This post is also available in: English
Nick S explains the psychology of anti-gamers:
In my experience of MRA circles, there seem to be two types who dislike Game. There are the social conservative, often religious, types who are still to some extent emotionally attached to the idea of women being less carnal and more moral, and who dislike more than anything the fact that Gamers/PUAs are holding up the dirty linen of women’s less than admirable sexual nature for all to see. These are closely related to father’s rights supporters. They tend to have a beta-first mentality that men who do the right thing and contribute to society are more deserving of being given a break ahead of the players and alphas.
Then there are the nerdy beta types who are so socially inept that they tend not to get laid much, who resent the alpha males who get a lot of pussy, and would prefer to pretend that their lack of success in the sexual marketplace is part of some principled decision to not compromise their values and integrity for the sake of getting some. Feelings of moral superiority are too often the psychological refuge of the failure.
I am not 100% pro-Game. I am generally pro-Game, but with some reservations on a few things. I am not opposed to have a critical discussion of Game. But many of those who oppose Game are so irrationally contrary and hostile to the whole thing that it is obvious they have their noses out of joint about something and are incapable of being even remotely objective.
This meshes with my impression as well. The socon types usually have good intentions, but road, hell, and all that. Many of them resent the free spirited players who get to have all the fun while they grind away in indentured betatude. Others are trapped in an anachronistic mind warp and prefer the comforting lies they were told about women’s Mother Mary purity. Not all socons are anti-game. One would think that those of them with sons might be more amenable to game, having the opportunity to impart to them the wisdom of the ancients and give their sons the gift of true, lifelong happiness. Then there are the former socons who have either suffered, or witnessed a friend suffer, a divorce raping at the hands of a woman come into the game fold and see the light.
The second group — the sperg herd — occupy male ranks from beta all the way down to the untouchable dregs. As Nick S said, some of them feign principled objection to game to ameliorate the pain they feel from being losers in the mating market who can’t say “hi” to a woman without loading their footy pajamas. But some spergs hate game because they imagine the player as iconic representation of the bullies who used to (still do?) hang them from locker hooks by their underwear. To them, it’s better for their egos to rationalize game as useless and manipulative (they’ll never see the contradiction in that), rather than own up to their failure and try to improve. Paging tokyojesusthimbledick.
There is a third group who have reservations about game — call them human nature realists — who have a pretty good grasp of social dynamics, history and the lessons of fallen man and woman, but may not be particularly religious or family-oriented themselves. These types are few in number but strengthened by a worldview that is as close as one can get to reality given innumerable informational input variables and active propaganda campaigns waged against them. They generally accept the effectiveness of game, but they worry that widespread adoption will be antagonistic to civilizational health. Their concern is for the society at the expense of the individual.
The only group to engage seriously is the third group. The first two groups are lost to reasonable discussion. Socons ride like white knights on gimp hobbyhorses, and SMV rejects troll away their powerlessness. At their best, they serve as amusing cat toys.