In response to my joyous news, G asked: “How was your marriage before you ‘discovered’ game ? Is this new child a possible outcome of the new you?”
The child was conceived in January. I discovered Game in the Cambrian Explosion of August 2009. I was looking for patches to my cosmology; what I found caused a chain reaction of cascading re-alignments. The cosmology didn’t have holes; I had blind spots and willful ignorance.
My marriage has been a mixed-up, messed-up union. My wife deeply despised and resented me for the first five years. She was raised in a conservative church, and she believes what she believes with less fickleness than most women. “Katie” was inoculated with dogma, if not with culture. She knows divorce is wrong, and so she did not divorce me when she wanted to leave. On the recommendation of our preacher, we visited a counselor who in private sessions let Katie know that she saw through Katie’s bullshit. Uneasy peace followed.
Five years in, Katie stopped refusing to consider having children. Moreover, she joined me in deciding that contraception was a positive wrong. Conception is the telos of coitus, to mix a few tongues. We had never stopped copulating, which I gather is contrary to the experiences of most beta husbands. Katie has a strong libido which she distrusts, and she resents the necessity of soothing it. She uses me to take care of her needs on a regular basis, but honestly is not aware that this is so. The capacity of a woman to deceive herself is astounding. She stopped taking that poison colloquially called The Pill, and our first son was born a year later. His brother followed after another year and a half, and then our daughter after a similar span.
During Katie’s third pregnancy, I realized how fruitless and self-destructive were my efforts to please her, how futile they had always been. Her contempt for me had waned somewhat, but her resentment and self-pity still ruled her. Unless she decides to give up all her precious grievances, they always will. I stopped trying to please her and started trying to build a self that could act independently without engaging in bitter resentment myself. Like the pagans that C.S. Lewis describes, I sought to find the right way to act and stumbled on fractured images, hints of truth.
One of the shards: of all the divorces I know of in my age-group, only one involved the cheating of the husband. The wife in this case almost certainly drove him to it. All the rest were initiated by the wives, because they were “unhappy.” You know what this means: they have found other men.
Another: Katie was happier while a heavily pregnant mother of two insane rapscallions than she had been ever before. She was still an angry, seething bitch to me half of the time, but she blossomed as a housewife.
A third was the realization that I had been overcompensating for her weakness. Though not trying to please her, I was still doing what little housework I consider necessary to a sanitary home when she couldn’t manage to get it done. My hard work enabled her to be weak. I stopped. I used to change diapers gladly: my children deserve to be clean. Now I change them only when my comfort or personal belongings are at risk, or when someone’s health is at stake. I clean only enough dishes to make the sink usable for my purposes.
The discovery of Game was a blinding light that struck the scales from my eyes, as opposed to putting them there. I practice what I can on Katie, some aloof asshole, but mostly stern authority. She is not ready for the brat-you’re-cute treatment. Her contempt for me is maturing into a more healthy hatred; snakes are better out in the open where you can see them. At the same time, her resentment seems to be disappearing. A couple of weeks ago, about the time the baby was due, the insane rapscallions started fighting about 6 in the morning, and their sister joined in. I decided to ignore it and stay in bed. Katie waited a bit, then lumbered up and dealt with it herself. She made coffee, which she has only recently started doing. Then she brought a cup to me in bed. That does not exist in this dojo. She surprised me even more by saying in a tremulous, uncertain, please-like-me voice, “I brought you some coffee. I thought you would like that.”
I maintained state, but only just. Fake sleepy voice (fake because I was so shocked): “Oh, nice. You can put it on the table there.” Then I waited until she left to drink it.
The worthy aspect of Game is often called Inner Game. I call it arete, or virtu, after Aristotle and Machiavelli respectively. It boils down to the manly virtues, facets of which we call confidence, authority, self-control. It can make a better man of me, but only Katie can decide to become a better woman. I strongly doubt that she will. Even so, she is inoculated by dogma, inoculated by motherhood, and she is a tolerable wife.
Thanks for sharing. I agree that only she can decide if she wants to change. The same is true of my LTR.
Eumaios: This is all very interesting, and thank you for sharing it (also, congratulations on the birth of your 4th Child!).
I think your most revealing quote is…
“The worthy aspect of Game is often called Inner Game. I call it arete, or virtu, after Aristotle and Machiavelli respectively. It boils down to the manly virtues, facets of which we call confidence, authority, self-control.”
Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking as I read through your post. It reminded me of our discussion from a few weeks ago in which we were trying to distinguish between “Game” (the chauvinistic pseudo-romance we find in many alleys of the blogosphere) and what I tried to coin as “Strategic Romance” (a larger, more humane body of knowledge regarding the relationship between the sexes which stretches back literally to the dawn of civilization).
It sounds like you’re using “Strategic Romance” (for lack of a better term) and with positive results. It will be very interesting to hear of your future progress. Good luck, Sir!
Todd White: “It reminded me of our discussion from a few weeks ago in which we were trying to distinguish between ‘Game’ (the chauvinistic pseudo-romance we find in many alleys of the blogosphere) and what I tried to coin as ‘Strategic Romance’ ”
There’s this concept floating around, this inchoate concept of how men should act with respect to women. Words and definitions get in the way. I contend that you, Thursday, Novaseeker, Hermes, Elusive Wapiti, Dave from Hawaii, The Obsidian, and even The Fifth Horseman are thinking about the same concept. Some of us call it Game, because we see the concept as being the kernel of wisdom behind the empirical success of the Roissys. Others object strenuously to this term. For now, I will continue to call it Game, because the only receptive audience understands what I mean when I say it.
Using a bullshit term like “Strategic Romance” is merely being an apologist and using weak language to hide from the truth.
Strategic implies machavillian viewpoints and the idea of “humane” romance is the equivalent of arguing for humane torture. there is no such thing.
Todd White, you pointed out the same sentence as me.
Howerver, the masculine values Eumaios enumerated have an underlying concept : don’t treat a woman like a man. She is not equal. She is even a little less.
Example: if Eumaios was living with his bestfriend, a completly equal separation of the daily home tasks would be a necessity. Because masculine respect is involved. Even more, a dedication to a thankless job will be seen as commitment for the greater good, and respected.
With women, we can observe the exact opposite : an happy relationship cannot be based on equality. A couple is always one, but wichone?*.
Thats why Eumaios’s marriage was in trouble before Game, he considered his wife as an equal, in fact as a man**.
I understand this concept can be difficult for newcomers to grasp. But in the end, it will enable you to complement feminity. As a lover, protector, leader, husband.
*Fabrice Luchini
**I explain this by the current androgynic values of the society, with a forced reduction of the gender gap by feminism.
I forgot to link my thoughts to the role of the father.
Game or masculine qualities like Eumaios noted, should be passed by a role model to a young boy during his developpment. However in our society , it is a difficult task because
1. the actual contact the father has with the boy is reduced
2. school, medias and other PC organizations are demonizing masculine traits starting in the youths*
3. the current fathers are babyboomers, the generation that gave birth to modern feminism, thus their mentality is already afflicted
I will end by a personnal question, did your father had a strong masculine presence?
*Since I am relatively young, I can provide personal examples of the current education doctrine.
G:
I think men and women can and should have “equal value” to the relationship, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can or should have equal responsibilities within the relationship.
I know that for me personally, I like being a man, and would hate being a woman (even though I have a great deal of respect for feminine qualities; indeed, I seek out those qualities in a potential mate).
To the extent that a woman would feel the same way about herself (“I love being a woman”), it’s clear she would never aspire to be a man, and thus, she and her partner would have a (relatively) seamless division of roles within the relationship.
Would you agree or disagree?
TW: “I think men and women can and should have ‘equal value’ to the relationship, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can or should have equal responsibilities within the relationship.”
Todd, this is a whole pile of nothing. I can imagine I know what you’re thinking here, and I can imagine agreeing, but it’s communication masturbation.
Perhaps we can jump off from here: modern women perceive their value as being within the same sphere as the value of men. The real value of women and wifeliness is neglected entirely. This bridges the gap between you and the statement that a “happy relationship cannot be based on equality”.
Women are not the equal of men. We exceed them in intensity, in determination, in single-mindedness. This applies to both flats of the bell curve. Retarded men are intensely retarded, and the scum of the earth are scummier for having man-parts. The extent to which right-flat men exceed right-flat women is a commonplace, and need not be elaborated upon here.
Eum: “Todd, this is a whole pile of nothing.”
TW: I’d like to think so, but when “G” is saying things like “she is not equal; she is even a little less,” I feel the need to flesh out the definition of “equal” because G’s comment – without clarification – leaves me scratching my head.
TW, what I mean is that the statement I quoted is so generalized as to be unhelpful. You and G use the word equal to swing around different concepts. There is no definition of the word that universally adheres. Instead of worrying about whether you can come to agreement on a shared definition, I would have you try to grok the idea behind G’s statement without assigning any tags to it beforehand.
Eum: “Instead of worrying about whether you can come to agreement on a shared definition, I would have you try to grok the idea behind G’s statement without assigning any tags to it beforehand.”
TW: Gosh, I don’t think I can. The devil is in the details, as they say. Statements like “She is not equal” – without any context – imply a negative attitude toward women. I couldn’t endorse a statement that implies men are better than women in terms of overall value. That’s why I wanted to increase clarification on the definition of “equality.”
Then again, if “G” groks *my* statement, then I can probably safely grok *his* statement.
There is no need for context. You say
“I think men and women can and should have “equal value” to the relationship, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can or should have equal responsibilities within the relationship.”
I could ask what do you mean by “value” . It’s an infinite loop.
The point is, men are better than woman physically and psychologically. It is irrevocable, scientifically and historically. The crumbling of the western societies is the most recent example with a rampant feminism.
Todd: “[...] imply a negative attitude toward women”. No. Because something is better, doesn’t mean hatred is involved. Physically, black men are better in athletics than white men. I don’t have a shortcircuit that tells me to hate all black men or vice-versa. A difference in greatness is perfectly acceptable, I even encourage it because it motivates self-improvment.
Right now, I have made my point. But I will go further for you. When a woman is an relationship with a man, there is something else involved. It’s called the “reptilian brain”. This is where Game is poking at. The evolutionnary part that tells her to look for the Alpha. For a man wich is strong above the shoulders and below the waist. For a man that treats her like a woman, inferior. Again don’t read any negativity here : I do love women.
Also I see you use the “I think” often. Did you have a marriage with 4 children, so you can compare personnal experiences on the same level as Eumaios? I always balance my posts with a good facts/opinions ratio, with a rhetorical argumentation. I can’t see any fondamental basis with you.
G: “The point is, men are better than woman physically and psychologically.”
There’s some semantic deep structure that’s not surfacing here. Better in what ways, at what activities? Some examples of filling in the surface structure from the implied deep structure:
Men are physically better than women at soccer.
Men are physically better looking than women.
Men are physically better at breastfeeding than women.
Men are psychologically more stable than women.
Men are psychologically better at recovering from amputations than women.
G: I think you’re confused; Eumaios is the one with 4 kids; I have zero kids.
Also, I use the phrase “I think” for the same reason Ben Franklin used it: for the sake of being factually correct. If I’m not certain of something, I’ll preface it with “I think.” Living with nuance is something I’m comfortable with.
Also, I wouldn’t say Game is “poking” at the “Reptilian brain.” No, it’s *consumed* with the Reptilian Brain.” It only acknowledges the base, the primitive, the ugly. It dismisses the noble. Actually, it laughs at the noble. The noble is for “Betas.”
Also, I have no interest in treating my fiance (or any woman) as “inferior,” as you suggest, so in that sense, I’m glad I didn’t “grok” your original statement.
One final note: Since we can all agree that men and women are indispensable to each other for survival (in terms of perpetuating the species) using words like “superior” or “inferior” to describe either sex is almost laughably deluded.
TW: Since we can all agree that men and women are indispensable to each other for survival (in terms of perpetuating the species) using words like “superior” or “inferior” to describe either sex is almost laughably deluded.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
Eum: “Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.”
TW: If you and I are trapped in a cave and will die without oxygen, and each of us has a digit for the 2-digit security code to escape the cave, does it make sense for me to say I’m “better” than you when it comes to escaping the cave? No, we need we are equally value in terms of survival.
Such is the case with love, marriage, and raising children. If we – as men – can’t – by definition – do any of those things without women – then having an air of superiority vis-a-vis women strikes me as juvenile.
TW: No, we are equally valuable in terms of survival.
AHA! So, what you are arguing is this: In terms of perpetuation of the species, using words like superior or inferior to describe either sex is deluded.
I suspect few of your opponents in this community would challenge that. They’re trying to have different arguments entirely, which is why you get the kinds of reactions you do from folks like The Fifth Horseman.
I’ll challenge it, though. Using your cave example, what if I refuse to use my half of the security code because I’m angry with you?
Eum: “I’ll challenge it, though. Using your cave example, what if I refuse to use my half of the security code because I’m angry with you?”
TW: Then we’re both *equally* screwed, and thus, my analogy still stands :)
“If we – as men – can’t – by definition – do any of those things without women – then having an air of superiority vis-a-vis women strikes me as juvenile.”
I can’t make good stools without the bacteria in my gut.
Actually, I secretly like talking with TFH. That guy cracks me up.
Eum: “I can’t make good stools without the bacteria in my gut.”
TW: So now you’re comparing women to bacteria??!!! ;)
Just kidding.
I see your point, though. Even so, I still think my cave analogy is different from your analogy. Consider: There’s no element of choice in our relationship to bacteria. We just…are.
In contrast, men and women have shared goals (at least as it pertains to love, romance, etc) and a shared (and unique) ability to exercise choice to achieve those goals.
“In contrast, men and women have shared goals (at least as it pertains to love, romance, etc) and a shared (and unique) ability to exercise choice to achieve those goals.”
But now you’ve changed arenas. It may be foolhardy to talk of superiority in a mutually assured destruction situation, but that conclusion does not transfer outside of the deathgrip.
One of the most vehement criticisms of women by the Game community is that they no longer assist in achieving these once-shared goals.
Eumaios for the different comparisons you made I think some judgement is necessary..
I misinterpreted the “I think”.
We are mammals. Surviving and procreating is our top 2 priorities. This is how nature works, why do you define this as ugly. It is not my fault if women are preprogrammed to respond to certain manly behaviors. I don’t absoluetly want to be the devil advocate. I just look at facts and see a pattern.
In your context, “noble” is a synonym for “pedestral”. Because an Alpha will have a much more “noble” comportment vs a Beta. He will understand that respect is earned. He will not bow to the majority. He will defend what he thinks is right with force. Beta is submissive and easily influenceable. So your definition is wrong.
Concerning your fiancée, after few years in an “equal” relationship, I would watch my back if I was you. Ask Eumaios.
TW:”If you and I are trapped in a cave and will die without oxygen, and each of us has a digit for the 2-digit security code to escape the cave, does it make sense for me to say I’m “better” than you when it comes to escaping the cave? No, we need we are equally value in terms of survival.”
That doesn’t make any sense. You are distributing the chances of survival randomly. While men are not “randomly” better than women.
G: That doesn’t make any sense. You are distributing the chances of survival randomly. While men are not “randomly” better than women.
Interesting point, but the analogy is getting muddled. Here’s a fun recasting:
Imagine the escape code is four digits long. The woman has the first three, the man has one. She refuses to enter her part for some inscrutable reason. When the man falls asleep, she enters the code with guesses at his digit until she gets it right. Then she closes the door behind her.
Eum: “But now you’ve changed arenas. It may be foolhardy to talk of superiority in a mutually assured destruction situation, but that conclusion does not transfer outside of the deathgrip.”
TW: The cave analogy is extreme, no question, but if our main relationship to women concerns things like love, having children, and raising children, yes, maybe an extreme analogy is necessary to show how critical women to our happiness as men.
Having said that, I’m willing to euthanize the cave analogy since it seems to be confusing, rather than clarifying, the discussion.
Eum: “One of the most vehement criticisms of women by the Game community is that they no longer assist in achieving these once-shared goals.”
TW: It’s a worthy criticism of many modern women; I’ll be an active teammate in vocalizing that criticism.
G: “We are mammals. Surviving and procreating is our top 2 priorities. This is how nature works, why do you define this as ugly. It is not my fault if women are preprogrammed to respond to certain manly behaviors.”
TW: I certainly don’t think survival and procreation is “ugly.” No, what I find ugly is treating women *solely* as “mammals,” treating them as if they have no capacity for values, morality, reason, etc.
G: “An Alpha will have a much more ‘noble’ comportment vs a Beta. He will understand that respect is earned. He will not bow to the majority. He will defend what he thinks is right with force. Beta is submissive and easily influenceable. So your definition is wrong.
TW: Unfortunately, one of many errors the Game community has made is blurring 2 different types of Alphas into a *single* Alpha archetype. They think an Alpha is a cad who sleeps around AND is someone who is courageous, wise, and has the respect of his male peers. Needless to say, a lot of these qualities don’t mesh together well. The Gamers need to some deeper thinking on this subject.
G: “Concerning your fiancée, after few years in an ‘equal’ relationship, I would watch my back if I was you.”
TW: May I ask what your relationship status is?
Eum: “Imagine the escape code is four digits long. The woman has the first three, the man has one. She refuses to enter her part for some inscrutable reason. When the man falls asleep, she enters the code with guesses at his digit until she gets it right. Then she closes the door behind her.”
TW: Wow, what a BITCH! ;)
“Unfortunately, one of many errors…”
Spot on. I’ll be writing a post about your comment.
Cool. I just added you to my Blog List so I don’t miss any of your new essays.
TW:”No, what I find ugly is treating women *solely* as “mammals,” treating them as if they have no capacity for values, morality, reason, etc.”
Yes it is true. But there is but. And this is the evolutionary shortcircuit that is making their panties wet.
About your cave example Eumaios, the woman has an advantage from the start so its not fair. In every ways this situation is not a good metaphor.
TW, I am also with you on the Alpha definiton. I only take what I think is right from Game. Innergame is one thing. I am not sexually frustrated like many guys of the communities who think being Alpha is treating women like shit, period. I can understand that because many of them were repressed both by women and men.
TW:”May I ask what your relationship status is?”
First I hope you didn’t take my comment as a personnal attack, it is quite the contrary in fact.
I am presently seeing different women, for casual sex. I don’t want to commit even if they do (you can see love in women is strongly dependant of the coïtus). In fact I am planning to move out of NorthAmerica before I hit 30.
G: “This is the evolutionary shortcircuit that is making their panties wet.”
TW: Not all woman. And not the good women. And I only care about the good women.
G: “I am planning to move out of NorthAmerica before I hit 30.”
TW: How come?
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Common Cold Edition « In Mala Fide
Eumanos–
Best of luck. You’re doing the best things.
Have you sat down with her and discussed the things she’s doing inadequately as a wife and mother, from the frame of what how can we improve, meaning she? I’m assuming that she doesn’t work nearly as many hours as you do outside the home. There is a place for this sort of thing as well as game. Your game will make her more likely to want to do better, but talking to her explicitly about what you expect, and doesn’t she agree, helps to. But maybe/probably you’ve done that. I’m saying if you haven’t done it since she’s felt game changes in you, you should.
“Have you sat down with her and discussed the things she’s doing inadequately as a wife and mother, from the frame of what how can we improve, meaning she?”
Yes, overmuch. Correcting this has proved one of the most powerful self-changes I’ve made. Where once I would explain what the household needed, where she wasn’t keeping up, strategies for helping keep up, etc., now I tell her what I want done, usually with a time frame. Occasionally I provide a rationale, if it’s an unusual demand.
Doug1, basically you are telling him to go back to Beta, if I read right.
Todd, I cannot see myself contribute in the misandric PC feminism society of N.A.
Just for the record, I am heavily active in the speculative markets (futures,forex and some stocks), its a way for me to say FU to the nanny state, I wont give anything back. My account is in Russia and I am planning to establish myself in Buenos Aires (0% tax on capital gain).
“Doug1, basically you are telling him to go back to Beta, if I read right.”
I think Doug1 was trying to make sure I knew not to try the immediate full court press with asshole game. Men with my background should not eagerly try out all the Game tactics we read about.
I’m safe in this particular area, because I function at a higher level. I make sure I have sound strategy before playing with tactics at all.
Pingback: HBD/Alt-Right Mag and MRA-PUA/Game: The Most Socially Conservative Kids U Know « Escapist