More asymmetry: 'Game', or why male looks *must* matter to feminists

The notion of 'game', that certain techniques allow men to get women* they couldn't otherwise, is well-known to be off-putting to feminists. Aside from the fact that sleazy men in bars who rate women on a scale of 1 to 10 are feminism's most natural enemies, it's not necessarily obvious why feminists would object to what ultimately amounts to the encouragement of casual sex. If both parties are willing to play out some convoluted seduction scenario, what's the problem?

Here's what: 'Game' rests on the assumption that women do not, like men, immediately rule out the vast majority of potential partners on the basis of looks, regardless of how witty these men are in their approach, and only consider such factors as intelligence, kindness, and sense of humor among the men they would, on the basis of looks, consider having a romantic relationship with. (I've pointed this out before, but to preempt comments along the lines of how tough it is for men who don't look like Abercrombie models: for looks to matter does not mean that all women consider as possibilities men with one particular look. I don't use the word 'type' to denote personal preference, because these restrictions do not always manifest themselves as 'must be redheaded and between 5'10" and 6'-style parameters.)

Since women do, like men, scan parties and cafés involuntarily for the people they find most attractive, 'game' is about telling women not to believe themselves worthy of taking this most basic standard into account. It's about men convincing women that there's a man shortage, such that a good-looking, intelligent woman must settle, no, be grateful for, at best, an unattractive but clever man, as a one-night stand or a husband. (He bathes, doesn't steal your money, and doesn't beat you? How lucky you must be!)

And it works, so long as many women refuse to demand that whatever effort they make with their own looks, men do the equivalent. Or, when it comes to 'natural' beauty, that even women who aren't spending hours and thousands on their looks should understand that looks are indeed part of what they have to offer, and that by dating a man far worse-looking (by her standards), they are setting themselves up to wonder what he has that makes up for the disparity. In cases where there isn't a clear answer (money or power), the woman is left thinking she's not as smart or interesting or otherwise impressive as her guy, and it's in the man's interest to encourage this line of thought.

One would think the feminist objection to 'game' would be that it objectifies women. Instead, it should be that it refuses the possibility of women objectifying men.

*Clearly, 'get women' means different things in different contexts. If the point is to figure out what will get someone beer-goggled and desperate to come home with you, there may well be techniques, although they say that standing next to the person and saying hello will do the trick. The sober, the merely tipsy, and those interested in relationships lasting more than one evening, are another matter.