boyfriend Evan Peters. The 22-year-old niece of actress Julia Roberts was taken into custody on July 7 in Montreal after getting into a fight with her beau that left 26-year-old Peters bloody, according to TMZ. Police were called after someone reported a fight in the couple's hotel room and found Peters with a bloody nose.

As I have frequently observed, there is no such thing as equality in any material sense, least of all sexual equality.  And any man who somehow manages to get physically beaten up by a woman renders himself a gamma; no alpha would ever accept such treatment regardless of the subsequent legal consequences.  The very fact that a man is physically attacked in the first place is indicative of the woman's belief in his low socio-sexual status.

Women don't dare are much less inclined to attack alphas, not even with the full force of an anti-male legal regime behind them.  They understand that an alpha would much rather spend the rest of his life in prison than live it knowing he submitted to a physical assault by a woman without responding.  It is silly to say that a man who won't defend himself against women isn't a man, but it is a strong evidence that he is a man of average or lower socio-sexual status.

How to lower divorce rates

China leads the way:

Since August 13th, when China's Supreme People's Court reinterpreted the country's marriage law, many of the women leaving marriage registry offices like the one in Chaoyang have more than just the end of their marriages to bemoan. According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce. Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety.

In China, the rulings of its most senior judges automatically replace existing law. For the male-dominated Supreme Court, which features just one woman amongst its 13 judges, the new ruling is a brutal attempt to shore up the crumbling institution of marriage by making divorce less attractive....

A major reason why the new law is regarded as unjust by most women is that in China men, or their parents, traditionally buy the family home. Indeed, many women will refuse to marry until that happens. It is such a custom that tying the knot with a man who doesn't own a property is known as a 'naked wedding'.

Notice that Chinese women want it both ways.  They won't marry a man if he doesn't buy a house, but they want to automatically claim a half-interest in it simply by marrying him.

When viewed from the socio-sexual perspective, the inevitable failure of democracy with universal suffrage appears obvious.

Why there aren't enough doctors

One thing that never seems to come up amidst all the celebrating female advances in education is the massive waste of educational resources that far too many of those female degrees now represent:

Female doctors put NHS under 'tremendous burden' because they get married, have children and want to work part-time. Health minister Anna Soubry warns of 'unintended consequences'. Tory MP Anne McIntosh: NHS is forced to train two part-time GPs. Up to 70 per cent of medical students are female, MPs are told.

The main reason there are no longer enough medical doctors across the West is the fact that female doctors work far fewer hours, on average, than the male doctors they have replaced.  Due to the strong female preference for part-time work, at least three doctors are now required to cover the patient base that two could before, even if one assumes that female doctors are more or less equivalent to male doctors.  So, if 70 percent of British medical students are now female, that means that a more serious shortfall of doctors is all but guaranteed.

And keep in mind that this sort of wasted education isn't even accounting for the degrees that are worthless on their face, which women also pursue in greater numbers than men.  Now, advanced female degrees do serve an important role in associative mating, but there has to be a better and more efficient way to ensure that intelligent male doctors meet and marry intelligent young women than forcing those young women to go through all the time, effort, and expense of medical school.

There is nothing wrong with female doctors. But in a society with too few doctors, one would think at least some thought should be given to focusing educational resources on those medical students who are expected to pursue a full-time career in medicine rather than a part-time one.

You can talk about the importance of sexual equality all you like, but I suspect your ideology is going to ring pretty hollow when you're dying on a cart in the emergency room, with no doctor available to see you because seven of the ten doctors working there are on flex-time.  It doesn't matter how capable a doctor is if she's just not there.

Equality and entrepeneurialism

Say what you will about the public school system, but at least they are teaching girls that they can not only do the jobs that men historically did, but that they can start their own businesses too:

An 18-year-old Hopkins High School senior cheerleader allegedly used her sophomore teammate as a prostitute, according to a criminal complaint filed in Hennepin County. Montia Marie Parker, 18, of Maple Grove was arrested on one count of second-degree felony sex trafficking, and one count of felony solicitation, inducement and promotion of prostitution.

Sure, she might need a lecture or two on the relevant state laws, but isn't this exactly the liberation from the rule of men that feminists have been seeking for the last 40 years?

Love vs Hypergamy

One tends to suspect that the latter will win out in this particular case:

“I’m recently engaged to the most honest, thoughtful, and loving man I’ve ever met. He has supported me through many hard times, including losing my job and being assaulted. Here’s the but about him: He makes no money. He has ambitions, and he’s smart, but will likely only bring a middle-class income at best. I have an OK job and I’m self-sufficient. Now here’s the but about me: I’m really, really pretty. My whole life people have told me I could get any man I want, meaning a rich man, and are shocked that I’m engaged to my fiancé, nice though he is. I’ve never dated a rich man, but it does make me curious. So part of me thinks I’m squandering my good looks on this poor man, and the other part of me thinks that I’m so shallow that I don’t even deserve him or anyone else. Am I a fool for thinking that a poor man can make me happy, or an idiot for believing a sexist fantasy?”

The important thing to note here is not the shameless hypergamy or the expectation that looks intrinsically merit money, but rather, the fact that women can, and do, make a choice to surmount their baser motivations.  The practitioners of Game who dismiss all women as helpless biological automatons are as wrong to do so as the naysayers of Game are to deny the biological and sociological drives that men with Game exploit so successfully.

Civilizationists should not only advocate Game for men, but the rational control of the hypergamous instinct for women.  One might dismiss this pretty woman as shallow, but in truth, she is showing more self-awareness than the average woman does.  And it should also make it obvious that although women grasp the concepts of gratitude and obligation, they don't tend to view them as binding in the male sense of the terms.

Nihilists vs Civilizationists

It's been interesting to see the blog comments devolve into a sort of petty war between what appears to be some flavor of MGTOW on one hand and a loose alliance of pro-male married women and traditionalist men on the other.  Based on some comments I've received from some leading Game bloggers, this dynamic has appeared on other blogs as well.

To a certain extent, it is something that was always inevitable.  To give one example, whereas Roissy and I obviously respect each other despite our different purposes, those who incline more towards his "fiddle while Rome burns" perspective are considerably less able to view those differences in the abstract than Roissy, while those who are more focused on saving civilization from itself, (or at least preserving the seeds of civilization as the fire sweeps through the forest), are considerably less able to view the fiddlers with the same sort of equanimity that I am.

What both camps have in common is a diagnosis. Where they differ is the prescription. This is why they are not functional allies in the long term.  Their immediate objectives and priorities have nothing in common and  their perspectives are fundamentally different. However, it should be kept in mind that neither side created the problem to which both are reacting, and it should be recognized that both have important roles to play before the course plays itself out.

It is the MGTOW who will ultimately destroy the Female Imperative society by removing its foundations.  The traditionalists tend to allay the destructive effects of the irrational while the hedonists exacerbate them.  This is why the MGTOW incorrectly tend to look on the traditionalists as white knights and useful idiots in the service of the Female Imperative.  They erroneously conflate the traditionalists who are simply doing what they have always done with the feminized Church and the female-biased State.

By withdrawing their services, their seed, their paternal support, and their economic surplus from the women and children of society, they render that society unsustainable.  They are responding rationally to the disincentives which that society has presented them. Theirs is a perfectly legitimate response to a society gone mad.  More than that, their response is a necessary one, it is part of the pendulum swing that is required before society can return to sanity and stability.

However, the hedonistic, self-centered MGTOW will never be able to build anything lasting or replace the society which they quite rightly hate.  They must rely upon the civilizationists to do that; without the traditionalists still stubbornly working, marrying, and having children despite all of the societal disincentives for doing so, there will be no eventual recovery from the chaotic, barbaric morass into which the equalitarian-corrupted West is rapidly sliding.

This is why the accusations of lotus-eating on the one hand and white-knighting on the other are both misplaced and ill-considered.  Both nihilists and civilizationists are necessary to the process of first destroying, and then replacing, FI society. One need not agree with the other to respect and understand his - or her - role in the necessary, desirable, and, I would argue, inevitable, process.

Female Imperative, enshrined into law

Walter Russell Mead examines the expected effects of Obamacare on male and female pocketbooks:

Young men will be the biggest losers in the transition to Obamacare, according to a new report by the actuarial and consulting firm Milliman. The report estimates that males as a whole will see an 11 percent increase in insurance premiums, while females as a whole will see a nine percent decrease. Men under 40 will face insurance hikes of 18 to 31 percent; females under 40 will benefit from 13 to 19 percent decreases.

But here’s the real kicker: premiums for young men ages 25-36 could increase by more than 50 percent, and females 25-29 will face a 4 percent increase. In other words, if you’re young, you lose. If you’re a man, you lose. If you’re a young man, you really lose.

Going economically ghost and operating in the black economy instead of the visible one is becoming less a logical choice and more of a necessity as more and more unproductive female employees fill the ranks of what was once optimistically called the Information Society.

Translation: the digital paper-pushing economy.

MGTOW used to refer primarily to a decision to men's sexual choices, but I suspect the definition is going to have to be expanded to include men's economic choices as well.  Once men can no longer reasonably expect to be able to support a wife and children, they not only will not attempt to do so, but they have no incentive to produce the economic surplus upon which societies have depended upon since the inception of written history.

And without incentive, it's simply not going to happen.  Now, perhaps women will rise to the occasion and show that they can be every bit as productive and capable of maintaining a civilized society as men.  Or, more likely, the withdrawal of men from the mainstream of both society and the economy will speed up the transition into the next phase of Western civilization, whatever that might be.

At some point, one has to ask oneself the question: are those pursuing these policies genuinely this short-sighted or are they intentionally seeking the results they are obtaining?

American Sheng Nu

I find it amusing that the "sheng nu" phenomenon is portrayed as a Chinese problem, as if American women aren't every bit as hypergamous as their Asian counterparts:

Feminists are concerned that some Chinese women in their late 20s who are doing well in their careers but are labeled “leftover women” for not having married yet, may be their own worst enemies.

While they may earn as much as their male counterparts they may still adhere to traditional beliefs that decree a man must earn more than his wife, and men generally share that belief. Either way, this attitude may limit their pool of potential mates.

“They are still living in a traditional mindset and values, even though there’s no way that those can solve their problem,” said Feng Yuan, a feminist and head of Beijing’s Anti-Domestic Violence Network, in a telephone interview. Other feminists agreed with her.

What is missing is a stronger awareness of the dynamics of gender, said Ms. Feng. “If they don’t gain gender consciousness then they can only rely on luck to solve their problem,” she said, meaning they can only hope to solve the problem if they meet a man who earns more than they do.

“Shengnu,” or “leftover woman,” a term applied to China’s well-educated, unmarried women, has long been hurtful for those labeled in that way.

"Gender consciousness" is not going to solve their problem either.  Hypergamy cannot be indoctrinated out of women, and sexual selection guarantees that it will never be bred out of women.  In fact, feminism is bound to strengthen women's natural hypergamy, because the Sheng Nu, both Chinese and American, are evolutionary dead ends.

And I encourage the androsphere to adopt the term "Sheng Nu".  Whenever meeting a woman who makes conventional noises about putting her education or her career first, don't hesitate to nod approvingly and neg her about her brave, feminist choice to embrace her Sheng Nu status.

Begging the question

Warren Buffett makes an assumption that does not appear to be borne out by the facts:

In the flood of words written recently about women and work, one related and hugely significant point seems to me to have been neglected. It has to do with America's future, about which -- here's a familiar opinion from me -- I'm an unqualified optimist. Now entertain another opinion of mine: Women are a major reason we will do so well.

Start with the fact that our country's progress since 1776 has been mind-blowing, like nothing the world has ever seen. Our secret sauce has been a political and economic system that unleashes human potential to an extraordinary degree. As a result Americans today enjoy an abundance of goods and services that no one could have dreamed of just a few centuries ago.

But that's not the half of it -- or, rather, it's just about the half of it. America has forged this success while utilizing, in large part, only half of the country's talent. For most of our history, women -- whatever their abilities -- have been relegated to the sidelines. Only in recent years have we begun to correct that problem.

This raises the question: is it actually a problem?   Buffett acknowledges that America forged this incredible success without utilizing the talent of women.  In recent years, America has been utilizing more and more female talent, and yet strangely, has seen the rest of the world, much of which is still not utilizing female talent to the same degree, catch up to it, and in some cases, even surpass it.

Now, logic would suggest that there is at least a possibility that this past success stemmed from not using that talent, that female "talent", in fact, has a negative effect on human potential.  However, that isn't a debate that anyone is permitted to have, because the Female Imperative insists that more female involvement means more better in all aspects of human endeavor.

Perhaps those who hold this position will be more open to the possibility after the next economic crash, or after equalitarian societies crash and/or die out.  I tend to doubt it, though, as the sort of women who subscribe to the Female Imperative were capable of learning from history, they wouldn't be equalitarians or feminists in the first place.

Alpha Mail: yes, they're shooting at you

John comments that "a war on men" is an uphill battle:

I noticed you and Helen talking about how when young men "do nothing" they are collaborating with the enemy.

But let's take my university for example. There are professors (male and female) that openly advocate feminism. There are many beta orbiters around even the feminist women. No girl will ever openly associate with your cause (and as per the feminine imperative, the problem is ignored by society if it doesn't affect women).

You are right we have to try, but it is an uphill battle of sorts. Cause we have to go against society, male and female.

Imagine a discussion between two soldiers in a battle. They are outnumbered and outgunned. The enemy is advancing. Their only hope of survival is breaking through the enemy lines and escaping to a more defensible position. Then one of them turn to the other.

"But we can't do that.  They'll SHOOT at us!"

Yes. Yes, Sherlock, they will.  If you speak up, they will shoot at you. If you show any sign of resisting the Female Imperative, they will badmouth you. If you do betray insufficient enthusiasm for their equalitarian society, they will try to deny you employment and attempt to harm you in any way they possibly can.  Ironically, they will actually be more likely to have sex with you, but they'll certainly declare very loudly to all and sundry that they would never permit you to come anywhere close to them even as they send you pictures of them to show you what you'll supposedly be missing.

Now ask yourself this question: why?  Why do they do this?  Why will they attack you?

The reason is that they are trying to defend the Female Imperative.  They are seeking prevent men from doing the one thing that will take all of the power over men they have amassed away from them.  If you speak up, you may well pay the cost.  But if you don't speak up, if you don't stand up, it is guaranteed that you and everyone else, men and women alike, will pay considerably more.

War only requires one side

Dr. Helen observes that most men are still not fighting back despite the war being waged against them throughout the West:

Jacobson makes a good point: “On campuses, there is a very real war on men, but few seem to care.”

This is an important point that needs to be explored. Men on campus are afraid to speak up and with good reason. Even Warren Farrell, author of The Myth of Male Power was stifled by radical feminists at the University of Toronto when trying to talk about men’s rights.

When I was speaking to men about college for my book, I found that many did not want their names used and were afraid that there would be repercussions if their identity was known. I use the word afraid because that is what it is. Men don’t want to think of themselves as fearful, many deny that anything is happening and don’t feel the need to fight back. Instead, they stick their head in the sand and call this “bravery” or “not wanting to seem like a victim.” But they are victims of kangaroo courts and angry feminists regardless of their denial.

The discrimination will continue because there is no push back.

Every time you keep your head down in order to avoid trouble, you are collaborating with the enemy. Every time you keep your mouth shut because you think, just maybe, silence will improve your chances of getting laid, you are collaborating. Every time you meekly submit to your wife instead of providing her with the leadership she craves, you are collaborating.  Those who refuse to fight back are not brave, they are not being manly for suffering in silence, they are short-sighted cowards who have betrayed both their sex and their society.

This is the connection between Game and the refounding of Western Civilization. Demographics is destiny. Some form of the traditional order will eventually reassert itself; the unsustainable society is destined to collapse. But those of us, male and female alike, who wish to live in a civilized society have got to stop collaborating with those who are seeking, consciously or unconsciously, to destroy it.

Agree and amplify: Swedish version

A study points to what may be a unexpected means of moving women out of the workforce and back into child-rearing: give the feminists what they want with regards to generous maternal leave.

On the surface, Sweden appears to be a feminist paradise. Look at any global survey of gender equity and Sweden will be near the top. Family-friendly policies are its norm — with 16 months of paid parental leave, special protections for part-time workers, and state-subsidized preschools where, according to a government website, “gender-awareness education is increasingly common.” Due to an unofficial quota system, women hold 45 percent of positions in the Swedish parliament. They have enjoyed the protection of government agencies with titles like the Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality and the Secretariat of Gender Research. So why are American women so far ahead of their Swedish counterparts in breaking through the glass ceiling?

Generous parental leave policies and readily available part-time options have unintended consequences: instead of strengthening women’s attachment to the workplace, they appear to weaken it.  In addition to a 16-month leave, a Swedish parent has the right to work six hours a day (for a reduced salary) until his or her child is eight years old. Mothers are far more likely than fathers to take advantage of this law. But extended leaves and part-time employment are known to be harmful to careers — for both genders. And with women a second factor comes into play: most seem to enjoy the flex-time arrangement (once known as the “mommy track”) and never find their way back to full-time or high-level employment. In sum: generous family-friendly policies do keep more women in the labor market, but they also tend to diminish their careers.

According to Blau and Kahn, Swedish-style paternal leave policies and flex-time arrangements pose a second threat to women’s progress: they make employers wary of hiring women for full-time positions at all. Offering a job to a man is the safer bet. He is far less likely to take a year of parental leave and then return on a reduced work schedule for the next eight years.

Regardless of what they say, and no matter what their educational level, most women vastly prefer raising children to nearly any other occupation. That's why the most popular professional occupations for women either involve actual child-rearing activities such as teaching and day care or ersatz ones such as social work, human resources, and middle management.

The reason they choose work over home life is because work pays better.  So, the answer is obvious: provide financial incentives to get them on the Mommy track. It may seem unfair - actually, it is unfair - but fairness is a small price to pay for societal sustainability.

The evolution of Game

Rollo has an excellent post on the intellectual development and broadening spectrum of Game, as well as some thoughts on its continued evolution:

For all its marginal efforts to shame Game back into obscurity, the feminine imperative found that the Game movement wasn’t being cowed as easily as it might have been in the mid 1990′s. The Imperative was falling back on the reliable tropes and social conventions that had always pushed the masculine back into compliance. At the apex of fem-centrism in the 90′s these social constructs worked well on an isolated, shamed and ignorant masculine imperative, but with the evolution of the internet, by the late 2000′s Game was snowballing into a threat that required new feminine operative conventions.

Game evolved beyond the behavioral sets, and beyond the psychological and sociological mechanics that underlined women’s psyches and larger socializations. While still encompassing all that prior evolution, Game was becoming aware of the larger social meta-scale of the feminine imperative. Game began to move beyond the questions of why women are the way they are, and into piecing together how the intergender acculturations we experience today are what they are. Game asked how did we come to this?

Game branched into specific areas of interest in its scope to answer these broader questions and solve more expansive problems. While we still have all of the prior iterations of Game, we have expanded into christianized Game, married Game, divorced Game, socialized Game, high school Game, etc.

However, underpinning all of these areas of specialization was still the need to internalize and personalize Game in a Man’s life. Game was the path to male re-empowerment; an empowerment that even women today still feel men should Man-back-Up to. Game required a reinterpretation of masculinity towards something positive, beneficial and competent – something entirely apart from the negative, shameful and ridiculous archetypes 60 years of feminization had convinced women and men of. Call it Alpha, call it Positive Masculinity, but Game necessitates the reimagining of the importance of the masculine imperative. Game needs Men to change their minds about themselves.

Needless to say, even in its most positive of contexts, the male re-empowerment that Game led to was a Threat too great for the feminine imperative to allow. Controlling the intrinsic insecurities that the feminine imperative is founded upon has alway depended on men’s ignorance of their true value, and true necessity to women. Men have to remain necessitous to women in order for their insecurity to be insured against, and the feminine imperatives control to be insured of.

This is a very good post because it helps to understand where one has been if one is to figure out where one is going.  This blog is one of the many third-generation Game blogs that addresses only a small aspect of Game, but as I have said many times, we all have our part to play in its continuing development.

While his distinction between Evil Game and Good Game being based on what serves - or at least does not too openly conflict with - the Female Imperative and what does not is a potentially useful one, I do not believe it is a serious problem.  Any attempts to coopt or divert Game that are not in line with the truth will rapidly fail, and make the parts that are legitimate stand out in contrast with it. In the meantime, those efforts will continue to publicize it.

Consider Helen Smith's new book.  She's not a theoretician of Game. She's a woman. And while she specifically makes the case for men's rights per se, not merely as something beneficial to women, she openly admits that she can only be a voice speaking up for men, she is not a male voice.  And yet, Men on Strike contains a section on the socio-sexual hierarchy and will likely do more to bring attention to Alpha Game, and by extension Roissy, Rollo, Dalrock, and other blogs featured here, than anything I've ever done.

The reason there is no cause for concern about cooption is because like Biblical Prophecy, if it doesn't reliably work, it is not Game. Even the transmission of adulterated Good Game is potentially useful because Game is also like a virus.  Very small doses are all that are required to inspire even the most abused, brainwashed male mind to ask that vital question that all of us finally asked ourselves at one point or another: why is the female behavior I am observing so different than what I was told by my mother, taught at my school, and preached at my church?

Once that question is asked, it is only a matter of time before the matrix of the Female Imperative is exposed to the questioner, never again to go unseen.

Feminist regrets women's rights

Judith Grossman belatedly discovers that the costs of the cause she has so energetically supported are being paid by her son:

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women's rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of "nonconsensual sex" that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice's looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment....

I fear that in the current climate the goal of "women's rights," with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.

I have pointed out for years that "women's rights" are totally incompatible with the rights that are the foundation of Western civilization: the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, and the rule of law.  Unfortunately, most women are absolutely unwilling to consider the matter rationally until a man they love is caught up in the chaotic legal maelstrom created by the so-called rights of women.

I feel sorry for the son. But it would be no more than his mother deserves if he was kicked out of school, forced to register as a sex offender, and rendered unemployable by the very regime she worked so hard to impose.

On misogyny

A woman at Susan's place made some very forthright statements accusing a onetime female blogger of misogyny.  I considered each of them.

1) Telling her blog readers that emotional and physical abuse isn’t a valid reason for divorce if you are a Christian. If I hadn’t left my first husband, he would have probably killed me by now.

Emotional and physical abuse is not valid grounds for a Christian to divorce his spouse. The only valid reason for the Christian to divorce is sexual immorality on the part of the spouse. To claim otherwise is provably false.

2) Telling readers that marital rape doesn’t exist because a husband essentially owns his wife’s body.

Marital rape doesn’t exist, not because of any essential ownership, but because consent has been given. One can no more give and withdraw consent within a marriage than one can lose and regain one’s virginity or join and quit the Army at will. If you are not giving consent by marrying someone, then your husband or wife has no more sexual claim on you than anyone else on the planet.

3) Telling readers that it’s wrong for a woman to turn down her husband sexually and that she must act enthusiastic even if she’s not in the mood. While sex is an important part of any marriage, it should never be forced.

It is wrong for either a man or a woman to turn down the spouse sexually. The only acceptable reason is for prayer, and then for a short time only. It is eminently clear that your morality, such as it is, is Churchian, it is neither Christian nor Biblical.

4) Telling readers that the 19th amendment should have never been ratified b/c women are too emotionally unstable to vote responsibly.

It is no more misogynous to assert that women should not be granted the privilege of voting than it is hateful to children or foreigners to assert neither of them should be given the privilege.

5) Calling women who have had sex before marriage sluts and calling women who are 4o and older and unmarried spinsters.

This is certainly impolite and perhaps even inaccurate. But not necessarily indicative of hate.

6) Posting numerous times about how men are superior to women in every way (intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually).

This is indicative of potential misogyny. It’s also stupid. Men are superior in many ways. And women are superior in many ways.

7) Posting that domestic violence claims are exaggerated and that men are just as likely to be victims as women.

This is not misogyny, these are simple and easily verified facts.

Sexual equality or freedom

It is no accident that many of the leading proponents of Game have backgrounds in economics.  This excellent post by Dalrock exemplifies why:

Through a combination of legal and social “reforms”, the US now has what appears on the surface to be a dual family structure but is in legal reality a single family structure organized around the concept of child support.  Where in the past a woman needed to secure a formal promise from a man in the form of marriage before she could expect him to support her and the children she bore, in this new structure the law declares that any man she has children by are bound to support her and her children whether she marries or not, and whether or not she honors her own marriage vows.
While men were motivated under the old family structure, they absolutely detest the new child support system of family formation.  Under the old system a man who married before fathering children could reasonably expect access to his children and the opportunity to direct their upbringing (in concert with his wife).  Under the new system the children are de facto considered the property of the mother, whom the state compels him to pay so she can direct their upbringing generally as she sees fit.  Since the new system has removed the incentive for men to work hard to provide for their families, it has to rely instead on threats of imprisonment to coerce men into earning “enough” income.  Where men used to take pride in the birth of their children and celebrate with cigars, large numbers of men now fear fatherhood more than anything.
Under the new rules even if a man chooses the structure of marriage he is always subject to being forced into the child support model for any or no reason by his wife.  No fault divorce laws are unilateral and openly celebrated by both social scientists and modern Christianity as a tool for wives to threaten their husbands.  Fathers have gone from being the respected head of household to deputy parent serving at the pleasure of their wives.
Fortunately for society the awareness of the reality of the new system has been slow to spread.  Most men are either uninformed about the true nature of the family court or assume that the woman they marry would never detonate their family for 30 pieces of silver.  Because of inertia men continue to earn more than women, and those who have studied the question (Hymowitz, Farrell) have found that this is due to men choosing to work harder, longer, and/or more difficult and dangerous jobs than women.  While the MIT economist is correct that men earn fewer degrees than women, those men who do earn degrees are far more likely than women to choose majors with real economic value.  However, the gender earnings gap is still shrinking, and this has the author of the NY Times business article both puzzled and worried:

The fall of men in the workplace is widely regarded by economists as one of the nation’s most important and puzzling trends. While men, on average, still earn more than women, the gap between them has narrowed considerably, particularly among more recent entrants to the labor force.

He should be worried, but he shouldn’t be puzzled.  The hard earned lesson of the twentieth century was that incentives work far better than coercion when it comes to generating economic value.  Yet despite winning the cold war the US and the western world has quietly elected to move from an incentives based family/economic structure (marriage) to one based on coercion (child support).

For all of its flaws - and they are manifold - even the generally poor level of economics training provided by the American university system teaches the student of economics to think in terms of incentives and probabilities.  Dalrock has clearly identified where most of the non-economics observers have gone wrong in failing to notice that the change in male behavior is not coincidental with the changes in female behavior, but rather, is a consequence of those changes.

And Dalrock points to the root behavioral issue here: "The more women delay, avoid, and abuse marriage the less men will be willing to generate the surplus economic output our economy depends on."

If history is a reasonable guide, as the negative consequences of the male refusal to generate the surplus output that provides for women and children increase, the societal powers will respond with attempts to coerce rather than abandon their destructive ideology.  And these attempts at coercion will fail, as do all such attempts to build a complex society on a foundation of force rather than mutual and voluntary benefit.

Because women are collectively more short-sighted and more self-centered than men, giving them an equal voice in society is tantamount to a slow-motion execution for any society.  This is not theoretical, it is observable, as the equalitarian societies of Europe are already demographically in demise and in the process of losing their democracies and their property rights.

I understand that many people believe women's rights are important.  But are they more important than property rights?  Are they more important than democracy? What those who support women's rights are understandably reluctant to accept is that equalitarianism necessarily requires the elimination of democracy, property rights, freedom of movement, and even, in the end, capitalism and most of the tenets of Western civilization.  But like it or not, that is the choice that has been made, and is being made, even today.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were no more mindless sexists than the Conscript Fathers of the Roman Senate.  They knew full well what would happen if sexual equality was ever granted.  It is not a coincidence, still less ironic, that those who built the greatest and freest human societies have always vehemently opposed women's rights, while the totalitarians who most avidly sought to curtail human freedom it have tended to support them.

A belated realization dawns

The grand visionaries of science fiction are gradually becoming aware, one by one, that their shiny sexy equalitarian scientopia isn't necessarily in the cards.

The Mad Scientist's Beautiful Daughter has her own TV Tropes page and now she has her own novel. Cassandra Rose Clarke, author of the YA adventure fantasy The Assassin's Curse has written a book where familiar science fiction stories are viewed through one woman's life. The Mad Scientist's Daughter is not for everyone — I suspect some fans might actually hate it. But it raises such good questions about the future, and the nature of science fiction storytelling itself, that it cannot be ignored....

For all that the book seems deep in conversation with many earlier science fiction books, it also seems to be trying to get to something in a certain brand of feminist retellings. Cat is a weaver and tapestry maker, an art form that has been disregarded as women's work. Artists and museums have recently begun to re-position weaving and tapestry as an early form of pixilated representation, noting the link between Jaquard looms' punch cards and early computer programming. Cat may be surrounded by cyberneticists, but she has taken up the simplified and distaff form of mechanical programming. There is also something of Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique in Cat's unfulfilling life as a housewife. The suggestion is that feminist thought and advances may be fleeting.

There is a host of books, particularly fantasy, where female characters grasp at a certain type of modern feminism from decidedly non-modern settings. What most of us don't want to consider is that societal pressures, the liberal use of force and threats from within families and institutions, could turn feminism into just a phase that dies out. We'd like to believe that our current system of liberal values is so obvious and natural that once introduced, it would come out on top. The Mad Scientist's Daughter presents the possibility that women's equality might not even survive a few hundred years.

Possibility?  More like certainty. Women's equality won't survive another 50 years.  It may not even survive another 20.  No ideology as fundamentally in conflict with biology, science, sexuality, and reality itself as feminism can hope to survive even the amount of societal influence it has achieved.  It is a parasitic ideology, and as such, is not capable of providing a basis for a sustainable society.