Wednesday, June 10, 2009

About the Amateur Strategist

Such a self-doubting name, isn't it? Not necessarily so. You see, the word "Amateur", though used often in derogatory fashion, actually means "for the love of doing it" roughly. A strategist is one who thinks far ahead, and treats every action as a chain into the future, arranging those chains in such a way as to effect eachother or not, to achieve objectives that are impossible to pull of with "touching up at every seam".

I'm not necessarily saying I'm a true strategist, but one who subscribes to the disciplene of always putting logic and future-thought to the highest priority whenever an action is considered, or even just to see where something is going.

Why MRA/MGTOW? Because I believe the pendulum has gone out of shift way too far and things are in desperate need to change before totalitarianism or collapse ensue. I believe that feminism (the followers, not the leaders) thought they were getting equality, but now have kept their original rights and surpluses while removing the any responsibilities, while picking up new freedoms and positives without the counteracting negative tradeoff. What this does is put all the responsibilities on Men, and all the freedoms with Women, Men have no rights, and Women have no responsibilites, both are cause for much MUCH trouble.

When you give someone, the average person, the choice of improving their own life at the cost of someone elses, chances are they will do it. This isn't necessarily you in particular, or the incredibly pious people we know, but the average person. And if even only half choose to do so, we end up with disbalance, with haves and have-nots, not by choice, but forced onto people for no reason and order no longer rules.

I believe that feminism, and parts of traditionalism, allowed Women to ignore the original responsibilities while encroaching freely into the workplace without having to prove worth (affirmative action), so basically, Men are left with no power, and their original area, the workplace, is not disadvantaged to them point for point with Women. (I.E. a Man and Woman of equal stature, the Woman will have a better time negotiating a better position, Men only rise above this because they work even harder)

I believe the laws are so against your average Man now, that it's wisest to not be in a relationship with a Woman, due to government now somehow "owning" your relationship and making sure your soon to be ex-wife gets "her fair share", which is way more than half via alimony and child support. I believe the laws are now against Men seeing their own children or disciplining them in proper fashion and are now actually afraid of Men, thus they have to be controlled at every leypoint, and there's enough muscle in the government from old-way chivalrous judges who can't understand that things are different now, to the enforcers; police just following orders.

I will not marry, but I'm not sure if it's mostly that Women are like hand-grenades , in that the payoff is several Miles short of break-even with the most likely demise of my freedom, finance, and contentment, or if I believe I was not one to marry, perhaps a biological/Divine design that some Men would be free to produce and support society, as well as guide it. (At least until recently, more Males have been born than Females)

I've been asked why my picture is of a "Go" Board. Go is a game of strategy, so is Chess you say? I agree, I like Chess as well, but it always felt more like tactics than strategy, as you always are more keen on crushing your opponent than controlling the board, maybe I played Chess wrong, but Go makes me feel like I'm naturally planning ahead, 3 or so steps in advance (I'm not great) for every move I'd consider. Both games are great and easy to learn, but very VERY hard to master, perhaps I'll talk more of Go in later posts, but my priority is MRA.

Thanks for greeting me, all of you, it is nice to be in good company.


  1. "What this does is put all the responsibilities on Men, and all the freedoms with Women, Men have no rights, and Women have no responsibilites, both are cause for much MUCH trouble."

    Hi AS --

    Nice new blog!

    I think on this it's more about power. Due to the unfair child custody system, for example, women do actually take on most of the child care responsibilities by default, but as a result of that they have consolidated power. The new arrangement has not relieved women of their responsibilities towards children, but has redoubled their power over children, at considerable financial benefit for women.

    The issue is that women's obligations to men no longer exist at all. That's where the disparity lies. Beyond the handful of cases where wealthy professional women end up paying alimony to ex-husbands (less than 10% of the cases), or child support (less than 15% of the cases), most of the time it's women who have no responsibilities to men either during or after marriage. That's where things have gotten lopsided --> women still have primary responsibilities over children (which they endlessly whine about while nevertheless supporting the system that works this way because it gives them almost totalitarian power over children).

    So as I see it it's a combination of (1) the deletion of any female obligations to men full stop and (2) the radical consolidation of female power around children to the exclusion of men.

    This was done quite deliberately because the idea was to destroy the nuclear family, and the way to do that was to attack the weakest link: the father/husband. Take away all of the rights of men either as husbands or fathers pretty much does the trick. Keeping the financial obligations of men towards ex-wives and children is the icing on the cake. The cake itself was about disempowering men and empowering women -- in other words, a simple power grab.

  2. As part of your loving it, I recommend to you the book "thinking Strategically"

    A great explanation of how to think about things and how to interact with other people to get what you want. Really ties together economics, psychology and decision-making.

  3. Thank you, Novaseeker, that is precisely correct, not that I'm an authority to verify that, but it's what I've seen all around. My mistake was trying to consolidate a week's worth of information into an hour of writing. Things got oversimplified, and some specifics may have not been included, in short it look(ed)s sloppy. Thank you for the correction, and I humbly ask that you continue such vigilence and action in the future.

    Roci: Thank you very much, I believe it's always a good idea to better oneself, and I like sources on this, I shall look into this book.

    -Amateur Strategist

  4. @AS:

    I am glad to see you off to such a promising start! :)

    And if I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: I am glad to see another person in the "activated sector" who appreciates the importance of strategy, and strategic thinking, and the panoptical mountain-top view!

    You think very much the way I do. And I shall look forward to riffing ideas back and forth, as your blog gets rolling!

    Ahhh.. yes! Welcome to the the crew! I'll give you a write-up post in the near future. . .