NOTE: At a reader’s request, Gentleman Eric wrote this article. He informs us of some fallout of Feminism made radioactive by men set on revenge.
Others will say this better, but thank you, Eric.
Roosters, Gamecocks, and Capons
‘He rules the roost, she rules the rooster’. So it has been throughout history. Radical Feminism, encouraged by the Political Left, imposed a new paradigm which excluded the rooster. But the male gender did not disappear; however types of males who were once on the fringes rose to prominence.
Now a rooster follows the male nature; defending and providing for his roost, while performing other necessary work. But reactions to Feminism gave us the Manosphere which produces the Gamecock, a rooster who is bred for fighting and competition; and the Capon, a neutered rooster whose only purpose is to be eaten. The Manosphere—which once stood for the rights of men and the dignity of women—has fallen under the misogynist trends of these two types. The Gamecock is represented by the Game movement; the Capon from the so-called Men’s Human Rights Movement; both of which deny male/female compatibility, and both of which accept the terms laid down by the feminists as cultural norms. There is considerable homoeroticism latent in both movements, especially among the MHRM.
Both generally hold a form of gender supremacy, but it is the Game Philosophy which has the most pernicious effects on gender relations (the MHRM is essentially the mirror image of male feminism, which produces Capons as well, though of a different sort).
Not only does Game teach men how to disqualify themselves as suitable husbands/fathers, the male behavior it promotes reinforces the same negative stereotypes of men promoted by the Feminists. Why it is also dangerous is because, like feminism, it employs sexuality as a weapon.
Thus, the Gamecock, true to his namesake, treats gender relations as a war—not the healthy spirit of conquest which is part of the male nature—but indiscriminate conquest for its own sake. The Game blogs are replete with ‘relationship advice’ that sounds like psychological warfare. And to underscore the tendency, they despise all men outside of their movement as inferiors. But stripped of their neologisms, pseudo-scientific rhetoric, and general pompousness, one sees a common thread running through all their writings: a genuine hatred for women in general. This, in spite of their obsession with sex, is deeply apparent. By extension, of course, the Gamecocks feel nothing but utter contempt for traditional masculinity. In fact, being referred to as a white knight or being accused of behaving with chivalry is considered an insult among their ranks—they laugh at men who respect or value women, because (to their minds), the female nature is inherently corrupt.
By inherently corrupt, the Gamecocks do not mean the corrupted attitudes of modern women miseducated and disinformed by Feminist culture—what they mean, and explicitly state, is that to be born female is equivalent to being born with a corrupted nature. By their logic, it follows that men are completely justified in controlling that nature, either through force and fear because the corrupted feminine nature will not respond to goodness.
CSW [chaste single women] can avoid entanglements with the Gamecock by being, well CSW. The Gamecock’s only relationship goals are sex and control and he has no power over women who value themselves and their sexuality. Foiled in his attempts at manipulation, the Gamecock falls away and focuses his efforts on easier targets. Since he has no capacity to sustain a relationship, he typically has no desire to continue pursuit of anyone who doesn’t feed his narcissism.
The one type of Gamecock who does pose a danger to women is the one who wraps Game in a cloak of Christianity. The Churchian Gamer—and there are many of them—pose a threat because Christian women may be duped by the pretended Biblical sanction to the Gamecock message. Perverting such concepts as female submission, women as the weaker vessel, the husband as head of the household, &c the Churchian Gamecocks coax otherwise well-meaning women into the Game stratagems.
I use the term ‘Churchian’ because it must be understood that the religion of these men and their camarilla of disciples is Game and not Christianity. It actually resembles, in its teachings, contortions of Scripture most closely resembling the Gnostics. A good way for Christian women to avoid the Churchian Gamecock is to note the absence of a central Christian tenet: any discussion of Love. One can literally search in vain on Churchian Game blogs to find this word even mentioned. If a man talks endlessly about women’s Christian duties of things like submission and obedience, without mentioning either love or reciprocal male obligations, chances are he’s been influenced by Churchian Game.
By all means, stay CSW, if you deserve a rooster instead of a Gamecock or a Capon!
Separately, Eric adds some history to it.
“I actually coined the ‘Gamecock’ term back in my Manosphere days, and opponents of Game still use. It used to be that the Manosphere had an element of bloggers who were trying to fix the relations between men and women. There still are a few, but they are a minority.
“I thought the ‘Capon’ term fit for male feminists and their counterparts in the MHRM. The MHRM used to be A Voice For Men but they’ve largely veered into accepting feminism as the norm, but want feminist social/legal standards to equate to men: ‘Equal Injustice for All’ as their opponents aptly describe their position. It’s essentially male feminism that supposedly wants men to be equal feminists, unlike the traditional male feminists.
“Capons are more common in Europe, but it is a neutered rooster (it’s meat is considered a delicacy, they taste somewhat like pheasant LOL). So I thought it was an apt description of these types, since they behave like eunuchs, the same way that Gamers behave like gamecocks.”