Commenter Steven said the other day, after the post about The "morality" of this blog:
The PUA crowd seem to ignore this key part of alphaness and take it to refer to any man who can bed a lot of women or who can easily seduce women or who is very attractive to women.
I think this is a bit of an ego trip- they get to think of themselves as superior alpha males when in reality they are just average guys who have worked out how to get women to have sex with them, and who in any reasonable sized group of males would not be dominant at all.
Steven raises a good point. The term "alpha" comes from the animal kingdom, where the label can be earned in only one way: by besting other males in a fight. The biggest and strongest bull (elk, or walrus, or lion) drives off all of his competitors and thus gets to mate with all of the females of his herd for a season. After that season, he is usually so worn down that another bull will replace him the next year.
What the pick up artist (PUA) sites in the manosphere teach is how to pretend to be an alpha male in order to pick up women. This, of course, has precious little to do with actually being one. Very few pickup artists could actually dominate other men. (It's far easier to dominate a woman.) But, that said, much of the advice they dispense is actually effective when it comes to getting your way with women, who do tend to be swayed by macho posturing -- leavened with a little humor -- even though they deny it.
Another point: as commenter Gardner said after the same post, the alpha-beta classification isn't nearly so binary as it is normally thought to be. There's not a man alive who hasn't had moments when he's felt like an alpha, and moments when he's felt like a beta. That's just life.
Another point: as commenter Gardner said after the same post, the alpha-beta classification isn't nearly so binary as it is normally thought to be. There's not a man alive who hasn't had moments when he's felt like an alpha, and moments when he's felt like a beta. That's just life.
I started writing the "Confessions of a beta male" series because I thought it was funny, and other guys would identify with it. After all, we all feel beta from time to time. But after I'd written a few of those posts, it dawned on me that at a certain level what I was actually doing was congratulating myself for not having a narcissistic personality, since much of the "alpha" behavior I described was indicative of just that.
And, to tell the truth, the few guys I've known who've consciously prided themselves on being alpha males have all been obnoxious narcissists.
I've talked to a few of their ex-girlfriends (or have heard indirectly what they've had to say), and there is a certain sameness to their impressions: "an asshole," "selfish," "conceited," and, most gratifyingly, "lousy in bed."
(It's good to know that there's at least one way in which I'm alpha.)
There's also a certain vagueness to what is considered "alpha." Some see it as a matter of physicality -- which is closest to what it is in the animal kingdom. (But is a juiced up gym rat something you'd aspire to be?)
Some see it as a matter of having a successful career. But when you look at Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, does the word "alpha" spring to mind?
Some see it as a matter of being cool, calm, and collected. Now that is something to aspire to. But do those qualities really translate into dominance?
Anyway, anytime you meet a self-professed alpha, beware. (Especially you ladies.)
I've talked to a few of their ex-girlfriends (or have heard indirectly what they've had to say), and there is a certain sameness to their impressions: "an asshole," "selfish," "conceited," and, most gratifyingly, "lousy in bed."
(It's good to know that there's at least one way in which I'm alpha.)
There's also a certain vagueness to what is considered "alpha." Some see it as a matter of physicality -- which is closest to what it is in the animal kingdom. (But is a juiced up gym rat something you'd aspire to be?)
Some see it as a matter of having a successful career. But when you look at Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, does the word "alpha" spring to mind?
Some see it as a matter of being cool, calm, and collected. Now that is something to aspire to. But do those qualities really translate into dominance?
Anyway, anytime you meet a self-professed alpha, beware. (Especially you ladies.)
Posts
10 comments:
Yes, it is very annoying to see this obsession over "alpha"- ness, especially as linked to conquest of girls and almost never, ever in terms of actual masculine traits.
The men I have admired, such as my brother, are confident, familiar with the world, can FIX things, know how things work, never preen or fuss, are direct, even blunt. The idea that he, or other men I admire, would spend time practicing "game" is laughable.
One of the things I really love and respect about my husband is how handles himself with other men. He is also an athlete, like you Just-Not-Said, and has a physical confidence that is very attractive. He easily joins pickup games: basketball, soccer whatever -- as well as poker nights -- and commands respect and goodwill from other men. Never have I heard him neurotically analyze any social situation, he barely examines his own behavior, and I mean that in a good way. And while I understand the real need to learn to relate to women, and how lonely and alienated some single men must feel, cultivating this false bravado is a chimera. There is no there there.
But then again I'm not a guy -- and the thought of having sex with lots of random strangers is fairly revolting to me.
Gardner
Gardner --
I"d say the "alpha" behavior that's recommended on these sites does relate to masculine traits, but it's really only an ersatz imitation of them.
Both your brother and your husband sound like great guys. (Seriously.) No wonder you're happy with your marriage.
Your comment does bring a slight wince, though, as this blog is essentially nothing BUT neurotic analysis of various social -- or societal -- situations. Not to mention, I can't fix anything….oh well, be glad you're not married to me.
Oh, no! I did not mean any slight to you at all. I don't consider this blog neurotic whinging. Quite the contrary.
I was referring to the current phenomenon of micro-analyisis and navel gazing, as opposed to doing and being. Young men today seem to have adopted what I consider a rather feminine trait of overanalyzing every exchange, every detail for hidden meaning and possible manipulation.
Reminds me of being in middle school with my girlfriends. Kind of the antithesis of masculine.
Gardenr
Gardener --
I know you didn't mean any slight (which makes it worse!).
Actually, just look at the way I'm reacting to your comment, if you want proof that I overanalyze.
But seriously, don't worry about it, I'm at the age where none of this really bothers me, I just find it all interesting and amusing.
There ARE things that infuriate me, and those I vent about here. But your comment certainly didn't fall into that category; I've actually enjoyed every single one of your comments thus far.
"What the pick up artist (PUA) sites in the manosphere teach is how to pretend to be an alpha male in order to pick up women."
Yeah thanks for the clarification on that. Somebody on a different site said alpha male refers to the top x% of men who, according to him, monopolise the women...so anyone who can bed a lot of women is part of that group. That's what I was basing my comment on but what you said actually makes a lot of sense.
& well said, there is vagueness to the concept as applied to humans. Our societies are more complex than gorillas'.
The PUA crowd seem to ignore this key part of alphaness and take it to refer to any man who can bed a lot of women or who can easily seduce women or who is very attractive to women.
A weakness of the "alpha"/"beta" terminology is that it's a bit misleading. It implies dominance as in a pack of canines, but that's only orthogonal to the more salient point, which is "alpha fucks/beta bucks". In other words, the duality of female sexual strategy.
The male version of this (that is, the male sexual strategy) is madonna/whore: our nature wants to spread our seed far and wide (thus attraction to the "whore") -- but also to pair bond with a female to invest in children whose paternity we can be assured of (thus attraction to the "madonna"). AF/BB means that females want to pair bond with a male who can provision for her and her children ("beta"), but also be inclined to mate with high-status or masculine men with superior genes ("alpha"). (These two needs could be met by the same man, but more often they will be in conflict.)
Gardner seems to be missing a key point: "game" is not for naturally high-status men like her brother (alphas), but for mid-to-low status men (betas and omegas). In the old social order, us lower-status men could secure a woman by becoming a provider. In the new social order, we are at risk of being taken advantage of by a women who might use us for provisioning, leading to subsequent no-fault divorce or cuckolding.
Men don't have to actually practice "game" to benefit from it. For our own safety, we need to be aware of female sexual nature, and not idealize it, as we are inclined to, and encouraged to by the current feminine-primary social order. Even becoming aware of "game" (and the fact that it works) can be life-changing for men conditioned to idealize women in service of the female dual sexual strategy and to their own detriment.
John, I don't know, but you seem pretty alpha to me (swimmer, Wall Street). I think when you call yourself "beta", you really mean "blue pill" as they say, that is idealizing female sexual nature and not being aware of its dark side.
"In the old social order, us lower-status men could secure a woman by becoming a provider. In the new social order, we are at risk of being taken advantage of by a women who might use us for provisioning, leading to subsequent no-fault divorce or cuckolding"
"AF/BB means that females want to pair bond with a male who can provision for her and her children ("beta"), but also be inclined to mate with high-status or masculine men with superior genes ("alpha")."
Why would that not be the case in the "old social order" if its the natural sexual strategy?
What you've basically said is that men and women 1) both looks for stable partners and 2) both cheat.
That doesn't tell me what percentage of men and women cheat or whether women cheat more than men (probably not).
I doubt women are more likely to cheat than men are (I bet its the other way around). I also bet only a small minority of women have children who came from a different father to the one who brings him/her up (with the father believing the child is theirs).
This exaggerated, semi-deluded demonizing of women is why people sense an undercurrent of misogyny and resentment against women in the PUA community.
I just found:
'A couple of recent studies from Western Europe suggest that somewhere between 0.6 and 0.9 percent of men are unknowingly raising another man’s child'.
http://blogs.kqed.org/science/2013/11/25/new-dna-studies-debunk-misconceptions-about-paternal-relationships/
Even if it were 10 times higher than this- 6-9%, that is still less than one in 10 women doing it, so could it be called the normal strategy of women?
Gardner seems to be missing a key point: "game" is not for naturally high-status men like her brother (alphas), but for mid-to-low status men (betas and omegas).
Fair point. I guess I wonder what the dreams/goals are of these men -- to find high-quality life-long mates that will raise their children well, or to get laid a lot?
if it is the former, I believe developing masculine traits and skills will lead to confidence and good women will follow. If it is the latter, I can be of no help, but maybe "game" can.
I would also like to comment on the whole AF/BB "phenom."
Is this a class thing? Of all my female friends, about ten percent fit this description and these are women I have met as adults. They all have either middle class or troubled backgrounds.
The vast majority of my friends were not slutty, or drunks, or party animals who finally settled down with some beta schmuck. I am sort of baffled by this generalization of women. Also, I know of very, very few divorces or cheaters and zero unmarried mothers in my social world.
Guess we're pretty uptight around here, but sometimes I feel the "gamers" are rolling around in mud and then complaining it's dirty.
Hope this post wasn't too scattered. One of my children is "practicing" the recorder next to me.
Gardner
"Guess we're pretty uptight around here, but sometimes I feel the "gamers" are rolling around in mud and then complaining it's dirty."
Excellent.
Steven,
Why would that not be the case in the "old social order" if its the natural sexual strategy?
It would, you're right. But in the old order, female sexuality was highly constrained; feminists have successfully re-shaped the landscape pretty dramatically since then. The pill, abortion, no-fault divorce, family courts, all conspire to give women greater sexual freedom. In the old order, a low-status man would be able to marry a young virgin who would then be a stay-at-home mother. In the new order, he will likely be able to attract woman in her 30s, sexually experienced with higher-status men than himself, and able to divorce him for any or no reason. Note that most divorces are initiated by women.
This is all well and good, but if men are playing by the old rules, they are likely to get burned. There are a million cautionary tales from men who have been through the wringer of the family courts.
This exaggerated, semi-deluded demonizing of women is why people sense an undercurrent of misogyny and resentment against women in the PUA community.
Sure, but so what? Does a man resenting women somehow invalidate his perspective? If anything, a bit of misogyny can serve to balance out the overly-pedestalized treatment that women get in the popular culture. Women have their own unique faults, just as men do. I would also note that misandry is absolutely rampant among feminists, but you won't see anyone outside the "manosphere" calling that out.
Gardner,
if it is the former, I believe developing masculine traits and skills will lead to confidence and good women will follow. If it is the latter, I can be of no help, but maybe "game" can.
I think there is a large intersection between "developing masculine traits/confidence", and "game". The trap for men playing by the old rules is to think they can become a dutiful provider, and somehow negotiate desire from a woman. As you know, it doesn't work like that. The picture of a women rejecting the upright, respectable provider to go home with the tip-frosted douchebag from the club is absolutely devastating to a man who previously pedestalized her as a "good woman".
Is this a class thing? Of all my female friends, about ten percent fit this description and these are women I have met as adults. They all have either middle class or troubled backgrounds.
I don't know. But the cuckolding of WW2 servicemen was kind of an open secret, and the proverbial white couple with the black son is a trope in pop culture. Even if Steven's 0.6-0.9% figure is accurate, we're still talking about millions of children like this. It's enough of a problem that there is a push to actually ban paternity testing altogether.
Guess we're pretty uptight around here, but sometimes I feel the "gamers" are rolling around in mud and then complaining it's dirty.
I'd say that's a fair criticism. Roosh has a pretty amazing series called "Anna", where he basically finds the woman of his dreams, but still can't bring himself to settle for her. But note that group is only a subset. There are others (Dalrock, The Rational Male) who acknowledge "game" and a lot of the ideas around it, but still advocate for marriage and monogamy. Those types are coming from a religious perspective, though.
Post a Comment