Arthur Schopenhauer On woman is a good starting point.
Wikipedia just published its article on the manosphere
If I may be so bold (since this is published in my book) I would submit the following for the 'Game' Wiki:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/04/19/th...n-of-game/
Game
Of these concepts the one I return to the most frequently is that of Game. My editor asks, “Just what is Game?” Throughout the upcoming book, this blog, and virtually every major manosphere writer’s blog there’s a constant presumption that readers will know exactly what Game is when it’s referred to. Game has been lifted up to an almost mythical state; like some panacea for the common guy struggling with achieving women’s attentions and intimacy. It’s gotten to the point where familiarity with Game has become a flippant aside for manosphere bloggers – we have varieties of Game, we have internalized Game, we have ‘natural’ Game, direct Game, Beta Game etc., but defining the term ‘Game’ for someone unfamiliar with the very involved intricacies, behaviors and the underlying psychological principles on which Game is founded is really tough for the uninitiated to wrap their heads around in the beginning.
For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.
At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.
Early Game
In its humble beginnings, Game was a set of behaviors, learned, adapted and modified with the express purpose of bettering a guy’s prospective sexual ‘success’ with the women he had only limited (if any) access to. Game was defined as a series of behavioral skills and techniques observationally experimented with, and developed by the burgeoning PUA culture of the early 2000′s. While there was a peripheral acknowledgement given to the psychology that made these behavior sets effective, the purpose was more about the result and less about the head-mechanics that made the result possible.
This introduction was many of the current manosphere’s first contact with ‘formalized’ Game. The quality of the Art in pick up artistry was (and still is) really left up to the practitioner’s capacity to understand the basics of behavioral psychology (with regards to women) and refining a deft ability to adapt and react to his target’s changing behavioral cues on a given environment and/or context..
If this were the only extent of Game it would understandably be very short sighted and limited in scope. In the beginning Game had a utility in that it helped a majority of men lacking the social intelligence to approach and develop a real, intimate rapport with women they fundamentally lacked. The problem was that beyond Game’s “in-field” uses it wasn’t really developed past the point of ‘getting the girl’, and left even the most socially adept PUAs unprepared to deal with the real psychology motivating women on a greater whole. It was just this feminine meta-psychology that drove men, unaccustomed to enjoying and then losing the affections of women formerly “out of their league”, to depression and suicide.
Game was a wondrous tool set of skills, but without the insight and foresight to deal with what these tools could build, it was potentially like giving children dynamite.
Evolving Game
From the earliest inception Game was more or less viewed as a solution to a problem. Game has been described as a logical social reaction to the women that the past 60+ years of feminism, social feminization and feminine primacy has created for the men of today. Courtesy of modern connectivity, the internet and collectivized social media, evolving Game or some variation of it was inevitable for men. Despite the public social stigma and ridicule attached to men attempting to understand the psychologies of women, privately the internet facilitated a global consortium of men comparing experiences, relating observations and testing theories.
The behavioral psychology that led to Game which prompted the desired reactions in women began to take on more import for men. Sure, the now classic Game techniques like being Cocky & Funny, Amused Mastery, Agree & Amplify, Neg Hits, Peacocking, etc. were effective in their own artfully used contexts, but the latent psychology that made those behavior sets work prompted the questions of why they worked.
The psychological aspects of effective (and ineffective) Game began to take on a new importance. Through this broader exploration of the role biological, psychological and sociological factors affected Game sprang new ideas, theories and experimentative models leading to new behavioral sets and the abandonment of less effective ones.
As connectivity grew, so did the knowledge base of the Game community. No longer was Game exclusive to the PUA pioneers; Game was expanding to accommodate the interests and influences of men who’d never heard of the earlier version of Game, or would’ve rejected it outright just years before due to their feminine conditioning. Married men wondered if aspects of Game could reignite the sexual interests of their frigid or overbearing wives. Divorced men embraced the Game ridiculed when married to improve their potential for new sexual interests, but also to relate their experiences and contribute to that Game knowledge base. Men, not just in western culture, but from a globalizing interest began to awaken with each new contribution not only about how women were, but why women were. Game was making the unknowable woman knowable. The enigmatic feminine mystique began unraveling with each new contribution to the Game knowledge base.
Game was becoming something more. Men could now see the code in the Matrix: we knew the medium was the message, we began to see the feminine social conventions used to control us, we began to see the overarching reach of the feminine imperative and fem-centrism, and we came to realize the insidious, but naturalistic, influence feminine hypergamy had wrought in both men and women. Game was prompting Men to push back the iron veil of feminine primacy and see what made her tick.
Predictably, fem-centric society sought to cast the rise, and expansion of Game as a modern version of the ridiculous macho archetypes of the 50′s-70′s. The threat of an evolving, more intellectually valid form of Game had to be ridiculed and shamed like anything else masculine, so the association with its infamous PUA forerunners was the obvious choice for the feminine imperative. The feminine standard appeal to the Masculine Catch 22 was the first recourse: any man who desired to learn Game was less than a man for that desire, but also less of a man for not already knowing Game (as approved by the feminine imperative). Any guy actually paying for, or personally invested in, Game was associated with the PUA culture that was characterized as a throw back to the ‘Leisure Suit Larrys’ of the 70′s.
Contemporary Game
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.
The well of knowledge and awareness that Game represented had to be poisoned. The social conventions the feminine imperative had relied on for decades was no longer effective. The continued expansion of Game into the social, psychological, evolutionary and biological realms was evidence that Game was something those old convention couldn’t contain, so the imperative evolved new tacts while reinventing old ones.
Shaming and ridicule were (and still are) the rudimentary tactics that the less intellectual of the feminine imperative would resort to, but the expansiveness of Game needed something more distorting. Proponents of the feminine imperative began to concede certain universal points that Game had long asserted about feminine nature (and the FI had long rejected) in an effort to co-opt the social momentum Game had taken over a decade to develop.
The Feminine Imperative couldn’t argue with the extensive validity of the tenets of Game, so it sought to reengineer Game from within and modify it to its own purpose. The Feminne Imperative wants just enough male empowerment to return men to an improved (really an older) state of usefulness to its ends, but not so much that true male emancipation from the imperative would threaten its dominance. In co-opting Game and conceding to the truths it finds less threatening the imperative hopes to build better betas – men who believe they are empowered by Game, but are still beholden to the Feminine Imperative.
True emancipation from the imperative threatens its dominance, so Men with the vision to see past this are labeled Dark, Sociopathic and Deviant by the imperative. It wasn’t enough just to infiltrate Game and sanitize it fot its benefit, the Feminine Imperative had to categorize Game for itself – Evil vs. Good Game. The good of course being characterized with whatever aspects benefitted the imperative and the bad being whatever ‘selfishly’ benefited the masculine. The Feminine Imperative doesn’t care about the various branchings of Game – natural, internalized, marriage, etc. – it only concerns itself with what aspects can be distorted to its advantage and what aspects cannot.
This brings us to Game as we know it today. Game is still evolving, and had I the prescience to see where it will go next, I would veture that it will come to a real emancipation with the FI. Not an emancipation from women, but an emancipation from their imperative. Not a ‘men going their own way’ negligence of women in the hope that they’ll come around to behaving as men would like being given no other choice, but a true Game driven emancipation from the control that fem-centrism has maintained for so long.
Make no mistake, the Feminine Imperative needs men to be necessitous of it, and it will always be hostile to the Men attempting to free other men from that necessity. In this respect, any Game, even the co-opted Game the imperative will use itself, is by definition sexist. Anything that may benefit Men, even when it associatively benefits women, is sexist. Freeing men from the Matrix, breaking their conditioning and encouraging them to reimagine themselves and their personalities for their own betterment is sexist.
Encouraging men to be better Men is sexist.
http://therationalmale.com/2013/04/19/th...n-of-game/
Game
Of these concepts the one I return to the most frequently is that of Game. My editor asks, “Just what is Game?” Throughout the upcoming book, this blog, and virtually every major manosphere writer’s blog there’s a constant presumption that readers will know exactly what Game is when it’s referred to. Game has been lifted up to an almost mythical state; like some panacea for the common guy struggling with achieving women’s attentions and intimacy. It’s gotten to the point where familiarity with Game has become a flippant aside for manosphere bloggers – we have varieties of Game, we have internalized Game, we have ‘natural’ Game, direct Game, Beta Game etc., but defining the term ‘Game’ for someone unfamiliar with the very involved intricacies, behaviors and the underlying psychological principles on which Game is founded is really tough for the uninitiated to wrap their heads around in the beginning.
For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.
At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.
Early Game
In its humble beginnings, Game was a set of behaviors, learned, adapted and modified with the express purpose of bettering a guy’s prospective sexual ‘success’ with the women he had only limited (if any) access to. Game was defined as a series of behavioral skills and techniques observationally experimented with, and developed by the burgeoning PUA culture of the early 2000′s. While there was a peripheral acknowledgement given to the psychology that made these behavior sets effective, the purpose was more about the result and less about the head-mechanics that made the result possible.
This introduction was many of the current manosphere’s first contact with ‘formalized’ Game. The quality of the Art in pick up artistry was (and still is) really left up to the practitioner’s capacity to understand the basics of behavioral psychology (with regards to women) and refining a deft ability to adapt and react to his target’s changing behavioral cues on a given environment and/or context..
If this were the only extent of Game it would understandably be very short sighted and limited in scope. In the beginning Game had a utility in that it helped a majority of men lacking the social intelligence to approach and develop a real, intimate rapport with women they fundamentally lacked. The problem was that beyond Game’s “in-field” uses it wasn’t really developed past the point of ‘getting the girl’, and left even the most socially adept PUAs unprepared to deal with the real psychology motivating women on a greater whole. It was just this feminine meta-psychology that drove men, unaccustomed to enjoying and then losing the affections of women formerly “out of their league”, to depression and suicide.
Game was a wondrous tool set of skills, but without the insight and foresight to deal with what these tools could build, it was potentially like giving children dynamite.
Evolving Game
From the earliest inception Game was more or less viewed as a solution to a problem. Game has been described as a logical social reaction to the women that the past 60+ years of feminism, social feminization and feminine primacy has created for the men of today. Courtesy of modern connectivity, the internet and collectivized social media, evolving Game or some variation of it was inevitable for men. Despite the public social stigma and ridicule attached to men attempting to understand the psychologies of women, privately the internet facilitated a global consortium of men comparing experiences, relating observations and testing theories.
The behavioral psychology that led to Game which prompted the desired reactions in women began to take on more import for men. Sure, the now classic Game techniques like being Cocky & Funny, Amused Mastery, Agree & Amplify, Neg Hits, Peacocking, etc. were effective in their own artfully used contexts, but the latent psychology that made those behavior sets work prompted the questions of why they worked.
The psychological aspects of effective (and ineffective) Game began to take on a new importance. Through this broader exploration of the role biological, psychological and sociological factors affected Game sprang new ideas, theories and experimentative models leading to new behavioral sets and the abandonment of less effective ones.
As connectivity grew, so did the knowledge base of the Game community. No longer was Game exclusive to the PUA pioneers; Game was expanding to accommodate the interests and influences of men who’d never heard of the earlier version of Game, or would’ve rejected it outright just years before due to their feminine conditioning. Married men wondered if aspects of Game could reignite the sexual interests of their frigid or overbearing wives. Divorced men embraced the Game ridiculed when married to improve their potential for new sexual interests, but also to relate their experiences and contribute to that Game knowledge base. Men, not just in western culture, but from a globalizing interest began to awaken with each new contribution not only about how women were, but why women were. Game was making the unknowable woman knowable. The enigmatic feminine mystique began unraveling with each new contribution to the Game knowledge base.
Game was becoming something more. Men could now see the code in the Matrix: we knew the medium was the message, we began to see the feminine social conventions used to control us, we began to see the overarching reach of the feminine imperative and fem-centrism, and we came to realize the insidious, but naturalistic, influence feminine hypergamy had wrought in both men and women. Game was prompting Men to push back the iron veil of feminine primacy and see what made her tick.
Predictably, fem-centric society sought to cast the rise, and expansion of Game as a modern version of the ridiculous macho archetypes of the 50′s-70′s. The threat of an evolving, more intellectually valid form of Game had to be ridiculed and shamed like anything else masculine, so the association with its infamous PUA forerunners was the obvious choice for the feminine imperative. The feminine standard appeal to the Masculine Catch 22 was the first recourse: any man who desired to learn Game was less than a man for that desire, but also less of a man for not already knowing Game (as approved by the feminine imperative). Any guy actually paying for, or personally invested in, Game was associated with the PUA culture that was characterized as a throw back to the ‘Leisure Suit Larrys’ of the 70′s.
Contemporary Game
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.
The well of knowledge and awareness that Game represented had to be poisoned. The social conventions the feminine imperative had relied on for decades was no longer effective. The continued expansion of Game into the social, psychological, evolutionary and biological realms was evidence that Game was something those old convention couldn’t contain, so the imperative evolved new tacts while reinventing old ones.
Shaming and ridicule were (and still are) the rudimentary tactics that the less intellectual of the feminine imperative would resort to, but the expansiveness of Game needed something more distorting. Proponents of the feminine imperative began to concede certain universal points that Game had long asserted about feminine nature (and the FI had long rejected) in an effort to co-opt the social momentum Game had taken over a decade to develop.
The Feminine Imperative couldn’t argue with the extensive validity of the tenets of Game, so it sought to reengineer Game from within and modify it to its own purpose. The Feminne Imperative wants just enough male empowerment to return men to an improved (really an older) state of usefulness to its ends, but not so much that true male emancipation from the imperative would threaten its dominance. In co-opting Game and conceding to the truths it finds less threatening the imperative hopes to build better betas – men who believe they are empowered by Game, but are still beholden to the Feminine Imperative.
True emancipation from the imperative threatens its dominance, so Men with the vision to see past this are labeled Dark, Sociopathic and Deviant by the imperative. It wasn’t enough just to infiltrate Game and sanitize it fot its benefit, the Feminine Imperative had to categorize Game for itself – Evil vs. Good Game. The good of course being characterized with whatever aspects benefitted the imperative and the bad being whatever ‘selfishly’ benefited the masculine. The Feminine Imperative doesn’t care about the various branchings of Game – natural, internalized, marriage, etc. – it only concerns itself with what aspects can be distorted to its advantage and what aspects cannot.
This brings us to Game as we know it today. Game is still evolving, and had I the prescience to see where it will go next, I would veture that it will come to a real emancipation with the FI. Not an emancipation from women, but an emancipation from their imperative. Not a ‘men going their own way’ negligence of women in the hope that they’ll come around to behaving as men would like being given no other choice, but a true Game driven emancipation from the control that fem-centrism has maintained for so long.
Make no mistake, the Feminine Imperative needs men to be necessitous of it, and it will always be hostile to the Men attempting to free other men from that necessity. In this respect, any Game, even the co-opted Game the imperative will use itself, is by definition sexist. Anything that may benefit Men, even when it associatively benefits women, is sexist. Freeing men from the Matrix, breaking their conditioning and encouraging them to reimagine themselves and their personalities for their own betterment is sexist.
Encouraging men to be better Men is sexist.
Quote:Quote:
If there was a core or a kernel to The Manosphere, it got its origins from the "Pick Up Artist" or "Gaming" Community. These blogs arose from the painfully obvious fact that what we were told women wanted (by women, single moms, and female friends) were just outright lies. Naturally, doing what we were told didn't work and so developed a completely new and revolutionary approach - we experimented doing the complete opposite and it worked. There is much more to it than that, and the science has refined itself, but the "gaming" section of The Manosphere is MANDATORY READING for all boys who either had no father, had an emasculated man as a father or had a single mom bring up up telling you girls liked "sensitive men" and "poetry" and other communist propagandist drivel like that.
I'm loving the new wiki page gents, stand up writing right there.
![[Image: HannibalSmith.jpg]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6fn99BMc9Ks/TaNDetAEqyI/AAAAAAAAAEw/Y4yshF4U21Q/s1600/HannibalSmith.jpg)
As long as we don't encounter any white knight/feminist wiki insider I think we might be in the clear.
Unrelated, but I just saw Roosh's Wikipedia page.
It paints him as quite the guy.
It paints him as quite the guy.
I'm sure we're disliked by all political groups, that includes conservatives, libertarians, and progressives.
Cattle 5000 Rustlings #RustleHouseRecords #5000Posts
Houston (Montrose), Texas
"May get ugly at times. But we get by. Real Niggas never die." - cdr
Follow the Rustler on Twitter | Telegram: CattleRustler
Game is the difference between a broke average looking dude in a 2nd tier city turning bad bitch feminists into maids and fucktoys and a well to do lawyer with 50x the dough taking 3 dates to bang broads in philly.
Quote: (05-30-2014 10:06 AM)Zep Wrote:
I'm wondering about Aboschs' idea ( from the ER thread )not taking girls seriously and the introduction of cat meme's etc. Maybe not on wiki, but a site specifically for ridiculing feminists, one that can be pointed to via wiki under some silly pretense. i.e. the site could be called #NoALLMen (or something ), I would laff hard. Make it soo entertaining that men and women couldn't pry their eyes off of it.
I'm more advocating social circle game or direct response in conversations. When crap comes up in your social circle, you lightly-mock it and show you're not taking it seriously and it won't change your outlook whatsoever. Tone is key. Get too angry or nasty, and you look like your feathers are ruffled. If you follow manosphere advice to improve yourself, you should naturally have the 'winners' vibe that makes this work. Women AND men will see you as a leader, and you can then start dictating thought.
It's the old Greenpeace idea - you can't change the world but you can change your part of it. Think Global, Act Local. Sounds hippie, but there's logic in it.
Think of how one 'cool' peer group dominates the school. People largely don't grow out of this mindset. You just have to have the lifestyle and personality to be perceived as a 'winner' and you can get away with murder, and the weaker minds will follow suit, because they want to be you.
Due to my involvement in acting and music, I've got many hopelessly-beta and politically-correct facebook contacts that I'm obliged to have on my list, and I've been slowly-and-carefully deprogramming them through humour, simply because I was sick of them filling up my facebook feed with tedious crap each day, and I was curious to see if I could do it. Hey, other people play Candy Crush.
So when a guy (!) links to a stupid Feminism article about the unrealistic body pressure Male-centric Hollywood puts on actresses, I make fun of it:
"Tell me about it. I've worked my arse off putting on 15 kgs of muscle to deliver a monologue in my underwear just because [female producer] is a dirty girl and wants to get a cheap thrill exploiting the talent."
See how it ridicules the notion that only women are objectified and exploited, without me sounding knee-jerk defensive by pointing out equivalency? (Women don't care and never will care if they do the same thing they're criticising men of doing). All I'm doing is delegitimising the original article by making people see me socially-validated, (likes, lols and comments), for not taking it seriously, subtly-reinforcing they shouldn't either if they want similar social-validation.
I got one glasses-wearing herb to stop posting Jezebel articles he agrees with because he now knows better.
Then one of these PC guys wrote this morning: "Are they going to have to build a bunch of extra prisons if Emotionally-Neglecting special-snowflakes is criminalised?" Not particularly-funny, but I still laughed because I know I'm seeing the results of months of social cues through humour I've given him. He *thinks* that was his original thought, when all it is what I've programmed in him: the way 'cool kids' think.
I tell you, after the collapse, I'm going to grow a Mohawk and be Mayor of Bartertown.
Quote: (05-30-2014 10:29 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:
I'm sure we're disliked by all political groups, that includes conservatives, libertarians, and progressives.
I dont think libertarians in general dislike redpill stuff. Well, about the same as the other way round(redpillers disliking libertarianism), but not really as a general rule. In fact they are probably critical thinkers since the mainstream position mocks libertarianism so often, so you would have to be one to be that.
Quote: (05-30-2014 11:47 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:
I'm more advocating social circle game or direct response in conversations. When crap comes up in your social circle, you lightly-mock it and show you're not taking it seriously and it won't change your outlook whatsoever. Tone is key. Get too angry or nasty, and you look like your feathers are ruffled. If you follow manosphere advice to improve yourself, you should naturally have the 'winners' vibe that makes this work. Women AND men will see you as a leader, and you can then start dictating thought.
On one hand, this is really useful and is going to help people a lot.
But on the other i cant help thinking that it is an uphill battle. Personally, I became redpill by researching online and I am rational and open minded about the stuff I read. I cant help thinking I would only try to help people who already are/want to be redpill be even more redpill, but bluepills are a lost cause.
Quote: (05-30-2014 11:47 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:
Then one of these PC guys wrote this morning: "Are they going to have to build a bunch of extra prisons if Emotionally-Neglecting special-snowflakes is criminalised?"
Emotionally-Neglecting special-snowflakes? I cant parse the grammar(probably my fault), can you explain? I really want to understand the joke.
Quote: (05-31-2014 12:44 AM)cooledcannon Wrote:
On one hand, this is really useful and is going to help people a lot.
But on the other i cant help thinking that it is an uphill battle. Personally, I became redpill by researching online and I am rational and open minded about the stuff I read. I cant help thinking I would only try to help people who already are/want to be redpill be even more redpill, but bluepills are a lost cause.
Act local. You're not fighting the whole world, you're subtly-influencing your immediate circle. And you don't do it by sermonising and thinking you have all the answers and trying to 'educate' everyone, which is what some guys do when they take the red pill: they start evangelising, and everyone hates a god-botherer.
You're just be a cocky, confident guy who is fun to be around, going places in life, makes things happen, and doesn't take anything too seriously. Girls are drawn to this vibe in a guy. If you start lecturing and getting angry, you're just as miserable as the feminists you're pushing against, and no-one wants to hang around with them either.
It mightn't seem effective in isolation but you have to imagine more guys doing this. Popular social ideas spread through people. And we talk about feminism and transsexuals and gay agendas etc but I think the reality of the matter is, most people nowadays are comfortable, so are very 'live and let live' and don't give enough of a shit about the issues at hand to oppose them one way or another, because these issues don't really impact their lives directly.
Also, with the Beta types, they have no social skills, and, most of the time, they truly don't believe what they're saying, they're just faking being 'nice guys' thinking it will make them popular and attractive. If you start dropping Truth Bombs in a funny way, without being reprimanded - especially by girls - they start taking baby steps with their real opinions.
Back to Zep's original point:
Quote:Quote:
I'm wondering about Aboschs' idea ( from the ER thread )not taking girls seriously and the introduction of cat meme's etc. Maybe not on wiki, but a site specifically for ridiculing feminists, one that can be pointed to via wiki under some silly pretense. i.e. the site could be called #NoALLMen (or something ), I would laff hard. Make it soo entertaining that men and women couldn't pry their eyes off of it.
Back to this: it's a waste of time for a man. Lift weights, acquire currency, game girls, read history, learn something, write for ROK. Feminists are their own worst advertisement for their lifestyle. Mock them if they enter your world, but your focus should be on you and your mission.
Quote:Quote:
Emotionally-Neglecting special-snowflakes? I cant parse the grammar(probably my fault), can you explain? I really want to understand the joke.
It's wasn't funny. He linked to Scout Willis taking a topless walk to protest Instagram. He was trying to be me and failing.
Guys,
I have a bit of a problem, the blog material submitted on this thread is excellent but per wikipedia's blog citation guidelines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...shed_blogs
I need real names of the author's to be able to publish this material. Pseudonyms will not work. The only material I can use would be Roosh's stuff. How many of you guys are willing to remove the mask of anonymity for the sake of getting a complete wikipedia article?
Also, I want to impart the importance of this article. A lot of the journalist you see lambasting us only do a quick google search of what the "sphere" is about. We need a clean and concise wikipedia article because a lot of these goons only use Wikipedia to get a quick over view of what they're looking at.
This is a real chance to clearly tell the world what this is all about.
I have a bit of a problem, the blog material submitted on this thread is excellent but per wikipedia's blog citation guidelines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...shed_blogs
Quote:Quote:
Being able to reasonably verify who wrote the blog is necessary to being able to source it as a primary source. The blog should meet one of the following criteria:
*The blog is part of a credible site: a news agency, magazine, or other company; and the blog or postings are clearly identified as belonging to the named individual.
*The blog is part of a notable and credible special interest site and the blog or postings are clearly identified as belonging to the named individual.
*The blog is part of a site owned by the person(s) in question, and is established as their own words.
*The blog is clearly identified on a credible site as belonging to that person(s). For example John Smith's biography on http://www.examplenewscompany.com identifies that he keeps a blog at livejournal and provides a link or other identifying method.
I need real names of the author's to be able to publish this material. Pseudonyms will not work. The only material I can use would be Roosh's stuff. How many of you guys are willing to remove the mask of anonymity for the sake of getting a complete wikipedia article?
Also, I want to impart the importance of this article. A lot of the journalist you see lambasting us only do a quick google search of what the "sphere" is about. We need a clean and concise wikipedia article because a lot of these goons only use Wikipedia to get a quick over view of what they're looking at.
This is a real chance to clearly tell the world what this is all about.
^^^Here's a way around the anonymity issue.
Have a blogger who writes under their real name do a post where they quote the parts of anonymous blogs you want to use. Cite them as a source.
I agree on the journalist part. Ryan Holiday talks about putting half-truths in his clients wikipedia pages, having journalists quote them, and then citing the journalists as a source for the half-truth.
If someone publishes an article about the manosphere, it can be cited as a source. If you get a statement in wikipedia a "legitimate" source will quote it. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Have a blogger who writes under their real name do a post where they quote the parts of anonymous blogs you want to use. Cite them as a source.
I agree on the journalist part. Ryan Holiday talks about putting half-truths in his clients wikipedia pages, having journalists quote them, and then citing the journalists as a source for the half-truth.
If someone publishes an article about the manosphere, it can be cited as a source. If you get a statement in wikipedia a "legitimate" source will quote it. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Read my work on Return of Kings here.
Quote: (05-31-2014 01:01 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:
^^^Here's a way around the anonymity issue.
Have a blogger who writes under their real name do a post where they quote the parts of anonymous blogs you want to use. Cite them as a source.
I agree on the journalist part. Ryan Holiday talks about putting half-truths in his clients wikipedia pages, having journalists quote them, and then citing the journalists as a source for the half-truth.
If someone publishes an article about the manosphere, it can be cited as a source. If you get a statement in wikipedia a "legitimate" source will quote it. It's all smoke and mirrors.
That definitely works. I was about to write Roosh asking for this. Remember, this thread will have to be deleted because this is evidence of "circular citations" and is clear grounds to have the article deleted.
Besides Roosh, what other RoK writers have used their full name? The more variety in "authors" we have the better it works out.
Fellas, have you looked at the 'Talk' tab of the Wikipedia entry?
They are already well aware of this thread, so keep that in mind with respect to the tactics.
When I started reading this thread I was firmly in support of frenchie's strategy of earnestly editing the article, but after seeing the 'Talk' page and the consensus that has already arisen among editors with stylized names, I am in favor of trolling instead.
I think there is 0% chance of getting anything close to a 50-50 article.
I don't think it is a major loss though. Trying too hard to get a "compromise" article into Wikipedia could give the MSM ammunition to say that we stand behind whatever is written, since we partook in the process. It's like the danger of legitimizing a coup by voting in coup-organized elections.
They are already well aware of this thread, so keep that in mind with respect to the tactics.
When I started reading this thread I was firmly in support of frenchie's strategy of earnestly editing the article, but after seeing the 'Talk' page and the consensus that has already arisen among editors with stylized names, I am in favor of trolling instead.
I think there is 0% chance of getting anything close to a 50-50 article.
I don't think it is a major loss though. Trying too hard to get a "compromise" article into Wikipedia could give the MSM ammunition to say that we stand behind whatever is written, since we partook in the process. It's like the danger of legitimizing a coup by voting in coup-organized elections.
^ Matt Forney also uses his real name
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Here is what I have so far:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okyou...st/sandbox
The introduction and terminology sections all have citations to real articles. There is an article that is cited by roosh on the high turnover rate of manosphere blogs which is acceptable to put in.
Rollo, I sent you a PM but I'd like to include that section from your book The Rational Male. In fact, we can quote it word for word with the proper citation and give it a good over view. I will however need a billion and one page citations to make that acceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okyou...st/sandbox
The introduction and terminology sections all have citations to real articles. There is an article that is cited by roosh on the high turnover rate of manosphere blogs which is acceptable to put in.
Rollo, I sent you a PM but I'd like to include that section from your book The Rational Male. In fact, we can quote it word for word with the proper citation and give it a good over view. I will however need a billion and one page citations to make that acceptable.
This intro needs work. Not only should you expand it (90 percent of readers won't make it past it), the bolded parts tend to diminish the manosphere.
Quote:Quote:
The Manosphere is a collection of internet blogs, cultural discussion groups, interpersonal interactions, and online clubhouses whose entire focus revolves around issues and interests common to men and masculinity. [1]. The main discussion of the Manosphere tends to focus on feminism and its effects on men and masculinity [2]. To a lesser extent, the it also discusses lifestyle, travel, literary, and academic subjects. [3]
I like how it says: "The manosphere has been criticized by both conservatives and liberals." as if that's the only two ways that someone can identify themself. ![[Image: lol.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/lol.gif)
"...it's the quiet cool...it's for someone who's been through the struggle and come out on the other side smelling like money and pussy."
"put her in the taxi, put her number in the trash can"
Quote: (05-31-2014 02:25 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:
This intro needs work. Not only should you expand it (90 percent of readers won't make it past it), the bolded parts tend to diminish the manosphere.
Quote:Quote:
The Manosphere is a collection of internet blogs, cultural discussion groups, interpersonal interactions, and online clubhouses whose entire focus revolves around issues and interests common to men and masculinity. [1]. The main discussion of the Manosphere tends to focus on feminism and its effects on men and masculinity [2]. To a lesser extent, the it also discusses lifestyle, travel, literary, and academic subjects. [3]
Make the edits you see fit to it
![[Image: smile.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/smile.gif)
You should be able to edit the introduction on my talk page.
Try something a bit more crisp, along these lines (it's rough):
The Manosphere is a diverse collection of Internet blogs, men's magazines, discussion forums, and individual commentators whose principle similarity is a focus on men's issues today. Their subjects range from politics to self-improvement to academic matters. Their demographics and geography are similarly diverse. Several women are well-known Manosphere commentators; its members come all over the political spectrum; and some of the most prominent Manosphere communities are based outside of the United States--where it arguably originated.
While the Manosphere's origins date back to the late 1990s, its profile has grown in recent years, with the expansion and popularization of...blah blah
The Manosphere is a diverse collection of Internet blogs, men's magazines, discussion forums, and individual commentators whose principle similarity is a focus on men's issues today. Their subjects range from politics to self-improvement to academic matters. Their demographics and geography are similarly diverse. Several women are well-known Manosphere commentators; its members come all over the political spectrum; and some of the most prominent Manosphere communities are based outside of the United States--where it arguably originated.
While the Manosphere's origins date back to the late 1990s, its profile has grown in recent years, with the expansion and popularization of...blah blah
Quote: (05-31-2014 02:43 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:
Try something a bit more crisp, along these lines (it's rough):
The Manosphere is a diverse collection of Internet blogs, men's magazines, discussion forums, and individual commentators whose principle similarity is a focus on men's issues today. Their subjects range from politics to self-improvement to academic matters. Their demographics and geography are similarly diverse. Several women are well-known Manosphere commentators; its members come all over the political spectrum; and some of the most prominent Manosphere communities are based outside of the United States--where it arguably originated.
While Manosphere's origins date back to the late 1990s, its profile has grown in recent years, with the expansion and popularization of...blah blah
Tuth, go ahead and add and change what you see fit. That's the point of wikipedia
![[Image: tongue.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Just remember to add the citations to Ian Ironwood's work. He does mention all of that in his book. I'm not the best writer to be trying to write this.
I don't think you need a terminology section, which makes this read more like an insider's document, and not for the general reader. I don't think explaining what a "hamster" is is key here. It should delineate the genealogy of the Manosphere a lot more.
What about sectioning that includes headings like this:
History of the Manosphere
Game and Pick-Up Artists
Politics
Criticism of Feminism
What about sectioning that includes headings like this:
History of the Manosphere
Game and Pick-Up Artists
Politics
Criticism of Feminism
Quote: (05-31-2014 02:52 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:
I don't think you need a terminology section, which makes this read more like an insider's document, and not for the general reader. I don't think explaining what a "hamster" is is key here. It should delineate the genealogy of the Manosphere a lot more.
What about sectioning that includes headings like this:
History
Game and Pick-Up Artists
Politics
Criticism of Feminism
That works a lot better. I've gone and edited them in. Do you think you can contribute some entries to each? Hunting for appropriate citations is a helluva lot of work.
Quote: (05-31-2014 02:56 PM)frenchie Wrote:
That works a lot better. I've gone and edited them in. Do you think you can contribute some entries to each? Hunting for appropriate citations is a helluva lot of work.
I'll try to jump in there a bit later and give you some intros and chunks to work with. You seem to have done some excellent research work, so a tandem approach might work nicely.
Quote: (05-31-2014 02:43 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:
Try something a bit more crisp, along these lines (it's rough):
The Manosphere is a diverse collection of Internet blogs, men's magazines, discussion forums, and individual commentators whose principle similarity is a focus on men's issues today. Their subjects range from politics to self-improvement to academic matters. Their demographics and geography are similarly diverse. Several women are well-known Manosphere commentators; its members come all over the political spectrum; and some of the most prominent Manosphere communities are based outside of the United States--where it arguably originated.
While Manosphere's origins date back to the late 1990s, its profile has grown in recent years, with the expansion and popularization of...blah blah
You meant 'principal' instead of 'principle.'
The prime flaw with the article as it stands is that it uses the tendentious descriptions of its opponents to describe it, instead of just taking the manosphere's own description of itself. Instead of confining the criticism to a 'Criticism' section, the whole article is criticism.
I'd probably contribute if I were assured that my edits would be accepted, but that seems unlikely.
The funny thing about the 'manosphere' is that the guys who actively use that label are never the PUAs or the MRAs - it's mostly the self-styled 'red pill' people. You'll never hear Mystery or Neil Strauss talking about 'The Manosphere.' The thing that defines member of this forum in my mind is: a commitment to the truth, valuing traditional sex roles, traditional ideals of beauty, self-improvement, and pursuing what you want in life without regard to what society has to say. Establishment authorities are only respected insofar as their message is held to be true.
Quote: (05-30-2014 06:36 PM)Rollo Tomassi Wrote:
If I may be so bold (since this is published in my book) I would submit the following for the 'Game' Wiki:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/04/19/th...n-of-game/
Game
Of these concepts the one I return to the most frequently is that of Game. My editor asks, “Just what is Game?” Throughout the upcoming book, this blog, and virtually every major manosphere writer’s blog there’s a constant presumption that readers will know exactly what Game is when it’s referred to. Game has been lifted up to an almost mythical state; like some panacea for the common guy struggling with achieving women’s attentions and intimacy. It’s gotten to the point where familiarity with Game has become a flippant aside for manosphere bloggers – we have varieties of Game, we have internalized Game, we have ‘natural’ Game, direct Game, Beta Game etc., but defining the term ‘Game’ for someone unfamiliar with the very involved intricacies, behaviors and the underlying psychological principles on which Game is founded is really tough for the uninitiated to wrap their heads around in the beginning.
For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.
At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.
Early Game
In its humble beginnings, Game was a set of behaviors, learned, adapted and modified with the express purpose of bettering a guy’s prospective sexual ‘success’ with the women he had only limited (if any) access to. Game was defined as a series of behavioral skills and techniques observationally experimented with, and developed by the burgeoning PUA culture of the early 2000′s. While there was a peripheral acknowledgement given to the psychology that made these behavior sets effective, the purpose was more about the result and less about the head-mechanics that made the result possible.
This introduction was many of the current manosphere’s first contact with ‘formalized’ Game. The quality of the Art in pick up artistry was (and still is) really left up to the practitioner’s capacity to understand the basics of behavioral psychology (with regards to women) and refining a deft ability to adapt and react to his target’s changing behavioral cues on a given environment and/or context..
If this were the only extent of Game it would understandably be very short sighted and limited in scope. In the beginning Game had a utility in that it helped a majority of men lacking the social intelligence to approach and develop a real, intimate rapport with women they fundamentally lacked. The problem was that beyond Game’s “in-field” uses it wasn’t really developed past the point of ‘getting the girl’, and left even the most socially adept PUAs unprepared to deal with the real psychology motivating women on a greater whole. It was just this feminine meta-psychology that drove men, unaccustomed to enjoying and then losing the affections of women formerly “out of their league”, to depression and suicide.
Game was a wondrous tool set of skills, but without the insight and foresight to deal with what these tools could build, it was potentially like giving children dynamite.
Evolving Game
From the earliest inception Game was more or less viewed as a solution to a problem. Game has been described as a logical social reaction to the women that the past 60+ years of feminism, social feminization and feminine primacy has created for the men of today. Courtesy of modern connectivity, the internet and collectivized social media, evolving Game or some variation of it was inevitable for men. Despite the public social stigma and ridicule attached to men attempting to understand the psychologies of women, privately the internet facilitated a global consortium of men comparing experiences, relating observations and testing theories.
The behavioral psychology that led to Game which prompted the desired reactions in women began to take on more import for men. Sure, the now classic Game techniques like being Cocky & Funny, Amused Mastery, Agree & Amplify, Neg Hits, Peacocking, etc. were effective in their own artfully used contexts, but the latent psychology that made those behavior sets work prompted the questions of why they worked.
The psychological aspects of effective (and ineffective) Game began to take on a new importance. Through this broader exploration of the role biological, psychological and sociological factors affected Game sprang new ideas, theories and experimentative models leading to new behavioral sets and the abandonment of less effective ones.
As connectivity grew, so did the knowledge base of the Game community. No longer was Game exclusive to the PUA pioneers; Game was expanding to accommodate the interests and influences of men who’d never heard of the earlier version of Game, or would’ve rejected it outright just years before due to their feminine conditioning. Married men wondered if aspects of Game could reignite the sexual interests of their frigid or overbearing wives. Divorced men embraced the Game ridiculed when married to improve their potential for new sexual interests, but also to relate their experiences and contribute to that Game knowledge base. Men, not just in western culture, but from a globalizing interest began to awaken with each new contribution not only about how women were, but why women were. Game was making the unknowable woman knowable. The enigmatic feminine mystique began unraveling with each new contribution to the Game knowledge base.
Game was becoming something more. Men could now see the code in the Matrix: we knew the medium was the message, we began to see the feminine social conventions used to control us, we began to see the overarching reach of the feminine imperative and fem-centrism, and we came to realize the insidious, but naturalistic, influence feminine hypergamy had wrought in both men and women. Game was prompting Men to push back the iron veil of feminine primacy and see what made her tick.
Predictably, fem-centric society sought to cast the rise, and expansion of Game as a modern version of the ridiculous macho archetypes of the 50′s-70′s. The threat of an evolving, more intellectually valid form of Game had to be ridiculed and shamed like anything else masculine, so the association with its infamous PUA forerunners was the obvious choice for the feminine imperative. The feminine standard appeal to the Masculine Catch 22 was the first recourse: any man who desired to learn Game was less than a man for that desire, but also less of a man for not already knowing Game (as approved by the feminine imperative). Any guy actually paying for, or personally invested in, Game was associated with the PUA culture that was characterized as a throw back to the ‘Leisure Suit Larrys’ of the 70′s.
Contemporary Game
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.
The well of knowledge and awareness that Game represented had to be poisoned. The social conventions the feminine imperative had relied on for decades was no longer effective. The continued expansion of Game into the social, psychological, evolutionary and biological realms was evidence that Game was something those old convention couldn’t contain, so the imperative evolved new tacts while reinventing old ones.
Shaming and ridicule were (and still are) the rudimentary tactics that the less intellectual of the feminine imperative would resort to, but the expansiveness of Game needed something more distorting. Proponents of the feminine imperative began to concede certain universal points that Game had long asserted about feminine nature (and the FI had long rejected) in an effort to co-opt the social momentum Game had taken over a decade to develop.
The Feminine Imperative couldn’t argue with the extensive validity of the tenets of Game, so it sought to reengineer Game from within and modify it to its own purpose. The Feminne Imperative wants just enough male empowerment to return men to an improved (really an older) state of usefulness to its ends, but not so much that true male emancipation from the imperative would threaten its dominance. In co-opting Game and conceding to the truths it finds less threatening the imperative hopes to build better betas – men who believe they are empowered by Game, but are still beholden to the Feminine Imperative.
True emancipation from the imperative threatens its dominance, so Men with the vision to see past this are labeled Dark, Sociopathic and Deviant by the imperative. It wasn’t enough just to infiltrate Game and sanitize it fot its benefit, the Feminine Imperative had to categorize Game for itself – Evil vs. Good Game. The good of course being characterized with whatever aspects benefitted the imperative and the bad being whatever ‘selfishly’ benefited the masculine. The Feminine Imperative doesn’t care about the various branchings of Game – natural, internalized, marriage, etc. – it only concerns itself with what aspects can be distorted to its advantage and what aspects cannot.
This brings us to Game as we know it today. Game is still evolving, and had I the prescience to see where it will go next, I would veture that it will come to a real emancipation with the FI. Not an emancipation from women, but an emancipation from their imperative. Not a ‘men going their own way’ negligence of women in the hope that they’ll come around to behaving as men would like being given no other choice, but a true Game driven emancipation from the control that fem-centrism has maintained for so long.
Make no mistake, the Feminine Imperative needs men to be necessitous of it, and it will always be hostile to the Men attempting to free other men from that necessity. In this respect, any Game, even the co-opted Game the imperative will use itself, is by definition sexist. Anything that may benefit Men, even when it associatively benefits women, is sexist. Freeing men from the Matrix, breaking their conditioning and encouraging them to reimagine themselves and their personalities for their own betterment is sexist.
Encouraging men to be better Men is sexist.
Rollo,
A lot of what you've written is perfect for the wiki page, however I can't directly quote it without you changing the copyright on your book. It can however be cited and a lot of what you've written is definitely permissible as a quotable material and citation matter. I need specific page numbers and the like to be able to put most of this in.
I think a chart or Venn diagram might work miracles for making this legitimate and less likely to be questioned by those set on painting the Manosphere incorrectly. Does anyone have professional-level skills in making charts? Once the article is nearly complete, it might make sense to make a chart that shows the distinction between MRAs, PUA Haters, Red Pillers, etc. etc.
Also, I think it's important to use the term Commercial Pick-Up Artists, which I coined in my last ROK piece. It makes an important distinction between regular guys talking about chicks and guys doing workshops and making money and shit like that.
Also, I think it's important to use the term Commercial Pick-Up Artists, which I coined in my last ROK piece. It makes an important distinction between regular guys talking about chicks and guys doing workshops and making money and shit like that.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)