End of the debate?

In a devastating e-mail to Ferdinand Bardamu, the host of In Mala Fide, Todd White pretty much puts paid to Game.

Here is the entry:

For the last few days, I’ve been exchanging emails with Ferdinand Bardamu, a Game proponent… Without further ado, here’s my latest email…

Hi Ferdinand,

Thanks again for your response. I’m having fun, and I hope you are too.

I will say, however, that I don’t think your last comment was very persuasive; in most cases you dived easily into tangents while refusing to address my concerns head-on. For example, on the topic of “reductionism,” you wrote, “Have you ever baked a cake or cooked any sort of recipe? Then you’ve engaged in a mild form of reductionism.”

This is almost patronizing. You know (or at least should know) that Reductionism—as a cultural phenomenon—has nothing to do with baking a cake; it has everything to do with viewing human beings as nothing more than a random firing of neurons and chemicals, and that everything in human life can be explained through mechanical, material forces. I do not share this Reductionist viewpoint because it is lethal to human happiness and civilization. Oh, and it’s just plain wrong!

But I digress. Let me say again (if I haven’t already) that I sympathize with your frustration regarding the current state of male-female relations. This sucks for guys. No question. We are in 100% agreement on that. The question is: What to do?

If “Game” was limited to encouraging Beta males to be more self-confident around women and giving them “tools of the trade” on how to meet and date women, I would be totally fine with that. But “Game” goes BEYOND that. Think of the very term: “Game.” It deliberately insinuates that a man’s pursuit of women is just that: A “Game.” In this game, there are inevitably winners and losers. Right now, the women and alpha males are winning; so let’s try to win the “Game” by acting like Alpha Males.

And for what purpose? You say—speaking of yourself—“I do want to get married and start a family eventually.” A very normal desire. But how does Game help you achieve that desire? It doesn’t. Read the Amazon.com review of the famous Neil Strauss book, The Game.

“After two years, Strauss ends up becoming almost as successful as Mystery, but he comes to an important realization. His techniques were actually off-putting to the woman he ended up falling in love with. And they never prepared him for actually having a relationship. After a while, he ran out of one-liners and had to have a real conversation.”

So if Game can’t help build a loving relationship with a woman, what is its purpose? It’s purpose is to help Gamers get laid. You basically admit this when you write, “Men need a way to sate their lusts. Game is the best way in my opinion to help them do this.”

Fine. Then just say that! Say “I need to get laid. I haven’t had sex in months (or years), I can’t keep relying upon masturbation, I won’t hire a prostitute, and I refuse to turn gay. That’s why I use ‘Game.’” Fine. I would (almost) accept that. I wouldn’t condone it, but I would accept it. What I don’t accept is cloaking Game up as a way to save Western Civilization. As a true Conservative, I find the idea that casual sex is needed to save civilization to be a tad askew, almost insulting.

Yes, yes, I know: Game is a “butcher’s knife.” But it’s not. For the reasons I said above. It rests on a philosophical presumption that women are uncivilized monkeys, and that the key to banging a monkey is to act like a monkey too. That is a sad way to view women. And it’s a sad way to see ourselves as men. And it’s so unnecessary.

I’m not a Christian, per se, but I’ve always had respect for the Christian concept that we live in a “fallen world.” In other words, the triumph of “the good” is not preordained in life; the triumph of the good requires intelligence, character, and determination. It can be a real struggle at times. But the Gamers have no interest in struggle. They expect everything to happen easily. They expect women to fall into their lap. It’s a form of laziness. It says, “I don’t have the patience to be ‘good’ for years with the hope that one day I’ll meet a ‘good woman…’ I’m too horny. So I’ll pretend being a ‘bad guy’ to meet a ‘bad woman’ today.”

This is a sad philosophy and it’s also wrong—because it’s precisely the “good women” who WILL TRULY love a “good man” and wait for him. Yes, they might be only 5-10% of the female population, but they’re out there. And they deserve better than what we’re giving them. Even more than that, WE deserve better than we’re giving ourselves.

The premise of Game is that we, as Betas, are just not good enough to find happiness and a satisfying relationship; we must therefore become Alphas, the very thing we loathe. And for what purpose? Sex. A total degradation of character for a few minutes of pleasure? Count me out.

Yes, yes, I hear you: “I just don’t get game.” But I think I do, Ferdinand. Indeed, I’m almost tempted to say I understand it better than you. And that’s why I reject it.


Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 24, 2009 11:26 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):