Filed under Sex and Politics, Sexuality
A name for the enemies of gender realism
Eumaios left this comment on this post:
Part of the problem: Some men on the Game side use “social conservative” as a metonym. It is not the ideas or policies of social conservatism that characterize the kind of person we are referring to. Rather, we wish to identify an attitude possessed by almost all men who self-identify as social conservatives.
While discussions about Game included no social conservatives, “social conservative” remained a useful shorthand. It is no longer useful, and begins to be a hindrance, due to the influx of numerous men who may be aptly described as socially conservative. The challenge now is to describe what concept we really mean to be understood as criticizing. Once we understand the phenomenon better, we may be able to reassign an existing term or to coin a better.
To that end: what differences are there between social conservatives who reject Game and all its works and those who do not?
This is a problem I’ve noticed amongst the fellows of the game-o-sphere – a tendency to denigrate any right-wing or traditionalist opponent of game as a “social conservative,” “socialcon,” “SoCon,” or similar slurs. I claim partial responsibility for this, as my trio of essays on this subject was what set off the trend to begin with. As Eumaios notes above, not all social conservatives oppose game or gender realism, and as Thursday mentioned here, not all right-wing opponents of such are socially conservative.
There is, however, a commonality among all of these factions – a steadfast rejection of gender realism. All of the anti-game groups venerate women to a certain degree, holding them in greater regard then men, placing them on pedestals of varying height. The physical evidence for women’s moral superiority is pretty thin – in fact, all of the indicators show that women are as equally fallible as men. Let it not be forgotten that it was Eve who tricked Adam into eating the forbidden fruit, thus resulting in their exile from the Garden of Eden. Despite all of this proof, there remain conservatives who persist in clinging to their myths of women as the fairer sex, glomming onto anything that justifies their worldview, no matter how flimsy. The clearest example of this mentality I could find comes from Lawrence Auster, a man who rejects feminism and questions the utility of women’s suffrage, yet managed to churn out this peristalis-reversing passage:
Speaking of human female characteristics, could there be any idea more clueless about the nature of reality than the Darwinian belief that the female human form, the most beautiful thing in the universe, is the result of some kind of accretion of accidents chosen by survival advantage, rather than the expression of an essence, namely the female essence? Again we see how the author of Genesis is more scientific than the supposed scientists who despise him. In the second chapter of Genesis, God creates man, Adam, out of the dust of the ground, and then, seeing that the man is incomplete and lonely by himself, God proceeds to create woman out of a part of the man’s body. While feminists of course complain that this makes women subordinate to men, the feminists–of course–miss the whole point, which is that the woman is made out of higher stuff than the man. The man is made out of mere dust; the woman is made out of the human body. Further, as the last thing God creates in the process of creating the world, the human female is the crown of creation. In this way and in other ways, Genesis expresses the truth of human existence, which Darwinism with its lame fairy tales does not express at all.
And yet, the very next chapter of Genesis details how “the crown of creation” caused the fall of man. It’s pretty sad when a godless apatheist like myself can invalidate a God-fearing man’s Biblical exegesis by merely turning the page. For every Judith in the Good Book, there is a Jezebel. Even the ancient Israelites knew what was what.
That is the difference between us and them – we recognize that women are morally equal to men and they assert that women are superior, even though all of the physical evidence says otherwise. Even the sources they base their worldviews and opinions on support our assertions and reject theirs. Where and how this compulsion originated is up for debate, though I think Thursday explains it well:
Until recently, traditionalists have tended to assume that the behaviour of women in the Victorian era was a close reflection of their unconstrained sexual nature. The signals indicating otherwise were indeed there to read much earlier, but that doesn’t mean they were in fact read. Other aspects of female sinfulness were acknowledged, but the primarily female driven nature of 20th century changes in sexual mores was not put forward by any traditionalist or social conservative before F. Roger Devlin. One might reply, as Auster does, that it is axiomatic that the sexual revolutions of the 20th Century were changes in who young women slept with. But that ignores the differing explanations as to why they started doing so. The usual social conservative/traditionalist explanation was that bad males had gotten these young girls to sleep with them because these poor females wanted love and affection (but not sex) and those bad males refused to give them love and affection unless they slept with them. Those innocent females didn’t really want the sex, you see, they just wanted to be loved and cherished, but they had to give these men sex outside of marriage or else these bad men would move on to some girl who would have sex with them. It was sexual extortion, aided by the fact that the young man could now say, “But you won’t get pregnant. We have birth control now.”
The true explanation, of course, is that these supposedly innocent young women just liked having sex with the most attractive males. And that is definitely not what social conservatives and traditionalists before Devlin have ever said, despite the protestations of Mr. Auster.
In any event, the fact of the matter is that conservatives’ compulsion to worship the female of the species is what defines their opposition to gender realism and, by extension, game (which is nothing more then gender realism applied to everyday actions). Therefore, I suggest that the word pedestalization be used to describe the gestalt of these folks. Additionally, instead of pejoratives like “SoCon,” we should use pedestalizer when talking about them. It is this compulsion, not any particular ideology, that we oppose.
“Additionally, instead of pejoratives like “SoCon,” we should use pedestalizer when talking about them. It is this compulsion, not any particular ideology, that we oppose.”
Sign me up.
It’s a good thought.
Isn’t the problem a bit deeper, though? I mean, my sense of the social conservatives who are critical of gender realism and game is that they *fear* the outcome of the wide adoption of these ideas and methods — that it will lead away from the traditional social order that they support and wish to see restored. Isn’t this a deeper problem than simple pedestalization? In other words, isn’t a part of the issue a disagreement about the feasibility (and in some cases even the desirability) of a social restoration of traditional gender roles and mores?
Thanks man.
The good thing about using pedastalizer is that it easily lets one use adjectives. Religious pedestalizer. Christian pedestalizer. Conservative pedestalizer. Conservative religious pedestalizer.
A good precise term.
Auster also seems to have forgotten God’s curse on Eve: “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Far from enjoying a higher position in the world, women enjoy one of subordination to men. The very reason why game works on women is because God ordained that part of the curse on the entire gender through Eve would be domination by men.
I like “pedestalizer”, except that it’s hard to say out loud, and it looks a bit like “pederast”. Sloppy and/or barely literate readers may think we’re slandering folks.
So, if they’re pedestalizers, does that make us caryatidizers?
Pedestalizer is just another name for a man who is too needy. As I learned from experience, women do not respect needy men even if the men are pedestalizing them.
Peter
When people talk about “moral superiority” it makes me cringe.
There is this lingering Bronze Age belief that morality is a universal code of +/- that exists in a vacuum.
Morality is an abstract system of relative value judgements based on the human physiological experience of the world.
Hot stove: Ouch! Hot stove bad.
Infidelity: Sad. Infidelity bad.
The reason morality -seems- universal is because is is based on our very similar individual human experiences of stimuli.
. . . Of course women have a slightly different experience of the world then men, hence their cock-eyed circle-logic morals.
(Than men. F-ing tiny phone keys.)
Most people are social conservatives: they desire to maintain the customs and traditions to which they are accustomed; this applies to both sides of the political spectrum. For many, the customs and traditions (CAT) work sufficiently for them to remain invested in them. Only when they find that the CAT won’t play for them, do they begin to question the nature of the CAT.
This society does not follow the biblical prescription for marriage or man women relationships. The civic religion has created another belief systems with its own social structures; these structures have been centuries in the making and may have sources that are hidden or long modified. The long held civic religion made women the center of the family, even the moral center; this means the women, in order to maintain this position, must select for qualities in the male that allows her to continue in the center. Her passions and drives have been allowed to reach their fullness; and now the consequences are destroying this society: increasing numbers of men are being forced to examine the CAT and reform them.
The problem arises when one realizes that those who have been successful under the current system or are fresh from its indoctrination will resist any changes: the former will fight to maintain their positions; the latter will resist because it is disturbing to realize the depth of the lie one has been taught.
OK, I’ll use the word ‘pedestalizer’ from now on, when addressing the same issues. Another original word used in the past was ‘BetaCon’, but that did not account for left-wing ‘manginas’.
Among pedestalizer, some are Christians (thus sometimes falling under the ‘socon’ wing), and some are leftists (falling under ‘mangina’). Since the two groups were so similar except for the trivial difference between their Christian vs. leftist religion, they were known as the hybrid ‘socialcon/mangina’ group.
But ‘pedestalizer’ it shall henceforth be.
Pedestalizer sounds good, but I still prefer the usual mangina. But, for making at least a few social conservatives less reticent, I’ll have to serve.
As the typical Internet forum widom says “White-knighting the camwhore isn’t going to make her have sex with you”. The usual male instinct of making woman indebt to you so they have sex with you it ignores the fact that she doesn’t have to drop her bra for you.
That and woman HATE pussies that don’t say that they want sex upfront. Well, if you ladies were honest and drop all the Want Nice Guys Bullshit, they wouldn’t do that. Because, biologically, you are there for recieving a man’s semen and HELP to raise HIS children.
The women that don’t do that for whatever self-service Bullshit that Feminism throws at them fail at life. And, to the believe that a woman and the children are the nature’s way, well we males, as a great man once said “We will fight against nature and we will make her obey us”.
PS: To Mother Nature: Bring it on, bitch.
Naw, I’m sticking with “ignorant tools.”
I would like the traditionalists to point at one point in history where the conservatives in a society were able to get a society to revert to its old standards, absent a collapse of that society.
Ferds wrote :
I claim partial responsibility for this, as my trio of essays on this subject was what set off the trend to begin with.
But only partial. Don’t be hard on yourself. Also remember that :
a) Roissy branded both Rod Dreher and Conor Fdorf as ‘socialcons’, and even nominated both of them from BOTM. That is where the term ‘BetaCon’ (which so irks some people) was inspired from.
b) Welmer’s short but devastatingly accurate article on socialcons (which we now call pedestalizers) was high impact.
This led to comments and new terminologies by me, and a long comment from Obsidian which was made Comment of the Month (August).
c) Don’t forget that Justin himself frames the debate as ‘Game vs. Conservatives’. Not even a ‘social’ prefix, but simply G vs. C.
So the layers piled on the term ‘socialcon’ are deep, and from many sources.
This troubles Hermes greatly. I have taken care to make sure it is mentioned that Hermes (and now apparently Ponsie) supports LTR Game. If he still wants to be annoyed at one of the several people using the ‘socon’ term, rather than see the full scope of where the term was used by whom, that is his problem.
But I will be using ‘pedestalizer’, to out of respect for the small fraction of socialcons who do not pedestalize.
The second major point is that it is far too premature for ‘pedestalizers’ to even talk about Game. Many of them clearly don’t understand Game at all.
They first have to address the basic MRA points.
Are US divorce laws unfair to men, to the extent that some men are dissuaded from taking the risk? Are false rape laws too easily abused by women? Are religious institutions and social conservatives behind the times in shaming men into marriage? Is a pre-nup a fair request? Does a woman have an obligation to work hard towards remaining attractive for as long as possible, within a marriage?
These are MRA questions a pedestalizer has to address long before any discussion of Game is even appropriate.
Just for the record, I think that men are morally equal to women, so we can find some common ground there.
“I would like the traditionalists to point at one point in history where the conservatives in a society were able to get a society to revert to its old standards, absent a collapse of that society.”
The reign of the Roman emperor Vespasian. Rome did not revert to republicanism but the advance of the societal rot of the times was stanched by Vespasian’s example.
Feminism has, of course, had its effects in the Christian Church. Even the last pope used to call himself “the feminist pope” and had a – in my view – sentimental and innaccurate view of women. The present pope is a bit more realistic. Perhaps a few million abortions have had a sobering effect on his view of women.
I think there is a strong anti-feminist reading of scripture and tradition available to religious social conservatives. In fact, there is a strong case available from the New Testament against putting women on a pedestal. St Paul makes many remarks about the dangers of women attempting to rule in the family and the church. These texts are downplayed today, but they are still scripture and part of tradition. The Catholic Church continues to exclude women from positions of authority in the church.
My basic point is that there is a strong social conservative argument for the moral superiority of men and the need for men to rule women, based on religious understanding. The results of the churches and society going soft on this issue are all around us, and they aren’t pretty.
Pons Seclorum:
“I would like the traditionalists to point at one point in history where the conservatives in a society were able to get a society to revert to its old standards, absent a collapse of that society.”
The reign of the Roman emperor Vespasian. Rome did not revert to republicanism but the advance of the societal rot of the times was stanched by Vespasian’s example.
Did not stop it, did not revert, merely postponed the collapse. That is all conservatives have been able to do, which is why their philosophy is in error. The must think forward, not backward.
“Did not stop it, did not revert, merely postponed the collapse. That is all conservatives have been able to do, which is why their philosophy is in error. The must think forward, not backward.”
So would I be correct in thinking that you must wholly subscribe to radicalism? I doubt this is the case and yet that is the only recourse left to one who has abandoned conservatism. To make sense of this and address your point, I would assert that it is conservative politics, not conservative philosophy, that is in error.
In the second chapter of Genesis, God creates man, Adam, out of the dust of the ground, and then, seeing that the man is incomplete and lonely by himself, God proceeds to create woman out of a part of the man’s body. While feminists of course complain that this makes women subordinate to men, the feminists–of course–miss the whole point, which is that the woman is made out of higher stuff than the man. The man is made out of mere dust; the woman is made out of the human body. Further, as the last thing God creates in the process of creating the world, the human female is the crown of creation.
LOL!! well she damn sure thinks she is
but she ain’t
read the book again — the human male was created directly from the breath (spirit, essence) of God the Father, and inhabited earth for quite awhile w/o female companionship
much later (in human terms) God created the female from the male, NOT from the direct breath of His spirit
that’s why, overwhelmingly, males tend to exhibit God’s qualities of equity, thirst for justice, honesty, creative invention, etc. far more frequently, and intensely, than human females
the female is a secondary creation, but is loved equally by God, depending upon her works, as with guys
when she attains to a Godly ideal, heaven rejoices the more, because (in many cases) she has “come further” from her own nature to approach of God’s being and characteristics
genesis summarizes this aspect of creation, then shows that evil came into the world through the idiosyncratic weaknesses of woman, esp her desire for power and control (ie, the desire to know good/evil, and thus the assumption that she is authorized to judge other beings)
which happens to be God’s prerogative
when woman, with “outside advice,” assumes God’s function of judgment, we get . . . well, what we’ve got now — a screeching, vengeance-driven matriarchy, with one set of justice for females, and a very different set for males
‘Pedestalize’ is a good term; I personally like ‘gyneolatry’, but that might be more obscure.
Pedestalizer? Too cumbersome. Gynocentrist, woman-firster are easier to say and already well-established. Novaseeker uses gender idealist as opposed to gender realist.
Fifth Horseman,
How do I find your futurist blog?
P and C,
It is under ‘Friends of In Mala Fide’ in the blogroll on the right hand side.
Novaseeker:
Their fear is misguided – but that’s a topic for another day.
Eumaios:
Not unless you think women are inferior.
Anakin Niceguy:
Gynocentrist doesn’t quite capture the attitudes of rightists in regards to women. It works for leftists but not for conservatives. Woman-firster is too vague. Gender idealist makes for a more neutral term, but it doesn’t quite have the sting of insult that I’m looking for. At least part of my goal is to make pedestalizers ashamed for doing what they do.
I really don’t see what all the hub-bub is all about here. There are a number of “enemies” of the Game community, and they tend to run the gamut, from Feministing/Jezebel types, to SocialCons, to straightup Beta Male Hatahs, and everything in between. I personally don’t spend a heck of a lot of brainpower trying to come up with a catchy phrase for these folks, other than the general term “haters”. That’s how I see em, because they shoot for the low hanging fruit of society-they castigate those who are merely responding to the changed social ecosphere, instead of going after the sources of said changes, what has been referred to as the Four Sirens. Here we can see a kind of divergence among the haters-the feminist crowd has a vested interest in the Sirens, but the SocialCon crowd, while claiming to want to “save” Western Civ, either turns a blind eye to the aforementioned, or launches off into all manner of completely off the rails stuff that don’t have nothing to do with nothing. Talk about engaging in misdirection and being misguided.
Here’s a term that might work for the largely male group we’re discussing here-Whiteknighting.
How about it, fellas?
The Obsidian
Obsidian:
People dislike game for different reasons. Just calling them haters doesn’t tell us much about their motivations or what arguments they are using.
There seem to me three varieties of haters:
1. Pedastalizers – Don’t like their view of women as morally superior beings disturbed. Often religious and/or socially conservative.
2. Equalists – Don’t like that women are attracted to men who are dominant over them. Often liberal whether right liberal (libertarian or neoconservative) or left liberal.
3. Hyper-Moralists – Don’t like the fact that the main discoverers and theorists of game are almost all libertines and/or nihlists. They also don’t like that game contains techniques for getting women to have premarital/extramarital sex, and that it seems too consciously manipulative.
Larry Auster and Conor F. are a mix of pedastalizer and hyper-moralist.
Will Wilkinson is an equalist.
Todd White, Anakin Niceguy and his commenter Justin are hyper-moralists.
I would also point out that Save Western Civ guys aren’t identical with Social Conservatives who aren’t identlical with haters. Lots of Save Western Civ guys do accept game.
Me: So, if they’re pedestalizers, does that make us caryatidizers?
FB: Not unless you think women are inferior.
Caryatids are women supporting the pillars of society, not cavorting all over them.
[...] Taxonomy of Game Opponents Jump to Comments Brilliant analysis by Thursday, commenting at In Mala Fide. There seem to me three varieties of haters: 1. Pedastalizers – Don’t like their view of women [...]
Thursday,
I see where you’re coming from, but for me it still comes down to one very important point: if the Haters of Game were really serious about doing something about what they see, they’d go after the source of what makes Game necessary in the first place, instead of merely hacking away at the low hanging fruit. Its really as simple as that. NONE of the Haters do, because of the reasons you mentioned, and you left out the Feminists, who actually like the way things are. So, I see the overall hatin’ on Game as the perfect scapegoating measure, a way to huff and puff without actually doing anything and feeling self-righteous about it. Gimme a break.
The Four Sirens are real, and no one wants to address it because we all know what that would mean, so we instead go after the easiest target, guys who have figured out a way to get some measure of happiness in this world. Trust me when I tell ya, Roissy, Ferdinand Bardamu, The Fifth Horseman, none of us are what ails society; what ails it, seriously, are the Four Sirens, at least insofar as Male-Female relations go. Again, if we’re really serious about tackling problems and addressing wrongs, we all know where to look.
Its just a matter of who’s got the balls and heart to say that the Empress is running around in the buck. Thus far, the only ones willing to do that are the very ones who get pilloried by the Haters.
Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg…
The Obsidian
Feminists are equalists.
Feminists are equalists.
…except when they’re not.
Hypergamy is inate.
The mouth may say one thing but the gina says another.
if the Haters of Game were really serious about doing something about what they see, they’d go after the source of what makes Game necessary in the first place,
Yep.
The Four Sirens are real,
Yes. Female behavior today is distinctly different from what nature intended.
The Four Horsemen will shift things yet again by 2020, which is the most important message of all. Too many people just fail to see the trends that got us here (4sirens) and the trends that reshuffle the whole thing after that (4Horsemen).
They claim to be so, but you don’s seriously believe they are equalists, do you?
They claim to be so, but you don’s seriously believe they are equalists, do you?
Wow. The world would be a great place if feminists actually were about genuine equality.
They would be just as concerned about the glass floor as the glass ceiling, for starters. They would also say that a false rape accusation is just as evil as a genuine instance of rape.
Here’s your term: “right knights”
Has the immediate association of white knights and the meaning you’re aiming for.
Pedestalizer imparts a huge whiff of internet nerd to whoever uses it.
They claim to be so, but you don’s seriously believe they are equalists, do you?
All humans are hypocritical to one degree or another, but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe what they are saying.
Thursday:
Feminists are equalists.
I’d prefer to say that Feminists are masculinists. They want to deny female nature, and their efforts over the past 100 years have been directed towards suppressing it. They view equality as behaving like a man. They don’t want equality, they want power over men.
Obsidian:
Whiteknighting is a good term.
if the Haters of Game were really serious about doing something about what they see, they’d go after the source of what makes Game necessary in the first place, instead of merely hacking away at the low hanging fruit
A lot of people have trouble letting go of faulty ideas. Deep down, many conservatives aren’t conservatives at all. They talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. They are just as resistant to facts as the most die-hard feminist. Their ideology is more important than reality. Most of the Game devotees are guys whose assumptions with regard to women changed as a result of experience. These are the guys who have flexible minds, the other fellows are ideologues; you’re never going to convince them. I think you just have to move on and stop feeding the trolls.
As for the four sirens, they’re symptoms and not the disease. No fault divorce, contraception etc were all banned by the old culture and are products of the new. Culture precedes legislation and that’s why the cultural battle is so important. Peoples’ thinking has to change before the law changes.
The internet is now the culture shaping forum. Anyone can access it and no one can control it. The battles that are fought on these forums have a greater importance than you think.
The knowledge of game would have been localised had it not been for the net. My own little blog has readers all over the world. I may not convince anyone of my ideas, but I may influence them in some way. We are all, in our own small way, trying to slay the beast.
“The Four Sirens are real, and no one wants to address it because we all know what that would mean, so we instead go after the easiest target, guys who have figured out a way to get some measure of happiness in this world… Again, if we’re really serious about tackling problems and addressing wrongs, we all know where to look.”
Yes, except you have not found macro discussions to be of any relevance before. Glad to see the change of heart.
Thursday: Todd White, Anakin Niceguy and his commenter Justin are hyper-moralists.
Thursday, I have no objection to learning game. Game means learning what’s attractive to women and implementing that, right? No problem there.
Game means learning what’s attractive to women and implementing that, right? No problem there.
Cool. I withdraw the hyper-moralist label.
FB writes:
Gynocentrist doesn’t quite capture the attitudes of rightists in regards to women. It works for leftists but not for conservatives.
I’m gonna have to disagree with you on this FB, because I know some very well about that. You don’t probably know what I have been fighting for half a decade or more now. The vilifying and dehumanizing of men. The idolatry of women. The sick, mind-numbing double standards. Not from feminists. But from “conservative Christians.” Yes, some socons are traditionalist/patriarchical, but others are definitely into the male-bashing and woman-worshipping just a like a feminist.
Read this.
Anakin Niceguy:
Ehh, maybe you’re right. Still, my primary concern with this post was ending the idiocy of using “SoCon” as shorthand for gynocentrist/pedestalizer/what have you. Those terms work much better.
Anakin Niceguy: “[some socons] are definitely into the male-bashing and woman-worshipping just a like a feminist.”
Because we were taught to be. Most Christians I know are indoctrinated with Nice is a Virtue, which makes it very hard to challenge the spoiled milk we were fed as children.
[...] Auster has also linked to this story, but being the woman-worshipping pseudo-Renfield that he is, he went after the barely relevant racial aspect and ignored the far more [...]
[...] by two conservative Republicans). Their ingrained ignorance of the nature of women leads them to place them on pedestals, giving them common cause with feminists who seek to beat down men at every opportunity. While I [...]
[...] it is a sad day for Renfields, hyper-moralizers, and other haters of the Crimson Arts. We are penetrating the mainstream culture and becoming part [...]
[...] chivalrous cowards, male feminists, woman-worshipping conservatives, cuckold fetishists, and other assorted pedestalizing nutless pussyboys, this song is for you. Bow down to Ariel Pink, he who hath given voice to your plight, and may you [...]