Game theory, for those not sure, is the theory that men (it’s pretty much always men) have a statistically higher chance of picking up women if they do certain things and try to replicate certain qualities. Basically, think of a class on how to pick up girls. The first website I found on game theory is this: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/
In theory, there’s nothing wrong with game theory. It’s not good or bad. It just is. It’s a tool, just like a hammer. If you use it to bash somebody’s brains in, it’s a weapon. If not, it knocks in nails.
But reading some of the “rules” and looking at what some of the bloggers say really kind of disturbs me. Take a look at the “16 Commandments” linked here: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
Some are more or less fine. Harsh, but probably true to at least an extent. Some are downright wrong. Like, not wrong as in incorrect, but wrong as in “You shouldn’t do that.” Like this:
VII. Always keep two in the kitty
Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman, a safety net, to catch you in case you slip and risk a breakup, divorce, or a lost prospect, leading to loneliness and a grinding dry spell. A woman knows once she has slept with a man she has abdicated a measure of her power; when she has fallen in love with him she has surrendered nearly all of it. But love is ephemeral and with time she may rediscover her power and threaten to leave you. It is her final trump card. Withdrawing all her love and all her body in an instant will rend your soul if you are faced with contemplating the empty abyss alone. Knowing there is another you can turn to for affection will fortify your will and satisfy your manhood.
Did you catch what it said there? You should have a “backup” in place even if you’re married. Now I know no-fault divorce is a killer. I get that. But if you feel the need to have a backup, don’t get married. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. For Catholics, it CAN’T work like that. If we legally divorce, we stay celibate, period. And what does having “options” even mean, anyway? How does a married man keep a backup?
Some of the others are vulgar and some most definitely anti-feminist, but none stand out to me quite like that.
“The Hierarchy” is another idea that is okay in theory but, when I’ve seen it used, is almost always creepy in practice. Here it is: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.htm
Basically it’s a way to rank people based on how attractive they are, sexually, to women, going from Alpha at the top to Omega at the bottom. All right. (And here I must confess that I couldn’t resist and took a test where I got rated as a “lower tier beta”, for whatever that’s worth, which is exactly nothing.)
Anyway, the post is written by a guy named Vox. Vox, or Vox Day, is the pen name of Theodore Beale, a science fiction writer who runs his own fairly interesting and apparently popular blog. I don’t agree with him all the time but normally I give the blog a look each day, sometimes just to see him rip into feminists (I also think his analysis on Syria is spot on). His dismantling of Scalzi, a feminist known by Vox affectionately as “McRapey”, can be amusing, though it occasionally hugs the border between funny and nasty.
In the linked post, Vox says this at the end:
There is no good or bad here, there is only what happens to be observable in social interaction. Consider: alphas seemingly rule the roost and yet they live in a world of constant conflict and status testing.
I’d like to believe that he means this, but I don’t. In the “manosphere” (the term used for blogs that have somewhat of a focus, even if it’s not the main focus, on game theory), when you want to insult somebody, call them something besides an alpha. Whenever Vox discusses Scalzi he always likes to throw out there that he’s a (if I remember correctly) “gamma”. If you read the comments sections of those blogs and you disagree with the author, the commenters will come out of the woodwork and say things like, “Classic beta response” or “look at this – this man is obviously a gamma”. And of you’re a woman and you disagree, well, you’re wrong. Like, “not even to be considered” wrong. Basically, because you’re a woman. Or at least when they start to disagree.
Now, I’m not a feminist, in any sense of the word. I believe in complimentary rights, not equal rights (as in, men and women are different, and men have the right and responsibilities to do certain things that women don’t, and vice versa – the two compliment each other). I believe that in an ideal family women should stay home and raise the child and the husband should work. Just so you get the picture.
But there’s something really…off about game theory. I think a lot, maybe almost all, of it actually works and makes sense. But something about it seems wrong. And part of where I get this feeling is from its supposed followers. I feel as if anybody reading this who is a game theory disciple will probably respond with something like, “typical beta”. Or whatever. It’s the impression I’ve gotten from reading.
I guess there’s an attitude that seems to come with the territory of becoming an “alpha”, and the semi-hero worship of said alphas, that really bothers me. I’m not completely sure, but something just isn’t quite right.