Tuesday, 25 September 2012

Marriage: The Manosphere Assumptions

In what amounted to a troll-by-blog post, a guy usernamed Donlak suggested that a man with tight Game should be prepared to take the risk of getting married and that refusing to do so because of the risks was just, well, wussy. Guess what? He got a ton of reaction, the best of which was a long, heartfelt rant from one Mark Minter, all of which Donlak dodged by saying "I didn't say all men were wussies for citing risk as a reason for not getting married, I said that men with tight game were wussies if they cited risk." Which was what he did say, but it was not what he meant his readers to read, and they knew it.

It's worth noticing the assumptions in his claim. (In all of this post read "long-term relationship / co-habitation / have children" as substitutes for "marriage".)

First and most disturbing: men with weak or no game get married at their own risk, and probably shouldn't.

Second and most shared with the rest of the Manosphere: women's behaviour really is random, self-centered, entitled and hypergamous, as well as flakey, flippy, self-obssessed and with ever-changing motives and behaviour. 

Third and most obnoxious: he's saying that it's okay for women to behave in the random, self-centered, entitled and hypergamous manner that makes Game necessary. Or he's saying something that amounts to the same thing, which is that women can't control themselves from behaving like that, any more than a dog can control its barking, so if you're going to get a dog, you'd better be prepared to train it to quit barking when you say "stop" - sorry, I meant, if you're going to share your life with a woman, you'd better be prepared for the endless exercise of Game and Dominance against her potentially destructive randomness. 

Fourth and most dubiously: Game can control womens' flakey, flippy, self-obssessed and ever-changing motives and behaviour. The jury is out on that one, but should Athol Kay, Rollo Tomassi or Mr Ironwood wind up divorce-raped anytime, a verdict of "Nope" will be pretty unanimous.

Let's deal with that second assumption. I see as much random, self-centered, entitled and changing-my-mind behaviour from men as I do from women: it's not a gender thing, it's about how stable your character and personality are, and as one consequence, how much you value keeping your promises. Working in large process-oriented organisations with limited resources (the entire public sector, and a lot of the service and retail sector) tends to give people eight hours a day of "we've changed policy / direction / priorities" - which is the business equivalent of random - and makes people think it is normal, acceptable behaviour. 

However, the point is this: it doesn't actually matter whether all women are self-centered flakes all the time, some of the time, or only some of them are some of the time. A bomb only has to go off once to do damage, and the perception is, rightly or wrongly, that the current state of western society and Family Law is very supportive of women who choose to explode for their own selfish reasons, and that it is not supportive of men who do. (Unless they are CEO's sacking thousands or running up vast debts for the company, when the law is also incredibly supportive. You may at some point want to put these two facts side-by-side and figure out why they fit so well.) And you have no idea whether your woman will explode until she's in a position where she never can. The same can be said about men, but the probabilities are way, way lower. Under our present laws, women have everything to gain, and men have everything to lose. 

So let's come back to claim three: that it's okay for women to behave, or that men should not expect them to behave otherwise than, in the random, self-centered, entitled and hypergamous manner that makes Game necessary.

You can guess I'm going to say "It isn't okay" and you would be right. Now women have jobs and are out there claiming to be independent, adult people with careers, their own place, and are competing with us guys for promotions, and want driving licenses and overdrafts and mortgages and to merge giant corporations... there's a price that goes with those privileges, and it's that they behave like responsible adults. It would be nice if a fair chunk of guys in that position behaved like responsible adults as well, but that's the same point. You want to play in the grown-up world, you play by the grown-up rules. You don't write cheques with your eyes that your body can't meet, you don't make promises you think you might want to break later, you don't welch on your debts, you don't flip-flop your plans and intentions just because your hormone balance changes, and you leave with the guy or gal who brought you. Amongst others. (Personally I think it would be neat if most CEO's played by these rules as well - but they don't, and that disqualifies them from the responsible-adult category.)

Men should expect women to behave like responsible adults, and avoid the ones who look like they aren't. I get that girls can no more not shit-test than not buy shoes, and it may be the female equivalent of guys establishing what each other's place is in the hierarchy. But it stops when you come back after the first night's sex. After that, shit tests are just a disorderly symptom, and I don't want disordered people in my life. Bed, once, maybe: life, never.

So much for the assumptions. In the next post, we'll look at the pay-off thing.

No comments:

Post a Comment