On Loyalty: Some Excellence from Mad Men

I’m a big fan of a good story, but I especially like those that can be learned from. That should explain a bit of my over-eagerness to compare Game writings with The Marix more completely than just the concept of the Red Pill ushering one into reality.

Netflix only has through season four of Mad Men, so that’s as far as I’ve watched, but the first season is very good, and of course there are many Game-related topics to investigate. I’m sure there’s been quite a bit of it: Roissy has talked of the main character Don Draper several times. There’s a scene from the end of the first season that came to mind when I read a comment from one of my more passionate detractors. He wrote:

I think we’re all waiting for your teachings on a Christian frame of masculinity that is as rapidly digestable as the Red Pill. Meanwhile, we read your stories about you handle your wife and think “he just Gamed her textbook”, to which you reply “Nah, I used being a Christian” that I can’t help reading in Mark Driscoll’s* voice.

Now, I never said “rapidly digestible”. Very few things that solve fundamental problems can be done quickly. Indeed, Game might be a useful stop-gap, as several people suggested. At this point, in the gun-to-head scenario, I’d have to say it’s not a solution. As to me gaming my wife: I must admit that it certainly looks that way; except the examples he’s referring to were from before I’d even heard of the term (“He got game” withstanding). This is why I keep trying to crack this nut. Furthermore, in those instances I was just angry, not calculating. There are plenty of men who became furious at their wives, and still were served papers.

Let’s get back to the topic. The people that are still mad at this man don’t seem to understand that I did something that is pretty difficult to do: attempt to synthesize all the disparate aspects of Game**, and address how that synthesis is not useful to the Christian Married Man. Ok, so I’m wrong. Who Cares? Many (including me) wouldn’t even know why or how it is wrong (if it is) if I hadn’t attempted it. The links I gave in the first post were to some very powerful rebuttals to me, and I challenge anyone to synthesize even those. I can’t, but I learned a lot from each of them and their respective comments…even of the detractors…maybe even especially of them. Which brings me back to Mad Men.

Mad Men Spoilers Ahead, and in the Video

Don Draper is living a lie. He stole a dead man’s name to escape the Korean War. One of his underlings, Pete Campbell, found out and tried to blackmail Don by threatening to reveal his secret if Don doesn’t give him a promotion. Don calls his bluff and gives the promotion to another character; which plays out in the clip below:

In one sense, I played Don Draper in Bert “Dalrock” Cooper’s office to all the incensed Pete Campbells out there. My story doesn’t fully jive with the wider narrative of my life. But from a different perspective, I was the Pete Campbell, bewildered and angered by the unspoken inconsistencies of the Don Drapers of the rest of the Game blogs–several of whom displayed much more displeasure than Don shows in the clip above. The Coopers responded to me: Who Cares?

The point of this blog is to put my energy into bringing in accounts***, and I suggest my Pete Campbells do the same. One never knows how loyalty is born.

* A particularly, and mostly justifiably, hated-in-the-manosphere preacher.

** And I was at least partially wrong; maybe fully wrong. My thesis isn’t completed yet.

*** I have four, no: five, no: six as-yet-to-be-completed posts waiting for more time and more specific inspiration, but accounts are coming.

6 thoughts on “On Loyalty: Some Excellence from Mad Men

  1. I think you have a lot of valuable wisdom, I think you’re reconciling the fact that you have natural Game in dealing with your wife. So while decrying the intentional use of Game but then using your natural Game on your wife makes you look like a hypocrite and it comes across as “Game: For me, but not thee.” THAT is why I leveled the Mark Driscoll comparison at you (albeit a bit harsh). Mark yells at the guys who have no Game, tells them not to use Game then goes home and Games his own former-slut wife.

    The reason Game is incredibly useful for most AFC (Average Frustrated Chumps) is because it works off the 80/20 concept. It gives you 80% of the results for 20% of the effort. Most men don’t want to bed dozens of hardcore lawyer 9.5s, they just want a wife that is attractive to them and will respond sexually. The 80/20 of Game is perfect for that. It boils it down to something graspable for the AFC.

    “Now, I never said “rapidly digestible”. Very few things that solve fundamental problems can be done quickly. Indeed, Game might be a useful stop-gap, as several people suggested. At this point, in the gun-to-head scenario, I’d have to say it’s not a solution.”
    The fundamental problem is female nature and our culture, which there are few signs of it changing any time soon.

    I liken Game to the evolution of super-cars (I’m a Jalopnik, so bear with me). The older super-cars (1960s Ferraris, Porsches and Lamborghinis) were extremely difficult to drive. They had brutally heavy steering, terrible driving position, clutches that required the driver to be able to squat 350lbs, and required a driver of utmost skill to even be able to reasonably control one, let alone approach the car’s performance limits with any measure of safety. Fast-forward to today’s super-cars which are perfectly thought out machines that will launch someone of relatively modest skill to within 80% of the car’s performance limits (there’s the 80/20 again). I think that this demonstrates that for most things mean to be widely consumed, being able to simplify for accessibility is the way to go.
    Granted, there is value in doing things that are hard, like Ranger School and SEAL training, however those are only meant for a select few. If having a good marriage required that level of focus and intensity at all times, there wouldn’t be hope for anyone.

    “As to me gaming my wife: I must admit that it certainly looks that way; except the examples he’s referring to were from before I’d even heard of the term (“He got game” withstanding).”
    That’s because you have Natural Game and in conjunction with what you were taught growing up, you act out Game principles as a reflex. You don’t have to know Game in order to use it if there are elements that naturally occur in your personality.

  2. @ ar10308:

    But if it’s natural, then is it “game?” I think this is the million dollar question, which is why I keep referring to it as “impenetrable frame” rather than game. To the man for whom this comes naturally, the idea of using game leaves a rather foul taste in the mouth, LOL.

    My husband thinks the idea is ridiculous, but that’s because it comes naturally to him. To tell me to be quiet, to ignore my irrationality rather than pacify it, or to expect to be obeyed is just who he is as a man. He doesn’t like the implication that he’s play acting, which is what the word game indicates. Does that make sense?

  3. @ar10308

    Thanks for commenting. I think Dalrock was right about you (this is a good thing). The things that encouraged me about my post were the wideness of disagreement, and the heights of it. I’m probably one of the worst Paul’s to ever go into the Athenian Forum, but there is a similarity in that they can’t agree why I’m wrong. In a way, you’re the sort of man (by persuasion of thought, not necessarily circumstances–I don’t know those) I had in mind when I see the trouble.

  4. @Elspeth
    Good point. Frame is the correct expression for “Natural Game”. Practicing Game can develop into Frame.

    Your Dalrock post definitely kicked up a mighty swarm. The reason I asked about your qualifications in that post was so I could see where your perspective comes from, because your post was from the perspective of a person who didn’t see any need for Game. It makes sense why you don’t, since you have a strong Frame. You see everything you need to have a strong Frame right within Christianity because you know what a strong Frame looks like. When you don’t know what a strong Frame looks like, the examples of it within Christianity aren’t visible.

    Now, the real purpose of Game is to build Frame. Game is a mimicking of Frame, so if you mimic something enough you will actually become it and do it reflexively. Game focuses directly on how the actions and words of a man effect a woman, so if you practice those actions and words, you will eventually develop the mindset (Frame). Just like changing a man’s posture to a more open and confident posture will increase his confidence and social openness, so to will acting out Game increase his Frame.

    I see Game as a ladder to Frame.

    (CC: My previous comment was actually much longer, but I cut most of it out, and it has become its own post. I think you’ll see a lot that you’ll like. I don’t use the word “ladder”, but a very close word.)

  5. Pingback: Should Marriage Be Easy? « Things that We have Heard and Known

  6. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You 8.26.12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.