Nov 192011
 

Over at the Rational Male blog, Rollo Tomassi introduced the concept of “Man Up 2.0”:

I’m glad to see it getting the publicity, but ONLY a woman could write this without suffering fem-screech backlash accusations of misogyny. This is the environment we’re in today. I have no doubt that Ms. Charen will receive her share of frothing hate from ego invested Jezebels, but at least her critique will register for them. No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

A major illustration of this can be found in the ‘late-to-the-party’ resurgence of masculine ideals in mainstream evangelical christianity today. Like so much else in christian culture, they’re happy to use the popularity of a secular phenomenon and repackage it as kosher, the manosphere is no exception. Hacks like Mark Driscoll and more than few other “relevant” new order evangelical pastors have co-opted manosphere (MRA?) fundamentals – even ‘purified’ forms of Game – as their particular cause du jour for returning men back into their roles of accountability to the female imperative. This of course has an overwhelming appeal to White Knight prone guys, but the push is disingenuous for the same reason ‘pro-men’ female writers are – they still use the girl-world, female imperative rule book to define their outlook.

This is a real danger that I’m glad we’re starting to talk about.  There’s a real danger of game being “sanitized” for the benefit of women or “made safe” for women.  This form of game is game 2.0, a parallel of marriage 2.0, and it feeds into the form of promiscuity that women prefer allowing women to be sluts exclusively on their terms and is all around detrimental to men.

Socons/Tradcons love man up 2.0 and game 2.0.  It fits into their blather about “male leadership” that is really only about having a ready made scapegoat when a woman needs it.  A good example of this is Escoffier who recently at Dalrock’s blog declared that Athol Kay was the only good gamer out there.  He didn’t include other married gamers.  He only included Athol.  Even most married gamers are not pro-female enough for him.

Many of you are thinking, “Doesn’t this apply to someone like Susan Walsh too?”.  You aren’t the first to think that:

This can also be seen with Susan, as she is an erstwhile proponent of Game, but tends to mesh in a variety of conditions, qualifications and other caveats. Sometimes I read her stuff and just cringe at how even a professed anti-feminist still writes from the Team Woman perspective.

The threat of man up 2.0 and game 2.0 can not be underestimated, and until Rollo wrote his post, we weren’t dealing with it.  One reason I think that we had the disaster that was the Elam-Frost debate (something I wasn’t going to address originally, but with this I have changed my mind so I will be writing a post on it on Monday) was this.  Just because someone uses game language (or Roissy style game language) does not automatically make them pro-male in any way.

 

 

 

  12 Responses to “Man Up 2.0 And Game 2.0”

  1. There’s a real danger of game being “sanitized” for the benefit of women or “made safe” for women.

    *cough* Athol Kay *cough*

    Incidentally, my position is that if you’re not at least skeptical of the merits of women’s suffrage, you’re either not serious about the differences between the sexes, or far too willing to sacrifice men for the benefit of women.

    • I’m not even remote skeptical of the merits of women’s suffrage. I am convinced with the pure certainty of absolute righteousness bordering on religious inspiration that women’s suffrage is nothing more than a path to total servitude.

      In other words, you don’t give children or women the vote.

      And by children I mean any young male UNDER the age of 13.

      Yes, that bad.

  2. Game 2.0? Wtf is game 2.0 …

    Game is about banging chicks, last time I checked a REAL game site, like mysteries site, VA, it was all out gaming chicks with ZERO chick nonsense

    The REAL pua sites will never get touchy feely, feminists in PUA get shot down faster then a mangina on avoiceformen

    In fact i’d like to see escoffier & the rest of the raging manginas on walshs site, try & post on spearhead or avoiceformen

    As for Athol ..

    Athol’s turned into a raging mangina asshat nowadays, his sites filled with facepalm beta crap, he used to be as good as Dalrock

    Athol grow some balls, roissy stated correctly you only need beta in short doses, not hundreds of vomit inducing posts on how to game your wife

    Heres a tip, you gamed her, you won, & no, beta in a LTrelationship will get you dumped quick, regardless of how alpha you are …

    A balance of beta & alpha ONLY works with certain types of woman, most women will always go for an unbalanced alpha

    Oh btw Escoffier is a raging mangina, fresh from Walsh’s site

    In fact a few of the raging mangina trolls, like ruddyturnstone from walshs site, troll the crap out of Dalrock on a regular basis

    These are the same asshats who troll endlessly on Walsh’s site

    Dalrock needs to let Elam from avfm or someone from the spearhead, moderate his site properly, he’s let his site get trolled for over two posts now, filled with clueless posts by literally two people …

    For the luv of god moderate the mangina spree on your site… lol

    • First of all, I only posted on Walsh’s site twice, in one thread, and that was because there was a link from Dallrock to it. And, at that, I posted there to disaagree with Walsh’s claim that yet another of these forty something year old, single, never married, childless women was as “gorgeous” as Walsch claimed she was. That and to clarify some stuff about the stanard 80-20 claim. It turned out that Walsh got it totally wrong, and, on Dalrock’s site, I was one of many calling her to task for that. I am hardly “from” her site.

      As for me being a “magina,” I think that’s total crap. I’m MGTOW, and have virtually no dealings with women. As a middle aged man well past the stage of raging hormones I have no problem doing so (although I have complete sympathy and empathy–I wasn’t always so old!–with younger men who crave female attention). I am also totally sympathetic to the MRA agenda for legal and societal change. I support the marriage strike. And, moreover, have argued with Dalrock about its existence.

      I don’t troll Dalrock’s site. Rather, I try to present rational arguments there against some of the more extravagant claims made by him, and other posters, about Game. I agree that Game can be effective, and I have no problem with young, single men using Game to help them get the female attention they so need and desire. But I am very doubtful that Game is any kind of panacea. I don’t see how it can lead to legal or societal change.

      Specifically, I think “Married Game” is a false and misleading concept. I think the notion that a young man should just get married, even under the toxic to men regime of Marriage 2.0, with the thought in his head that he can simply “Game” his wife into not exercizing the power to oppress and plunder her husband that the law and society give her is wrong. I think giving young men this advice is harmful. I doubt the efficacy of “Married Game,” because I think the power inbalance and the social dynamic of marriage are very different from that of the singles scene. And, even if Married Game does work, I still see it as misguided because (1) it is simply too much work for a man to have to do…a married man, a man who goes to work and pays the bills and is emotionally supportive of his wife should simply not be required to also engage in an endless courtship ritual with her…she should be a good wife, in bed and otherwise, simply in return for him being a good and faithful husband…anything else is subjugation on his part, and if she wants endless Gaming, endless shit test passing, and so on, she should stay single…and if she marries a beta (as most women do), she should be content with that and not look for, much less require, alpha displays; and (2) marriage is supposed to be an honest, open, genuine relationship, not a perpetual struggle…it should not be a facet of life in which one must be constantly on one’s toes, with one’s “gameface” on, rather it should be a refuse from the work world, where pretense and salesmanship techniques are the norm. Hence, I support the marriage strike, not “Married Game.”

      Beyond that, I also question whether Game has any application whatsoever beyond the field of scoring chicks. And I believe that it will do nothing to change the legal and social misandry that we all must deal with.

      And I also disagree with what seems to be the growing idea that “Game” means undertaking some significant program of self improvement. As you yourself say, “Game is about banging chicks, last time I checked a REAL game site, like mysteries site, VA, it was all out gaming chicks with ZERO chick nonsense.” That’s it. Game, for the overwhelmng majority of men who use the term, means a set of techniques for scoring women. NOT changing one’s whole personality or lifestyle or physique. Everyone already understands that an athletic, well dressed, financially successful, physically fit, intellectually accomplished man is more attractive to women than a man without those attributes. No one needs a “Gamer” to telll him that (and I’m talking to you here, Athol), and doing the things necessary to have those attributes is not Game. Game is learning how to pass a shit test, how to “neg,” how to amplify and expand, etc, etc. Game is NOT going to the gym, getting a black belt in a martial art, learning a foreign language, studying philosophy, and so on. It has gotten so that “Game” has no real meaning at all, and its proponents seem set on expanding the term until it simply becomes a synonim for everthing that is good or useful or forceful.

      Finally, I doubt that Dalrock himself consider me to be a troll. Quite often, we have lengthy exchanges on his blog, and he has complimented me on my writing. Your definition of a troll seems to be anyone who disagrees with you about anything. To me, a troll is a person who engages in name calling, who deliberately misrepsents or pretends to misunderstand what another poster has written, who is only posting to seek confrontation and the attention that leads to, and/or who is posting on a site that has an orientation 180 degrees removed from his own, and is seeking only to “lay into” the “other side” rather than contribute to the conversation. With all due modesty, I believe that I do none of those things on Dalrock’s site.

  3. Actually I’d like to see Athol post his vomit like posts on his wife, posted in a PUA forum …

    The ONLY reason athol gets mentioned in the manosphere is because, he’s only of TWO married men who games & blogs hilarious beta posts about gaming his wife

  4. […] Looks like the Trad Cons are busy trying to repackage the same old vinegar in fancy new wine bottles. […]

  5. I’ve been debating a woman over at Dennis Mangan’s site who’s threatening that if white men selfishly avoid marrying white women, they’ll die without anyone to take care of them in their old age.

    So man up, (white) guys! Or else…

    http://mangans.blogspot.com/2011/11/backlash-against-feminism.html

  6. erm lol ray manta that is kinda the whole point of mgtow … starve the bitch

  7. […] examples are sideshows compared to the real problem of scope here.  The real problem comes from the Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0 contingent.  What is Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0 all about?  Co-opting game or manosphere ideas in general by […]

  8. Hasn’t Game always fundamentally been sanitized and presented as safe for women? The public faces of Game well-known to the public aren’t Roosh or Roissy; it’s Mystery and Neil Strauss. Have they ever said as much as one bad word about feminism? No.

  9. […] co-opted to serve the feminine imperative. This sparked an interesting exchange on more than a few blogs and forums. All of this led me to do a bit of research into how Game principles, not necessarily […]

  10. […] is nothing new.  It’s just another form of Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0, an attempt to repackage game for the benefit of women (and in this case Alex Jones’s bank account).  This is the same thing Susan Walsh, the […]

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: