Feminism doesn’t have many moves left on the board. Having achieved gender equity long ago, the ultimate goal is the full realization of female supremacy in society. The strategy has not been wholly ineffective. Half our population is now tainted with the original sin of maleness. Men are presumed guilty of inappropriate aggression and nefarious motives in all corners of society, including education, professional life, social interactions with women, and popular culture. We judge healthy male instincts such as competition and desire as moral failings.
Meanwhile, the championing of female priorities in all areas of life has led to the toxic Cosmopolitan cocktail of twin evils: narcissism and hedonism. The consequences of this strategy may be felt throughout society, and are well documented. The state of our Union, and unions (marital, not labor) is cause for concern. From my vantage point, which gazes at society through the lens of relationships, the legacy of feminism is clear:
Source: Le Love
However, there is good news on the horizon. Thanks to Andrew of Rules Revisited for sharing this Google Trends graph with me. It shows the average worldwide traffic for the search term feminism over the last eight years:
The death throes of feminism will be an ugly thing to observe. The patient will, from time to time, jerk bolt upright with screeching and gnashing of teeth. Some will attempt to resuscitate her again and again, delaying the inevitable.
With the demise of feminism comes great opportunity. We can usher in a new era of true gender equity, where each sex is honored and respected for its unique talents and strengths. A society that chooses to celebrate the differences between the sexes rather than invalidate them.
Women have been getting steadily unhappier since 1970. Males are in crisis. Supremacist feminism has been an unmitigated disaster. Resist it. Work for real gender equity in your relationships and your environment. Let’s relegate female supremacy to the ash heap of history, where it belongs.
{ 600 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 5 »
@purplesneakers
That’s a really interesting question. For me, gender equity in my marriage means that we both inhabit the roles that feel natural. Although I am strong and independent, my husband takes a leadership role. There are times when I disagree and fight back, but he usually has the final say on important matters. That may vary – I’ve usually had more input where the children are concerned, for example. When it comes to finances, he always is the ultimate decision maker.
I think Tuna just expected us to accept politics being an unfriendly environment for women as fact.
It might be true, I can’t say I’d be totally surprised, but that doesn’t really account for the huge difference in representation.
@Jack
You know, I always wonder how these radfems relate to their male relatives. I can’t imagine. But your goal is a noble one. I agree with the earlier commenter who said that men need to redefine masculinity for the post-feminist era. It’s the natural response to the male crisis – I predict a whole industry springing up around it. In fact, the blog The Art of Manliness has really struck a chord with its nostalgic view of masculinity. Men are hungry for that.
@ Purplesneakers
“I think pretty much everyone would agree that women are the more nurturing sex, right?”
I’d have put them on that pedestal five years ago, sure. But as I’ve hit my mid-twenties, I’ve known a lot more single mothers; I’ve seen how girls treat the guys they see as unworthy. Now I’m not so sure.
As for the last paragraph, about getting educated enough to work, and the choice to work or stay home, your reasoning is sound. The problem is choice – choice for women, not for men. I don’t begrudge any woman hedging her bets and preparing for every possible contingency. I would do the same (though with women, they have to be careful they don’t narrow the pool of available men they consider “worthy” beyond their ability to actually snag one). Where you see justified resentment from men is that we don’t have that choice. You have the luxury of facing social approval either for working, or not. Househubbies don’t get that. Moreover, part of what is cheapening college degrees is how many women are getting them and not using them; that’s also making it harder for men who will be more likely to use them to obtain them. Colleges are largely state-subsidized, so that choice is, on a macro level, hurting society.
To reiterate, I don’t begrudge you taking the rational course. Get while the gettin’s good. And it is frankly a bit hypocritical of me to resent that you have the choice and men don’t on one hand, then say the choice hurts society on the other – I try to focus more on the no-win situation it represents, not on how any individual uses it.
Fun game to play: tell any woman alive, friend or stranger, that your boyfriend or husband is in charge. Watch her reaction. You get a point for every shade of red or blue she turns.
@ Rum
Exactly right. Not sure who first wrote it, but women hate hate hate betas on a visceral level, even if they understand their usefulness on a rational (or even emotional) level. Feminism is a giant shit test.
@ Jackie
Other than a giant shit test? Feminism is poorly-defined by design. That’s why you can criticize feminists for saying something and, no matter how vile it is, the nearest feminist will declare, “That’s not real feminism,” and consider the discussion settled. Never mind that no feminist has ever publicly condemned whoever you speak of for their misandry or lies. The few they do are token witch-burnings, mostly of male or conservative feminists.
If I had to define it, I would say it is the ultimate perfection of the art of nagging. Men and women have flaws endemic to their natures, but one of the foremost flaws in female nature is this: they love to complain more than they love solving problems. One of the flaws endemic to male nature is this: they cannot understand that facet of female nature without guidance, so they will obstinately continue to solve women’s problems despite the continued complaining.
Civilization harnesses this difference to solve problems. Cavewoman complains that she is cold – man masters fire. Now cavewoman complains that the cave is dusty. Man domesticates sheep and invents weaving. Cavewoman is hungry and tired of meat. Man invents agriculture.
Feminism harnesses this energy the same way, only when they run out of real problems, they use made-up ones instead – or, better yet, create their own. Raise a generation of betas and omegas, then complain there are no good men left; have three kids by two different alpha thugs, then complain that it’s hard to be a single mom; major in theater, then complain that men make more money. The biggest difference being that when man masters fire, man benefits as much as woman. When man forces other men to pay taxes to support thugspawn, man loses, children lose, civilization scoots a tiny bit closer to collapse, and woman replaces long-term happiness with short-term tingles.
Feminism also kills the goose that lays the golden egg. I have long since learned that since women complain whether you solve their problems or not, the best solution is to smile and nod at the comforting sound of a familiar complaint, then go about my day normally. I’m no alpha, but I’d make a decent beta provider – and no feminist is ever going to benefit from that beyond the extent of my tax dollars.
@OTC
That is highly admirable, and so unusual in our consumerist culture. You and Mrs. C have my respect for living with that kind of discipline. My husband and I travel less, eat out less, go to fewer ticketed events, etc. than most of our friends. Honestly, I just don’t feel the need. I’d rather sit around a fire at home with dear friends or family than go see some expensive show. But that’s partly a function of age, I think.
I think there are a lot of murky, difficult and unanswered questions about what the post-feminist culture/society may look like, that the enlightened folk here might find both practical and acceptable; I’ll elaborate on this problem further when I get a longer chance.
First, though, I’d like to state personally that I will consider the ravages of feminism’s last 30 years to be reversed when it is _not_ taught, as part of polite society, that men are basically bad people, maleness a single-sided original sin. In the interests of both environmental recycling and minor self-promotion, it’s worth linking to this earlier comment of mine, which was somewhat OT then but is right on topic here:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/12/19/hookinguprealities/hookup-culture-rightly-laid-at-feminisms-feet/#comment-83685
Money quotes: Thus, the betapocalypse: several generations, now, of men being raised to internalize the idea that we are essentially bad, and so their first task becomes to apologize for their maleness and anything connected with it.
since some time around 1980 in the US poisonous feminism, through its hold on respectable, polite public discourse, became the toxic mother to at least two generations of men
This is a point very much worth keeping at the front of your mind, as an example of very real, but reversible, damage wrought by latter-day feminism. Of course, I’m hardly original with this idea; another recent example was this comment by the Badger in his den:
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/haley-on-titanic-and-alpha-and-beta/#comment-4996
Quote: “And (this is an absolutely critical point) I don’t think people can underestimate or grok the degree to which an entire generation of men has been brainwashed from youth to be utterly un-masculine.”
Strangest of all, perhaps, is this congruence from an unlikely source, just today:
Sub-quote: “while many misogynistic MRAs hurt (a truly extraordinary number of MRAs had abusive second-wave feminist mothers),”
which appeared on an MRA-bashing thread here
http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/memo-to-the-mens-rights-movement/#comment-26905
The main sense is otherwise, but I thought this little clause still deserves an honorable mention all on its own.
Feminism is about maximizing female autonomy. This blog is about relationships. I don’t believe SW would challenge the basic aspects of female autonomy won by feminists. Women can divorce, choose to give birth or not, even choose not to be a mother after birth, all without the input of a man. She can also seek government support in any of these decisions via Child Support, alimony (to the extent it still exists), and AFDC and a myriad other government programs or institutions. At the same time many women were fighting for such reproductive autonomy, several pioneering men were fighting for the right to separate sex from reproduction . Witness the rise of porn, “Playboy,” “Hustler,” etc. I gained a new respect for these men after watching “The U.S. v. Larry Flint.” But these competing visions of autonomy posed a problem. After all, sex without commitment is a kind of autonomy, but if most men seek this kind of autonomy, then where is female choice? If men only want sex, then does a woman who wants a relationship have a choice? Over thousands of years, human culture has developed pair-bond systems that solved this problem. In short, both men and women agreed to limit autonomy. The man agrees to invest in a relationship in exchange for sexual access. On the other hand, women incent male investment by limiting autonomy. Feminism is ultimately irrelevant, it is but the latest marital boom-bust cycle in human history. The Romans went through it. Until the exchange is reset at a level acceptable to both men and women, then the problem of feminism has not been solved. I see no desire among most women to reset the exchange, thus there is no solution in the foreseeable future. Patriarchy, which not only represented oppression, but a system of reciprocal obligations, must return. But not in my lifetime.
@Ofthecut
That could be your contribution to gender issues in a blog. I was also raised very frugally because my mother wanted four kids but in this culture is hard to make people understand that. So it would be good if we could have more info on how to reframe our expenses so children wouldn’t cost as much as a lamborghini according to some calculations. Just a suggestion as usual YMMV.
@ Odds (# 154)
Hi Odds,
Thanks so much for your well-written response to my question about feminism.
I do appreciate a good turn of phrase, and “the ultimate perfection of the art of nagging” is one for sure.
You sound like an incredibly intelligent and well-spoken man. I hope you find a really great girl who appreciates you. (And with no nagging!
)
Jackie
@Esau
Thank you for driving that point home. I fear that I’m guilty of some of that with my own son, though I’ve tried to make up for lost time since taking the red pill myself.
Feminism is truly insidious in its having achieved the sense that it is morally right, and that dissenters are people of poor character. For those of us who grew up in its clutches, there were changes to be happy about (as a woman), but also the sense that the world was changing in some ways that didn’t feel right. Dinner table conversations became contentious, couples started swapping partners, and the divorce rate skyrocketed. It was uncharted territory, and historians will sort it out in the decades to come.
By the way, my father was delighted that the Women’s Movement would make it possible for me to “set the world on its ear.” (Didn’t happen, sorry Dad!) No one understood then what all the unintended consequences would be. I daresay some of those 60s era feminists would be rather horrified at the state of feminism today. The inmates took over the asylum a long time ago.
Obligatory Solomon II classic on alpha males co-opting feminism to push down beta males. Watch him work the whiteknighting to his advantage!
http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/proverb-3-the-bright-side-of-feminism/
“That is highly admirable, and so unusual in our consumerist culture. You and Mrs. C have my respect for living with that kind of discipline. My husband and I travel less, eat out less, go to fewer ticketed events, etc. than most of our friends. Honestly, I just don’t feel the need. I’d rather sit around a fire at home with dear friends or family than go see some expensive show. But that’s partly a function of age, I think.”
Another reason to have an active sex life – you get your couple’s entertainment for free!
Me, I just want to know why it’s got a near bi-nomial distribution by year, replicated over several years, and essentially showing many of the same features. A visit to the site cited did not help here either. But ‘crash & burn’ this a’int, it’s a settling into a slow ‘stasis’ of near irrelevance perhaps, but it’s pretty un-dramtic overall. Do the same for ‘intellectual’ or ‘reading’ or ‘classics’ or perhaps even ‘reading Latin Classics for intellectual growth’. That died about the turn of the century. No, the Last one! Cheers, ‘VJ’
“I agree with the earlier commenter who said that men need to redefine masculinity for the post-feminist era. It’s the natural response to the male crisis – I predict a whole industry springing up around it. In fact, the blog The Art of Manliness has really struck a chord with its nostalgic view of masculinity. Men are hungry for that.”
The first thing men need to do is stop caring so much what women think about their masculinity, and stop letting women define masculinity with all of this man-up nonsense. Masculinity has to be felt intrinsically and between men, not simply as a sequela of female approval of a man’s way of being.
Let’s just say that sigmas already have a huge head start in this, because we aren’t really caught up in other people’s judgments, and are going to clean up in the coming generation.
Odds,
“I have long since learned that since women complain whether you solve their problems or not, the best solution is to smile and nod at the comforting sound of a familiar complaint, then go about my day normally.”
Indeed – the no-win situation means you can do whatever you want!
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/01/winning-no-win-game.html
@ Susan Walsh (#160)
Hey Susan!
Have you ever heard of the author Taylor Caldwell? I ask because she predicted these same results nearly 50 years ago in her writing. My dad and I were discussing her memoir _On Growing Up Tough_ where she trashes feminism with pungent British wit. (The chapter is “On Women’s Lib” I believe.)
The interesting thing is, this book was written in the 1970s, before any of the long-reaching changes had unfurled. (That would be right in the middle of the ERA Amendment, I think? Please correct me if I’m wrong.) She predicted the rise in promiscuity, the difficulty women would have in getting married and how a steady stream of value-less sex would affect the men.
In her view, feminism wanted women to become pseudo-men (I think that was her phrase) and they shouldn’t complain when men became “the soft creatures of the house” in response. She said “women’s lib” would only bring women more work, would enact a kind of cultural Marxism, and the subsequent degradation of the home. She also extolled an appreciation of masculinity (“Pioneering in Kentucky”) in another chapter.
She was a prolific fiction writer with an incredible life story. Her family emigrated to America, at 15 her dad pulled her out of school to put her to work in a factory. She went to school at night after laboring with machines all day, and *then*, long after midnight, was when she worked on her writing. I think you would find her memoir most interesting. Sorry for digressing!
In the spirit of advice to the typical HUS readership, the Badger weaves out of his den to speak his mind (because he does so very rarely).
1. Find the good in men. Make it a habit, actually, to find good qualities in everybody. Be honest – don’t oversell, and be ready to call a bitch a bitch and an asshole an asshole – but lean to the positive. This will hopefully work against the culturally-ingrained tendency to be resentful and rejectionary of the men around you.
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/how-to-find-good-men/
2. Now that you’ve done (1), develop some real habits of empathy for men. It’s a tough world for guys; as this thread itself shows, guys are taught and expected to be everything and more at different times, flipping at the drop of a hat. When a guy brings up a problem or a challenge in his life, don’t let your first reaction be a knee-jerk instinctual concern for your own self-interest ahead of his. An inability to empathize with the opposite sex is nothing less than a personality defect.
If you’re really committed to the meme that “life is good for boys,” seriously consider an attitude adjustment, because it’s not, and if you think it is, you’re hung up on the poor-mouthing, that “my problems are bigger than your problems, dammit!”
3. Don’t be argumentative. Just don’t. If you are, change it. (I did and my life has improved tremendously. You should have seen me a decade ago!) Going back to empathy, if you can’t really listen to another person’s point of view without viscerally moving to invalidate their side of the story before they’re even finished talking, consider a mantra for the next time you get into a discussion with a man: “stop thinking and listen.”
If you’re someone who just HAS to be right, become a cop or a teacher or a high-powered surgeon, someone whose job is to be the boss for better or worse. Don’t become a partner to another human being whose hopes and dreams will slowly wither under the force of your need to always have the last word.
Probably the best thing you can do to move from ladder 2 to ladder 1 is to be enjoyable and value-added to be around when the situation is NOT sexual – eating breakfast, running errands, being excited to see your partner when you come home from work/get out of class, encouraging and taking pride in your man’s hobbies and interests, the things that really get his motor going. It’s rare, and so it’s no surprise that so many relationships are a race of “how long do I have to listen to her chatter before I can just have sex with her” and “how much do I have to fake being interested in him to keep access to his resources and social proof?”
@ Badger
I hadn’t seen that post, but it’s spot-on. That’s awesome – get the word out.
As for masculinity, I agree that it has to be independent of what women think. That sets it apart from femininity, perhaps – if women were left to define femininity, it would optimistically include short hair and muffin tops, to say nothing of the behavioral aspects. But one of the funny things about that is how it pays off with girls to just be unapologetic about one’s masculinity in today’s world.
It’s the little things that really let you know you’re doing it right. No girl I’ve known has come right out and said, “You’re so masculine, Odds!” But I’ve heard things like, “We just assumed you’d be good at billiards/poker/barbecuing.” Not that I actually am good at every manly skill (don’t have the coordination for billiards), but that they’re just assuming it is satisfying.
@ Jackie
Appreciate the compliment. I’ll keep it in mind while I try to get one plate spinning this week.
@ Esau
I see a postfeminist world going one of two ways: Either the “all is forgiven” route of the ultimate mangina victory, or the “Not again bitch” route of the ultimate scorned beta victory. Middle ground feels unlikely to me.
In the former case, it’s basically riding the carousel and then finding a provider on a societal level – with all the long-term stability and emotional satisfaction that implies (sarcasm carries poorly over text, so I’ll spell it out for certain third parties: “not very much”). Picture a resurgence of feminism thirty years down the line, when the next generation and a half get wind of the “freedoms” their mothers had but are too young to have seen the consequences firsthand. This is probably the more likely scenario.
In the latter case, I expect women will keep the vote and continue to dominate make-work jobs in HR and bureaucracies everywhere, so they’ll still have a lot of low-level power in politics and the workforce, but that large-scale reforms will eliminate a lot of social power. Think limits on welfare for single moms, the divorce pendulum swinging way back in favor of men (perhaps too far, but even knowing that injustice doesn’t cure injustice can’t make me feel too bad about this), and a kind of tension between men’s demand that women put out early and the need for women to avoid promiscuity that makes the current anxieties seem like a drop in a bucket. Think marriage by 25 at the latest, and possibly legalized prostitution. Basically betas stepping up en masse and refusing to put up with nonsense. This strikes me as unlikely, but possible if enough guys can finally see that supplicating doesn’t work, learn game, and take advantage of things when our standard of living hits a low enough point. In the off-chance feminism is a genetic trait, and not just an exploitation of a genetic flaw like I think it is, this scenario could also come to pass just by outbreeding feminists.
Neither outcome is balanced, but one is less unwise on men’s part.
@SW
“Contemporary culture, heavily influenced by feminism, provides few incentives for romantic attachment. We expect and pursue physical intimacy before emotional intimacy. Attachment is a high stakes game.”
This was an interesting point. Just from knowing where you stand on the issues, my guess is you think emotional intimacy should precede the physical? It’s not just women you have to convince of that. There are two sides to everything going on these days.
Re: Feminism: I assume your indictment is of 2nd and especially (yuck) 3rd wave? Radical mass movements and other “isms” tend to make me immediately suspicious. By any reasonable definition, I’d probably fall into the 1st wave camp anyway. My marriage is relatively egalitarian, though I handle all the finances (professional specialty).
While it’s true that narcissism is on the rise, and there’s been a corresponding rise in the hookup scene (hedonism by any other name), I’m not sure socio-political developments are solely to blame. I believe Jean Twenge found that celebrity culture and the Internet were as responsible as permissive parenting.
Re: Women rejecting “feminized” men and preferring “manly” men. This is mostly true, but think there’s a limit to it. As you’ve mentioned before, so-called beta traits are highly valued by women seeking relationships, and are essential for family development.
However, the whole metrosexual phenomenon was a complete joke. Is it even around anymore? I know it’s still alive in S.F. but those guys aren’t relationship-minded. They just want to sleep around but still throw off the “sensitive” vibe : )
testing
@ Badger # 150
Dude-how’d I get included? I’ve been in a self-imposed timeout since our editor upbraided me for going “off topic” (query: Didn’t Harvard use to have a club devoted to “Off Topic Debate”? I remember an article about it, probably in the 70s). I’ve been totally chill. Plus had to look up “sambuca”-I wasn’t sure what sort of aspersion you were casting my way.
Love your pic BTW-those Horned Frogs be bad devils. Saw them destroy our season live. Their linebackers be for real dog! Patterson is still a pig; good coach, but a pig.
Your post #166; I agree, but you don’t sound like no Idaho Badger to me. They only come outta’ da’ ground to chew you balls off. Your post is more Dr. Phil by way of Bishop Fulton Sheen. Wait, you’re drawing them out, getting them in range ‘cuz Badgers one limitation is they ain’t real fast; determined but a little slow. You’re letting them get close so you can tear them a new one. Ok I’ll be quiet.
Susan: “I fear that I’m guilty of some of that with my own son, though I’ve tried to make up for lost time since taking the red pill myself.”
Ooh ooh tell us more! What did pre-red pill Susan do to her son?
Odds-
Well, as Susan pointed out, feminism has actually made it so that many women who leave the workforce to be SAHM’s do get criticized a lot. And I think a feminist corollary to that is to celebrate SAHD’s just for doing the same thing SAHM’s do (but get feminist-shamed for).
Though in the mainstream- point taken. But I wonder how many men really want to be the one to stay at home to take care of the kids and cook/clean while their wife works. If they feel embarrassed to be doing that, is it because of internalized social attitudes toward SAHDs or because in doing that, some sort of deep-rooted drive to defend and provide goes haywire? I’m not saying it’s one or the other-I’m really wondering how different men would feel about this.
As for the cheapening of college degrees- no doubt. But I thought it was not necessarily because of more girls going to college, but because of the nature of the degrees- liberal arts majors, which, outside of top schools, are not much help in securing a job (and these are the ones that women choose disproportionately, compared to STEM fields). What’s cheapening college degrees is that, at least in NYC, a bachelor’s degree is a requirement even just to do filing and make coffee. The degree itself is useful only insofar as it meets a somewhat arbitrary requirement not necessary for the actual duties of the job. And I’m not sure I follow the last part- if college degrees have been cheapened because so many more women (and people in general.. it’s not like men from middle class or working class families used to go to college in huge numbers) are going to college, how does that make it harder for a man to get a degree? Does women going to college necessarily mean that men are being denied admission?
I think the U.S. needs a big push towards better math and science education, for both boys and girls, starting from an earlier age. Even in India, where at least 30% of seats at engineering colleges are set aside under actual quotas for women and certain castes, there is not nearly so much animosity between the sexes when it comes to issues of educational access.
Also, iirc, most of the articles over the past ~15 yrs about women leaving the workforce to be stay at home moms probably did focus on the top 10% or so- mostly professional women, lawyers and doctors. Unlike a college degree, I don’t think those degrees (well, not MD’s anyway) have been cheapened yet, so I think people get angrier about that.
Haha. Maybe any American woman? My dad’s secretary (Indian woman, raised in India.. married at age 18) said that she believes that men are right about things when women are wrong, generally speaking, using the example of how she thinks my dad will be wrong about something and him coming out to be right in the end with his decision. To be honest, I kind of had an internal reaction of ‘that sounds so wrong,’ but of course I’m not going to argue with my dad’s employee, especially when she’s praising him! (BTW, none of the other women present, all Indian-raised women, found this contestable) This is something I struggle with.. even though I like the idea of being in a relationship where the man is in charge (mostly.), hearing it said out loud by other women is still kind of jarring, and when I discuss it with female friends, it’s rarely in those terms (chick language!). But I think when you move from the general to specific examples, it’s not so hard for women to swallow. For example, I had a first date with a guy and I suggested that he pick the place since he knew the city better, but he wouldn’t pick a place to meet, even when I narrowed it down to two choices! Total turn-off. I think in this case, a lot more women would understand when a woman says ‘and that’s why…
you always leave a noteI like my man to be in charge.’ I guess, perhaps sadly, it takes an example of male ‘failure to be a man’ to serve as comparison for ‘My man is in charge’ to not be so contestable.Mike C,
Freakin’ awesome band.
It’s been co-opted by hipsters!
Badger,
Yup, I love em, my favorite band, seeing the live show was incredible. Give me them, Queensryche playing Operation Mindcrime, and Disturbed playing one all day show, and I’ll give up my kidney.
I’ve been going back and forth for 2 years whether to get the symbol tatooed on my shoulder (no tats right now). My GF keeps telling me to just do it.
Susan Walsh January 17, 2012 at 8:34 pm
@Escoffier
. It has become a sign of prestige/badge of honor for a woman to stay home with her kids today. It’s prestigious because it signals that she has her priorities straight and also that they can afford it (i.e., he is making enough money).
That makes sense – it fits with weaker levels of feminist indoctrination. Still, what percentage of American women can afford to do this? Are we talking about the 1%?
In your experience, do women flip-flop from career to home because they are entitled? Again, it sounds like you’re saying it’s more a case of women abandoning the priorities of feminism (career) and focusing on traditional female priorities (family).
My reply:
That was at the heart of a debate over that NYT magazine article–the Opt-Out Revolution–which was the impetus for my colleague’s book and the debates over feminist theory….
“Yup, I love em, my favorite band, seeing the live show was incredible. Give me them, Queensryche playing Operation Mindcrime, and Disturbed playing one all day show, and I’ll give up my kidney.”
I loved Patch’s abstract-colored guitar back in the day. I was pretty jacked to hear that DT played the entire Master of Puppets album as a show once.
“My GF keeps telling me to just do it.”
Isn’t that what she says every night?
(BOOM!)
Re: the graph. The highly consistent seasonal variations raise fascinating scientific questions.
Hypothesis #1: “feminism” queries are proportional to levels of unhappiness (M or F)
Looks like a surrogate measure for Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), in which depression symptoms are correlated inversely with day-length. With December holiday positive mood over-riding the SAD briefly.
Living in sunnier climes with day-length varying by about 90 minutes, I have no local experience of SAD.
A problem with this hypothesis is that clinical SAD is supposed to be uncommon. Maybe just mild gloominess about the weather is sufficient sadness.
Proposed experiment: plot searches for other terms which match this seasonal variation: e.g. “self-harm” “suicide methods”, and their antitheses: “sunshine” ” beaker full of the warm south” etc.
Men/boys of today are conformists, they deserve what they get.
I have talked to many, I’m a moderate, and they see my as a radical when I question the current status quo.
French Quote: Alexis de Tocqueville – “we get the government we deserve”
People some how forgot about freedom and liberty: “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
Take a look at New Hampshire’ s motto: “Live Free or Die” same as in the French Revolution: “Vivre Libre ou Mourir”
That’s true patriotism.
—I’m actually part french on my mother side – I think I inherited libertarian gene.
@Susan
“End Game” is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), or as Susan puts its “Don’t get Attached, Don’t get Attached, Don’t get Attached” and if in doubt “Don’t get Attached” . Its the same thing as “Vivre Libre ou Mourir”
There are some censored documents on Marxism, that explain how government uses a liberal communitarian policy to enslave every one of its citizens. Like I said I’m a moderate. Neither 100% liberal or 100% libertarian or 100% socialist or 100% fascism will give us freedom. True liberty is somewhere in the middle, if you support one of the extremes your supporting your own enslavement. I understood this before I read the censored anti-communitarian league’s documents.
1. What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
2. The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking
I enrage opportunistic women because they think I should bow down to their beauty. I don’t respect any woman, who doesn’t respect me. And I don’t give my loyalty easily, either. So commitment to an opportunistic woman is an ever growing uphill battle.
Here’s a good vocabulary word for Susan: opportunism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism
Its what’s wrong with women who can’t get married. They want something for nothing or they looking for a sucker.
@Badger,
“Obligatory Solomon II classic on alpha males co-opting feminism to push down beta males. Watch him work the whiteknighting to his advantage! ”
I almost spit up my wine when I read that again. I’d forgotten how Solomon II could get to the heart of the matter with his witty sarcasm…I saw several of my favorite cads pull that move off. Heck, I remember being Billy Beta more than once in the pre-red pill days.
“Indeed – the no-win situation means you can do whatever you want!”
Yeah, it does
There’s quite a bit of freedom therein that I’d hope every man can follow. Your post on your blog (and Vox’s pingback) really is useful for any guy who wants to learn to act on that freedom…
@Charm:
“I dont see that happening. I dont know why people keep trying to turn back time. Its gone so wish it fair well. Not saying I like what feminism has created but we wont just revert back. Not 100% anyway. I like certain aspects of what patriarchy created, but I also like being able to have options as a woman. I dont agree with modern day feminism, but Id be damned if Id go back to the way it was before.”
If you read up on history you will find that “Feminism” is a repeating theme of mankind. It has popped up time and again in myriads of civilizations, always in the late developmental / decadent stage and always preceding the collapse of same (it has never worked, and never will). Proto-feminism transpired several times before (namely in Sparta, Babylon and the Roman Empire).
In the case of the Roman Empire ~200AD you had women’s emancipation and increasing female power. In consequence you had changing societal mores and changing laws (no fault divorce).
Fascinatingly, the consequences were remarkably similar to today. Divorce rates soared, marriages rate fells and men started GTOW. In consequence the Roman population shrunk. Roman emperors made public pleas for men to do their duty (and man up lol) and even instituted ‘Bachelor Taxes’, alas all to no avail.
Thus, with an ever shrinking manpower pool of Romans…in the final stage of empire Roman Emperors increasingly relied on foreign mercenaries / immigration. This worked in the short run but ultimately lead to the sacking and destruction of Rome by barbarian hordes (422AD).
So technically you are correct. We won’t go back to Patriarchy. What will happen is that the rotten carcass that is the body politic of the West will shrivel, wither, fester and eventually fall apart under the weight of its own corruption.
And from its ashes a new Patriarchy will rise…as has always happened…throughout history. In the merciless Darwinian struggle of cultures, Matriarchies *always* lose, Patriarchies *always* win.
In the eloquent words of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (133 AD):
“If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance. Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”
tvmunson “Narcissism + hedonism + (may I be so bold) materialism= early 21st century America ; you got it said sister. ”
Dead right Tom. And same with most of the Western World. Australia included..
@Badger 161
http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/proverb-3-the-bright-side-of-feminism/
Strategic advice, in fact quite applicable in the professional setting. encourage her(regional manager) to take the risk and enjoy the results as alpha. hmm, interesting I am getting ideas as to how to use this in my professional life.
@VJ
Agreed. It’s the lack of relevance that makes it impossible to recruit new followers. Most women just don’t feel the need to promote female supremacy – the movement has become a haven for extremists. Someone recently posed as a radfem on a membership only forum, and what they found there was incredible – women suggesting that the males in the species be eradicated – a “final solution.”
This has had the effect of alienating many women who would have called themselves feminists two decades ago but not now. Overall, the size of the feminist army is shrinking rapidly, and the Google traffic reflects that. They will become as much an anachronism at the Latin scholars.
@Jackie
Taylor Caldwell! A blast from the past! I recall reading her fiction when I was in my late teens and early 20s. I’ll pick up her memoir – that sounds like something I’d enjoy. Is she still alive? I’d love to hear her views on how it all turned out.
Odds is on such a roll!
We’re already there – see Badger’s latest post. I’ve written about it too – a clear example of opposing mating strategies where compromise is increasingly unlikely. It’s adversarial – one winner, one loser. There will be cases, of course, where men wait and get the girl anyway, and where women put out and get the guy regardless. But those are highwire moves in this SMP, and it’s going to get worse.
Hi Susan:
I discovered your site a few weeks ago and have learned a lot. I’m about your age with a wonderful husband and hadn’t hear much about this third- wave group.
Back when second wave feminism came about in the 70′s I agreed with a lot of it’s principles like equal pay and opportunity. In my family the boys had their college paid for and the women had to work their own way through school so, yes, I thought equal opportunity was a great idea.
This third wave is very scary, particularly the sex-positive feminists, so I thank you so much for talking about it. There’s not much in the main stream media. My daughter is going to be going off to college in a year and I feel so much more prepared (and scared).
Also, as to women not going into politics at higher levels I don’t agree with Purplesneakers that “women hate women, simple as that.” I’m tired of hearing that stereotype; all women do not think the same anymore than all men think alike. I agree with Susan — there are plenty of women at the lower rungs of politics but fewer running at the upper levels. Simple as that.
@Megaman
I believe that it is very, very difficult to begin a relationship without emotional intimacy, and adding physical intimacy makes it even worse. Emotional reticence combined with getting naked, i.e. vulnerable, is the norm today, and it’s highly dysfunctional.
I think there were some good things that came out of the second wave. I personally benefited, and I’ve appreciated the opportunities for women in education and the workplace. For me, that falls under the gender equity objective. My marriage is also fairly egalitarian, and my husband also handles the finances, and has the final say on money matters or expenditures.
No question! However, I would say there’s a strong dose of feminism in culture – take Sex and the City. That show is probably the largest cultural influence in promoting feminism and casual sex that we’ve seen in the last 50 years.
To be clear, I don’t consider male beta traits feminine. When I refer to feminized men I am generally speaking about submissiveness, and masculinized women are dominant.
)which appeared on an MRA-bashing thread here http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/memo-to-the-mens-rights-movement/#comment-26905
The worst kind of feminism is the kind like NSWATM, which pretends to actually care about men. I respect the radfems a lot more for being honest. The problem is more people will take the first group seriously, the latter are just kooks.
Probably the worst thing I did was hammer home the need to be respectful of women at all times. Over time I’ve come to understand that respect is something that must be earned, not granted on account of gender.
Hey Umslopogaas, your silence was deafening on my divorce post. And I wrote it just for you
Great post, Susan.
To coin an adage: From your blog to God’s ear.
Sue,
I would venture to say that the majority of men commenting here equate beta with submissiveness.
@PV
Welcome, I’m so glad you left a comment. There’s a growing number of parents finding HUS, which isn’t particularly surprising, so I hope you’ll stick around! I encourage you to talk to your daughter as much as possible over the next few months about hookup culture, so that she isn’t unsuspecting prey in the fall.
“Still, what percentage of American women can afford to do this? Are we talking about the 1%? ”
Not 1%, more like 10%. Just guestimating though.
“In your experience, do women flip-flop from career to home because they are entitled? Again, it sounds like you’re saying it’s more a case of women abandoning the priorities of feminism (career) and focusing on traditional female priorities (family).”
Not really, more like they get a career because that’s what they’re “supposed” to do. Plus they have to earn a living between the time the move out of the home and get married, which can be a decade or more. Plus in blue enclaves it takes serious assets to buy a home so it helps to have two earners for as long as possible. Women don’t quit when they get married, they quit (or scale way back) when they have a kid. There are no working moms on my block and none that I know of at our school, at least not in the lower grades.
Politics is an outgrowth of thumos or assertion which is more common in, and more natural to, the male than the female. Hence in any political system that does not enforce strict “gender equality”–i.e., quotas–men will always outnumber women in high office.
Sorry, feminists, nature bites you on the bottom once again.
@Susan 191
Over time I’ve come to understand that respect is something that must be earned, not granted on account of gender.
However, mother’s do impart this personality trait in their son. It’s only when the son becomes a man, receive a kick in the ass, that he realizes, that trust and respect both need to be earned. from my own experience this is the fundamental mistake I have always made with women, respected and trusted them by default.
“With the demise of feminism comes great opportunity. We can usher in a new era of true gender equity, where each sex is honored and respected for its unique talents and strengths. A society that chooses to celebrate the differences between the sexes rather than invalidate them. ”
Amen to that, Susan.
Amen.
Not sure if anyone has seen this but from google ngram;
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Feminism&year_start=1900&year_end=2012&corpus=0&smoothing=3
Also;
http://www.epjournal.net/articles/evolutionary-psychology-is-compatible-with-equity-feminism-but-not-with-gender-feminism-a-reply-to-eagly-and-wood-2011/
Charm,
Agreed. I just made this same point on another thread here. A leader takes charge of a situation, not people. A leader in a relationship controls the relationship, not his SO. “Controlling” people try to take charge of others.
Megaman,
Yea, I think there’s a real danger here, because what you’re basically saying is that relationship and family oriented men are somehow less “manly.” I’m not sure how others feel about this, but in my opinion the ability to successfully lead your family and care for them are extremely fucking manly. Seems far more manly than spending your life sticking it in strange random holes for some short-term thrills.
The move on the part of feminists to include broader gender issues (homosexuality, transgenderism, etc…) is really just another sign of its incipient demise. It reflects the fact that the movement is losing traction among women and must seek out supporters elsewhere. Also, the move is alienating people from the whole feminist platform. How many women are going to go to bat for a man’s right to wear a skirt to work?
Jesus,
Yes, what is more manly that siring children with a good woman in a relationship of respect and devotion and protecting, leading and providing for your family?
I think the conflation of beta traits with submission and weakness in general is one of the most unfortunate pitfalls of the wider SMP conversation. It is the result of binary thinking, with alpha viewed as solving the problem of a lack of female companionship and beta as creating more of the same problem. In my experience at least, when you have a problem caused by behavior, the solution is rarely to start doing the complete opposite, but to find a middle path between the extremes.
It’s hard to pick up on nuance when you’re hyperventilating. Some of the beta-haters seem to have the zeal of the new convert, which contains a grain of self-loathing as well.
@Escoffier
That’s very interesting, and you’re right, it does represent a sea change from 20 years ago. Thanks for that snapshot. Do you think this shift is related to the feminist agenda in any way – is it a backlash?
Someguy,
The woman can also do that without being “manly”, so thats not the definition of manliness, and there are a lot of things manlier. However, taking care of your family can be plenty of manly (plenty of alpha) if done by a man.
But you´re subscribing to a concept that equals beta with family and nurturing. Which doesnt make sense either, because in nature the beta is sexless and doesnt produce offspring.
Beta: Putting always other people above of you, living by other people standards, being reactive, submissive, with lack of inner value, overcompensating, never wanting to offend, etc etc etc are “beta” traits. If you have too much of that, you end up in a “beta frame” and the world treats you as such.
@ Kathy # 183
First person to call me Tom; thanks. I’m usually referred to a Munson, which has the vaguest tone of hostility.
I doubt there’s much new in our equation. I hope I’m not being too facile, but nearly all societies have wanted a citizenry made of of constructively engaged consumers. Trouble starts when too many people have too much time on their hands and/or have too man unmet needs. Keep ‘em employed, keep dangling more and more baubles for them to aspire to and obtain, be able to provide both the opportunity to attain them and the objects themselves, and everything is chill. Narcissism, hedonism and materialism filter out of this like moonshine from a backwoods still. Combining all 3 is when men (mostly; not always) turn in their “old” wife for a new model the way they would a car.
Don’t think much changes as you go to the more socialist model. More emphasis on security as opposed to “reaching for the brass ring” perhaps, maybe a slight muting of the Big 3 but consume consume consume is still the order of the day.
Indeed. It’s like comparing Atticus Finch to Russell Brand. Women who reward the latter are the “lost girls” of this generation – relegated to the P&D pile, or Ladder 2, as Badger would say.
@someguy
There have been several occasions where I said something that on the face of it would seem to benefit men with beta traits, and I got the biggest pushback from men who share those traits. It’s as if they think I’m trying to make them cough the red pill back up. Maybe one needs to go to extremes first, and then find balance, but I often feel like we’re throwing good behaviors out the window with the undesirable submissive ones.
I agree with others who have said that men need to define masculinity without input from women. I would just say that isn’t going to be possible if the starting point is what makes women engage in short-term mating.
Keep ‘em employed, ****keep dangling more and more baubles for them to aspire to***** and obtain,
It is very freeing when you realize that you don’t need most of the crap the marketing MACHINE is set up to convince you need. Actually, in my view rampant consumerism is intimately connected to hypergamy and status. It is what drives the desire for the bigger house in the more upscale neighborhood and keeps on the wheel. Cars are built to last 10-15 years, there is no reason to upgrade every 3 years and always have a car payment.
Which lead to whole 2 income issue. As OTC illustrates you don’t really need it, but it necessitates taking a chainsaw to unnecessary expenditures and clearly delineating between what you really NEED versus what you just want.
Book recommendation – Your Money or Your Life….this should change the way you think about money, your time, a
Yohami,
If this is beta, then I’d have to say that some of the manliest men in history are beta. Sacrificing yourself for something or someone other than yourself is practically the definition of a hero. And in literature, the character who puts his own needs above all others is typically referred to as the “anti-hero.”
Samurai gave their lives in the service of lords, for example. I can’t imagine anybody thinking of them as “unmanly” for it.
@Chris
That Google ngram blew my mind! I’m curious to know why the peak in the late 90s, and why the sharp dropoff in the mention of feminism in books since then.
Re the second link, I recently found another study that seeks to identify common ground between evo psych and feminism, and it very much breaks down along the same lines.
Here’s what I don’t get – if feminists acknowledge physical differences between men and women, and our psychology depends on brain activity and processing, including hormonal fluctuations, then how can one claim that psychology is unrelated to physiology? It makes no sense. The holes in feminist theory are being rapidly revealed by geneticists, who increasingly demonstrate that genes influence, or possibly even determine, behavior.
Sue,
+1,000,000
Beta baboons avoid battling with alpha for sex, but wind up getting a lot of it anyway.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/08/11/346799/index.htm
As I recall, you instructed us to call you Munson. What do you prefer? (Note: We do have one Tom, and I don’t think you want to be confused with him.
)
@JM
That wasn’t my particular POV, but if it came across that way, whoops. I don’t really like all the generalized labels that get thrown around. Everyone’s a different mix of personality traits. But I’ve observed in the popular culture and experienced first hand on the ground the view that guys who want relationships and are open to raising children (and I’m one of them) are for lack of a better word substandard? This opinion seems to come from both men and women, strangely. The idea of the perpetual bachelor who engages in sexual conquest is perceived to be the norm, even though it’s not what most men do or want. Though I recall you giving it a try at one point : )
“So what is true gender equity in a relationship? Should that even be goal, when most women want men to be more dominant, and men want women to be more deferential, generally speaking?”
Married couples have to find their own equilibrium, so to speak. Athol Kay’s Captain/First Officer model is best. The man is the captain, woman is first officer. It’s a very bad fit with the gender roles reversed. Both tend to be grindingly unhappy if wife is captain and husband is first officer.
In my marriage I always have final say in major decisions, but no major decision is ever made without Mrs. deti’s input. Mrs. deti can be very persuasive when she wants to be. If she has strong beliefs about something, I always consider it and she’s been known to change my mind. If we still disagree, we go with what I decide.
Mrs. deti has a wide berth to make day to day executive decisions on her own without my input. I determine monthly budgets and she spends freely within them. She must have discretion to make decisions like this to keep things running smoothly. My time is consumed with determining the overall course of the marriage and the family, and earning income. I neither can, nor have any inclination to, micromanage or supervise Mrs. deti’s responsible spending. All I need to know is when we are close to expending the limit at any particular time.
The secret is to select a responsible, trustworthy first officer with good character and administrative capabilities. The captain must be able to trust in her abilities and that she will not abandon ship or call a mutiny.
The first officer above all must trust her captain and willingly subordinate herself to his leadership. The captain has to have a steady hand on the ship’s wheel and provide firm leadership. That’s not always easy. Sometimes the captain has to say no and tell the first officer to fall in line.
The captain need not make 100% correct decisions all the time. But for the first officer to maintain confidence in the captain’s leadership, the decisions he makes must be workable and ones that all can live with even if the outcomes are not optimal.
Mrs. deti has been a SAHM for 12 years. It hasn’t been easy, and we’ve had to forego a lot of vacations and discretionary income. When our youngest goes to school, she will look for part time work.
Megaman,
I also tried skinny jeans once, but I don’t want to be defined by it.
@Jesus
Like your namesake.
Yup, like him. And many others.
@SW
“I agree with others who have said that men need to define masculinity without input from women. I would just say that isn’t going to be possible if the starting point is what makes women engage in short-term mating.”
I need an education on this — what’s the starting point?
Perhaps men who aren’t getting their relationship needs met could do this. But I’m not sure men as a whole will ever agree on what’s truly “masculine”. IMO there’s way too much diversity of behavior and opinion.
Megaman,
You don’t have to wait for a consensus. You decide for yourself.
@MikeC (#210)
+100000
I just recommended that book (YMOYL) to Babydoll, a few threads back. It totally changed the way I think about money.
(Also, well said about cars. I just got rid of my first car– I kept it 10 years! And paid for the second car, cash.
)
Not really, more like they get a career because that’s what they’re “supposed” to do. Plus they have to earn a living between the time the move out of the home and get married, which can be a decade or more. Plus in blue enclaves it takes serious assets to buy a home so it helps to have two earners for as long as possible. Women don’t quit when they get married, they quit (or scale way back) when they have a kid. There are no working moms on my block and none that I know of at our school, at least not in the lower grades.
Does anyone else think the whole “moving out at 18” and push for early financial independence, has led to the modern SMP?
In Japan, it’s normal for young women to live with their parents until marriage. Their office jobs are primarily for funding luxuries [shoes, handbags, make-up, karaoke] and saving for a wedding – achieving complete independence is not a common pursuit.
Here’s an essay written by an American Feminist, condemning the Japanese “Office Lady” lifestyle: http://wrt-intertext.syr.edu/vi/forrest.html
Japanese women getting married young and not aspiring to climb the corporate ladder??? *gasp*
@ Jesus Mahoney (#211)
This is very well said:
If this is beta, then I’d have to say that some of the manliest men in history are beta. Sacrificing yourself for something or someone other than yourself is practically the definition of a hero
I was thinking about my parents’ marriage. Most of the people here would deem him a beta, omega or something nerdy. But he would lay down his life for his family and to my mom (and the rest of us), that made him super-titanium alpha.
@Jesus
Beta is about being gullible. Gullibility is not a virtue.
collegeboy,
Stick around. There are more definitions of beta around here than there are books crowding my apartment.
Jackie,
That’s awesome. And, btw, that makes him alpha in my eyes as well. Well, not alpha, since I don’t believe in alphas. But it does make him a man in my eyes.
“That’s very interesting, and you’re right, it does represent a sea change from 20 years ago. Thanks for that snapshot. Do you think this shift is related to the feminist agenda in any way – is it a backlash?”
I think it is, in part, a backlash. Your generation (and women a little older) in the middle class and above were made to feel guilty and unworthy if they did not have “careers” (not just jobs). Later generations seem to resent that. You can find female-written tracts that argue, in effect, “If feminism is supposed to be about choice, why I can’t I legitimately choose to stay with my kids?”
Also, don’t discount the Dr. Laura effect. I really have no idea to what extent she was the big player in this, she’s just the one who first resonated with me. But in (say) 1980, you heard not one voice anywhere in the culture saying that day care, etc., was a bad idea unless absolutely necessary. By 2000, that message was easy to find, if not universally accepted. IME, women are staying home with their kids both because they want to and because they think it is the right thing to do. No one in my mother’s generation (and she’s older than you) felt that way in 1980.
Plus, let’s face it, the careerist utopia turned out not to be so pleasant after all. There are a handful of super go-getter women who absolutely love what they do but they are rare, rarer than the me who love what they do, and they surely are not a majority of employed men. Most work, even easy female office work, just … sucks.
I think we confuse impressions with substance. 20-something big city career gals seem very happy. And superficially they are. They like their incomes, their freedom, their friends, going to bars and parties, dating, etc. All of this their jobs make possible. They don’t so much love their work per se, they love what it enables.
Also, they love the sense of possibilty. At 25, the outcome of the race is still unclear. Any one girl might still think herself the exception, the one whose career will catch fire and zoom her up the ranks. By 30 it’s pretty clear if that’s still a realistic possibilty or not. If not, homemaking starts to look a lot better.
Well, part of the problem here is that many people seem to associate beta with cowardly. In my worst beta days, I would have given my life to protect my family. I have known a few VERY shy/introverted guys that would literally jump on a grenade to save their family. But those same guys would never be labelled an Alpha by any standard I’ve seen. And, I think this is something that women get wrong a lot.
Just because a guy isn’t pushy, loud, arrogant, and generally “alpha”, doesn’t mean that they cannot protect you, and that they would not take a bullet for you. What it means is, he isn’t going to be the one starting the trouble that got the gun out in the first place. I generally try to avoid conflict when possible, and from time to time even take a submissive stance during an altercation to avoid escalating violence, but that doesn’t mean I am not capable of pummeling someone into a bloody heap if they threaten the people I love. It means I won’t resort to violence until all other avenues have been exhausted. Not because I am afraid, but that I realize no one wins if things get physical. And, if something bad is going to happen, it will happen when things GET physical.
Yohami,
There are so many species in nature with so many variations that the alpha-beta dichotomy cannot possibly cover it all. Among ants and spiders, for example, the dominant sex is female.
I view the terms for their value of analysis and guidance, but not determination. I don’t see beta as inherently submissive, but the slope does seem to point that way.
I mean, guys state that “women hate hate hate betas”, which translated really means “some women feel contempt for people that they can manipulate, or that show weaknesses that they themselves possess”. And that may be all well and true, but there are also beautiful women of character who appreciate beta traits (not submissive traits, beta traits), there just isn’t a ton of them and they don’t crave comfort-building betahood 24-7 (who does?).
I say this a lifelong beta who ended up getting “promoted” to fake player status when I decided that relationships were impossible and just went for the punani. I’m in a situation now with a hot new girl who is very sweet on me, and I realize that my fears of being too beta are making me paranoid and denying her something she really wants — in moderation, of course.
Susan asked: “I’m not sure what you mean. Are you referring to laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, race, etc? Why would we want to abolish those? Why should we need to discriminate?”
Yes, that is what I’m referring to. One reason we would want to abolish those laws is because they smack of totalitarianism. Another reason is because they deny people the right to freely associate which includes the right to exclude.
The motives for discriminating will vary from person to person. You might not need to discriminate, but someone else might need to and should have the legal right to do so.
Susan, do you favor Affirmative Action, too?</b?
=======================
Susan also wrote: "Negotiation re gender roles is the only way forward.”
I don’t know why you think that. Women are not going to negotiate in good faith as long as they know that if they don’t get what they want they can always run to the government and/or file a civil lawsuit. That is one of the reasons women should be completely and permanently disenfranchised.
=======================
And this: “Because few of those women will have children, their ability to indoctrinate future generations is extremely limited.
But they occupy teaching positions at all levels and will continue to indoctrinate future generations unless and until they are removed and legally prohibited from such positions—which they should be.
======================
And also this: “Women can and should play a role in hastening the death of feminism.”
But they won’t because they benefit from it legally more than they are harmed by it.
============
Susan wrote: “Social rights equity, socioeconomical competition under an a-gendered meritocracy, and an education system that promotes gender differentiation / allows each gender and individual person to play at their unique strengths.
Gosh, I don’t know what planet you’re living on.
This new society you mention just above will be overseen and rigorously enforced by the government, too—right? It will have to be! Other wise you won’t get your social equity/equality here just like you don’t get it anywhere else in the world unless you have an oppressive government.
What are you going to do when the outcome isn’t what you like? You’ll demand more quotas, more business/contractor set asides, more Affirmative Action, and encourage more civil lawsuits—that’s what!
Ted,
I’d say the deeper problem is that men are defining alpha/beta in terms of what will win the most women. People conceive of “beta” as anything that turns women off, or even, anything that doesn’t get them into bed quickly. And of course, anything that turns women on and gets them into bed is thought of as “alpha.”
The problem with this (one of the many), is that by defining alpha/beta (and, indirectly, masculinity) in terms of what women like means letting women own the frame. In other words, in this view, women are the barometer for what is masculine.
The entire way of thinking seems weak and mediocre and too “other” centered.
@Jesus Mahoney (#228)
Thanks!
I don’t think my dad is there stereotypical “alpha” at all. He is such a sweet and gentle man! Like the dad in Little Women, who was a pastor if I recall correctly.
But he is unquestionably the best father I could have asked for: He is absolutely devoted to his family, took care of my mom through her illness until her death, would lay down his life for his children, writes me an old-fashioned snail-mail letter every week and inspires me to be a true lady. *sniff* Love you, Dad.
@Susan
Susan: There have been several occasions where I said something that on the face of it would seem to benefit men with beta traits, and I got the biggest pushback from men who share those traits. … Maybe one needs to go to extremes first, and then find balance,…
-I reached the same conclusion. that’s why I give up. people need to learn by experience.
I think its the boiling frog phenomena (throw a frog in boiling water, it survives vs heat the water slowly it dies) .
Jackie,
That’s the problem with stereotypes. For what it’s worth, “alpha” is really just an indicator of social status. Nobody here, from Ted to Yohami, is alpha. We’re all beta in the strictest sense. Despite what society as a whole may think, I esteem men like your father much higher than guys who can make gobs of money and bed women easily.
Jesus,
Its manly when its done for ideals, honor, principles, abstract stuff. Putting the ideals above of the man. The ideals come with a ladder, and some men fill the upper steps on these ladders. When men, soldiers, samurais die for their generals, its for the “general”, they respect the rank and what it represents, its not for the “person”, but in name of justice, order, moral, doing whats right, etc. All of that is plenty of manly.
Putting a specific PERSON above of you ceases to be manly.
The soldiers / samurais also sacrifice their generals and presidents if they discover their superiors are betraying the code. The code is whats important. Not the person.
Activism happens when people are affected personally. You won’t see women advocating for men’s clubs, or protesting a women’s gym. We are all self-interested creatures.
I don’t care if they don’t advocating for men’s clubs or protest a women’s gym.
But I want them to stop suing when men create men’s only spaces or forcing their way into them to the point of destroying them. I’m sure it’s not your favorite site, but the Spearhead has a classic example. When I see other women telling the women who do stuff like that to knock it off, grow up, and start their own class then I’ll believe feminism is on the decline.
I once heard feminism defined as the belief that somewhere, someplace is a man enjoying himself without a woman there to ruin it and women need to put a stop to it.
A post-feminist world will probably look a little like Odds’ latter scenario. Mark’s vision of women receiving brutal payback is in some respects already here; more “payback” than “brutal”.
I suspect women en masse will have a lot less social power as the costs of feminism become more and more unsustainable. Welfare to single moms has been unsustainable for decades already and welfare assistance has already been somewhat limited. Of course, the greatest evidence of this is:
1. statistical: the average age for first marriages is creeping upward for both sexes and has been for years now. The declining birth rate in the West meaning fewer taxpayers to foot the bills coming due.
2. cultural: the “where are all the good men” meme we continue hearing.
3. anecdotal: the Kate Bolicks of the world who are coming up on 40, not married and probably won’t marry, and certainly won’t have children.
To a large extent women are already feeling the “payback” Mark talks about. That “payback” is a larger percentage of men refusing to marry or delaying marriage due to a dearth of marriageable women and avoidance of the divorce meat grinder.
Women want to be married to attractive men. Men and women both are realizing feminism created the unattractive men that populate our society.
Susan,
That reminds me of that story of the alphas leaving for war and the females breeding with the betas. It also reminds me of dogsquat story.
I dont see the contradiction though. Females fuck the best option they can get from whats available.
Yohami,
So then risking your life to save someone else isn’t manly? It’s just about rank?
@ mark
The solution is to have balance. None of what you mentioned is completely wrong. All contribute to freedom to some extent. We must avoid Extremism, on any side. Extremism has become the norm, and there isn’t much of a middle position.
@Susan Walsh:
“Hey Umslopogaas, your silence was deafening on my divorce post. And I wrote it just for you”
Heh, juuuust for me? Wow, my dear Susan I didn’t know you regarded me in such high esteem.
Someguy,
I agree, some species doesnt even have genders. This is not intended to be one-fits all. When I do it, its more of an applicable thing.
Its just a word. Without submissiveness I dont see “beta”. But when I use it I mean something else than Roissy or Athol Kay or whatever. Then of course I think my approach is more accurate and replicable.
So. Being paranoid about never being submissive results in not being able to make deals, it becomes “my way or nothing”, and relationships (even casual ones) have compromise and middle grounds.
Women hate unworthy men when those men have interest on them and try to ease their way into pussy or relationships via pedestalization, doing favors, conceding, lacking backbone, overpaying, overcompensating, etc.
Anything that says “Im not enough for you, but if I add all of this money or attention and favors and I play by whatever your rules are and let you make me your bitch, would you take me? would you appreciate me, at least just a bit” So that. That is beta. In our human world that guy might score some pussy and have children, but its not going to do him any good, by MY standards. The guy himself might bee “happy” without knowing he´s being used and who knows what else.
Showing emotion to your girlfriend isnt beta, telling her you love isnt beta, providing isnt beta. But, feeling you´re so lucky you got her because how unworthy you are, and feeling insecure you can even keep such a quality girl around you, and wanting to bring the moon and the starts so she would never leave you, and expressing all of that, is big fucking beta. And has really nothing to do with love or nurturing.
Umslopogaas´s last [type] ..Finally: Wimminz Agree To End Women’s Suffrage
Case in point. Extremism is everywhere.
Yohami,
What you’re describing is very different from putting someone else’s needs above one’s own. What you’re describing is the way men with low self esteem will pay through the nose in order to get their most basic needs met. That’s pathetic and unmanly. But it has nothing to do with self-sacrifice.
Jesus,
I dont know about Ted, but Im as alpha as it gets.
Who´s we?
“Women have been told that they are entitled to this freedom, independence, and power but were not told that these things come from somewhere – that what is taken from the system must be reinvested and that there is a corresponding cost and responsibility.”
IMO women are on average genetically less able to see that kind of connection. They need to be thought it when they grow up.
Rollo:
I think the queer thing will always be limited. Firstly, there aren`t that many lesbians. There are even less lesbians that prefer the butch role. Although most lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women about half or so prefer to play the feminine role in relationships and those wouldn`t really want relationships with straight women. Secondly, in just one generation there will be far less lesbians (and gays) because they have so much less children than straight people.
Jesus,
Women can also risk their life to save someone else without being “manly”.
A man can risk his life to save someone else while being a total pussy, too.
When you introduce honor, doing the right thing, self sacrifice in terms of the greater good, putting the ego behind, adhering to the rules (God, the good, whatever), and facing adversity in a frontal, focused, emotionally contained, self detached way, it is “manly”.
Yohami,
Unless you’re the president of Argentina or running an international company or the most popular or respected or wealthy musician in the Western World, you’re beta. From what you wrote in your New Year’s post, you’re hunkering down in front of a computer trying to save up money for expensive music equipment. That’s respectable. But it’s not alpha.
Just keeping it real.
Jesus,
Yep, I never said self-sacrifice was unmanly.
False.
In Japan, it’s normal for young women to live with their parents until marriage. Their office jobs are primarily for funding luxuries [shoes, handbags, make-up, karaoke] and saving for a wedding – achieving complete independence is not a common pursuit.
Hmmmmm, not sure if marrying a woman who has lived years with no expenses for living, food and possibly phone + som other stuff but who has been able to use all her income on FUN things and a wedding is a good idea.
Yohami,
You said that putting someone else’s needs above your own (i.e. self sacrifice) was beta. I was guessing that you considered “beta” behavior unmanly. It’s confusing trying to keep track of all the definitions.
Jesus,
Define “beta” ?
It sounds like you are equating socio-economical ranks with alpha-beta personal / behavioral traits. These are not the same. And I do run an international company but thats besides the point. I already had the company when I was in beta chump phase.
Define “alpha” ?
If pursuing your self-defined goals with total dedication and belief isnt alpha in your book, what is?
Jesus,
It gets easier if you dont rephrase them. I said putting PEOPLE above of yourself.
PEOPLE > YOU.
Not what the people represent, not their needs, but their individual persons, above of your own individual person. That is ONE trait. Among other traits. Sum too many of these beta traits and your overall personality falls into “beta”
(Gasping for breath) I go to sleep and when I return, the comments have gone wild! That’s great!
A few things:
“I agree with others who have said that men need to define masculinity without input from women. I would just say that isn’t going to be possible if the starting point is what makes women engage in short-term mating.”
Well, yes and no. Don’t forget that a man’s primary motivator (besides simple self-preservation) is sex. Not relationships, not family, not lofty goals and aspirations, but getting his freak on and his oil changed. I think one of the major problems with feminist ideology is that they a) conveniently forget this when it doesn’t serve their purposes and b) loudly castigate to the point of criminalization the male sexual impulse that has, for all practical purposes, created civilization as we know it.
That’s why Game is so important to the Manosphere. It’s the one thing we can all agree on: we like sex, we’d like more, and we’d like it to be good. They pretty much issue that with your XY chromosome. Now, what you do with that impulse is up to you, but the vast majority of men spend their adult lives directly or indirectly in pursuit of sex as naturally as eating or breathing.
That’s important. Feminists lured young men into support by promoting easy access to sex as part of the 1960s-era feminism, drunk on birth control pills and mini-skirts. But when feminism took an uglier turn in the 1970s, and went far more anti-male than pro-woman, the tail dried up and the first great wave of hypergamy began. Since then the American (and Western) sexual landscape has been hit with cataclysmic change, as we all know.
But those early years tainted men’s perceptions, and fed the betacization of masculinity, which in turn fed rampant hypergamy. When the ability and understanding to even approach women one-on-one in a social context is destroyed, and text-messaged NSA booty-calls are just easier to work with, then yes, learning how to get your wick wet becomes VITAL information for dudes. The reason Game is so popular is because it is so needed.
That’s why Athol Kay’s work is so profoundly important to the Manosphere. Athol and others of note have extended the Game metaphor into LTRs, and (gasp, choke) it’s working. Not a little bit. A lot.
You see, going from short-term mating to long-term mating has been a problem for the men of my generation. We’re really good at picking up chicks, actually. But living with them? All of the “successful” cultural models presented for how to successfully run an LTR have been seriously flawed — see how fathers and fatherhood is portrayed in MSM. Divorce, single motherhood and hypergamy have made learning from our venerable ancestors pointless, if even possible. So without instruction most muddle-along in Betatude until they hear “I love you, but I’m not in love with you,” and start the divorce process.
But Athol Kay’s MMSL puts the highly-successful Game strategies into context of a LTR, with an emphasis on strong male hand, good communication skills, and lots of hot sweaty monkey sex. Essential Manosphere reading. This is incredibly important right now, because those few Gen-X marriages that did survive hypergamy and infidelity and poor economic conditions are doing so either because of the native talent of the individuals involved or because they just don’t have the cash for a divorce.
The Red Pill could change all that. When a husband is commanding, decisive, and sets out to utterly seduce his wife every morning, worrying more about her demonstrable attraction to him than her stated list of grievances, that really flies in the face of feminism as an intellectual concept. When you get good, intelligent, highly-educated women who are no strangers to feminist ideology in all of its manifestations reluctantly admitting that, yeah, they like it when hubby gets all studly, throws them over the bed and ravages them without first discussing his feelings and getting signed permission to engage in coitus in advance — that’s a serious danger to feminism.
I’m being dead serious, here. The feminist hold on cultural power in this country is based entirely on the premise that women are being subjugated under an artificially-imposed, male-dominated ideology that runs counter to a woman’s natural inclinations. When smart women start talking about how they enjoy ceding their power to their husbands for the sake of a successful marriage — and then start talking about how freakin’ happy they are with the result — it won’t matter how many tired tropes the feminists try to employ to shame them back into an unwanted sisterhood.
The fact is that American women are desperately unhappy: if they don’t have a man, they’re usually unhappy about it. If they do have a man, they’re usually unhappy with him. Despite the “gains” of feminism, allowing women to financially support themselves and compete with men in the economic field, all of these new freedoms and riches haven’t yielded the smart, successful, well-rounded family-and-career feminist powerhouses that the 60s crowd envisioned. Instead it’s yielded two generations of broken families, unrealistic — and unrealized — expectations, and an irresistible resentment with “inequality” that has promised them happiness and delivered only stress and anxiety.
And now a generation of 30-something ladies who are suddenly realizing they only have six eggs left and not even a date for Saturday night.
Also, apropos to the discussion, I recommend reading and understanding Athol Kay’s assessment of the Alpha/Beta split in a LTR, and how both are absolutely vital for its success. Too much Alpha, and you’re an asshole she can’t stop screwing. Too much Beta, and you’re a simpering appeaser unworthy of respect. Put them together, learn how to balance them, and learn married Game, and then the magic happens.
So that’s what Game offers men: the opportunity to get their freak on, single or married. And what it offers women is an escape-clause from the idea that they HAVE to be in charge of everything or they’ll be considered failures. While the short-term mating angle might put some folks off, Married Game could be the “game changer” that puts the last nail in feminism’s coffin.
Because the one thing that feminist theory and dogma doesn’t give women is . . . happiness.
Yohami,
I don’t use alpha/beta. But they were originally used to define social status. As of right now, you don’t have much social status, except maybe in your circle of friends.
I think pursuing your goals with passion and belief is honorable. But there are maniacs and fools who do that, too. That’s not necessarily alpha. Pursuing your goals with passion and belief and succeeding on a grand scale might be alpha. But really, if we’re going to adhere to the original sense of the word, it would depend on the social significance of the goal.
You’re free to come up with your own definitions for words, but I think it just confuses things.
Yohami,
Obviously it’s not conducive to happiness and well-being to believe that others are better than you. But I’m pretty sure that nobody outside of the game word would call that “beta”. We call that low self-esteem.
But I still think that sacrificing your needs and desires to help someone else is manly. And very often, if done as a true gift to someone else, and not done with some expectation of return favor, can lead a man to value himself even more.
Jesus,
If we were to adhere to that definition, then rich guys would be alpha by default. In our capital system where money is king, any rank can be bought. Buying the rank, which is like buying the seat, grants you some things. It doesnt grant you the personality / behavioral traits though. And I am talking about traits. Not social status or money.
But the traits *can* get you money. Im certainly making more money than I did before.
In my book thats an alpha trait. If you subtract intelligence, social intelligence, common sense, business skills, realism -> it becomes a fool errand. None of the traits on its own build the big picture. There are alphas without vision. Just like there are rich betas. We´re all collages of many things.
In a perfect world those things would be related. Say, successful / high achievers would also be good people. Manlier men on top, pussier men under. The best men win etc. However our world is anything but that, and is more focused around resources and who owns them, capital is king, and the rules are set so the capital remains where the capital is, which leads to many unfit men (and women) filling roles they wouldnt, if they were measured by their capacity and not by their resources. In short, the world is “unfair” if you look at it from an humanistic / meritocracy side. If you look at it from the capital view though, its working as intended.
So, no, alpha doesnt mean rich, beta doesnt mean poor, high social status doesnt mean alpha, low social status doesnt mean beta, as long as we´re talking about personality and behavior.
I achieved the personal stuff. Now Im working on making it “real” out there, in the fictious / capital / material world. Without the personal thing solved, though, I wouldnt stand a chance, since everything is rigged to prevent “me”, or more specifically, my socio-economical stratus, to succeed. Starting from me being from a not so wealthy family in the third world.
@Collegeboy:
“Case in point. Extremism is everywhere.”
It always flatters me unimaginably to be called an extremist. However, pray elaborate?
Yohami,
I’m cool with what you’re setting out to achieve. But you’re redefining what alpha and beta means. I don’t have a problem with that (aside from the fact that nobody knows what the hell anybody is talking about anymore when they use the words).
You’re aware that when other people use the word beta, they don’t mean mediocre or “low-value” or “weak” at all, right?
Jesus,
Agreed, people outside of game dont have words for “alpha/beta” or if they do they mean something else. These words mean something else for everyone. There’s no consensus -> everyone applies them to match what they think they mean, myself included.
Since you´re not expecting anything in return, you´re doing it because of compassion, sympathy, empathy, or principle, all of which are manly. Still, if you´re doing stuff because you WANT, what are you sacrificing?
Down with words. Every minute they mean something else.
If you “sacrifice” your writing career in order to get approval from your girlfriend or family or society = beta.
If you “sacrifice” your writing career in order to help kids that are drowning because of a tsunami, because you feel more urged to help than you feel urged to finish that chapter = alpha.
The difference being the alpha doesnt act from the approval seeking frame, but from the inner-desires frame.
I agree with what you’re saying. I just wouldn’t use words that most people think mean something else to describe it, when I could just use others that would be more intelligible.
Strong/Healthy/Mature=Acting out of one’s own deepest purpose/desire/values, etc…
Weak/Unhealthy/Immature=Acting out of fear or the desire for external validation…
Jesus,
In the context of game, what people usually means is:
Beta = pussy whipped
Alpha = pussy whipper
Enter Athol Kay and he equals all nurturing and good spirited traits with beta and all aggression and narcissism with alpha
Enter Susan and she equals all honorable and stable things with beta and all psycho evil stuff with alpha
Enter Roissy and he equals all attraction triggers with alpha, and all attraction turn offs with beta
Try to mix all of that into a single definition and it doesnt make any sense. They are all talking about different concepts while using the same words. Different interpretations of pussy whipped and pussy whipper, with different rationalizations for each concept.
In the case of Athol, he´s a nurturing guy and not a pussy whipper, he´s probably also “beta” in the pedestalization sense of the word, so he attempts to bring some narcissism and aggression to please that pussy
In the case of Susan, pussy whippers are bad for relationship, so she has trouble incorporating any of the already labeled “evil alpha traits”, with the exception of assertiveness and dominance, which are needed for relationships (and incompatible with pedestalization!). I guess she´s still working that out.
Then the random gamer comes saying “I banged a drunk blond last night Im SO ALPHA” but he´s just talking about how he was able to trigger attraction on one girl.
Then I enter the picture talking about something different.
No wonder everyone is confused.
@Escoffier
Your story reminds me of the dinner with Kate Bolick. She asked the young women to state individually whether they would prioritize career or having and caring for a family. All of them said family without hesitation. I was surprised, but it fits with what you’re saying – this generation is not going to feel compelled to go for the big career, and they’re not ashamed to say so. In fact, one of those young women has since abandoned a lifelong dream of becoming an MD to go for an NP instead. She believes it will afford a good salary, much of the same job satisfaction, and a much better lifestyle for her future family.
The Red Pill could change all that. When a husband is commanding, decisive, and sets out to utterly seduce his wife every morning, worrying more about her demonstrable attraction to him than her stated list of grievances, that really flies in the face of feminism as an intellectual concept. When you get good, intelligent, highly-educated women who are no strangers to feminist ideology in all of its manifestations reluctantly admitting that, yeah, they like it when hubby gets all studly, throws them over the bed and ravages them without first discussing his feelings and getting signed permission to engage in coitus in advance — that’s a serious danger to feminism.
I’ll call that the “happy” danger to feminism.
The “unhappy” danger is men will look at that level of work to keep a woman happy in an LTR and wonder “why bother”. A common thing I’ve noted in response to the man up articles of the past year have been “why should I, what do I get out of it.”
Perhaps that is not something younger men wonder about and it’s the province of divorced or older males. Still, I used to worry about getting remarried until I sat down and thought about my marriage and realize all I got was a bill. I didn’t even get better sexual access during marriage. I got less sex and what I did was worse. I read Athol and the biggest thought is “why bother?”. Maybe if I had hopes of having children it might be worth putting up with a woman I have to work harder than I would at my job to keep to have kids, but just to have a woman? With what most modern women bring to the table?
I can queue up my favorite liberal or feminist rant on You Tube when I have a desire to be nagged.
Right now I think whether we’re headed for the unhappy or happy ending is up in the air, but I’m leaning towards unhappy. I read all of Lisa Gottlieb’s Marry Him. It’s core message is about lowering expectations and realistic if you want to get married. Never once does it discuss looking at what you bring to the table. I think it’s fairly representative in that respect.
Call that another legacy of feminism that needs to be addressed for feminism to be dead: women need to ask “why can I offer” as much as “what can I get”.
A common thing I’ve noted in response to the man up articles of the past year have been “why should I, what do I get out of it.”
That should be “A common thread I’ve noticed in responses”…
@Umslopogaas
Ending women’s suffrage, would allow a few men to take over again.
Inequality would be rampant.
And freedom for the majority of men/women would not be achieved.
I now see everything from the point of view of power. Everybody wants it, especially the super rich. Religion is merely a facade for achieving power, ethics have nothing to do with religion.
I don’t see society as having any true ethical values any more. Times have changed opportunism is rewarded by government.
this is something someone wrote, complaining about this.
The communist creed: from each according to this ability, to each according to his need.
The Capitalist creed: from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
I’m not saying I side with capitalism or communism or secularism, just that extremism leads to others taking your liberty away, no matter which extremist side you take.
@deti
Great summary of the post-feminist world, and I agree, we’re already living it.
Alpha is available, but the female baboons enjoy the companionship of the betas, pick bugs out of each other’s fur, and wind up having sex. I don’t see any “settling” there.
lola and slim,
great comments, yes it can be frustrating to see such attitudes and rigid non reasoning but keep at it, its always worth making people see other, healthier points of view. it does rub off. Jx
“this generation is not going to feel compelled to go for the big career, and they’re not ashamed to say so”
good!
lets rejoice that we now live in a society where people can make individual choices that suit their needs, preferences and desires!
long may it continue….
Susan,
Settling would mating with the available bug-picker because she´s being rejected by the alpha.
If she fucks with both the bug-picker AND the alpha, we have an infamous “slut” word for that.
If she refuses to fuck with the alpha hitting on her, because she likes to mate with the bug-picker more, I would call that love. But its also possible that the bug-picker has it big.
YOHAMI,
The beta definition I have settled with is the one from alphagameplan which says: “Betas are the good-looking guys who aren’t as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy’s friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women.” Etc.
Below them are delta, omega and gamma (I don’t particularly believe in sigma).
Perhaps I don’t know get what you’re saying, but it seems you see betas as losers, but they still count for the majority of the male population? How are we supposed to distinguish the 99,99% of men whom are not alphas?
Sorry if I missed something, have tried my best but not read EVERY post of the comment field.
@Jess
“good!
lets rejoice that we now live in a society where people can make individual choices that suit their needs, preferences and desires!
long may it continue….”
Agreed. So tell those dumb f*cktards like Bennett to stop writing books and articles shaming men for not manning up and marrying old career and job focused first women, carousel riders, high body count sluts and toxic ‘all about me’ princess’s.
I missed slim tuna because I was busy debating crushes and fantasies on the other thread.
She (he?) said,
This is a problem for me. Exactly why should more women fight for entry into politics, I mean, unless they want to? Isn’t the goal for women to be free to do what *they* want, and not simply free to do what you think they *should* do? If women don’t want to become politicians, that’s their business.
Alpha’s are intelligent, especially socially intelligent (on top of other physical attributes).
For the record, I am not alpha OR beta, I’m freaking me and refuse to be defined!
Or, depending on who’s definition you are using, I am both. Neither.
All this labeling is useful for general conversation, but the truth is there are no cut and dry definitions, and even if their were very few people are so easily put into a category.
It is my nature to be laid back, non-confrontational, thoughtful, logical, and considerate. Mostly all beta traits. However, push me too hard and I and do not only stand my ground, but generally take some back in the process. It takes a lot to piss me off, but if you manage it, expect to deal with anger backed by extreme focus and determination to take back whats mine, and possibly knock a little off your stack just because I had to act.
I certainly was beta in my marriage, but I truly don’t see myself as a beta person in general. I want to be left alone, to do my own thing, how I want to do it, and as long as I’m left alone I tend to stay quiet and contented. But, treat me unfairly, take what is mine, hurt people I care about, push me too far, and I can bring a level of violence comparable to some of the baddest alpha “bad boys” out there. I don’t like to, because it costs me a lot in energy (both physical and mental), tends to end with someone/everyone being hurt (both physical and mental), and most of the time, the same outcome can be attained without the anger and violence.
So, where does all this leave me? I have no idea. I don’t feel like I allow people to walk all over me or take advantage of me, but I also don’t walk around showing signs of how awesome I am. I don’t push my ideals on others (blog posting doesn’t count!), but I also stand up for what I believe in. I’ve said before, if I have to act arrogant, brag about my accomplishments, bang lots of random women, and generally act like a social outcast then I have no desire to be Alpha. I know, that sounds like an asshole, not an alpha. But by who’s definition?
So alpha/beta/gamma/omega – I’m me, take it or leave it.
@Ian Ironwood
Yay, another MMSL believer! I’m always referring people to Athol for his list of traits, and yet the issue never seems to get resolved here. I’ve been asked to do a post on this, and I think I will. At least then we’ll having a working HUS definition, though people are free to dissent, as always.
In the grand schema, advising guys no female wants to mate with, to go bug-picking ( being friends, doing favors, being available, being her therapist) in order to get sex is bad advice. Why? because the chance of success is slim, and because this particular female who doesnt have tingles for him does have tingles for other males, and is likely to go fuck these males in the name of species survival and happiness, and because bug-picking probably under-utilizes the natural talents of the male and distracts him to fully realize his potential.
Advising him to grow into one of these males who are tingle worthy is better advice / has more chance of long term success. Then he can do some bug-picking when needed, since bug infections in your partner are a bad thing.
@Editor #215
I never asked to be referred to, or addressed, as Munson. Although looking at my nom d’ blog it isn’t easy to discern my first name, and I’m not sure how Kathy did. My first fiancee was named Kathy; maybe it’s karma. I’ve identified myself previously here; the meticulous have much info actually. I like being addressed as Tom; I assumed your use of my last name reflected your preference to keep things formal, so I starting addressing (and referring to ) you as Editor. Call me anything, just not late to dinner. But Munson in the third person, Tom as addressed ( “TV” too)- I shall humbly submit myself to the preference of the colloquium.
collegeboy,
Unless you define alpha as guys with high T, who really don’t have a good deal of social intelligence.
@Yohami
I think you’re giving baboons too much credit
The point is that the baboon behavior upends what animal biologists believed about primate mating. Other primates have other differences. There is no one dictum in nature. The variations are potentially infinite, and using the behavior of one species to explain the behavior of another is invalid.
The “alpha” male term was coined by Dr. L. David Mech, a wolf biologist who has since recanted the term as unscientific and inaccurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU
He suggests that better terms would be “father male” or “breeding male.” By that standard, a very large number of human males qualify as alpha.
Brave New World – is a funny novel/movie.
It shows a caste system, where intelligence is defined at birth. Alpha’s have mental programming to justify their superiority. beta, gamma, delta, epsilon’s have mental programming to justify their inferiority.
But the future seems to look allot more like the novel “1984 by George Orwel” with a caste system superimposed. Free Love of “Brave New World” is unlikely to happen, any time soon for beta’s.
Are you saying that female baboons engage in pity fucking?
@College Boy:
“Ending women’s suffrage, would allow a few men to take over again.
Inequality would be rampant.
And freedom for the majority of men/women would not be achieved.
I now see everything from the point of view of power. Everybody wants it, especially the super rich. Religion is merely a facade for achieving power, ethics have nothing to do with religion.
I don’t see society as having any true ethical values any more. Times have changed opportunism is rewarded by government.
this is something someone wrote, complaining about this.
The communist creed: from each according to this ability, to each according to his need.
The Capitalist creed: from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
I’m not saying I side with capitalism or communism or secularism, just that extremism leads to others taking your liberty away, no matter which extremist side you take.”
Eh? LOL? Uhm, Dr. Okun, you should perhaps develop the habit of actually reading articles before commenting them.
I say this because manifestly you haven’t read my article, just blathered away merrily. *Had* you actually bothered to read it you’d have instantly realised that a.) it’s about a petition signed by girls where *they* voice their desire to end women’s suffrage and b.) it is absolutely tongue-in-cheek.
I hope to gawd I don’t have to hold your hand and explain to you the concept of ‘tongue-in-cheek’, bubba.
That said I actually believe that 99.9% of all people (men and women) shouldn’t have the vote. Imo, democracy is a farce, and a bad one at that. It’s a greasy soap opera where sweet talking imbeciles get elected by ignorant, gullible morons. Democracy -> Idiocracy.
The right to vote should be earned, not just given. And only proven outliers (in a positive) sense should be awarded suffrage. Maybe then we’d have sane polices instead of the rancid, rotten hogwash we have now.
See? Now *that* is raaaaaaaaaaadical, baby. In other words: extreme.
Sue,
Doing research on it, then. Cool.
@Susan: YouTube is blocked at work, but I’ll definitely check that out when I get home.
My guess is that all that bug picking is baboon game. Bug picking=kino.
Susan, the problem is–and I am not the first to say this–is that the current generation of girls in the middle and upper middle class may not necessarily want a life-long career. But they do want “their 20s.” By which I mean, they want to be sinlge and have lots of fun in their 20s, which of course requries a job, an apartment, all the trappings of adulthood. Except a husband.
Not all these girls are sluts. But some are. And all of them to one degree or another are lowering their MMV for the sake of 10 years or so of young adult fun. They want that fun decade and then family life, preferably on one income, after that.
For many it’s been possible. My neighborhood is full of such women. But however common it may be for the UMC, it does not appear to work outside that demographic. And there’s a question as to how sustainable this model is. The question comes do to, Are desirable marriage-minded men going to accept forever that women get to enjoy a “play decade” in which most of the men their age aren’t succeeding at becoming their playmates?
Manosphere types insist, no, the game is already over. I’m not so sure. However, most young women are totally unaware that the men are already asking themselves the question.
There are two Kate Bollick types in my immediate vicinity. One turned 40 yesterday and at least has a BF but no ring. The other has not had a BF for as long as I have known her. I don’t think either of these women wanted to end up unmarried and/or alone at 40. But it happened. (They are not fat or ugly, FWIW.)
Those looks might be deceiving. Intelligence is separate from education. attitude counts allot, those men understand that. so looks is only part of the puzzle. I know people with very little education, who are millionaires. In fact my close friends who are millionaires, don’t have allot of education. And in their family those who got educated with engineering degrees, law degrees are actually relatively poor. One of those men, his ex-wife thinks he is stupid because he lacks education.
Framboise,
Like, the friends of the quarterback. The upper inner circle of the alphas. I like that distinction.
In VOX´s schema, most of the male population are deltas. Still, most of his beta dudes are somewhat deltas too, since VOX melts all pedestalization in delta… and the friends of the quarterback probably pedestalize women too, since most men, mainstream men, are raised to pedestalize women.
Shades of gray bro. Thats the thing. If we try to make it fewer words, the words are too simplistic, too broad, too imprecise. If we make too many words, we get lost in the rainbows of possible combinations. I like what VOX´s schema describes but I usually forget what is what. I like it better than Roissy´s though.
There are not many alphas. The whole alpha thing contradicts the present world. You´re not supposed to go there. You´ll be discouraged by shaming, social pressure, the current feminized world, the capital word, the social hierarchies, etc. There are some alpha dudes who have the natural genes or talents or nurturing but they dont know what they are doing. There are even fewer dudes who had it natural and know what they are doing. And fewer who werent raised within the model but got there and know what they are doing.
How to distinguish. Look for leadership and social skills and assertiveness and good temper and vision and success and responsibility and enjoyment of life. Take out approval seeking, fear avoiding, self abandonment, nihilism, overcompensation.
Whenever there´s a social group, some dude or girl takes the alpha seat: the one everyone else looks up to, the commander of the party, the one whose all the action spins around of. Thats the seat. However taking the seat doesnt necessarily means the person has all the traits, but some, enough of them, specially the dominance thing, to take that seat and fill the commander role.
So dominance and self reliance, then high self esteem and enjoyment are the base traits… if you want to distinguish, look for that. Not the most abundant traits around, so they are easy to pick up.
Susan,
No, I was talking about humans there.
Umslopogaas quote: So. They are doing their part. But are you doing yours? If you desire the return of sanity, harmony, rationality and sexuality to Planet Earth do Man-kind a favour and launch a feminist into space…today.
I know your joking, but that kind of mental thought process, is radical. Joking can be Ahole game, but I don’t want to get into that.
Susan,
I heard he retracted, but so what? its like darwin retracting.
The alpha male is also the father male and the breeding male -> the competition that gave him the alpha seat also grants the reproduction seat. Making it inverse, like, every male who breeds is an alpha doesnt compute (formal fallacy)
I dont know much about wolves. How does the courtship work in them? how does this father mates with a female wolf? I know they dont live in large groups like the sea-lions or so many other species, so they dont coexist with “unworthy” males. Are wolves monogamous or do their families include several females like, say, lions? Do they have any sort of wolf on wolf male competition? do they just leave the family and just wander around until they find a loner female? any fighting involved? does the female screen and can reject a prospect, or does she just take whatever male she finds?
In other words when this guy retracted after using the “alpha” for wolves… it sort of made sense, because wolves dont have the male hierarchy. But the concept he proposed applies for other species, say, the kangaroo, lions, some birds, etc, anywhere there´s male competition to get the female and the female breeds with the winner – and the winner only. So, not all species are like that. I dont know if the wolves have any kind of competition.
Humans do. Sort of. Even when the females dont have sex with the winner only, but more with the winner of the moment, which can be measured from infinite angles.
Jesus,
LOL! baboons ftw.
Not all these girls are sluts. But some are. And all of them to one degree or another are lowering their MMV for the sake of 10 years or so of young adult fun. They want that fun decade and then family life, preferably on one income, after that.
I know you said “young adult fun” but of late (past few months) I’m wondering if the part I bolded isn’t really what’s causing a lot of male behavior:
“I don’t want to get married now, I want to have fun first” is not the thing to say to a man at 22 and then expect him to marry you at 30. Because what you’re saying is “you’re not fun/enjoyable to be with but eventually I’ll do it out of duty/baby desire/whatever”. Not only does it communicate to guys that they are a means not an end but it communicates to men they aren’t really desirable.
This idea of “fun then marriage” needs to die and I say that as someone who gets what it’s trying to express, but in the end word choices do matter.
I came across an interesting comment in an article from, of all places, The Weekly Standard. To be sure, it is not the author herself who came up with this but one of Roissy’s correspondents. The truth of this statement is so profound and so axiomatic that I will quote it here once
“it’s always hard for women to see beyond the personal level.”
and then edit it slightly and put it into capitals for emphasis:
IT’S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR WOMEN TO SEE BEYOND THE PERSONAL LEVEL.
I had firsthand experience of this when I got caught arguing the ordination of women on a website that catered to female clerics. I made the remark that my church [Orthodox] will ordain women somewhere around the heat death of the Universe, and that I could no more take the sacraments from female hands than I could drink dry water or breathe liquid air.
Every. Single. Woman. on that site took that remark as an attack on herself individually and personally. It wasn’t 10 comments farther along than the abuse comments started: ‘Rev. Janeway had to drop out because she started having flashbacks to when her husband used to beat her.’
I stopped participating on that site. Another man asked me why and I told him that I wouldn’t be able to argue the women there into agreeing me, I would have to woo them. That is the only way a man can ever hope to change a woman’s beliefs or attitudes.
Everything, EVERYTHING, is personal to women.
Women live, move, and have their being in a rich universe of persons and relationships that confuses us. Our universe probably looks arid and empty to them, but it does allow for quick decisions and abstract thinking.
I think feminism is something of the same sort of beast. One commentor called it “a culture-wide shit test”. Another called it “the perfection of nagging.” I think there is an element, though, of “I want to do that, Daddy. Please, please, please make it so I can do that.”
And Daddy did.
Feminism arose in very elite circles, and mostly benefits highly educated, articulate, elite women. It really doesn’t do much damage to powerful men (as Solomon so deftly pointed out), but it anally raped all of Daddy’s employees’ sons,
but Daddy could have cared less about that.
Herb, that’s the point. 20 years ago, 99% of college graduates–male and female–would have agreed that it’s best to “wait” until marriage until you were at least 25. No one thought this was strange and the men least of all. Certainly they did not feel that it was part of a bum deal for them. Back in those days if anyone wanted to get hitched early it was the girl and the man had to be browbeaten into it. It was more like the old days.
But 20 years later we see more clearly how it has worked out and men don’t feel the same way, at least not uniformly. Women OTOH have not changed their opinion much from what I can see. Women are going to have to change their expectations.
The big question I have, or contradiction I see, is that for all the damage that delayed marriage has caused/is causing, it’s still true that earlier marriages are more likely to end in divorce. So if we could push up the average marriage date that might solve one problem but would it just create another?
« 1 2 3 4 »
{ 2 trackbacks }