A response to the Roissyites
(Note: a commenter explains
why Mr. Coleman and I don’t understand how bad the situation really is.)
Clark Coleman writes:
Here is my simple response to Roissyism, which does not depend on the Roissyites’ acceptance of my spiritual beliefs:
- end of initial entry -
1) It is all based on anecdotes, which are exaggerated and over-generalized to make them appear to be the norm. There are statistics on median age of first marriage, and they do not indicate that “all women are waiting until they are 35 and have been promiscuous for 15 years.” Some facts would be nice as a basis for their whines.
2) In bigger, liberal, coastal cities, their complaints are more likely to be true than elsewhere. So, why don’t they move? Leave these skanks to their Sex and the City locales. Do these men still possess free will? Women don’t likely move to New York City after college based on maternal and domestic impulses. So, why stay there and whine? Pack up and man up. The women with the right values and impulses are elsewhere.
3) The claims about what women want are hopelessly over-generalized. All women want “bad boys” and other poor definitions of alpha males? I have observed a lot of women in my life. Some want overly rugged-looking men and some go for boyish looking men. Some go for the Marlboro Man Cowboy in jeans and a flannel shirt with boots, others for metrosexuals, and others for shaggy hippie types. Some put their emphasis on a man’s looks, some on his money, while others go for an artistic or musical type with no money and not much prospect of making any money any time soon, and others go for the man in uniform with no concern for money. And on and on and on. The Game discussions I have read by following links from VFR have a ridiculously narrow view of what “all” women like.
4) My observation is that women want to believe there is something special about a man that they can brag about to other females, and make themselves feel like they got something special and did not just settle for some guy with nothing special about him. At one time, being a good provider might be enough to make a guy worth bragging about. With so many women pursuing careers, that has become a harder sell, as many have noted on all sides of the discussion. That raises the bar today, especially in large urban hellholes. It seems to me that many men’s definition of a “beta male,” as they self-pityingly call themselves, is a male with not much to recommend him except that he is a potential provider. Which brings me to my final point:
5) Masculine excellence can be exhibited by men in many ways. By definition, earning far above the average can only be done by a few. But there are other ways. Masculine traits of courage, boldness in standing up for what you believe in, confidence and self-reliance, are what women see in ersatz form in “bad boys” who seem boldly to defy convention, go their own way in society, etc. But there are many women who do not respond to this ersatz masculinity. They respond to such masculine behaviors as standing up for oneself in the workplace, boldly addressing corporate management, confidently stepping forward to lead in any group (I have read of Christian women who watched men simply teach the adult Bible class at church and longed for the day when their husband would have the ability and courage to do such a thing), being an entrepreneur (regardless of whether great financial success is achieved, even if it is just a part time thing on the side), being confident in handyman tasks, and jumping right in to fix things, being decisive in everyday life, and so on.
Perhaps one life path would be for men to cultivate their abilities in these masculine avenues of life. Learn to speak in public and lead. Read and write and speak well. Be bold in the workplace. Learn to fix things. Develop excellence in some area other than your job. Don’t project “I’m aimless and spending my time on TV and video games.” Instead, think about the man you want to be, in terms of your character traits and abilities, and start striving to be that man. You will seem like a man exhibiting masculine drive and confidence and boldness, because you will be doing exactly that! You won’t have to learn to pretend to have such traits.
It might sound foolish to claim that we can all be above average, like the kids in Lake Wobegon, but not too many people today are striving for excellence in anything, so the competition is not too tough. In fact, your competition are the losers who think that the word is spelled “loosers.” They went to public school and learned to be lazy at everything they do in life. And, for Pete’s sake, don’t spend your prime courtship years in some place such as D.C. or NYC or anywhere that attracts young women drunk on power and career. The ones with different values went somewhere else.
Or, you could timidly go about your business at work, silently sit on the back pew at church, not learn to be excellent at anything except your modern, boring job, never demonstrate courage or boldness or leadership or public confidence of any kind at anything, live in a place where you will never meet a woman with your values, refuse to pack up and move, and then whine that you are a “nice guy” who could be a “good provider” but these ungrateful skanks don’t appreciate you. Then, you could rationalize vengeful, manipulative behavior aimed at these women. That’s the other choice, I guess.
Bravo, Mr. Coleman.
There have been many good comments on this subject . This may be the best. What you’ve done is to “switch the paradigm” on the Roissyites. Generally, they’ve been on the offensive, defining the paradigm in terms of their theory of female sexuality, the beta dilemma, etc. Various critics have challenged this paradigm in different ways and suggested other approaches. But you’ve set out a full bodied different paradigm, turning the tables on them, showing how false and unreal their picture of reality is.
Regarding Mr. Coleman’s note, the statistics do exist. Whiskey has been writing a number of articles on the subject citing specific data involving reported number of sexual partners, divorce rates, age of marriage, age of first child, and so on. One important thing to notice is differentiation by age group; when you break it down that way the picture is rather different than if you just average women 15-64.
It’s easy to say “move.” The farther you get from the cities the worse the job situation gets, and consequently the harder it is to have the means to provide for a family. I’m not speaking in ignorance here; I’ve spent the past 10 years trying to stay away from a big coastal liberal city, not entirely successfully. And in spite of spending much of that time in smaller cities and towns, my experience with women there has been that they’re still predominantly of the same big-city mentality—it’s not as bad but still a major factor. There’s also the fact that the cities, for whatever reason, are a big draw for single women, particularly the younger ones. Some do realize the problems with living there and try to head back to the country but very few realize what that environment will do to people, morally, beforehand.
Also, I’d point to England. The chav culture (particularly as described by Dalrymple) we see there is the result of a society where men have no investment, no accepted social role to play, and it is pretty close to what the supposed doomsayers are predicting. It’s also eerily reminiscent of Gibbon’s description of Rome around the time it was sacked by Alaric.
In another entry, you write in reply to Mark P.:
“He’s saying that there is this hideous crisis (no betas can find women),…. I don’t buy it.”
Yes, that is the issue. You really, honestly don’t believe that things can be this bad. I don’t know what to tell you, because you’re essentially calling me and everyone else who makes this claim a liar when you say that. I suppose I should be angry about that but I can’t be bothered, I’ve encountered that same attitude from older people so many times.
I’m employed. I interact well with women; I get my female (married) coworkers laughing often, I’m physically average, my sister admires me, I’m just a normal average reasonable guy. And 20-something single women in places where singles meet look right through me like I’m not even there. If I make myself noticed, I get treated like something they scraped off their shoe. I don’t even take it personally anymore, it’s just been this tremendously odd fact of life, contrary to everything I’ve been taught, that I’ve been trying to figure out for a long time. The logic of the situation that Mark P. laid out in his first long message on this [“The catastrophe in sex relations: a Roissyesque account”] is really the best description of it that I’ve seen. It’s a logic that I’ve been working to understand for a long time—the hardest part was realizing the basic outlines in the first place, because it is SO contrary to what traditional society tells us is “true.”
It isn’t just me. Several of my best friends are comitted Christians. One had his wife divorce him after five years and two kids, explaining that she “wasn’t having fun.” Another tends to spend his time exclusively with high schoolers because they haven’t developed as bad an attitude yet. A third (not so religious, but a moral person I’d trust) had his girlfriend of five years inform him that they weren’t going to be having sex anymore—she wanted other guys—but she still planned on living under his roof and sharing the rent and living space. A fourth got married, six months later she informed him she wanted a divorce and ten thousand dollars or else she’d drag him through the courts. I could go on. Then there’s all the guys I know who are essentially permanently single; there’s a lot more of them. And this is ALL people who are essentially country folk, small town folk—precisely the sort of environment Mr. Coleman says is still healthy. He really has no idea.
There comes a point when you count up the number of cases like this in your life, and count up the number of cases you can think of where something of the sort DIDN’T happen, and you realize it isn’t just anecdotes. You don’t see it because you don’t move in the same social circles. You are of a different generation and a thoroughly different mentality. I’m not surprised you don’t believe it. With perspective, it becomes clear just how insane a situation it is. And yet that is reality today. Explaining at length why you think it can’t possibly be that bad doesn’t change what’s actually going on, or the consequences if denial persists.
You speak about going to places where singles meet. Here we go once again, with VFR getting drawn into becoming a place of dating tips, but it sounds as if you’re talking about bars and what not. That’s obviously a much more competitive, brutal scene, where people are instantly sized up on their superficial characteristics, a scene where alphas would have a total edge over betas. The far better, less stressed, and more natural way to meet people is to to involve yourself in activities you like, and you will naturally meet people who share the same interests.
Now to the main point. The message by Mark P. that you reference was titled by me, “The catastrophe in sex relations: a Roissyeque account.” So I was not denying that there is a catastrophe; I was acknowledging it. What I dispute is the idea that the catastrophe is so overwhelming that there’s no recourse from it; and, further, that Game is the only solution.
But let’s say that my first premise is wrong. Let’s say that the catastrophe is as overwhelming as you say it is. Such a catastrophe, in which all women are only interested in ten percent of men and ignore the other ninety percent, MEANS THE END OF HUMAN SOCIETY. Is Game going to reverse or even significantly mitigate such a historic catastrophe? If the catastrophe is that sweeping, then either society is going to come to an end, or the society as a whole must reverse the catastrophe. And obviously the use of Roissyesque techniques for attracting women is not going to do that. The problem must be addressed on a whole other level.
And by the way, since you’re saying that Game is the only solution, have you practiced Game?
Laura Wood writes:
I am grateful to Michael S., Alan Roebuck and Clark Coleman for adding perspective on this discussion. Clark Coleman confirms my own view. The Roissyists operate in a world where the hedonism and careerism of women is at its worst. As Mr. Coleman says, “The claims about what women want are hopelessly over-generalized” by the Roissyists. There is no pending crisis of men who want to marry not being able to marry. I stand by my previous statement: Keep Moving. You are a fool if you think these are the only women in the world. Turn your back on promiscuous women and shame them. Find her. She is there. The men who will end up unmarried are those who don’t want it badly enough to work at finding the right women. That’s as good as not wanting it. The men who will end [up] married to women who will exploit them are the men who are not aware of how selfish women are today. You do know. Therefore you have the advantage in winning the few good women there are.
I agree with Scott C., especially with regard to divorce and women. I share his bitterness. Women too suffer from the actions of selfish women and the destruction of family and community caused by them. But, this statement of Scott’s is too extreme:
The only thing the modern American (Western) girl has to offer me is sex. Which I’m not willing to pay more for than a tequila shot and a lie to the face. After the fact, what does she have to offer?
There are faithful women who offer this loyalty, but they are invisible to Scott. Those of us who have made considerable sacrifices to reject liberalism don’t count.
Is she going to be my life partner? No. Is she going to be my helpmate? No. Is she going to be the mother to my children? No.
I have one small quibble with Clark Coleman’s statement. “My observation is that women want to believe there is something special about a man that they can brag about to other females,” he said. Women may prefer men who win the approval of friends and family, but they’re not much into bragging. It would be nice if they were. Bragging about the man you love is normal. Sad to say, women today seem to feel it their duty to publicly express every last trivial doubt and complaint. It’s sickening and boring. It’s a vile habit, a sin of disloyalty. American women have been Oprah-ized to death. They think it’s okay to glorify the pettiest of emotions.
But, again that’s a generalization. A good woman is hard to find. But she exists. She will bring a man children and untold happiness. She is worth the depressing search and the soul-killing hunt among women who are worthless and who have conspired to destroy themselves, their men and our culture.
Michael S. writes:
Several of my best friends are comitted Christians. One had his wife divorce him after five years and two kids, explaining that she “wasn’t having fun.”
The friend may have been a committed Christian, but the wife clearly was not. Either he chose wrong in the first place, or failed to provide real leadership in the family.
Another tends to spend his time exclusively with high schoolers because they haven’t developed as bad an attitude yet.
What? It sounds like this man has been out of high school himself for at least ten years, and he has a friend who spends his time exclusively with high school students? You mean, high school girls? How does he do this? Why does he do this? Is he looking for a wife? Good grief.
A third (not so religious, but a moral person I’d trust) had his girlfriend of five years inform him that they weren’t going to be having sex anymore—she wanted other guys—but she still planned on living under his roof and sharing the rent and living space.
A friend who’s a now-former fornicator, still co-habiting with his apparently promiscuous girlfriend. And you call this moral?
A fourth got married, six months later she informed him she wanted a divorce and ten thousand dollars or else she’d drag him through the courts. I could go on.
Are you sure your friends don’t lack good sense?
OI replies to LA:
“The far better, less stressed, and more natural way to meet people is to to involve yourself in activities you like, and you will naturally meet people who share the same interests.”
You’d think so. This gets into the just friends/romance phase change, and how women’s reactions change when/if they become aware of the man’s intentions or hopes. The point about Game is that it allows you to present yourself as a man worthy of romance in addition to being a good friend—or even to present yourself as a man worthy of romance starting from first impressions. If a guy raised on what current society tells him just does what comes naturally and acts honestly and openly, he’s guaranteed to do things that make her lose interest, given the criteria on which she is judging him. Here again I’m speaking from direct personal experience in exactly the sort of situation you recommend. Younger men aren’t stupid; we’ve tried pretty much all the well-meaning advice.
“Such a catastrophe, in which all women are only interested in ten percent of men and ignore the other ninety percent, MEANS THE END OF HUMAN SOCIETY. “
Yes. Exactly. I don’t claim Game is “the” answer to this. I do think it is a situation that is desperately in need of attention and Roissy and the related blogs seem to be the only ones who are be taking it seriously. If this is to be reversed, it depends on men learning to act like men again, and sweeping away the societal structures like no-fault divorce and child support that have crippled them. You can call it being a biblical head of household if you like, but acting that way means, de facto, adopting some of the behaviors Game prescribes—that of natural leadership and superiority. To do that requires utterly jettisoning everything feminism has taught us. [LA replies: And Game is the only way to do that? Which means inevitably absorbing and normalizing the pornographic view of human nature being disseminated by the likes of Roissy and Ferdinand Berdamu.]
“And by the way, since you’re saying that Game is the only solution, have you practiced Game?”
I’m not convinced it’s the “only” solution but I do think it’s important for allowing a man to present himself well. I have seen that when I employ some of the basic tricks, and avoid what it describes as mistakes (I’m no expert and certainly would never be any good as a womanizer, even if I wanted to be), women, particularly the prettier ones, are a lot more interested in continued contact. It’s like wrestling with opening a door, and suddenly you realize you need to push it instead of pull it.
I completely understand that you object to Roissy on moral grounds. For my part, I differentiate his “is” with his “ought.” What he says about what women tend to be attracted to seems to hold true, experimentally. That’s important, particularly since hardly anybody else is saying it. What he recommends people do with that information is his own problem.
“… the just friends/romance phase change…”
Here we go again, with VFR being drawn into dating advice.
This notion of “just friends” seems absolutely nowhere, something for losers.
Let’s say you followed the earlier advice of pursuing activities that you like for their own sake: theater, hiking, birdwatching, whatever. In the course of these activities, you meet and get into a conversation with someone. You ask her out. There’s no “just friends” stage to get stuck in and have to transition out of.
“The point about Game is that it allows you to present yourself as a man worthy of romance in addition to being a good friend—or even to present yourself as a man worthy of romance starting from first impressions.”
You need GAME to tell you that? I just told you that, and I’m not a woman-hating pornographer.
And here’s another trope that comes constantly from the betas:
“If a guy raised on what current society tells him…”
All these guys are acting as if there has been some respected social authority for the last several decades telling them how to live, and they’ve dutifully followed it, and it’s not working. Where is there such authority? The very character of modern society is that it’s in turmoil, all authoriy has been thrown down except for PC which people don’t believe in. So who are these respected authoriies in which you had so much faith?
Again, I don’t want to sound unkind, but the kinds of thing we keep hearing over and over from the young men in these discussions suggests a passive loser-dom and that’s why they’re not finding women.
Clark Coleman writes:
If Game is to transform our society and save Western Civilization, it will have to be utilized by huge numbers of the “beta males” (as they define themselves) in order for a big impact to be made on family formation. But the success of Game depends on its being a secret, an act that the women do not realize is a charade. If the Game movement were to grow by a factor of 10 in coming years, surely magazines for young women would start running articles exposing it. I think it is also likely that Game succeeds partly by making the practitioner different from the norm, hence intriguing, mysterious, etc. But how can Game then become the norm for huge numbers of males?
It seems that the only possible success of Game can be to enable a minority of men to fly under the radar, using it while women are unsuspecting. Hence it cannot transform the whole society.
Another nail in the c.
Richard P. writes:
The generation gap is poking it’s head up again. You said this:
All these guys are acting as if there has been some respected social authority for the last several decades telling them how to live, and they’ve dutifully followed it, and it’s not working. Where is there such authority? The very character of modern society is that it’s in turmoil, all authoriy has been thrown down except for PC which people don’t believe in. So who are these respected authorities in which you had so much faith?
They may not believe in PC, but they behave as if they believe in it. That’s the key. Keep in mind that we are talking about men in their twenties and early thirties. PC has been the only moral philosophy with any power in our society for almost their entire lives. They have not known anything else. They’ve never seen any real competitor to PC that hasn’t been beaten or ridiculed into obscurity.
In the dark days of detente, Vaclav Havel wrote an incredible essay called “Power of the Powerless.” He uses the analogy of a grocer who hangs a sign in the window of his shop saying “Workers of the World, Unite!” Does the grocer agree with this sentiment? Is he making an ideological statement? As Havel tells it, the grocer likely never even gives the sign a second thought. To him it is just a bland statement with little meaning. It’s harmless feel-good sophistry. But he hangs up the sign because everyone else does as well.
However, hanging the sign in his window sends a different message to his rulers and to the myriad informers all around. It tells them, “I am compliant and obedient. I will cause you no trouble.” If that’s what the sign said, then he would probably question it. It would be a direct assault on his dignity. But if he thinks it’s just a dull little slogan that everyone else also displays, he can convince himself that his dignity is intact. The totalitarian ideology has so completely poisoned everything around him that he doesn’t even notice the small indignities.
PC is just as much a totalitarian ideology, and it has been the ruling moral philosophy for a couple of decades. For these young men, it has always been the water in which they swim. They (and we) may claim that they don’t believe it, and may rail against PC loudly. But there are many little indignities every day with which we comply, and to which we never give a passing thought. You can freely attack PC as a broad ideology to your hearts content, and a great many heads will nod along with you. But any actual threat to it in practice has very damaging costs. It can cost you your job and your friends. It can make you an outcast. PC is our ruling authority and it is a jealous one.
We remember the world before this change. They do not. That’s the chasm to be crossed here.
Very interesting, high quality thoughts.
Marco Jawsario writes:
Great essay on PC by Richard P.! I wonder if he could describe an example of the “actual threat to PC in practice” which he referred to.
Carol R. writes:
Clark Coleman makes an excellent point with regards to the popularization of “Game.” My question would be what happens when “Game” becomes part of the popular culture and is portrayed in movies, TV shows, etc..? I think that no matter how much the left hates the evolutionary psychology basis of “Game,” Hollywood and the entertainment industry will have no choice but to feature it, especially as it becomes more popular. This has already happened with the infamous “Mystery” of “Mystery Method” fame. So what then? I wonder what the Roissyites think will happen to the dating scene. Will woman start looking for “beta” males as a result of their wanting to avoid all the “cads”? This doesn’t seem likely especially on the materialist premises of “Game.” Will women ignore men who are obvious with their use of the Seduction techniques and only go for the “natural alphas”? Will this fad die and things go back to normal? What?
I agree with Mr. Auster that “Game” is just another symptom of the Nihilism of leftist culture but I am really interested to know what the “Game” crowd thinks of the popularization of their secrets.
Richard P.’s answer says most of what needed saying.
I would add that Game, and towards what purpose one chooses to use its techniques, is the sort of thing fathers should teach their sons as part of raising them to be proper family men. Understanding how a woman thinks and how to keep her happy is important; marriages don’t just continue by default. To a certain extent this education used to take place, but hasn’t been for most of the 20th century.
To finish the whole dating advice discussion: it doesn’t matter where or how you meet a woman, the criteria by which she judges the man will be the same no matter what, and will continue to apply long after the initial meeting. Those criteria are very inflated from what they were half a century ago, due to the dynamic Mark P. described.
One other note. Mr. Coleman writes: “But the success of Game depends on its being a secret, an act that the women do not realize is a charade.”
That’s a false assumption. Roissy has commented that it’s just as effective even if the woman knows what you’re doing, even if you tell her specifically what it is you’re doing. His analogy was to a woman who puts on a low-cut dress and some makeup, and tells you she’s doing it to look better to make you like her more. You realize she doesn’t normally look that good, but you still take pleasure in the company of such a beautiful woman.
Richard P. writes:
“Great essay on PC by Richard P! I wonder if he could describe an example of the ‘actual threat to PC in practice’ which he referred to.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 26, 2009 08:23 AM | Send
A couple of examples of “actual threats” immediately come to mind for me. First, there is the Larry Summers speech that I mentioned earlier. In the pre-PC world, his statement that there are intrinsic differences between the sexes in both interest and aptitude in different disciplines would have been seen as self-evident. In the PC world, it was an intolerable challenge to the ideology. The faculty revolted. He endured a year of turmoil and eventually it cost him his job.
The second challenge is from this weeks local news. A surburban city council here in Texas has opened its proceedings with a prayer for many years. They have taken pains to make sure they are within the law—a 26 year old Supreme Court case provides that prayer is allowed at government meetings within certain guidelines. A resident of the suburb recently discovered that council meetings began this way. It is unclear if he actually even attended such a meeting. But he complained that he was “offended” and brought a leftist watchdog group into the mix. Now there is controversy and threats of lawsuits. Public displays of religion, at least of the Western monotheistic sort, are a direct threat to PC as they offer a differing moral philosophy. They must be eradicated. PC über alles.
Of course there are many such actions that are far less public. They happen in school classrooms, in corporate HR offices, in university diversity offices, in family courts, and thousands of other little fiefdoms every day. The party line muct be enforced.