A commenter called 'OK Rickety' raised some points in one of our discussions which need some further elucidation in a longer essay. He took exception to a statement we had made concerning the differences between our culture's past and current sexual education of boys. Here is his observations:
"Well we don't live in the past. Instead boys today experience the reality that most often their fathers or their friends' fathers have been divorced by their mothers. As they reach the point of considering marriage, they likely hear more details about these marriages and realize that it is unlikely that they will be any more successful."
This statement, and variations of it are something like an axiom among followers of the Game/Red Pill Philosophy. The problem is that it is based on false premises, though superficially true. The general theme is something like this:
1. Things were different in the past.
2. Modern society has adopted a New Morality.
3. The present is the reality we must deal with.
4. Therefore, we must conform to this reality.
Points 1 and 2 are obviously true, it is third premise, and consequently the conclusion, that are false.
It is a common human tendency to assume that present social conditions represent reality, when in fact they do not. This is especially true during times of social instability. It is not a natural condition for children to be raised in broken and dysfunctional homes any more than it is natural for homosexual love-trysts are legitimate marriages or mass-violence is legitimate sociopolitical expression. The reality of what a marriage and family are have never changed. What we are experiencing in 21st Century America---divorce, abortion, broken children, gender-identity disorders, et cetera---are the consequences of avoiding reality.
It is simply wishful thinking to assume that gender polarity is not essential to a healthy society's long-term viability. Remove the masculine component, as the Feminists teach, and you get an unstable and neurotic culture like the 21st Century West where violence, drug abuse, corporate and political expediency, and instant gratification are typical. Remove the feminine component as the Game Cultists teach, and you get brutal and authoritarian cultures like the Wahhabi Arabs where fanaticism and obedience to leaders of personality cults are typical. As a side note, it is not a positive sign that in our own presidential elections that Hilary Clinton represents one tendency and Donald Trump, the other.
The correct response therefore is not to conform with or adapt to unreality. The only moral choices we have is either to resist the unreality actively, or withdraw from it passively (i.e. seek another society that respects correct choices). What the Red Pill Philosophy offers is a false solution; the idea that we can play by our opponents' rules and still emerge victorious. At best, such a course of action can only produce a variant form of social dysfunction; just as Red Pill Philosophy is nothing but a variant of Radical Feminism.
It is not therefore a matter of teaching young men and boys outdated ideals concerning marriage and gender relationships as it about teaching them the correct ideals. As we mentioned in our earlier, Red Pill Philosophy fails here, because it is based on a materialist, marketing approach to relationships and marriage. These matters are not about selling oneself and winning a product. This is why marriage historically falls under the jurisdiction of religion. Religion recognizes the deeper universal principles underlying a marriage bond; that two individuals must spiritually bond as one for a higher purpose. This is much different than the economic models of the Gamers and Marxists who see marriage as something more like forming a corporation and sex as something to be negotiated like a sales pitch.
What both Game and Feminism are ultimately based upon is narcissism. Neither likes the idea of one party giving up their independence and individual to become an integral part of a family. And one sees the divisiveness present in modern America, we understand that it has its roots in divided families. One situation is the direct product of the other.