It didn’t take very long for the personal attacks on Ayla and Arianna Brown(daughters of the newly elected Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts) to start.
The first one, from The Huffington Post, is pretty much what you’d expect from the Left–sour grapes. I mean, come on–you expect people to worked up over a father appearing in a photo with his daughters because his daughters are wearing bikinis? Have we suddenly been transported back in time to Victorian England?
This is supposed to be creepy?
Using the same standard as the Huffington Post–are we supposed to assume that this is creepy too?
Is this supposed to be creepy?
The second example comes from the feminists website Double X, where Lauren Bans call Ayla the “Tracy Flick of Republican Daughters” (yes–I had to look up Tracy Flick as well). Apparently Ms. Bans is a bit upset at the lengthy list of Ayla’s accomplishments and endeavors. As you can see from the comments to Ms. Bans’ article, attacking Ayla to get to her father did fly to well, and most can see it for what it is: envy. But why the envy?
It isn’t because Ms. Bans is unattractive:
…or that she’s unaccomplished in her own right. It’s not like writing is easy, and being published as much as Ms. Bans has is quite the laudable accomplishment. So, what then explains the “mean girl” routine towards Ayla? I mean, let’s be honest here–Ayla, no matter what her father’s political positions, probably comes down on most issues on the same side of the fence as Ms. Bans. So, why the the lack of “sisterly love”?
Ask yourself this question: who is the alpha male more likely to pursue–the pretty, accomplished intellectual, or the pretty, accomplished actress/singer? Which one stands out the stronger in the sexual marketplace?
Yeah, I came to that conclusion, too. Ayla comes off as the more feminine of the two–despite Ayla being a collegiate athlete (in some ways, because of it). That Ayla’s father is a political enemy doesn’t help much either.
Well, it does help Ms. Bans justify the envy that she feels–and it is envy that she feels. That article reeks of the green monster–and it is proof positive that, for all their talk of “womyn power” or sisterhood, feminists will toss a woman under the bus in a heartbeat if that woman poses a threat to her social standing.
And that’s why Game is so important. Remember what Snark noted:
There is a certain type of woman who likes to ascribe men and women to ‘leagues’, and believes that men should not try to rise out of their ‘league’ and associate with women in higher ‘leagues’. Much like white supremacists, who believe that different races of people shouldn’t associate with each other.
This is what her worldview is based around: the stratification of people into different levels of social and sexual hierarchy.
Game shits all over that, and allows men to climb up, down and all over the social and sexual hierarchy, with the consent and blessings of the women whom they attract, who would otherwise have been out of their ‘league’.
Game destabilizes the hierarchy–it lets men escape the caste that the gynarchy would impose on them, and forces women to compete for men. Because alpha men (hell, men in time it’ll be men in general) are a limited commodity–and as any economist can tell you, when demand is high and supply is low, what people will be willing to pay to get what they want will go up. That’s why women like Lady Raine and Denise Romano freak at the idea of Game going mainstream, and that’s why their claws have come out (and believe me, son–you’ll see a lot more before it’s all over). Not that they’ll get anywhere, but they’ll try their damnest to slam that barn door shut.
And they can’t succeed; the djinn is out of the bottle. Game is out there, and it only goes further and further as time goes on.
Game is proof that men don’t have to walk away–that they don’t have to give up everything that they and those before them fought and sacrificed for to produce civilization. We don’t have to concede the fight.
And that’s something worth living for.