When you walk into a room, you are engaged in a political act. There are people there who you want to do certain things for you, possibly in exchange for other things.
If you walk into a bar thinking you’ll pay $11 for a drink only if you get a phone number out of it, there’s a political position in that assumption. As in politics, you either keep the upper hand, keep your hand in the game, or lose status and end up being subservient to others.
Game in the sense of gaming women is manipulating them politically for sex, or to have the right role in a relationship. Even in a loving marriage, you’re going to encounter politics and sometimes you must take the lead. If your partner is miserable and exhausted, you need to use your political sense to take the lead and steer conversation away from depressing places. You may need to use your game when making decisions or in emergency. That’s the big picture use of game.
In the smaller sense, game is how your average dude can through confidence walk into a bar and walk out with (almost) any girl in the place. The problem with this is whether or not you actually want any of those girls for more than sex.
What they’re doing is basically prostitution where in exchange for ego points (they are desired) they trade you sexual favors. They will not quit this pattern when you marry them. They will simply use sabotage game against you, withholding sex in exchange for power, and implied sex game against others to get what they want materially.
This kind of sabotage game is a variant of passive aggression. Passive aggression is game that exploits the social equality of people. If someone wants to do something, and you get in their way, your defense is that you have as much right to be there as they do — even though by doing so you sabotaged what they were trying to do.
Because you have an equal right, they should watch out for you, not the other way around. They will inevitably try to prove they acted first and you reacted, and the implied threat is the judgment of others. It’s not much different from what happens in bars where two people negotiate their own needs. “I asked you first.”
The article on Feminism got some attention here because it pointed out that feminism is an extended form of sabotage game, that it games the system more than individuals, and that the end result is alienation. All of this is true, as is the assertion that feminism is bad for women.
It’s worth adding that feminism is bad for society. Where we could have cooperation and collaboration between the sexes, we now have a permanent state of political unrest where one side can game the other by claiming to be offended.
Most stupid college women like to check their boyfriends with feminist-infused jibes; many stupid married women do the same thing. In so doing, they’re trading a short term victory for a long-term state of political tension.
When you stop a man by claiming he is politically in the wrong, you’re saying that here in the instruction manual it shows that he is wrong and not just regular wrong, but morally wrong, which means he needs to shut up now and take time out to think about the wrong things he did. It’s a disgusting thing to do, if you want that man in your life; as soon as he finds a less-controlling option, he will be gone.
Guilt and social control are the backbone of political correctness. There is assumed to be an absolute, universal standard of right and wrong, and if you’re on the wrong side of that, there’s something wrong with you. It’s not just a mistake; it’s a moral failing. It’s an easy way to decide who is OK and who must do penance, which is why idiots love it. It gives them instant power if they memorize a few rules, and then maneuver others into being on the wrong side of those.
Feminism represents the politicization of sex roles, and it does so by giving women the ultimate kill switch and yet at the same time encouraging them to be aggressive sexually. The result, as covered in the other article, is a shortening of transaction scope; men start doing direct trades, like dinner for sex, and blowing off the long-term obligations that the woman is using to manipulate the man. She may zing him really good with some political correction, but he’s then thinking about the open road and how no man really needs a woman.
This has a series of destruction consequences:
- Female earnings. The studies that say women earn less than men are broken, of course, because no two workplace roles can really be compared. Even if both parties are shelf stockers, one will have seniority, a specialization or be better than the other. Trying to compare men’s and women’s incomes statistically is thus a giant correlation-is-not-causation error. But look at it practically: women now must earn all of the money for their own household through their thirties or forties, and after that, although they’ll for now have alimony to help them out — future generations are doing away with marriage, and they will get rid of alimony (and much of child support) in the process.
- Job availability. Double the number of workers. Each worker is now worth half as much, because twice as many people are in circulation. Now think about the secondary effects: with so many people floating around, each laborer is that much more disposable. Competition increases and since it’s hard to gauge actual performance, it becomes an allegiance test. Who spent 80 hours per week in the office? Well, promote them then.
Willetts said feminism was probably the “single biggest factor” for the lack of social mobility in Britain, because women who would otherwise have been housewives had taken university places and well-paid jobs that could have gone to ambitious working-class men. The Conservative minister made his comments before the launch of the government’s social mobility strategy next week. Looking at reasons for social mobility, he said: “The feminist revolution in its first round effects was probably the key factor. Feminism trumped egalitarianism. It is not that I am against feminism, it’s just that is probably the single biggest factor.” – The Guardian
With most women unlikely to form long-term marriages, they become the perfect workers. Broken in spirit, lonely and trying to pay for a household they cannot afford as a single person, they are addicted to the paycheck and inclined to work late hours. Better that than being lonely, and women as inherently more social people simply adopt the workplace as socialization.
- Death of the family. Since 46% of marriages dissolve within 10 years, marriage is no longer a bond for life. It’s extended dating with the purpose of child-rearing in mind. And when it’s done? The woman walks away with alimony and child care, and assumes she has won. Except that she hasn’t. First, whatever mistake she made with the first marriage she is just as likely to make with the next; second, she has now marked herself both as someone who makes such mistakes and also someone who cannot be trusted to work through issues. She has thus reduced her chances of having an eligible mate while at the same time making herself more attractive to manipulative or insincere men.
- Children, shattered. When you are equal parts of two parents, and those parents split, they are in effect saying that the union was a bad one. That makes the product of that union consider itself an error too. Worse, in many cases the children are aware how much they were made into the public purpose of such unions. When the union shatters, the child cannot help but feel some responsibility. The ripple effects of that one will probably be lifelong among at least two generations. Since 28% of American mothers with two or more children have children by more than one man, the family unit becomes seemingly arbitrary. Kids definitely don’t feel chosen or wanted in such situations; they are clearly possessions or something like an employee, a person to be controlled so that parent has an answer for what they’ve been up to lately. “Jayden’s into ballet and Ellie loves violin!”
- Decline in trust and quality of dating and marriage experience. Marriage is now a matter of watching to see which partner strays first; because sex is politicized, each person is lying or evasive about sexual history as a means of getting the upper hand. Trust evaporates instantly with that development. Further, the political-transactional nature of sex does not change with marriage. If anything, marriage becomes a stable platform from which to launch the next gambit. How many hollow marriages are held together for the sake of the children, but are anchored in scorn, distrust and mutual shaming?
We have to be careful about saying such things in public, because Feminism is part of The People’s Revolution in which the underdog is protected against social mores, social standards, more powerful people and any kind of standard or reality-affirmation at all. The People like to pick these defensive, reactionary outlooks because you don’t form a mob — We The People — without a collective sense of being wronged and thus, a need to correct the balance by any means necessary.
But in the meantime, we have destroyed the greatest part of game, which is the ability to escape from game. Political control of others works OK in factories and one-night stands; it falls apart in love and families, where you want trust, cooperation and mutual respect instead. But feminists would sacrifice those long-term beautiful things for a pre-fab upper hand in game in the short term.