Men find their own solutions to the gender wars

Summary: As the gender wars continue with no end in sight, men find their own solutions as individuals. Some learn Game to get casual sex. Some Go Their Own Way. Both feel good for a while. I doubt either will work for men or America over the long-term. Social problems require social solutions, people working together to build a better future (the last post in this series discusses this).

Individualism

I believe the gender wars have moved beyond the point at which understanding of their causes can help. The most we can do is clearly see what is happening, speculate about what comes next, and prepare. This is the second post about three solutions that are seldom discussed.

Boxing in the Gender Wars

  1. A return to traditional values.
  2. Men finding individual solutions.
  3. Part 1 – An expert discusses individual solutions.
  4. Part 2 – Discussing women’s responses to men’s solutions.
  5. Part 3 – An expert looks into the future and sees wonders ahead.
  6. Part 4 – An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars.
  7. Part 5 – An expert’s insight: Game is toxic to feminism.
  8. Part 5 – Rebuilding men’s self-respect is a solution to the gender wars.
  9. A counter-revolution in society.

There is a large and growing genre of media telling men how to cope with the gender wars. None of them will work well for men over the long-term. None will work well for America over the long-term.

Super Seducer

Game

“I’m directing this essay at you, a Christian,…these techniques and advice are literally FROM THE DEVIL. …you can actually train yourself to look at women …as less than human, so that you are no longer afraid of their opinion of you, then your long career of striking out will be over. You will go from being terrified of beautiful women to knowing how to spot the ones {you can bed}…You will laugh at your old self, who somehow was intimidated by a half-naked 115 pound creature in heels.”

— “An Essay for Single Christian Men” by Christian economist Robert P. Murphy. He files this advertisement for Game under “deep thoughts.” H/t Dalrock. Update: Dr. Murphy’s comment below says that posting his quote that “these techniques and advice are literally FROM THE DEVIL” is an endorsement of these techniques. Which team is he on?

The invaluable Urban Dictionary has a good definition of “Game.” Here is the opening.

“It’s confidently using your attributes, characteristics, and overall personality to win the affection of the woman you want. You can’t have game if you don’t know yourself; you can’t be confident in what you’re ignorant of. Game is playing the cards you’re dealt and WINNING; turning your positives into swagger (not ‘swag’) and your negatives into charm.”

A briefer version is that game is the response to women’s liberation. Many of today’s young women have unleashed hypergamy (Wikipedia), expressed as delayed marriage — filling the time chasing alpha men. This leaves most men — betas — on the sidelines as a pareto distribution governs the mating game and ~20% of the guys get ~80% of the women. Game teaches men to imitate alpha’s behaviors.

The testimony of men using Game is clear – it helps men hook-up with women, to the extent that men can use it. That is, it provides incremental benefits proportional to the user’s skill. The internet overflows with vivid tales of success use of Game. Much or most of this is probably fake, but the large user base shows some level of effectiveness.

The experience of using or watching Game is closely linked to Red Pill insights about the gender wars (see definition 4). For example, see this explanation of women’s “hamster” thinking.

Probably the major effect of Game and Red Pill results from what men learn from those few who succeed. Game requires treating women like animals. Karl Popper said the successful predictions were the gold standard of science. Successful results are the gold standard of gender relations on the street. Discovery, through observation or experience, that Game works is gaining dark knowledge. It’s like reading Niccolò Machiavelli or about the “noble lie” in Plato’s The Republic. Men never again see the world in the same way.

I doubt this works well over the long-term for most men using Game. The side effects might be awful, such as cynicism, a bitter view of the world, and an inability to make a stable relationship with a woman. I wonder if Game is the equivalent of women’s delusion that they can party for ten years than marry the many of their dreams.

For more information about Game, see The war of the sexes heats up: society changes as men learn the Dark Triad and “Celebs Go Dating” shows young women in action.

MGTOW

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)

A more common response is MGTOW. It is easier for men to implement and has a larger impact on society. As countless analysts have shown during the past 50 years, in western patriarchal systems, men are socialized to become husbands and fathers – joining the rat race. Now the incentives to do so are eroding away, replaced by the party-of-her-life, marriage, children, and divorce – followed by independence plus child support (vivid details here).

As young men realize this, some decide it is not a rational risk. They decline to join the rat race of education and hard work, following instead the easy path of drugs, booze, porn, casual sex, light work, low stress – and in the future, sexbots. This is our way in modern America. Bold individual solutions! Libertarians!

This is the counter-revolution to our latest experiments on American society (we’re the guinea pigs). This could drastically shake gender relations in America, disrupt its family structure, and perhaps slow its economic growth.

MGTOW feels good for young men. It might become a bad trip as they age. Low incomes and living alone are fine at 25, but less so at 45. These bitter middle-aged men will be the male equivalents of the single cat ladies (today’s party girls expecting to find their soulmate at 30).

  1. The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
  2. Men are abandoning the rat race, & changing American society. — See the data.
  3. Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
  4. Will young men break America’s family structure?
  5. Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends which of these answers is right.
  6. Our society will be shaped by technology as porn and sexbots destroy 21st century marriage.

All this is men’s response to the great experiment

”Today’s unmarried twenty-something women have given men an ultimatum: I’ll marry when I’m ready, take it or leave it. This is, of course, their right. But ultimatums are a risky thing, because there is always a possibility the other side will decide to leave it. In the next decade we will witness the end result of this game of marriage chicken. …

”The same man may decide a feminine and chaste early 20 something woman is worth the legal risks men face in marriage, while coming to the opposite conclusion for her ten year older former alpha chasing career gal sister.  The older sister is betting that at the end of the day enough successful men will blink when faced with the choice of starting a family with her vs not starting a family at all.  We won’t have to wait too long to see if their gamble is right.

”If it turns out their gamble was incorrect, this would seem likely to precipitate a wide spread power shift in the marriage market.  Just like a real estate market can quickly shift from a sellers’ to a buyers’ market, we could see a sea change where men see themselves as the scarce commodity and women fear being the ones without a seat when the music stops.”

— Dalrock in “Supply and demand in the marriage market.

Dalrock’s insights

Dalrock has some fascinating analysis and commentary about dating and marriage at his website.  Update: see his insightful response to this post.

For More Information

Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender issues, especially these about Game…

  1. The feminist revolutionaries have won. Insurgents have arisen to challenge the new order. As always, they’re outlaws.
  2. As the Left’s social revolution wins victories, a revolt begins.
  3. MeToo discovers that there is always a counterrevolution.

Two books by Professor Regnerus about the revolution

Two books by Professor’s Regnerus about the revolution.

Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (2011).

Strongly recommended: Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy (2017). See the two posts (above) about it.

Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying.
Available at Amazon.
Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy
Available at Amazon.

 

67 thoughts on “Men find their own solutions to the gender wars

  1. “……living alone are fine at 25, but less so at 45. These bitter middle-aged men will be the male equivalents of the single cat ladies….”

    Gosh…very blue-pill shaming language if I may say so!
    There is NOTHING better than being a free man….and living by yourself is AWESOME!
    I’m way past 45…..drive an expensive German car and have my own place with an acre of land around me.
    I don’t have to ask, negotiate, compromise, beg for forgiveness, consider anyone else’s “feelings” or put up with drama.
    I can’t think of a single reason why ANY men would consider marriage (unless she is wealthy)….I consider myself an extreme red-pilled MGTOW* man…..maybe that is why there is no “bitterness”…… just joy.
    Only blue-pilled needy men will get bitter (like single cat ladies) as time goes by.
    However…. if one is a masculine, red-pilled, independent man….now is a GREAT time to be single!

    *MGTOW = NO marriage, NO cohabitation and NO exclusive relationships……plenty of bangs and plate spinning.

    1. Correction to my reply.

      The Sick Man,

      “I drive an expensive German car and have my own place with an acre of land around me.”

      That’s a reading FAIL. Let’s replay the tape to see what I said.

      “They decline to join the rat race of education and hard work, …Low incomes and living alone are fine at 25, but less so at 45.”

      One problem with dropping out of the rat race of “education and hard work” is the resulting low income. You obviously have money, either from hard work, inheritance, or luck. But most men who drop out early will not. That will get old, fast.

  2. It’s funny, because some guys who were into promoting advice from “pickup artists” found my essay and mocked me for being a “beta.” Now it seems this post is claiming I was endorsing these techniques. If I were doing that, why would I tell Christian men it was from the devil? Wouldn’t that be a red flag?

    So to be clear, I was telling Christian men to flee from techniques that come from the devil. I encourage people to click on the link rather than reading the oddly selective, ellipsed quotation above.

    1. Bob,

      Wow. That is one of the most remarkable reading FAILs in the 50 thousand-plus comments on the FM website (some of which are difficult to top). Let’s replay the tape.

      Your essay says “these techniques and advice are literally FROM THE DEVIL…”

      Your comment says “Now it seems this post is claiming I was endorsing these techniques.”

      I made no “claims” about your essay. Even in San Francisco, saying that advice is “FROM THE DEVIL” is condemning the advice, not endorsing it.

    2. @Bob Murphy

      Now it seems this post is claiming I was endorsing these techniques. If I were doing that, why would I tell Christian men it was from the devil? Wouldn’t that be a red flag?

      So to be clear, I was telling Christian men to flee from techniques that come from the devil. I encourage people to click on the link rather than reading the oddly selective, ellipsed quotation above.

      I don’t see our host claiming you are endorsing Game. I see him offering your critique of Game as just that, a critique.

    3. Dalrock,

      Dr. Murphy appears to believe that posting a quote that says “these techniques and advice are literally FROM THE DEVIL” is an endorsement of those techniques.

      You’ve shown that many Christian conservatives have moved away from Scripture-based values. Have some changed sides in the eternal conflict? Are they batting for the other team?

    4. Darock,

      Do you have any thoughts about the theories briefly described in this post? You’ve thought and written about these matters have longer and in more depth than I.

  3. “They decline to join the rat race of education and hard work, …Low incomes and living alone are fine at 25, but less so at 45.”

    Agreed…somewhat. My point was being a MGTOW at 45+ is AWESOME, provided it comes with a massive Red-Pill dosage (a somewhat dark triad personality is a plus).

    MGTOW + Bill-Pill is a dangerous combination regardless of age. bitterness/suicide if you are old and Elliot Rodger if you are not.

    1. The Sick Man,

      I don’t understand what you are saying about the points I’ve made.

  4. I’m so glad I’m a red blooded American male who is raising another red blooded American male and female. I’m also happy that I came out of a divorce and after some time off met a truly wonderful woman. We are in our 40s so I don’t have experience with the 20 something crowd. All I know is if I had to listen to this 20 something mindset verbalized I’d lose my poop.

    1. Gute,

      “All I know is if I had to listen to this 20 something mindset verbalized I’d lose my poop.”

      Said by many old folks everywhere, always. Lack of empathy is a commonplace problem, unfortunately.

  5. Great summary, and thanks for the kind and generous linkage.

    On the topic of Game, one thing I would encourage everyone to keep in mind is that as a society we are obsessed with generating sexual attraction in women. We see this ability as the most pure test of goodness in a man. A woman’s feelings of sexual attraction are a mystical force, godlike for non Christians, and God’s message for Christians. We can’t see how incredibly crass this is because we call it romantic love, but romantic love is far more intertwined with sexual desire than we are willing to admit. To truly seduce a woman is to make her fall in love with you.

    Generating the tingle is an obsession with our society, and you can see it in our popular films. The Fifth Element is over the top in this regard on the secular side, as is Fireproof on the Christian side.

    We believe that good things should happen to men who can generate the tingle. This is why we reserve our daughters’ most sexually attractive years as a reward for such men. Our greatest fear is that the woman might become confused and bestow her gift of sex on the wrong men.

     

    This is also why we need no fault divorce. What court in the land could overrule the woman’s holy vagina? If she no longer tingles for him, he deserves to be ejected from his children’s lives and have a more sexy man take his place. Think of the vitriol we heap on such men who dare to complain when this happens to them. They are the lowest of the low in our society, except perhaps for those most detestable men of all, the omegas who can’t attract a woman at all.

    All of our sexual morality is directly anchored to the tingle. The #metoo movement doesn’t object to women trading sex to get ahead, it objects to the fact that in doing so such women are enticed into having sex with unsexy men!

    Our society is obsessed with how to make women tingle. It is our most fundamental test for goodness in a man. Game teaches men how to be good (in our society’s view).

    1. Dalrock,

      I agree on all points. More strongly, I believe that you and others have documented these things.

      But that’s not the point of this series. As I said in the first chapter, “enough analysis.” What should men do in response? The first chapter said that a return to “traditional values” was not feasible. This post questions the effectiveness of Game and MGTOW, saying that for men they are useful short-term but problem ineffective or destructure long-term — and damaging to America. The third looks at social reforms, aka group or pack responses.

      Any thoughts?

    2. @LK

      I agree on all points. More strongly, I believe that you and others have documented these things.

      But that’s not the point of this series.

      Understood. I mention it because for nearly everyone their first response to reading about Game is to laugh at the men learning it for being obsessed with seduction. The old anti drug commercial comes to mind. “I learned it from you Dad! I learned it from you!”

      As I said in the first chapter, “enough analysis.” What should men do in response? The first chapter said that a return to “traditional values” was not feasible. This post questions the effectiveness of Game and MGTOW, saying that for men they are useful short-term but problem ineffective or destructure long-term — and damaging to America.

      I think for the foreseeable future individual solutions are a man’s best bet, no matter how thin they are. Understanding reality will help men make better informed decisions. Think of the Christian author I wrote about last week who married a woman who was repulsed at the thought of holding hands with him, and then was shocked that he had a 20 year sexless marriage that ended with her cheating on him. It may seem trivial, but teaching men about the mechanics of attraction helps a lot compared with teaching them lies. The other thing I would say is that men should be clear about marriage and sexual morality. The most common view (including from men) is that if a wife becomes unhaaapy she must be permitted to divorce and her ex husband must provide moral cover for her immorality. If a man isn’t perfectly clear that this is wrong he shouldn’t marry. Also, teaching your children this reality from an early age will at least put a damper on her temptation to try to live out the Eat Pray Love dream.

      The third looks at social reforms, aka group or pack responses.

      Social reforms is an interesting topic, and I very much look forward to your upcoming post. One thing that I think is a misconception is the idea that we are seeing a “marriage strike”. What I think we are seeing instead is a breakdown of incentives due to the ever increasing delay of marriage (and the pre marriage girlfriend). I don’t think men are on strike, or (for the most part) consciously going their own way. Instead, as we have reworked the incentives for men, the culture of young men has drifted away from the old order. I think nearly all of them would still very much like to marry the washed out party girls who are complaining about a lack of good men. The problem is these men can’t go back and focus their teens and 20s on education and hard work any more than the women can go back and devote their most fertile years to marriage. The coin is already spent. So you can’t bargain with them to win them over, because (for the most part) they never really were on strike. I’m not saying the men you encounter who identify as MGTOW aren’t sincere (although not all are). I’m saying when we look at the stats and see an ever increasing group of men working enough to support themselves and devoting their remaining energy to hobbies, Tinder, online porn, video games, pot, etc, this isn’t coming from a deliberate intent to “strike”.

      What I think we will see is a creeping panic from our ruling class as they realize that in replacing the marriage based family model with one founded on child support they have removed the incentive for men to produce the kinds of excess wealth that our progressive tax structure requires. Even worse, fatherless children are (on average) far more expensive to society than fathered children are, and this is true for life. So the income stream is at risk, and the expenses are going up. The logical reaction is going to be to try to rework the system around the edges, rolling back the worst excesses of the family courts. This might have a small positive effect initially, but the risk is that by acknowledging the problem you will probably make it worse. Right now the most effective tool our elites have is denial. See the videos from Praeger, Wilcox, etc. To get behind rolling back the worst excesses, you have to admit there is a problem. Moreover, the whole delayed marriage scheme relies on men’s fear (of being alone) over greed. Sooner or later women will have delayed marriage long enough that the market forces flip, and the subset of men men women want could become greedy just as women succumb to fear (as Rollo’s SMV/MMV chart helps explain). I see both of these problems coming due simultaneously, and I don’t see a palatable move our elites can take that won’t at least initially make their problem worse. I think they will try for years to slowly offer a bit more and more reforms while watching the problems get worse. But that is where my crystal ball goes completely hazy. I don’t have a guess at what happens then.

    3. Dalrock,

      Thank you for that typically brilliant analysis! A few small points.

      (1) “I think for the foreseeable future individual solutions are a man’s best bet, no matter how thin they are.”

      I agree. IMO that’s incontrovertible so, since an effective group response will take years to take hold. That is, responses that work for groups (tribes, packs, however conceptualized). Successful reforms for our society will take many years, or decades, or generations, or forever (i.e., prove impossible in our current system).

      But I strongly believe (guessing) that neither Game nor MGTOW will work over the long-term for most men. I believe discussing this is the most important subject for the “manosphere.” Now much of its leaders are selling solutions that will prove to be somewhere between “snake oil” and coke (fun but self-destructive).

      (2) “What I think we are seeing instead is a breakdown of incentives”

      That nails it. Not just the delay of marriage, but change in the rules governing marriage. For middle class guys, the party-of-her-life-marriage-kids-divorce-child support game is too risky to play. It works for lower class guys. It works for the rich, where pre-nups are effective and child-support is a trivial expense.

      (3) “What I think we will see is a creeping panic from our ruling class”

      Where do you see this? I don’t see a glimmer of awareness of this. All I see is rejoicing in grrl-power. Some fringe elements see it (e.g., some conservatives, a few economists – nothing significant). I do wonder how they will respond when they do see it. I agree that they will see it only after the effects are too large to ignore.

      (4) “I don’t have a guess at what happens then.”

      In my long and considerable experience with experts, that’s a sign that you are an A-grade analyst. The hacks pretend to have a prophet’s vision of the future — clear and confident.

    4. I’ll add to Dalrock’s comments.

      The basic problem we have is not wrong policy but wrong beliefs about the world. Unfortunately, these can only be corrected through experience, and when beliefs change, policy will change.

      The hardcore feminists were willing to trade marriage and a man providing for them in order to have freedom to pursue careers and sleep around. The majority of women weren’t interested in this trade, so feminism was sold on choice — that a woman could choose whatever option she wanted, and in fact could choose both. This worked for awhile as inertia kept the old system going, but now it’s becoming increasingly apparent that a woman can’t have both — the “man up” harangues are a sign that denial is coming to an end. It will slowly become apparent that chaste women who prioritize family over career and seek marriage at a younger age are more likely to get married and those who pursue career and sleep around are less likely. Since most women want to get married, they will start adopting this model, starting with the higher classes. Policy will follow.

      Lack of a biological father in the home is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, predictor of future problems in the life of a child — bigger than many other factors people wring their hands over. No one wants to talk about it, but eventually the truth will become undeniable as the child-support model continues, societal problems worsen, and children of intact families are ever more successful in comparison. At this point, a woman won’t divorce her husband not because of policy but because her friends will shun her because they will view her as sacrificing her children so that she could out and whore around. And mothers of bastards will be shunned because they can’t keep their legs shut and bear children who will have a bad influence on children of respectable women. This change of mores will begin in the higher classes and filter down to the lower classes, and governmental policy will follow, not lead.

      Note that I don’t claim any of this will happen soon, but it will eventually happen.

    5. Purple Tortoise,

      Nicely said. That’s a clearer explanation than I could give. One discover I’ve made from journeying through the manosphere is that there are those that clearly see our situation. That is an important indicator of where we are the problem-solving process. This often precedes jumps: rapid changes of state.

      “Since most women want to get married, they will start adopting this model, starting with the higher classes. Policy will follow.”

      My guess (guess!) follows your logic, but with a bit more detail. The generation now 18-24 is the key to watch. The women are following the feminist model. At 28 I expect that most of these women will want to jump off the carousel and settle with a provider beta. By settle I mean at least keep the option open of the party-of-her-life, marriage, children, divorce, independence and child support. How will these young men react? If they decline the offer, my guess is that these young women will not be able to react sufficiently fast or strongly to change the minds of those men.

      It took traditional women a 5 – 10 years to become able to develop the skills to marry a man, starting with early adolescence. They made it look easy. At 28-32 the next gen of women will be too fully formed to do so.

      If so, the ball will pass to the next gen of women. In 15 years (2033-2035) the (conjectural) collapse of marriage rates will be the setting which young women (14-23) see and mold their view. You believe they will respond by looking back 50 – 60 years for models to follow. That’s possible, but there are many other possibilities. We don’t talk about them — most don’t even see them — because they are too scary.

      But they are out there. I’ll write about them after this series.

    6. And I should add that the typical traditionalist/conservative Christian views on these matters stem from the false belief that women are more pure and moral than men, and when women sin, it is because a man first corrupted them. This pretense was more believable back in a time when sexual immorality was stigmatized and there were many other constraints on women. Now that all that has been thrown off, it will become increasingly undeniable that women are indeed big sinners and in need of discipline just as much as men.

    7. Purple Tortoise,

      Another hit! I’ll second that and expand it.

      There have always been many feral guys, so we well know men’s core programming — their BIOS. But we did not understand the core nature of women. Women’s liberation produced a generation of women freed from the intense socialization that western societies imposed. We see how they dress when they dress to please themselves. We see how they act when freed from supervision (including shaming) of their family and friends.

      This is one of the great discoveries of our time, bigger by far than nuclear power (both bombs and electric-generation). In terms of unexpectedness, it is bigger than nuclear power (H.G. Wells predicted it, somewhat, in The World Set Free {1914} — see here and here.

    8. @LK

      (3) “What I think we will see is a creeping panic from our ruling class”

      Where do you see this? I don’t see a glimmer of awareness of this. All I see is rejoicing in grrl-power. Some fringe elements see it (e.g., some conservatives, a few economists – nothing significant). I do wonder how they will respond when they do see it. I agree that they will see it only after the effects are too large to ignore.

      It is pretty subtle right now, but the panic is creeping in.

      We saw an early form of this in the “Marry Him” craze of articles at elite organizations around 10 years ago. By this I mean not just the article/book by Gottlieb, but the related pieces by Bolick and others that also spawned books. Even Hannah Rosin’s “The End of Men” was 80% spiking the football, and 20% Oh shit!

      They seem to have collected themselves after that particular wave of panic, but the sentiment is still there if you are looking for it. See Wilcox toy with the idea of rolling back the worst excesses of the family courts here, before nervously asserting that there really isn’t a problem after all: “The state of matrimony” in World Magazine, 2017 — “What’s helping and hurting marriages in the United States?”

      What is interesting is the secular left is starting to toy with the idea that feminism and the destruction of marriage may have gone a bit too far, while it is Christian conservatives who are the real true believers. This shows up in interesting ways and places, like this piece from the NY Times arguing that the key to lifelong marriage is to suck it up and not divorce: “The Wedding Toast I’ll Never Give” by Ada Calhoun in the NYT, 2015.

      See also this article in the Atlantic that is oddly nostalgic for traditional marriage, and argues for “The Wifely Duty” – by Caitlin Flanagan (2003) — “Marriage used to provide access to sex. Now it provides access to celibacy.”

      Another would be the movie Divorce Corp. Links to trailers here.

      These are subtle in the grand scheme of things, but they show the pattern that I think we will see slowly grow.

    9. Dalrock,

      “What I think we will see is a creeping panic from our ruling class”

      That’s powerful evidence. We can only guess at what it means, of course. My guess is that this reflects a grassroots response to the first signs of women’s distress at men’s increasing reluctance to marry 30+ year old women.

      This is, I believe, just the tiny first edge of a coming tsunami. The media are exquisitely sensitive to women’s concerns — see the vast monthly tide of articles by women about their feelings, about their needs, their dissatisfactions, their dreams, and their task-list of things for me to do. If today’s tiny dip in marriage rates has produced these articles, imagine the collective howl if that rate drops 10% or 20%. That will set the public policy engines (run by our elites) in motion.

      The manosphere chats mostly about men’s response. But women’s counter-response will be just as important. As I mentioned to Purple Tortoise, I do not believe this generation will be able to effective respond. Nor the next. My guess is that we will see lots of howling for very roughly 15 years. How will the girls now 8 years old respond to the (conjectural) older gen’s lower rate of marriage? (20% below the boomers? 30%?)

      Note: with marriage an an average age of 28, and most children are born during the next 6 years, the spacing between the generations of a family is roughly 33 years. That’s the usual meaning of a “generation.” So girls are influence by seeing the experience not of their parents (ancient history) but that of girls 15 years older. As a girl enters the “market” at 22, she sees and guided by the marital success (or failure) of girls 28-37. That 15 year period is the more useful meaning of “generation.”

    10. Dalrock,

      A follow-up comment, after reading those fascinating articles you linked to.

      (1) I classify them as in different genres, each of interest.

      (a) As you note, Wilcox writes in the always popular “everything is OK” genre. The worse social conditions get, the more popular and common are such articles. To indulge in a stereotype — He’s a guy, so it is analytical.

      (b) Ada Calhoun writes in one of the most popular genre by and with women: see how great my marriage is! It is the literary equivalent of young girls sending selfies.

      (c) Caitlin Flanagan gives an example of a genre often written by the victors after wars: there is much to admire about our defeated enemy. Lots of those after the West Was Won and the Indians brutally crushed, and by the North after the Civil War (Gone with the Wind was written by a southern woman, but its popularity in the north was an example of this).

      (2) “These are subtle in the grand scheme of things, but they show the pattern that I think we will see slowly grow.”

      I believe the other articles you previously cited were more powerful examples of the growing concern by women (not feminist men) that their program is victorious but not producing the desired results. The articles exhorting men to “Marry THOT!” (We will see many more of these; the acronym will be MTHOT!) The attacks on slut shaming. The large and growing literature on ways women can get a husband. As you have noted, we see the active agent by the lack of articles for men about “how to get a wife.”

      As you say, this is just the first few raindrops before the coming giant storm.

    11. Thanks for your kind words, Larry. Even if things are socially worse than a couple decades ago, we now have the advantage of more information.

      The manosphere has fascinated me since I came across it several years back because it provided the first credible explanation of why my romantic life turned out the way it did. I’m 50 now but had the hardest time finding a wife on terms that would have been considered completely appropriate by prior generations. It bewildered me that the conventional conservative Christian view of the romantic world didn’t match the facts on the ground that I faced — if it was really true that Christian women wanted families rather than careers and that they were looking for men of character who could provide, then where were these women? Slowly I developed a frame of mind resembling some “Game” attitudes on my own, became more confident, met a sensible woman 10 years younger, and got married at age 35.

    12. Purple tortoise,

      “Even if things are socially worse than a couple decades ago, we now have the advantage of more information.”

      That is a powerful summary. The problem solving process begins with problem recognition. It is driven by the OODA Loop: observation, orientation (making sense of what we see), decision, action. Repeated endlessly. Speed and effectiveness determine how well it works. I believe men are well into the “orientation” phase of their first cycle.

      Women, as usual, pay more attention to these matters. They are in cycle five or ten.

      The next post will describe the magic. Men’s BIOS calls for pack formation. Much writing about these matters says that they are largely determined by women. That’s true. But when men’s attention is (rarely) turned to these matters, we automatically form packs — then larger and larger groups. This gives men the ability to act collectively and decisively.

      When that happens, Game and MGTOW will become footnotes in the history books.

      Women are drawn to successful packs of young men. That’s in their BIOS. Look at any successful biker gang, or inner city gang, or photos of the Nazi Party in the 1920s. All have lots of pretty young girls. Their presence is a reliable indicator of a group’s vitality.

      Look at gatherings of the alt-Right, like the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa. Our bien pensant journalists despise and ignore them. The latter might not be possible in the near future.

    13. Larry,

      No, I don’t believe future generations will respond by looking back 50 – 60 years for models to follow. They will follow models that will be already present in future society.

      For example, you might call me a patriarch of the 17th century Protestant variety. That doesn’t mean the lifestyle of the Amish or a Mormon compound, but it does mean some separation from wider society. In my family, we homeschool, have no TV, and are choosy about what media we consume. We are members of a church that follows the 17th century Protestant confessions rather than the Churchianity that Dalrock excoriates, and my church doesn’t give a pass to women on their sin. The broader community I am part of is very small as a percentage of U.S. population, but on a human scale it is big enough, and anyone who wants to find such a local community can do so in most parts of the country.

      Could my wife divorce-rape me tomorrow? Yes. Could my children walk away from it all? Yes. But that would mean abandoning community and religion. Moreover, what does secular society have to offer? Devastation for our children and a lonely future with cats for my wife? The corporate treadmill and soul-deadening promiscuity for my daughters? Life may be difficult for my children, but the best chance they have for happiness lies in staying in the community, and I pray they will see that. This isn’t the 1960s and 1970s anymore when throwing off constraints appeared to provide glorious freedom.

      So my argument is that communities such as mine will persist through the coming decades and provide the model for future society.

  6. “….I don’t understand what you are saying about the points I’ve made….”

    Larry

    My point was MGTOW is awesome PROVIDED it comes with the Red-Pill…regardless of one’s age.

    Establishing a link between being a MGTOW and….
    1.”….easy path of drugs, booze, porn, casual sex, light work, low stress…..”
    2.”….They decline to join the rat race of education and hard work….”
    3.”….a bad trip as they age. …”
    4.”….bitter middle-aged men will be the male equivalents of the single cat ladies”

    These have nothing to do with being a MGTOW.
    This is nothing short of anti-MGTOW shaming language…no different than “Man-Up and marry that single mom!”.

    1. The Sick Man,

      “My point was MGTOW is awesome PROVIDED it comes with the Red-Pill…regardless of one’s age.”

      My point is that your point is false.

      “These have nothing to do with being a MGTOW.”

      Pretty much everything I see and read disagrees with you. The motivation for young men to work hard and take risks (the “rat race”) was women and family – in a patriarchy. We have removed most (or all) of that, and men are dropping out in large numbers. That’s obvious beyond question by looking at the education statistics (men falling fast) and labor force participation numbers (the “missing men” problem).

      This was well understood before we began playing with the controls. Men had to be socialized to accept their roles, and much of that was done by women (who had to be socialized for that role). As usual, films show these dynamics on the big screen: Classic films show what marriage was.

  7. Women are always ready to get horizontal when an alpha comes along and “grabs them by the pussy”, as one alpha put it, but their alpha-detection algorithm isn’t very good. Game doesn’t turn betas into alphas, but it lets them fake it long enough get the easy lay.

    1. Dmitri,

      Yes, that’s so. But I think we can state it more precisely.

      Women don’t detect “alpha-ness.” They look for indicators of alphaness. Betas can learn to adopt these behaviors. That does not make them alphas, but it sometimes work fast enough for casual sex. The illusion cannot be maintained long enough for a relationship.

    2. @LK

      Yes, that’s so. But I think we can state it more precisely.

      Women don’t detect “alpha-ness.” They look for indicators of alphaness. Betas can learn to adopt these behaviors. That does not make them alphas, but it sometimes work fast enough for casual sex. The illusion cannot be maintained long enough for a relationship.

      This isn’t wrong (in context) but it is incomplete. Game can be useful within a marriage to both up the wife’s long term attraction, and to make life more fun. It shouldn’t be the glue you rely on to hold everything together, but it certainly can help on the margins, and again, it can be fun!

      Put another way, if a wife has tuned her tastes for asshole game via feminism and promiscuity, Mr. Beta bucks probably won’t be able to adopt enough game to meet her tastes, and even if he can do this for the short run he probably won’t be able to sustain it. But if the problem is more that the man has been tricked into being a repulsive dishrag, Game will help him overcome that false conditioning.

      Interestingly the biblical solution is for the wife to choose to submit to her husband, not for her husband to game her into submission.

    3. Dalrock,

      I totally agree with your analysis. I’m skeptical about the prescription.

      “But if the problem is more that the man has been tricked into being a repulsive dishrag, Game will help him overcome that false conditioning.”

      I have been a social worker. I’ve trained Boy Scouts, Boy Scout adult leaders, and salespeople. I have talked to Marine Corps Drill Instructors and officers. This fragmentary experience tells me that very few people can be trained in any significant way about their behaviors, and only then with great effort. I very much doubt that teaching Game will help many husbands.

      This is the result of both premarital and marital counseling — little effect. Ditto with dieting courses and AA. People are recalcitrant. That helped the species survive in tough times, like during the ice age and wars. But it is not so helpful in times like ours.

      “the biblical solution is for the wife to choose to submit to her husband, not for her husband to game her into submission.”

      As the adage goes, our society was built on “low but solid ground.” The opposite of the assumptions used by today’s social engineers, who want to build in the clouds, based on dreams of what people should be.

  8. Game may have started as various bags-of-tricks to pick-up women but the ‘times’ have changed. A lot. And rapidly. Out of necessity, game involves a lot more than reverse-engineering the mating dance of the female animal. It has become life or death for many men. Male suicide and post-divorce slavery is real. Sexual access, assortive mating opportunities, family formation, etc are now all a function of her tingles. Treating women according to the animals they are – and not as some programmed ideal, is living the truth. Just as true as a man learning game must intimately know his own animal first.

    Regardless of how game is employed it is a functional, real-time, iterative, experiential system of self-inprovement founded on observable truths. It is about taling action. So however “bad” at least it is not just one more path to passivity. There’s a lot of what i call big T truth in game as well, which can be a big part of the spiritual aspect for many men, but merely seeing the code and not the matrix is often enough.

    And as an aside, i always find it interesting that in the public discourse, this “problem” is always framed from the perspective of presuming male productivity (surplus provisioning) as opposed to the kind of freedom of choice, automony, and equality that the female sexual liberation demands at every turn. I do think male production is essential, but it places the discussion on unequal footing from word one.

    I view Game as a potential anti-viral to the big lies. But it is not a cure. Once a carrier, always a carrier. So it becomes more like treating an addiction. If you study just the language of game, you can see how this plays out. Ie “backsliding” into beta, losing frame, etc. to describe the many ways men revert back to the comforts of the mattix, the juicy steak that isnt really there. That is what ails, not so much the sudden realization of how thinga really are. Most men knew all along that something was wrong. This is part of the problem. The prolonged internalization that the problem is THEM. Part of game as i see it is learning to liberate yourself from these flawed internalizations. This demands engagment, not escape. So for most men, game is too late to be a vaccine. They have been exposed to the lies for a long time. But it can help them immensely – if they do the work. Most don’t.

    The angst, bitterness, cynicism commonly associated with game is not so much a product of game revealing the ugly truths but rather the realization that you have been a product of deep, methodical indoctrination into a system of interconnected and paradoxical lies. And no one is going to be keen on your escape. You are all alone. Which is part of the truth they have kept from you: it is up to you.

    The realization that a man’s inner being has been groomed to be a log in this progressive jenga is simply heartbreaking. Anger and resentment are to be expected. The “success” of red-pill adopted game requires men to overcome the anger phase (as it is often called) and completely rebuild his ethical, moral, and spiritual foundation based on the Truth, however painful. For the first time he must confront the big questions in their naked, raw form. What do YOU want? If this does not happen, then indeed as you say, the long term picture looks bleak. Further disenfranchisement and nihilism ensue. But for the few who manage, the inner strength, sense of purpose, confidence, and soverignty (in the face of constant anti-masculinity) is incredibly powerful.

    And yes, sexual attractiveness is the key as dalrock points out. It is the gateway through which all of his other options must first pass. His options, “easier” sex if he so chooses, become one of many downstream benefits of the hard work of re-treading via game. But sex is far from the greatest reward.

    Ive lived this path. Or i should say, i am living this path. It is a path i cut with my own pickaxe, every single day. The juicy steak is tempting, but id rather have the pain. Thats the mindset: bring it on. Wishing the world were different is a dangerous drug.

    As for the future. The “wokeness” of gen z is encouraging. They have access to the truth like no generation prior. And are experiencing peak absursity as the truth and the matrix collide in front of them. Perhaps some are being vaccinated by witnessig the unwinding lies and wont have to suffer the pain and humilation of a red pill awakening later on.

  9. “MGTOW feels good for young men. It might become a bad trip as they age. Low incomes and living alone are fine at 25, but less so at 45. These bitter middle-aged men will be the male equivalents of the single cat ladies (today’s party girls expecting to find their soulmate at 30).”

    A very interesting and revealing tone in this paragraph.

    First, why assume that 45+ year old single men would still be at “low incomes” comparable to their 25 year-old former selves? Setting aside all of your Mgtow-loser-incel-gamer-dropouts for a moment, most guys – the majority – will earn more as they age. A lot more. There is an entire global financial services industry built around this very fact, and that industry is definitely not ignoring unmarried men (or unmarried women for that matter).
    The peak earning potential of men is typically ages 30 through 55 (25 years), of course depending on education, skills, experience, years of consecutive service, etc, married status. I would agree that a married man with a wife could potentially have more time to devote to his full-time career and therefore earn more over time. However, a single man (whether officially Mgtow or not) is in no way precluded from commensurate or equal future income growth.

    Second, why assume that single older men at 45 would be as miserable as, or more miserable than their female counterparts? Where does this view come from?

    Third, high incomes are definitely nice.
    But do you know what’s even better? High incomes along with low expenses and low- to no liabilities!

    Take two single men, age 18 – both on a similar life trajectory – graduated high school, graduated college with business finance degrees, entry level white collar sales jobs at 24, only one of them marries at 30, the other does not.
    he data from economic studies of married couples clearly indicates that the married man earns more than his single counterpart does. We also learn that married men (with their wives and families) consume more food, housing, services and products from the economy. That’s good for America!
    But the red, white and blue married man also has more expenses and higher debts. He has far greater legal and financial obligations and responsibilities (and associated risks) from marriage than his single counterpart does (and that any Mgtow ever will).

    The married man may accumulate more assets over time. But the single man had no need for such assets really, or at least not in the same categories or to the same degree. The single man has no need for high expenses and high consumer debts either, and since there is no state and no wife involved, the single man definitely has greater authority and discretion and control over his finances and fewer legal and financial liabilities. If the single man runs his own business, it may be an LLC, certainly not comparable to the legal and financial liabilities brought on by marriage and no fault divorce.

    Incomes are extremely important. But financial liquidity and wealth (net worth) are more important.
    Human bitterness seems to be less a function of an individual’s age and marital status (male or female), and more correlated to personal experience, namely history of abuse, injustice, betrayal, disappointments.
    If the stories of common American divorce are in fact true and as plentiful and pervasive as suggested, then many a 45 year-old man might have every right to feel bitter for a time.
    I don’t blame them for being Mgtow. And I don’t blame Mgtows for such men in their ranks either.

    As for what is “good for America”, I do find it interesting that we would begin now to concern ourselves with this question when our fathers and mothers willingly waved bye bye to that idea decades ago.

    Men aren’t viewing marriage as their fathers did. The do not see rewards of frequent sex, genetic success and societal respect (you have arrived, son).
    The most openly ridiculed, reviled and disrespected vocation in the United States right now is none other than husband and father. And yes, younger men have been watching this the entire time.

    So the horse is way out of the barn.
    How can we possibly undo 50 years of stupid?
    The answer is we can’t. The laws on the books cannot be removed or sufficiently mitigated to bring persuade or sell marriage to Mgtows.
    Men would have to take women’s rights away (voting, etc.) and restore full blown patriarchy again.
    This will never happen short of a full blown war and/or social and economic collapse.
    And even then we know most of the men get offed, while the women become sex slaves.
    So nobody cares.

    1. “First, why assume that 45+ year old single men would still be at “low incomes” comparable to their 25 year-old former selves?”
      Typically men need to be driven to improve. About 10% of us (humans) are self starters the rest of us need a strong incentive. Wife and family provide that to a man so he will look to improve and find ways of earning more money. It is a sort fo compound interest problem. If at 25 he takes a less risky route that leads to less income, less skill development, sure at 45 he will earn more than he did at 25, but he will not earn as much as he could have. This is the trade off. I had a friend who looked at a Bachelors of Engineering v a Masters of Engineering. He told tme that the pay of a BE at 2 years was more than a fresh ME, but a BE at 5 years was less than that of a ME at 3 years, and the pay growth curve continued this way.* He wanted a wife and family so bad that he got an ME in prepration for that life. The 25 year old who basically MGTOW’s it proabably settles for the BE and thus at age 45 with about 23 years experince is earning less than the ME with 21 years.

      “Second, why assume that single older men at 45 would be as miserable as, or more miserable than their female counterparts? Where does this view come from?”
      What do single female counterparts have to do with it? The question is “Does path one or path two bring me closer to my goals?” and “is one of my goals satisfaction/not being miserable?” Just because my single female cousin is more or less misserable because she is female doesn’t matter to my being misserable as a single or married man. This is just the wrong question. The question is being a single 45 year old man is more or less misserable than a married 45 year old man, and generally they are.

      but this all can get around to one key phrase this all turns on
      “It might become a bad trip as they age.” it might or might not. I can tell you no civilization will last without children. And that those children do best with a family structure that is now absent from the US. To which you’ve said “what does that matter?” and for those who die in the next 20 years? not at all, for those who expect to be here the next 50? (the afformentioned 25 year old) probably a heck of a lot more than we’d admit. BTW, it should be noted we are again fighting amoungst ourselves over “what it means to be human, a man, a person of our culture, what our culture is” etc. This is not a new question, but it only is settled for a brief period before we again begin that debat.

      *this assumes 2 years of sacrifice for the ME thus the comparisons are basically a BE at age X vs ME at age X, given that we all get only so many years, it showed the time trade off.

    2. Typically men need to be driven to improve. About 10% of us (humans) are self starters the rest of us need a strong incentive.

      I seriously doubt that the percentage is that low. We wouldn’t have been able to do things like push westward so quickly in the US frontier or establish male-only enclaves such as monasteries or expeditions if men’s mentality revolved that much around the almighty V.

      I can tell you no civilization will last without children.

      I’ve been hearing of TEOTWAWKI since Paul Ehrlich (aka Chicken Little) predicted disaster in the 1970s. The rebuttals to that line of reasoning are too numerous to list completely. But here are a few to whet your appetite:
      1. There’s a lot of ruin in a country.
      2. Humanity has easily survived far worse problems such as the Black Plague, which wiped out about half the European population.
      3. Societies and civilization aren’t very fragile. In short, people adapt readily to changed situations. I think Larry has said something about this.

      So please forgive my skepticism about inevitable disaster.

      How can we possibly undo 50 years of stupid?
      The answer is we can’t

      What’s going to happen instead is a combination of technological advances and social/economic changes will converge to create a much less gynocentric society. It’ll be fought tooth and nail by those interested in maintaining the status quo, but I can think of worse fates for humanity.

      And even then we know most of the men get offed, while the women become sex slaves.

      Why bother with sex slaves when dirt-cheap sex substitutes will be available?

    3. Ray manta, regarding the 10% of humans. Being self motivated. Ok sure I don’t have data only anticdotes.
      But think of it this way. Americans expanded west, because men wanted a better lives for themselves because they wanted to be able to provide for wives. Are they internally motivated or externally?
      How many of us decide “I don’t care what I have in my life, I’m going to constantly improve myself just for me?” Those are the people I consider self motivated. And it think it is very small (10%). Then there is another group that is part internally and part externally motivated. There is a group that is externally motivated and finally. A fourth group that can’t be motivated, maybe again about 10%. And of course this is all on a sliding scale, not on a fixed discreet value.
      I’d qualify a lot of people as part or totally externally motivated first by parents then by spouses.
      As to your other quotes. They aren’t mine to respond to.

    4. ACThinker said:
      Ray manta, regarding the 10% of humans. Being self motivated. Ok sure I don’t have data only anticdotes

      Part of the problem with our difference in opinion may be due to our respective classification methodologies. I’m willing to include men who in another era might have been motivated to seek wives. But the current era we live in gives men a ton of things to do without women. It also offers strong advantages to men who distance themselves as much as possible from them, both physically and psychologically.

      I brought up historical examples to show that it’s indeed possible for men to go for extended periods without women. The reverse is not true.

      As to your other quotes. They aren’t mine to respond to.

      My bad; it looks like I was responding to quotes from constrained locus. too – he appears to have a viewpoint fairly similar to mine. I must have gotten you and him mixed up when scrolling up and down. One point I responded to (about civilization not lasting without children) was yours though.

  10. Hummmm, what is the % of individuals that have gender questions about themselves?

    My personal take is that I think the populous, in general, are getting tired of being force-fed extremist positions on all of the sexuality questions, overall, through the media. But that’s just my take from observations. I suspect a Back To Nature movement is not far off, in our future.

    Do whatever you want in a free country, I don’t care, but don’t expect me to support, condone, or accept it as a good thing. Just sayin….. remember that part of my feedom.

    1. ossqss,

      While I agree, imo you are being too kind. These SJW’s are destabilizing people, leaving a trail of wreckage in their wake. Much as upper class feminists tell women that marriage is unimportant – but are careful not to get pregnant without a ring on their fingers.

      “…a man may be allowed to keep poisons in his closet, but not to vend them about for cordials.”
      — Said by the wise King of Brobdingnag in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels.

    2. A Darwin affect may play more roles than we may expect Larry. I don’t know, but the math ultimately works its way out in that model in the end. Leaving out clones……

      Effect vs. Affect ?

    3. Reproduction (typically not asexual) is the only means for survival of any species aside from cloning.

    4. ossqss,

      I am familiar with the Darwin awards. And I know that reproduction is necessary for survival of a species (duh). Neither of those sheds the slightest light on your comment. If you don’t want to explain, fine. But don’t make more enigmatic comments.

    5. Well, with respect to your hosting this site, I am not sure how you don’t put together Darwin Awards, modeling, and ultimate outcome with respect to the subject matter of your post. I hope that is not enigmatic, and am not sure of the disconnect, and will leave it at that.

      Respectfully, good night.

  11. Ha, my mobile spell check seems to stink. That would be Freedom, not feedom, but that actually might work too!

    So here ya go as a result of my error.

    1. ossqss,

      Speling and grammer are inconsequential in comments! Life is too brief to worry about such things.

    1. Gunner,

      Thank you for writing a response. But I don’t understand it. It does not appear that you heard what I was saying.

      (1) “We are still at the point at which understanding can help. See, the gender war is a war against ordinary, unattractive men. Understand this and the correct solution appears: Give men incentives and rewards for participating in society.”

      First, action is not “understanding the causes.” Which is why I began the series (first sentence in the first post) by saying “Enough analysis of the gender revolution.”

      Second, “Give men incentives and rewards” is a group response. #3 on my list. Incentives and rewards are provided by others — by society. It is not something one man can do for himself. Look at your goals:

      “We want regular sex, at least middle-class money, a seat at the Round Table and ownership of our children, to be raised as we individually see fit.”

      Wages are set by large-scale forces (even individual proprietors don’t set their wages). Ownership of children is determined by public policy. Etc. Hence the point of the series: individual men’s actions can have incremental effectiveness, but only by standing together than we have effective reform.

      (3) “I can assure Larry that it isn’t casual sex making men cynical & bitter today.”

      Again missing the point. I am a baby boomer. This is a problem for young men. It is being severely experienced by those in their 30s. Advice is most useful — even essential — for those in their 20s (eg, my children).

  12. You might find this interesting: “The Misandry Bubble” by Imran Khan at The Futurist, 2010. I don’t know if you’d read this before. Many consider this to be one of the foundational writings of the later, post-PUA manosphere.

    “Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has tainted the interaction between men and women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to inflict great harm onto their own families, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.”

    1. the Deti,

      Thanks for post that. In 2010! He was far ahead of the pack.

      I added the full citation and the Summary to your comment, to encourage people to click thru to the article.

    2. Larry:

      Thanks for fishing my comment out and fixing it. The Misandry Bubble is a good read. Many of the links are dead, as the article is over 8 years old (an eternity in internet time). But I commend it to you and your readers just the same.

  13. Problem has been reported. They go to the spam bucket. I check it every few hours, and pull out those that shouldn’t be there.

    1. The Deti,

      The WP tech desk is stumped. Comment threads are impossible without spam-blocking software (WP uses Akismet). But they work in mysterious ways. This might be a temporary glitch.

      Anyway, I check the spam bucket every few hours (when possible).

  14. Interesting series.

    For the long term, returning to traditional values is going to happen one way or another, and only after a long, long time, and after a lot of pain. Reversing current trends is not going to happen absent world war, a global weather/space cataclysm, total global economic collapse, and/or a second Civil War/mass state secession followed by the violent breakup of the United States into separate political entities.

    I think you’re correct that the current system is quite durable. It’s going to go on like this, with current trends continuing into the foreseeable future. That means for the rest of your life and mine, and well into our children’s lives. Probably at least another 50 years. I don’t think any man (or woman, for that matter) should try to do anything to “change society” or “fix society”. Systemwide solutions on a grand scale or even a regional scale are just not going to happen for me, or my children.

    So that leaves individual solutions.

    I think you’re viewing Game too narrowly, at least in this particular piece, and Dalrock has the right of it. If by Game you mean “tips, tricks and routines pickup artists use to get casual sex”, then that’s too narrow. Or even if you mean “guys using what they know about male and female sexual nature and human attraction to get casual sex”, then that’s also too narrow. Too often we think of Game as “PUA/seduction”. That’s where it started, but it’s integrated itself into most post-internet/world wide web men’s knowledge. So in my view a proper understanding of Game is simply knowledge of male and female sexual nature, and human attraction, to get and maintain beneficial sexual relationships.

    Casual sex isn’t a long term answer for most men. Most men cannot get casual sex to the frequency they would like. Most men who can get casual sex easily don’t want to do it long term. “Player burnout” is a thing, apparently. In my opinion, MGTOW by choice, and increasingly frequently by force, will be a long term answer whether we like it or not. Most men do not want to do the work to make themselves attractive enough to a woman long term. And a growing number of men are getting squeezed out altogether because they cannot improve to the point of being able to attract a woman long term. These are the men who can’t; whose numbers are growing but are still fewer than the number who won’t do the work.

    To tie that point up, an increasing number of men will be unable and/or unwilling to get and keep one woman with them in a long term relationship.

    So for the time being, men should do the following as individual solutions

    –learn and apply game in all of their relationships

    –improve and increase their own value as best as they can, in all arenas: Physical by getting into shape and lifting; mental through education and study; financial through work and accumulation of their own resources independent of women; spiritual through study and prayer; leisure through hobbies and avocational interests, and emotional through self reliance and work (and therapy if necessary). He needs to develop his own mission (hint; Being a husband/father is NOT a mission).

    –do not in any way depend or rely on any woman for anything.

    –develop male friendships and relationships for one’s own edification and enjoyment.

    Most men will marry. yes, despite the risks, they will still marry. What should men do here?

    –don’t even consider marriage until age 30.

    –walk away from all relationships that don’t serve his interests. Always be ready to walk away.

    –vet and screen women HARD. Avoid women with any red flags. Avoid women who refuse to submit.

    –learn and remember their relationship power: Say “no”. Be the “head” of the relationship. Direct the overall course of the relationship. Develop your life and fit her into it; don’t try to fit yourself into her life. Require her submission, and walk away if she will not submit.

    –accept that she will not be perfect, and neither will you.

    Men are going to have to accept some things. They will not get perfect wives. They will have to go long periods of time without sex while searching for wives. If they want wives and good lives with wives, they will have to do a lot of very hard work. If they do not want wives, then they will have to settle for casual sex and long dry spells, or outright celibacy.

    And none of this is going to “change society” or “fix society”. It is the best individual solution. But individual men doing this is not going to fix society or take us back to “traditional values”, which I think is an unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future.

    I think women are going to have to accept some things too.

    –They can’t marry well after a decade of casual sex.

    –Fun hot casual sex followed by marriage to unattractive man; or marriage to man who’s attractive enough to you, but no casual sex: PICK ONE. And once you make your choice, accept it and live with it.

    –Society lied to you too. You can’t have it all. You are not “all that”. You are not hot enough to marry the hot guy who pumped and dumped you. (But you can marry an attractive-enough guy, a good-enough guy, and make it work well. If you choose that.)

    –you will have to submit to your husband if you want to have a good marriage that works well. And you have to choose that; he cannot and will not make you submit.

  15. To put a finer point on it:

    Using game to get casual sex is not a short or long term solution.

    Using game to develop and keep your long term relationships is a long term solution.

    1. The Deli,

      “Using game to develop and keep your long term relationships is a long term solution.”

      I’m skeptical that a high fraction of young men can get big gains from Game (small gains, for sure).

      I do not believe that many men can maintain game in a long-term relationship. It’s “and a pony too” solution.

    2. Larry:

      I still think you’re taking too narrow a view of Game. If you’re talking about Game as “tips and tricks and routines PUAs use”, then I agree. If you’re talking about Game even as “knowledge of human nature”, then I probably agree.

      Think of it this way. “Game” is what men used to be before the sex rev and feminism and before things got bollocksed up. They were masculine – they were in charge of themselves and their families. They were kind of aloof and unfazed by female drama. They took charge of the traditionally “masculine” stuff – bill paying, taking care of the cars and heavy home maintenance. They earned most or all of the money and managed it. They solved problems, did not put up with BS drama, shut down hyperemotionality from their wives and kids, and said “no” and made it stick. They walked away from BS.

      If you look at it this way, and men integrate the above into themselves and their lives, then they can get a lot of long term gains. Because Game isn’t what they do. It’s who they are. The Red Pill subreddit used to say that it did no good for men long term to fake masculinity; what these men had to do was deep change so that masculinity became who they are. You have to actually be the man you portray to the world.

      And in that case, “Game” can help men make long strides.

    3. The Deti,

      Your appear to have constructed your own definition of Game. Which is fine. I use the word in the sense most use, and I clearly state in the post the definition I use. It is brief, clear, and concise — as a definition should be (unlike your def).

      “It’s confidently using your attributes, characteristics, and overall personality to win the affection of the woman you want. You can’t have game if you don’t know yourself; you can’t be confident in what you’re ignorant of. Game is playing the cards you’re dealt and WINNING; turning your positives into swagger (not ‘swag’) and your negatives into charm.”

      I have decades experience training young men and adult men. Self-knowledge is rare. Few can boost their confidence on a long-term basis, except through long hard work — and success (both are rare, the combination rarer still). Hence my conclusion that Game is for most an incrementally successful short-term tool.

      You have your own opinion on this. Time will tell which of us is correct.

    4. Larry:

      Your definition is fine as far as it goes, with respect to how men interact with women. Mine is broader than that, and goes beyond how men interact with women. You focus on how men act. I’m focusing on what men are. You’re focusing on their actions. I’m focusing on their character and inner makeup.

      I agree that if we’re focusing on Game as “playing up male strengths and getting affection/sex from women”, then yes, men aren’t going to get a lot of long term mileage in a marriage from that.

  16. Larry Kummer, Editor
    14 March 2018 at 8:30 am
    Gunner,

    Thank you for writing a response. But I don’t understand it. It does not appear that you heard what I was saying.

    (1) “We are still at the point at which understanding can help. See, the gender war is a war against ordinary, unattractive men. Understand this and the correct solution appears: Give men incentives and rewards for participating in society.”

    First, action is not “understanding the causes.” Which is why I began the series (first sentence in the first post) by saying “Enough analysis of the gender revolution.”

    “Second, “Give men incentives and rewards” is a group response. #3 on my list. Incentives and rewards are provided by others — by society. It is not something one man can do for himself. Look at your goals:”

    I called for incentives and rewards to illustrate the fact that society can have us men back any time it wants to. Society doesn’t want us back. I even suggested incentives that individuals can offer such as respect and apprenticeships to illustrate that it’s not just the State that hates men. It’s the majority of (our democratic) society’s members. You can see this most clearly in Dads Of Daughters Only (DODOs) who scorn every unsexy suitor their snowflake doesn’t lust for. The government doesn’t force them to do that. They choose to do that.

    I sympathize with your wanting to discuss solutions instead of analysis but your analysis is flawed. Society didn’t go wrong and we need to fix it. Society went EVIL and we need to survive it. Individual solutions are the only solutions because the problem is not merely the government. It is also the dominant religion (evolution, which teaches most males are disposable) and the general preferences of the majority population (womens’ hypergamy). If you could impose a 1950s traditional-values government upon society overnight, all judge and legislators’ brains rewired instantly, it would fail by noon in a special election.

    1. Gunner,

      “Society doesn’t want us back.”

      There are too many things wrong with that statement to count.

      “Society” is an abstraction. Treating it as a thing is the logical fallacy of “reification.” It’s just a shorthand way of referring to us — you, me, your family, the people on your street, the people in Dallas, in Ohio — all of us acting together.

      America are not a unitary entity or hive mind. Our collective opinions are always in flux. Neither you nor I can accurately predict what will happen next year, let alone in the next decade.

      I could go on, but you get the idea. Be grounded and your descriptions will become more accurate, and you’ll be able to make some useful guesses about the future – knowing they are just guesses.

  17. I think the idea of “marriage chicken” is absolutely correct, but I don’t think ‘it remains to be seen” what the consequences are. As long as there are plenty of (desperate) men who are willing to break ranks and cave-in to the aging sluts’ demands, the game will continue to favor women, and we’ll see more and more sanctions against all but the absolute highest tier men.

    There is no cartel here and no unified male response. Any cartel will always be broken by the selfish individual interests of White Knighters. I’m not advocating for some kind of unified male response (‘if we only just stopped caving in!’ ha ha, right….), since I think it’s impossible and unnatural. The natural thing (“system working as designed”) is exactly what’s happening. And the order that’s existed for most of history will only return once some (inevitable) catastrophe arrives.

    1. Burner,

      I suggest care when using “always” and “never” in predictions about social change. History is largely the result of events considered impossible — and defeat of the inevitable. That’s why predictions are usually wrong.

  18. More and more men are leaving the workforce and society as a whole. With the me too, sexual harassment, divorce and other BS, There is just no benefit to being a man in todays society. So much so, that not only did I avoid women for many years, I have become one. Being alone gave me the time to take a good look at myself and finally get up the courage at the age of 45 to come out of the closet and transition.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.