In our last installment, the assignment was to read through Badger’s post Stone Soup, which I think is part of the cutting edge of the next wave of manosphere/game discussion.
Badger’s post has more layers in it than we might realize from the initial read. I think the baseline concept he states is accurate, but we can get further insight from it by thinking about why these types of posts are being written. A post comparing Game to the Stone Soup folk tale would only happen in an environment where Game has established enough of a beachhead in our culture to be correlated with a folk tale. A lot of discussion has taken place about whether Game and its concepts will ever become “universal”. What is left unexplained is whether “universal” means widely known or widely implemented. It is an observable fact that many men reject the validity, morality, efficacy, and in some cases, existence of Game. For the purposes of this post, assume Game is as defined by Roissy or Roosh, or Dalrock and Keoni Galt for the married guys.
Badger points out that the applied thought and action behind Game acts as a kernel; another analogy would be that it serves as condensation nuclei, or the small particles that instigate formation of raindrops. These small particles start the process, and once started, the rain falls.
While discussing this post, Mentu pointed out that he has seen references to fuzzy hats and negs on TV shows like The Big Bang Theory and Family Guy. As well as elsewhere. This is a sign that the awareness of Game is slowly permeating the general social consciousness. Roissy recently mentioned a match-dot-com profile where a girl says not to try “that Neill Strauss shit” on her. The core principles of human nature that Game is founded on may always be present, but that doesn’t mean that these principles do not evolve over time.
Societies change, and therefore Game must change. This leads to an interesting return to our Stone Soup storyline. Is it necessary to have a stone to use the Stone Soup method? Or is the stone a mere prop for a person who is a master at motivating others. Consider that the stone worked because it was a new tactic. If half a dozen SSAs (Stone Soup Artists) in the same village started using that process to get a free meal from time to time, the efficacy of the method will diminish. Eventually, a Neil Strauss equivalent will write a book called The Soup, chronicling his road from hunger to satiation. Meanwhile, a diligent curator of human behavior from the capitol will write STONE, and then eventually DAY STONE, along with additional literature on making stone soup in Columbia or Poland. Many will hate him for his success, even as they fail to understand that his partners in soup-making do so willingly, even happily.
This ties into Badger’s point that the vagrant in the story is not really a mooch – he was providing mood and theater, he gave value even though it was intangible rather than material.
I am led to think that it is possible that Game is simply the first version of something that will bring a larger change.
[Disclaimer: In the following paragraphs, I am not equating Game to feminism. I am going to use the evolution of feminism as an example of how humans absorb and modify social concepts.]
A few decades ago, many people probably thought “feminism” meant burning your bra and slapping men in the face if they opened a door for you in an act of patriarchal chauvanism. Oh, to have those days back again. Despite the conspicuously overt nature of feminist action back then, these were less disagreeable times in many ways. No one even dreamed of a day when we would go through the rape-hysteria of the 90s, see the complete subversion of family law, or witness the endless subsidization of female “empowerment” at the expense of men. Today’s feminism is less conspicuous to many because there are fewer protests and bra-burnings. They don’t burn bras anymore because the modern woman’s soul is an eternal flame of derision toward men. Much less conspicuous, but much more toxic.
Is Game a form of anti-feminism? Or just a means of coping with the current situation?
If Game is just a coping mechanism, we can think of feminism as a great tidal wave of toxic sewage and Game as the surfboard that lets men make the best of it. Sure, I might prefer to float quietly in a virginal pond of clear water, but that is not an option any more. So given the choice between riding the pungent wave of feminism or being crushed by it, I say surf’s up, asshole.
If Game is part of the antidote, then maybe we should see it as the visible sprout of much larger plant. If this is the case, then the more conspicuous attributes of Game will eventually recede, and the larger force behind it will show itself in other ways.
What ways might those be?
For starters, I consider The Rawness to be an excellent example of the larger force of which Game is only a subset. One level up from Game is the concept of having a strong internal masculine frame. A solid self-view that is not easily shaken is a prerequisite for effective Game, but effective Game is not a prerequisite for rock-solid internal frame. Read these four posts from The Rawness to see an example of what I am referring to. Even though the posts are referring to his conflict with a bitchy guy, the principle still holds.
If the next phase of masculine frame takes a more sinister turn, we will see more of this working its way up the social classes.
For men who take the growth of their masculine confidence in a more socially constructive direction, we will see more men going their own way, more MRAs, and more married man Game (no lectures on divorce laws, please).
Returning one last time to the Stone Soup tale, you could try to fight the vagrant by outlawing the making of stone soup, or by prohibiting him from owning a stone, or by shaming anyone who participates in the making of stone soup. Or people could eventually realize that soup stones don’t actually do anything except serve as a prop.
But the smart vagrant will just find another prop, another story, and he will return to work his magic again, in a way that no one anticipated.