Latest Posts
Showing posts with label Mens Movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mens Movement. Show all posts





Do you think that they might finally be paying attention to men's issues instead of swan-ing all over female entitlement. Politicians need to be put on notice as we are not going away and we will eventually become the force that will decide who gets into office and who will not. This is just the way it is going to be. Men, world-wide, are sick to death of feminists running the gauntlet over the legal system and that is going to change, one way or the other..


Politicians have ignored men's issues at their own peril..

New kind of male activism emerging in UK says BBC   Leave a comment

A new kind of male activism is beginning to emerge in the UK according to BBC political reporter, Anita Anand, who looked at the issue of ‘the men’s vote’ on Radio 4′s Beyond Westminster program – click here for details.
The following quotes are taken from the programme:
Anita Anand:
“For some time [political] parties have been falling over themselves to woo the women. But what about the other side of that equation – is anyone particularly bothered about the male vote?
“A new kind of male activism is beginning to bubble up. There are men out there who feel they are being ignored and frankly they’re sick of it.
“The Men’s Network in Brighton supports various bonding activities for men and their children, but also seeks to give a voice to particularly male concerns – issues like mental health, education, paternity leave.
“This is not a movement that seeks confrontation, organisiers say its more about lobbying for change and membership is diverse, the men might be divorced or happily married, they come from all walks of life and they have a strong sense of their distinctive needs and maleness.”
Glen Poole, The Men’s Network:
“Men’s issues would be things like boys in education, they’d be male suicide, they’d be poor male health , they’d be fathers trying to be involved in their kids lives, they’d be lack of male role models those kinds of things and the question is how do we get a new conversation around gender that includes everybody because there’s stills loads of really important issues for women that need to be focussed on , it’s that they’re often focussed on in a way that excludes men.
“They’re focused on as women or women or children’s issues and yet women and women and children don’t live in isolation from men. We’ve all got fathers, many of us have got partners, we’ve got brothers, we’ve got uncles, we’ve got sons. Men and women live in families and communities together.
“There’s an assumption that if you’re talking about men’s issues you must be anti women. And I think that’s the shift we’re starting to see as people are becoming more and more comfortable in talking about men’s issues in a way that doesn’t assume it’ss in opposition to women.”
Anita Anand:
“But maybe [politicians] also feel that isn’t PC to got out of their way to woo the male vote. Would it alienate women too much? Is that too much of a risk to take? There are those though who feel the risks are much more dangerous if the men feel ignored.
“The Men’s Network recently held a national conference, bringing together disparate men’s groups from around the country. Their aim was to have some political muscle, particularly when it comes to influencing both local authorities and NHS policy makers.
“Alex Bailey was there, in the past he’s worked as a Chief Executive and strategist for Brighton local authority. These days he is heavily involved with a group called abandofbrothers.
“This organisation seeks to provide young men, who have often been in trouble, with strong male role models. It wants to confront the lack of structure , discipline as well as understanding that it believes fuelled many of the rampaging young men in last summer’s riots.
“I asked Alex Bailey if he thought……there will be a time when a policy maker will sit down and say we are going to have now a male agenda and a female agenda that we will pursue with equal zeal?”
Alex Bailey, abandofbrothers:
“It may not be as simple as that, but in exactly the same way that dealing with a range of issues from a female perspective, has provided a very useful, I would say, lens, to look at issues – and potentially a tool to open opportunity.
“I think exactly the same thing is beginning to happen with men’s issues.
“If we take example the riots last summer in the UK, my recollection is 92/93% of those convicted were men Now that throws into quite stark focus the issue of if you neglect certain male issues, you do actually store up some quite considerable problems for yourself, problems in economic and social terms. Be that in men’s physical health, men’s mental health, criminal justice, education, there are a whole range of issues right across a range of all those spectrums., where actually not intervening early, not addressing some of those issues early on, young boys being excluded from school for example….
“If you look at the GCSE and A Level attainments we’re seeing a marked difference between girls and boys . Now there’s something going on here I think it’s fair to say and unless we start as policy makers to address those things I think in probably a generation’s time we’re going to see some pretty stark consequences of it.”
To read more about the Beyond Westminster programme on “the men’s vote” click here now.

Fascinating how many men around the world are involved in spreading the message and fighting against that male hating, feminist hegemony. Another great radio program from Men's Matters in the UK. Another effort that requires our attention and support. The only way these type of programs survive and grow is by all to link, comment or just listen to it as that will increase the hit rates and that is what matters the most. So, in order to support this radio program, just to have a listen..

Support Men's Matters..


Mens Matters


MEN'S MATTERS AND DOMESTIC ABUSE AWARENESS WEEK

Two notices:
(1) Men's Matters on Express FM 
The latest broadcast of Men’s Matters, presented by James Williams, is being going out live on Tuesday 22ndNovember at 1900 GMT on 93.7 ExpressFM. Most listeners do not live in Portsmouth (England) but can listen on line. To listen inlive click on: http://www.expressfm.com/player/
If you are unable to listen at this time, the program does get moved to Listen Again after a few days which can be played at anytime. You can hear it by clicking on Listen Again on: http://www.expressfm.com/player/od/and then select the Mens Matters icon.
The show lasts barely one hour but is the only one of its kind in the UK. The only advertising it gets is through people like yourself passing it on so if you can, please tell people about it.
This edition includes an interview with Tom Martin who is suing the London School of Economics for £50,000 of damages for sexism against men. He says the course he undertook had been was misleading in its advertising, and breached the Gender Equality Duty Act. Listen to his exclusive interview. May be we all could learn something by his action? There is also an American contribution from the Tom Leykis show in Los Angeles concerning the distressing affects of single parenting.
(2) Domestic Abuse Awareness Week
Today was the the start of the above and eagle eyed readers are encouraged to point out any examples where the police or councils run or support events during the week that only raise the issue about female victims, and not female and male victims.
This is not only the usual discrimination but also places the authority in danger of breaching the Public Sector Equality Duty. Here is one by Crimestoppers (a charity) so the Duty does not apply.
Posted by Skimmington

On our road to finding a better way to spread the MM word, many suggestions are presented as to how to go about achieving a better and more productive method of educating the public about our aims and goals. Feminists have on regular occasion write off the MM as being either radical or extremist without even stating the reason why, they have invoked that blatant lie on the off chance that people will automatically turn off the subject at hand . They are well aware of it's affect and it's time we played that same game..

Many years ago, when I was a lot more pissed off then now. I produced A4 posters aimed at the current misandry that feminists were exposing at the time. Particularly new laws and "how to train Judges" were a few topics that I waxed lyrical about. In hindsight, those posters were a little too radical even though I did tone them down. If those posters were designed, edited and professionally presented, we would have a better chance of promoting our aims and goals to the public rather than sounding like a bunch of ratbags with chips on our shoulders. We need help with this, as it is the case now, we have to move towards the next step and anti up for public consumption. Play the same game advertisers, lobby groups and feminists have played for so long. If you are able to help, can design and present professional posters, let me know and we will get the ball running right here or contact any MM site or AVfM..

Want to defeat a proposed public policy? Just label supporters as 'extreme'

November 29, 2011 by Jeff Grabmeier

New research shows how support for a generally liked policy can be significantly lowered, simply by associating it with a group seen as "radical" or "extreme."
In one experiment, researchers found that people expressed higher levels of support for a gender equality policy when the supporters were not specified than when the exact same policy was attributed to "radical feminist" supporters.
These findings show why attacking political opponents as "extremists" is so popular – and so effective, said Thomas Nelson, co-author of the study and associate professor of political science at Ohio State University.
"The beauty of using this 'extremism' tactic is that you don't have to attack a popular value that you know most people support," Nelson said.
"You just have to say that, in this particular case, the supporters are going too far or are too extreme."
Nelson conducted the study with Joseph Lyons and Gregory Gwiasda, both former graduate students at Ohio State. The findings were published in a recent issue of the journal Political Psychology.
For the study, the researchers did several related experiments.
In one experiment, 233 undergraduate students were asked to read and comment on an essay that they were told appeared on a blog. The blog entry discussed the controversy concerning the Augusta National Golf Club's "men only" membership policy. The policy caused a controversy in 2003 before the club hosted the Masters Tournament.
Participants read one of three versions of an essay which argued that the PGA Tour should move the Masters Tournament if the club refused to change this policy.
One group read that the proposal to move the tournament was led simply by "people" and "citizens." Another group read that the proposal was led by "feminists." The third group read that the proposal was led by "radical feminists," "militant feminists," and "extremists." Additional language reinforced the extremist portrayals by describing extreme positions that the groups allegedly held on other issues, such as getting rid of separate locker room and restroom facilities for men and women.
Participants were then asked to rate how much they supported Augusta changing its membership rules to allow women members, whether they supported the Masters tournament changing its location, and whether, if they were a member, they would vote to support female membership at the club.
A good piece has just been written on this precise topic..

A kinder, gentler machine gun hand

How Feminism Capitalizes on Men’s Rights Movement Victories
Exposing feminist extremism helps to spread the MRM message. Large or outrageous acts of misandry will sometimes yank a few of the oblivious masses out of their stupor, causing them to sit up and take notice. We tend to look upon these events as small victories for the MRM as they almost always draw a handful of people to our cause.  It is only natural that we would celebrate our exposing.
We are prone to become so caught up in our taking of a hill that we fall into the trap of thinking that the hill was a victory. I would suggest otherwise.  In the fog of war against the male sex, we fail to see how extremist behavior provides a diversion from equally important issues. In some cases, the hills we charge serve to empower the more mainstream of feminists who are able to look normal in comparison to their extremist sisters. Attention is never drawn to the fact that it is always the MRM that first exposes these radicals. It is rarely stated that ‘moderate’ feminists remain utterly silent about their fringe elements proposals of male genocide until the plots have been exposed to the public eye. Only then do these mainstream feminists step into the spotlight to announce that not all feminists hold those beliefs. Feminists capitalize on misandry by presenting an image of disapproval when their radical sisters are brought to light, giving the world an impression that they themselves are the reasonable voice of feminism. Our skirmishes become victories for mainstream feminists as well.
Meanwhile, police departments and college campuses across America continue to incorporate inaccurate abuse data into their domestic violence policies. False rape accusers continue to suffer no or mild punishment for their crimes. Talk show hostesses laugh about male genital mutilation without a blip on the news radar. Men are portrayed as buffoons in innumerable television programs and commercials. Civil courts overwhelmingly grant mothers custody of children, but refuse to intervene when non-custodial mothers abduct children from their primary guardian fathers on grounds that it is a civil issue instead of a criminal one.
While the MRM revels in a ‘victory’ against radical feminists the mainstream feminist movement continues their unrelenting attack on men’s rights. Draconian laws are passed in which due process is cast out with the bathwater if you are guilty of the crime of having external genitalia. Boys are taught that it is wrong to behave as boys, indeed that it is ‘natural’ to behave in a manner diametrically opposed to what their biology tells them. While this happens all around us, the sculptors of these tyrannies, the feminists, smile benignly. This is the path of feminist ‘equality’; the kinder, gentler machine gun hand, ready to goad us at gunpoint down the hellish road of their good intentions.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

To counter the feminists win/win scenario, we must learn strategies which will allow us to expose the links between mainstream feminists and their radical elements. We must remind people that Qui tacet consentiret, silence implies consent. We must do this consistently with every battle in order to expose the hypocrisy in feminism. Society must learn that the actions of feminists do not match their claims of striving toward equality. By continually calling them out, we can force feminists to either take actual strides toward equality by supporting men’s rights issues, or to display their bigoted ideology.
Feminists enjoy claiming that there are many schools of feminist ideology. Despite this claim the average feminist will conveniently mix & match various ideologies. It is not uncommon for a feminist to portray herself as a liberal feminist while ranting about how the oppressive nature of female exploitation (Socialist feminism) is created by the Patriarchy (Anarcha-feminism) and the social construction of gender (Postmodern feminism).
Feminists fall into only two camps, those supporting gender equality and bigots. The former is by far the minority. By continually pointing out these overlaps we are able to dismantle the individual ideological shortcomings, creating rifts that actually separate what now only pretends to be separated. This tactic also has the potential to draw gender equalists into our fold.
The terms ‘sexist’ and ‘sexism’ are weapons in the feminist arsenal. Feminists often use these terms to stifle debate and criticism. Sexism has two meanings, only one of which is relevant. The first meaning is that of sexual discrimination. The second is an attitude or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. Part of feminist theory is the distinction between gender and sex. This second definition is flawed, as it has been demonstrated in the case of David Reimer that gender has a biological basis.
Since that time numerous peer review publications and studies have demonstrated innate differences between the sexes along with the biochemical causes of these differences. To combat the feminist’s ability to employ these as weapons we must divorce the two definitions. The first definition requires clarification when it is used, as it is often applied to anyone that disagrees.  The second usage is a feminist construct rooted in their ideology that has no bearing on reality. By forcing the feminists to define their use of the terms in this manner we expose their mentality to the public.

CARRYING THE FIGHT FORWARD

Countering feminist claims when they are presented is a reactionary process. This tactic is doomed to failure. The feminists have already scored their sound bite, and by the time we respond their meme has already taken root while our tardy voices are shouted down by the drone of the feminist hoard. The end result is that the MRM message reaches only a small fraction of the population. While reactionary actions will always be needed, we must make strides in being proactive. To this end it is necessary that we present some form of united voice swiftly and publicly on equality issues. We need both men of words and men of action to present our side as a voice of reason and moderation.
We must find ways to reach the disenfranchised men, to offer them guidance and support. We must explore new mediums for spreading our message on local, national, and international levels. MRM and MRA websites have a limited appeal and will attract a limited audience. In order to be heard, to be a force to be reckoned with, it is imperative that we escape this corral of our own making.
Education is one key. Feminists have been preaching their gospel of misinformation for over 50 years. Males young and old have been indoctrinated with the belief that gender is a social construct. Many of those men have been further oppressed with the ancient social construct of chivalry which leads them straight down the path of defeat. Feminists have spread their false statistics not only into courtrooms which grant them the protection of men with guns and cages, but into scholastic institutions that further fuel the indoctrination.
We are now tasked with enlightening the indoctrinated. As these false beliefs and statistics are firmly entrenched, we are presented with the difficult job of digging them out and laying down a new foundation based on facts. We have to reach the lawmakers, the police stations, the student bodies, and the general public. The tools for this job are there, if only we can learn to operate them.

THE NEW BATTLEFRONT

Our next generation will be rooted in the digital age. News, entertainment, and social events now take place at the speed of the internet. As the modern world becomes more entwined with and dependent upon electronic communication, it becomes more apparent that this is the most powerful tool at our disposal. The electronic world is our new battlefront.  We have a distinct advantage over civil rights movements of the past in that the internet is a source of communication that can tremendously speed the process of organization, outreach, and information sharing.  The second greatest tool for social reform, the printing press, is lost in the shadow of the internet.
If the internet has taught us one lesson in electronic organization, it is flash mobs. Through networking, a mob can be coordinated, brought together, and disbanded in a matter of minutes. In more populated regions with a higher concentration of activists, impromptu rallies and protests can be brought together whenever an opportunity arises. These could be staged in conjunction with political visits, or even for opportunistic media hits during live news reports. We have at our fingertips the tool to make a store opening or weather report a conveyance of civil reform.
Thousands of forums and websites open to commentary exist, and yet we employ only a miniscule fraction of these mediums. We need to think outside the corral of men’s rights, and ask ourselves what areas do not pertain to us. Our interests lay well outside the realm of MRM pages which tend to be areas of preaching to the choir. Do men not extend into the reddit pages of politics, worldview, science, advice, IaMa, and even economics? We cannot continue to box ourselves in. Innumerable forums are present for us in which we can make our voices heard. We need not be invasive, overt, or spamming. A simple discrete comment or tag line can spark interest.
Many newspapers are now available in e-print.  This throws open the door to commentary and letters to the editor ranging from local to world readership. Each and every one of those papers represents an opportunity to spread MRM awareness and concerns. Each and every paper is a chance to communicate with another frustrated, disillusioned, repressed man who has yet to find a voice for his discontent.
Petitions are another weapon that the internet has made simple. A google search for e-petitions will generate multiple hits for sites that create electronic petitions. Gone are the days of door to door signature begging. Petitions can now be created and circulated from the comfort of your home or office. With e-petitions we can enter the political arena with a force unprecedented in history. This is a weapon that we would be foolish to ignore. There is no better tool to make our collective voice be heard to the lawmakers than petitions, and no faster method of collecting signatures than e-petitions.
The one area of this new battlefront that we have occupied well is that of video. The MRM produces videos that are witty, funny, and informative. What we need are videos en masse. We also need the speakers to be charismatic, impassioned, and eloquent orators with skill at public speaking.
No better testimony to the power of charisma and presentation can be offered than the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy televised debate. Nixon appeared sickly and refused makeup. Kennedy was young and vibrant in full television makeup. It was not Kennedy’s arguments that swayed public opinion, as people who only heard the debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. What won the debate for Kennedy was his visual charisma and presentation.
Today politicians are well aware of this, and utilize good speech writers and lighting in conjunction with their appearance and presentation to win votes. These are the skills and tools that we need to make the most of.
Recently a Texas judge whose belt whipping of his daughter that was captured on video was uploaded to youtube. The video quickly went viral, and as a result of that video the judge has been suspended from the bench. The power of video is phenomenal, and the power of a viral video can be earth-shaking. We need videos that go viral. To achieve this will require the work of more than individuals working alone. We need to utilize our collective wisdom and skills to brainstorm and produce videos of exceptional quality and substance. I would suggest that anyone producing videos watch a few episodes of Penn & Teller Bullshit to get a feel for the use of emotive language, gestures, voice infliction, and humor used by Penn Jillette in making his points.
A second area that we already use is that of radio. Again the internet has made it possible for virtually anyone to broadcast.  Using the non-visual tools outlined above, we can more effectively utilize this medium of communication for getting the word to the masses. Oral presentation is everything in radio, and a mixture of humor and fact is  the formula for keeping listeners engaged.
Finally we are able to resort to a variant of that great tool of liberation; the printing press. Johannes Gutenberg changed the world in the mid 1400′s with the invention of movable type printing. For the first time in history, books could be mass-produced. The first presses were monstrous apparatuses that could take up the majority of a room. Today we are able to print more literature with greater speed using machines smaller than a suitcase using a computer and printer. Flyers and handouts can be generated at home with ease. These can be passed out, left lying in reception areas or waiting rooms, stuck between the pages of magazines at a bookstore, placed under windshield wiper blades in parking lots, or scattered strategically across college campuses. Some of these are already formatted and waiting for download, and many more can be created. By adding reference sources and website addresses to these, they can help spread the word. Just a few minutes of our time while shopping or visiting the dentist can help further the reach of our voice.
These are only a few suggestions. With a concerted effort we can identify many more avenues for generating public exposure.
Sally Forth. We have been on the losing end of a battle that many of our brethren are not even aware of for too long. Lest we see ourselves subject to the kinder, gentler machine gun hand that is Swedish feminism, we have no choice but to rally our forces, hone our skills, learn to use the weapons before us, and carry the charge. We can no longer afford to celebrate empty victories while feminism claims the reward. It is our duty to expose the myriad hypocrisies of feminism while challenging them on every hill. The virtues of fact and ethical high ground are on our side. Now is the time to carry those twin virtues to the world.

Admittedly, the PUA and MRA discussion was one we had to have. Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome, maybe even agree to disagree, it did serve the purpose of pointing out differing opinions and attitudes that both sides of the discussion needed to explore..
Part of the problem I have with the PUA's activities was primarily that those guys were servicing women on regular occassions for one simple reason, at the same time MRA's were warning all men about the possibility of being screwed (the other) with false accusations under the current laws in place which will and can destroy one's life in an instant with very little or no repercussion on the accuser, even being charged or held accountable. The whole issue was so skewed that it would be better not to go near any female rather than face a possible prison term for something you may be entirely innocent of .

The outcome to my way of thinking should have been a reduction of male to female relationships/nights out/even had a ban night with the intent of ensuring that those misandric laws were named and promoted as being the main reason it was happening. A bit like the marriage strike which some deny and some agree is happening, but it has yet to surface that men are soundly rejecting marriage because of the anti-male laws in place, which the MSM does not bother to include in their interpretation or opinion pieces..
Misinformation still remains if it protects the privileged princesses. If it does not, only then will it get exposed. The hypocrisy is real..

Tdom has this rather interesting article on the PUA methodology and exposes the psuedo-science mentality it incorporates without justification..

Game Over

Welcome to the Debating Game

Written by TDOM

Over at AVfM, Paul Elam is hosting a debate on game and the MRM between himself and someone named Frost. Paul is critical of the use of game and game theory while Frost is defending it as a sort of science of how to get laid (he called it a “study”).
Paul’s position is that game has no bearing on the men’s movement. While some gamers are sympathetic to men’s rights and other issues or may be opposed to feminism, game itself is meaningless and those who extol its virtues are mostly in it for the money (selling books, DVDs, etc.). It is all about getting laid and nothing more. According to Paul, game is all about throwing one’s values and self-respect out the window in order to pass a shit test. Frost claims it is a legitimate endeavor and defines it as: “Game is the study of how women respond to men’s behaviour (sic)” and claims it will increase a man’s chances for success with women.
I’m not entirely certain as to why it is important to debate this issue. Game may very well be a waste of time, money, and energy. Its proponents may be con artists. Its practitioners may be superficial scumbags with little respect for women. So what? There are plenty of snake oil salesmen(women) out there and as David Hannum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”[1]
One the other hand, maybe it works. Again, so what? Lots of people use lots of techniques to get what they want. Car salesmen are taught a variety of manipulative techniques to sell cars to people who may not really want one or need one. Does that make them bad people? No, it makes them salesmen. So if a man wraps himself up in a thinly veiled technique to manipulate a woman into having sex, does that make him any worse than the woman who dons wig or colors her hair and applies expensive cosmetics to attract a man? I suppose that may depend on who is asked, but both are presenting themselves as something they aren’t in order to get something they want.
While Paul has only hinted at it, the best I can figure is that he is attempting to save gamers from themselves. He hasn’t succinctly stated it, but I can see the following problems with game. Once women realize they’ve been gamed, they may feel used and cheated. That opens the door for false allegations that could devastate their lives. Further, gamers appear to suffer from a lack of self-confidence, especially with women. This lack of confidence leaves them open to being exploited by unscrupulous con artists willing to take their money for the promise of increased access to sex. Thirdly, PUAs and gamers are typically viewed as sexual predators. They aren’t necessarily rapists or even doing anything wrong, but the practice of an art of luring women into bed may be seen by others as sleazy behavior.
Basically, its bad PR for men in general and in that respect it may be contraindicated as part of the MRM. Finally, it only confirms the feminist viewpoint that men are only after one thing. PUAs, they would say, demean and degrade women by treating them as sex objects whose sole purpose is to satisfy their desires.
From the gamer perspective, I suppose that Frost and others would believe that whatever they are paying for the services of their teachers, it is money well spent if it improves success rates. If they get laid often enough, it will increase their self-esteem and therefore game might be considered a form of therapy. The women they find are typically in singles bars, making themselves available. They want it, so what’s the problem. That PUAs might be seen as sleazy misogynists never enters their mind. These women want to get laid as badly as the PUAs do. No misogyny involved. In many respects, they have a point.
The flaw isn’t that the techniques may appear bizarre, but that they aren’t backed up by any sort of valid evidence. 
There are lots of reasons women go to bars and consume alcohol, but meeting men is probably at the top of the list. Just as advocates of game can make considerable amounts of money selling game to vulnerable men, there are tons of writers and publications dedicated to taking money from vulnerable women by purporting to teach them how to trap a man. Where better to practice either art than a place where single men go to find single women, especially one that provides legal drugs that decrease inhibitions and provide a false sense of confidence. As such, there’s no real reason for a PUA to feel a sense of shame or guilt any more than there is for a woman to feel the same about her use of deception to trap a man. The reality is that both are there for the same thing.But before we can decide which view is correct, we must define game. What is it? Frost stated that “Game is the study of how women respond to men’s behaviour (sic).” But this same statement could be used to define feminism; which is the ideology that describes women’s response to male oppression (or so they claim). Are they the same thing? Not hardly. So Frost’s definition is insufficient. However, he makes another statement a bit later that may enhance the definition, “The bottom line is that Game is a tool men can use to increase their success with women. No more, no less.” In other words, game could be defined as the study of how women respond to men’s behavior, and how men can use that knowledge to gain access to sex with women. I use the word sex instead of success because he also states “If a man chooses to eschew sex for life, I admit he will have no use for Game.” Thus, Frost equates success with sex and sex is far more specific.
Frost takes exception to the belief that:
[game] must include shiny clothes, effeminate mannerisms, hoop-jumping, and whatever other behaviours (sic) that they would like to associate with we ‘Gamers’.
I don’t blame him. While these things are hyped by some gamers, there is more to game than that. To think otherwise is to believe in a caricature. What constitutes real game is found in the next statement:
We’re just a community of men, sharing what we know about women and relationships.
which is a very telling statement.
Frost stated that game is a “study.” This implies some sort of methodological approach. But what kind of methodology? A bunch of men sharing what they know is definitely not science. It is personal experience; anecdotal evidence. Any scientist will tell you that anecdotal evidence is simply not evidence. It might have some value in helping to formulate a hypothesis, but it is insufficient to test that hypothesis.
For example, if I were to go out and buy a new pair of shoes prior to jumping off a ledge, I might conclude that I survived because the shoes absorbed the impact and that they were the reason I lived. I might then go out and tell everyone I know about my experience and that wearing these shoes will increase their chances of survival if they intend to jump off a ledge. But I might not have considered that the ledge I jumped from was three feet off the ground and not from a five story building.
Likewise, a gamer may tell all his buddies about how he negged some chick at the local bar who later went home with him. But he may neglect to consider that she had a thing for tall, skinny guys with blond hair and blue eyes and that he just happened to fit that description while all the other guys in the bar that she rejected did not. It may have been the blond hair and blue eyes that attracted the woman, not the neg, just as it was likely the height of the ledge that allowed me to survive, not the new shoes. A more scientific approach might be more beneficial in determining what works and what doesn’t.
Frost stated that one objection to game may be that the “specific teachings are flawed.” Frost may have been correct, but he was correct for the wrong reasons. The flaw isn’t that the techniques may appear bizarre, but that they aren’t backed up by any sort of valid evidence. An objection to a comment I made on the debate was that “What works for someone won’t work for you…” game must be custom-fit to the person using it. While this may be sound advice, what does it say about game? Game is supposed to increase success with women, but if the techniques are prone to failure, does it actually increase success?

Rest of the article here..