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.