I’m genuinely curious.
The debates continue to rage on at Dalrock’s, Zippy’s one and two, Cane’s, Anarchopapist’s and others even though I believe I’ve accurately described the difference between the two viewpoints.
For years the pro-game Christian manosphere proponents have stated something similar to:
Well, if you’re anti-game (or a natural alpha) why aren’t you teaching these Christian men about how to attract women in a godly manner?
However, professed anti-game Christian manosphere bloggers such as Chad, Donalgraeme, and I (and FN?) have started to post on developing Christian masculinity, and we are summarily dismissed. And I would suspect it is because we profess that our goal is to develop a heart for God first as we grow into masculine men of God, and that attracting woman because of this masculinity is only a side effect.
As noted by Keoni, you could say that many of my posts “comparing” game to godly masculinity may be construed as a toolbox if you’re pro-game (which would satisfy their requirements) even though I’m “anti-game.” Keoni accurately concludes that despite whatever differences we think about “game” that the pro-game Christian manosphere proponents should be in favor of those seeking to develop this “alternative”.
But it is clear that they are not. Both Christian men and women in the Christian manosphere have railed against us.
So which is it?
Do they even want an alternative?
Why do they continue push back on something that they wanted as an alternative?
Isn’t this is a clear and obvious example of the idolization of game?
