Last week we saw how women are heavily influenced by the feminist and pop-culture voices that dominate the message sent to the female herd. In this post, let’s dig deeper into the dynamics of the herd and get at the questions of who’s in control and, beyond technology (mostly invented by men), who has driven the recent great changes in society? Was it men? Women? Or some portion of each?
Hierarchy In a Sexual Free Market
- Apex Alpha Males
- Alpha Females
- Alpha Males
- Beta Females
- Beta Males
Note that in a more assortative and patriarchal society that the alpha males will move ahead of their female counterparts as will the beta males. Apex alpha males will still rule.
Apex alpha males have the most power of all. Though not invincible, they are the most independent of any of the groups of people, because of their wealth, charisma, status, fame, ability, looks or position. They are the men that most women fantasize about. Because of their intrinsic power, they are often the most difficult to influence. Many apex alphas are quite happy with feminism and raunch culture because it provides them with more workers, more consumers and more pussy.
Alpha females have more influence over the herd and thus more influence on society than alpha males (excluding apex alpha males). Interestingly enough, in a sexual free market, women often have more power than men. Alpha females have great influence over the bulk of women through their messages of what IS and IS NOT acceptable behavior for herd membership. The alpha females want power and many of them also want to mate with the apex alphas (look at how Hillary married and stuck with Bill). The main currency that a woman has to mate up is sex–hence the focus on sexy attire and giving it up easy before the higher-value man moves on. Or in the case of Hillary, she is a capable woman that helped form the Billary power couple and she let Bill philander on the side. And yes, once in while, women are apex alpha females, if they become the leader of a country like Margaret Thatcher or have a huge platform and wealth like Oprah. Hillary will become (more of) one if she becomes president.
It may surprise you that many non-apex alpha males are actually herd followers (they do what women demand for sex but in this case it’s more along the lines of being sexy or having power) and they have less influence on the herd, and thus on society, than alpha females. They are higher than beta females though because the beta females and some alpha females desire them. But if you doubt that these non-apex alpha males are herd followers, just look at how they are so circumscribed by today’s divorce laws, child support and general feminist thought. At work he has to be careful of what he says and not to offend the herd. And yes, alpha males are more free to fuck lots of women now but that is precisely because the herd permits and desires it and because birth control, less stigma and DNA testing make it easier for women. If a pregnancy results, he’s on the hook whereas in generations past, the fly-by-night alpha cad passing through town could knock her up and be gone before the shotguns came calling with wedding bells ringing. Though more powerful than the beta male, the lower alpha male is still very much constrained and shaped by the female herd.
Beta females are basically followers. They sacrifice some of their personal desires in order to satisfy their other desire of belonging to the herd, as we saw with women that wanted relationships or children but put them off to stay in the feminist herd.
Beta males have the least influence because they will generally respond to what the beta females demand in order to have a woman in their life and get sex. If the women demand loyal providers most men will bust their ass to do that. If the women change and demand sexy badboys then the beta men will respond as best they can and put less emphasis on being good providers and try to add some sexy to their game.
Because women have such an influence not only on what they do but also on what men will do in a sexual free market, the direction and control of the female herd is the most important element that can be focused on to change society. It’s the low-lying fruit. Yes, in principle, if you could influence the apex alpha males then that would give you the biggest change but since they are much more independent and difficult to influence there is not as much chance of success.
The war ON women is a bogus collection of demands for more power and entitlement for women but the war FOR women is one of the most important battles of our time. The feminists have had control for the last four or five decades but some women are beginning to realize that they were deceived by being told not to focus on relationships and children. Many women are ready to be told that they should have the freedom to choose their innate desire for love and children over conformity to the Fempire’s sole focus on career. The time is ripe to rip the reins from the feminist alpha mares and provide the narrative that women should truly be free to choose what they want instead of what some strawman-patriarchy-hating feminist tells her to want. A key part of this is for men and women to have the courage to live by and promote truth and real fairness. No more cowering beneath the scornful scold of the herd masters and mastresses.
I didn’t really mention omegas because they have such little power and impact that they’re not worth mentioning except that omega females have more power than omega males because low-value men will still seek omega females for sex.
More Details
Women Need The Herd
As we saw in the post on evolutionary incentives, women are physically weaker and especially vulnerable during pregnancy and when caring for young children. Women need the herd for survival more than men. Women tend to be more talented at, and concerned with, being part of the group, building and maintaining social ties, and communicating and spending time with others. And why the hell do they always have to go to the damn bathroom together? 
Though not a perfect metaphor (as none is), the female herd describes a lot about the present day situation with women…and men. And lest you think I’m being solely derogatory about women, calling them herd-like and all, remember that most men are even “worse!” They’re herd followers! Doing what the female herd demands in order to get sex and companionship.
Most Men Are Herd Followers
Think of how much most men bend their will and sacrifice the dream in order to have women in their lives, either for the short term or the long. Look at how many men tried being the nice guy provider only to learn that the price had changed more to sexy badboy.
For most men, sooner or later, sex is an inelastic demand and they will pay whatever price the herd demands. If it’s “be a stable provider,” they’ll adjust. If it’s “be a cocky-funny jerk for a short-term fling,” they’ll adjust…at least as much as they can, eventually, after overcoming enormous inertia.
The Wild Horse Herd
Let’s look at a herd in the wild, a horse herd, and compare with some of the herd-like behavior in today’s society. A simple overview provides many interesting insights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_behavior):
- “Bands are organized on a “harem model” in that they usually consist of one adult male and a group of females. Each band is led by a mare who is dominant in the hierarchy, called the “dominant mare,” the “lead mare” or the “boss mare.” The band contains additional mares, their foals, and immature horses of both sexes. There is usually a single “herd” or “lead” stallion, though occasionally a few less-dominant males may remain on the fringes of the group….Contrary to traditional portrayals of the herd stallion as the “ruler” of a “harem” of females, the actual leader of a wild or feral herd is the alpha or dominant mare.”
- “Studies of wild herds have shown that the herd stallion will usually drive out both young colts and fillies…. The fillies usually join another band in fairly short order, the colts driven out from various herds usually join together for safety in small “bachelor” groups until those who are able establish dominance over an older stallion in another herd.”
- “The edge of the herd is the domain of the herd stallion, who must fight off both predators and other males.”
So we see a clear hierarchy: the alpha stallion is the strongest horse (but usually lets the alpha mare run things), then the alpha mare does the day-to-day leading, then the beta mares, then the few beta males allowed to follow along with the herd. Many of the betas and the omega males are cast out, along with a few potential studs that might rise to be the next alpha. The young fillies that are driven out don’t usually flock to the beta outcasts. No, they find another alpha (that’s not their father) and hypergamously mate with him.
Human Hierarchy: Apex Alpha Males, Alpha Females, Alpha Males, Beta Females, Beta Males
Though not exactly the same, the human hierarchy is similar in a sexual “free market.” The apex alpha males are at the top and control many aspects of society. The alpha females want both primary access to the apex alpha males and to exercise control (together with their alpha apex male allies) over the female herd. Many of the beta females of the herd are hypergamous, often envious of the glamorous lives of the alpha females and their greater access to the alpha males. However, by dressing slutty and offering up easy sex they can have the alpha for a night or two themselves–they can feel the intoxicating power of being desired by the desirable. Of course not all women are hypergamous and many are happy with the beta males available to them.
As with the beta male horses, the lesser males in today’s society don’t have much say in things. They can shut up and get by but if they start to speak up too much against the received wisdom of the herd then the alpha mares, the beta mares, white-knight nags, and even the alpha stallion at times, will shame them and threaten to cast them out.
Yes, the apex alpha males deservedly get the limelight but the idea of the alpha mare is an often ignored but highly important role in human society, especially today’s. Women might not have quite the role of the equine alpha mare but the human version does have great influence, much more than they’re given credit for when men are seen as privileged while women are exaggeratedly portrayed as powerless victims. No, today’s women are very powerful since they control the price of sex. And the alpha mares are even more powerful because they have great control over the message given to the female herd and the herd female either complies or is punished. Finally, bringing up the rear are the majority of males that do what the herd demands.
Speculation on How Things Changed in Society
Apex alphas want the dollar, work, vote, and pussy of the female herd.
Due to technology, the main divider between men and women–physical strength–was largely removed. Also, many of the intense domestic labors were replaced with machines. This freed women up to be able to work outside the home, thus providing a larger and cheaper workforce to rich business owners. Here’s one example of where the interests of business apex alphas aligned with feminist women. Also, with women earning more there were more customers than ever. Women voting is one area where political apex alphas (often situational apex alphas) and other politicians have to be more responsive to women and thus aren’t quite as independent of the female herd as other more independent apex alphas are, like top athletes and rock stars that sell much of their product to men and are highly desired by women.
Also, apex and regular alphas want lots of sex and so they were happy to see the societal restrictions on women loosen up. Some foolish betas probably thought they’d be swimming in pussy too, only to see that pussy swimming the other way. And since women are now more self-supporting or government-supported then more of them are freed up to service higher-value men.
So we see that many apex alpha males, regular alphas, and even greater betas actually benefit from the current society where women are free to fuck up.
Alpha Females Mostly Allied With Apex Alpha Male Goals
What about the alpha females? Many of them want wealth and power. Many also want the best men they can get. Those that go for the rock-star type have to be sexy and famous and they often gain that fame through a combination of their beauty and selling their sexiness to some extent. (Think of Kim Kardashian and many of the pop stars who wear sexy outfits and sing about sex.)
The feminists wanted power but implicitly this made them want higher and higher value men because as women became more successful then that raised the bar of what kind of men could satisfy their hypergamy.
All of these messages of what the alpha mares wanted were sent to the beta mares by both word and example. The alpha mares wanted to justify themselves and impose their views on the rest to create the kind of world they wanted. The beta mares, followers as they are, followed along, with pockets of conservative or libertarian resistance here and there.
The politicians and businessmen went along with these trends for the reasons described above. The beta males sensed the movement in the herd and didn’t want to offend feminine sensitivities so they accepted much of the demands of feminism too. Only as the beta males started to lose out on sex and good marriage partners and divorce rates underwent a step change up did men gradually and belatedly wake up to the fact that the sexual revolution didn’t bring paradise island to all. And women are also realizing that being free to go for it all doesn’t mean you’ll get it.
Perhaps it’s time for a change.
[…] justfourguys.com […]
Can I bend your framework a little to tie it into an article elsewhere? And thereby explain why society is falling apart over the issue of feminism. That’s a lofty goal(!) surely worth a go?
That article* talks about the obsolescence of women. Their historical role of bearing kids still exists (until artificial wombs are invented) , but beyond that, homemaking has been pretty much made a part time job at best (thanks to male invented technology). Following the invention of the pill, women have been freed from their historical role, but have floundered in finding a new one. Some of them have grabbed the old male one (on old school male terms – real equality), others grabbed that role and bent it somewhat (lowered physical standards for jobs where necessary). Others have just bitched and moaned about ‘patriarchy’ oppressing them (no details emerge under questioning), stamping their feet because 50% of whatever need to be female or it just isn’t fair (only the good jobs though, no need for 50% oil rig workers / miners etc). Others, the non-feminist, non-career oriented, women are left without a role unless they can hold their nose and marry a beta. To be fair there are women that don’t need to hold their nose to do that, let’s call them old-school perhaps(?) But their problem is; is this role really necessary anymore? And that they need a host male to provide for it.
(* http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/marriage-is-an-obsolete-technology-and-so-are-women/)
The reason I want to stretch your framework is because of a comment made on that article, which made me consider a connection between that article and yours
Nostradormouse in reply to rocelot
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/marriage-is-an-obsolete-technology-and-so-are-women/#comment-169988
So I want to stretch your framework by redefining ‘apex alpha females’. These are the gals that should be giving the herd its lofty goals, it’s direction beyond ‘you are exactly the same as men (except better in suitably vague terms) you go girls and zigazigah’. But if any apex-alpha-females exist, they are failing to deliver the requisite philosophy. (To explain my departure from your framework; I would argue that Maggie Thatcher was effectively a non-penis-wielding apex-alpha-male).
Whatever the perceived faults of beta males (not sexy enough for entitled yugo-girls) they used to do the heavy lifting for society. As I’ve previously said, increasing numbers of these guys are failing to see why they should do the heavy lifting when the rewards aren’t there. Now we could talk about VR girlfriends / sex-bots / reliable male contraceptive (RISUG) making this even ‘worse’ soon (maybe a discussion for another day. I see it as men’s right to GTOW, it’s up to society to offer them a deal that they want).
But what about the beta women? They have no homemaker role if the beta men aren’t interested in being their financier / pack-mule. Single moms can live via daddy-state, but men by and large do not want to wife them up and this life is only viable while the state has the cash (or can print it). Many of these beta females (I presume) like the traditional role of women (even without men. SATC basically), but they need financing. I’m happy for all the women that want to muscle in on the old male role (packhorse / moneycow for society), but what about those that don’t?
Feminism has been tearing down beta men, out of some hatred for ebul-penis-wielders-that-aren’t-sexy-enough-but-dammit-they-outperform-women-in-many-fields (which is clearly not fair – must be patriarchy etc) so quotas, AA etc are used to drag them down. But in doing that they have left the beta women without their personal financial host.
It appears that some of these women are starting to see that feminism is not interested in them either. The stats show an increasing number of women are seeing marriage and kids as an important goal (refusing the feminist line – career as the soul defining part of their life, there are no gender differences beyond whether your genitalia happen to point in or out), just as men are dropping the provider role ‘offered’ by marriage.
TL;DR there is an apex alpha female role (distinct from the male one), but nobody competent is doing the job. Everyone bar the alpha males and females are suffering, or will suffer because of it.
p.s.
I am very happy for everyone to define their own goals, women should have just as many choices as men. I am not interested in a return to patriarchy (whatever that was in the western world, a long time ago). I just happen to believe that feminism hurts women too.
(if you want to convert this to a post (rather than a comment diverting from a great post), might I suggest St Swithun’s Day (July 15th))
@Han,
As always, interesting post. It raises a number of questions for me as I read along, and I thought I’d start off by posing a very simple one:
Could you please explain by what, exactly, do you mean, when you mention the notion of a “free sexual market”? Exactly WHAT is a “free sexual market”, has there ever been a “less free” sexual market, and exactly WHAT forces/interventions have come about to create the current “free” sexual market?
Thanks!
O.
Very interesting food for thought…
It seems like I can find examples of the “wild horse herd” in many places from the “rumor groups” of female co-workers to the sororities of our local colleges: “alpha mares” setting the rules and running the show.
What I find most interesting is that in those situations, the “alpha stud” of the herd actually has little to no influence over the herds behavior, and is instead almost an accessory TO the herd in the form of protection and stud services.
Seems to me that partly explains how we got to the bumbling dad stage in our media. Somewhere along the way, we went form “father knows best” to “Everybody Love Raymond” in a short generation or two.
@Obsidian
Feel free to raise questions since these can be complicated matters with lots of different factors. I’m trying to put out some thoughtful analysis but am open to further refinements if something is missing.
I’m also aware that there could be some controversy over stating that alpha females have a higher place than non-apex alpha males but I think that most men are so constrained by the feminist-infused legal and cultural landscape that they have less real effect on society than alpha females. Though on the surface many non-apex alpha males may seem to have lots of influence but they’re doing so by playing by rules that have been put in place by feminist-friendly political apex alphas and alpha females.
To your questions:
A sexual free market would be one where people are largely free to choose to have sex with or marry anyone they choose who, of course, also chooses them. This differs from cultures with arranged marriages like India or heavy parental influence in others (like Muslim culture). Also, I think that the greater economic and legal freedom of women can be seen to contribute to the freeness of the sexual market, at least for women, since they can choose more on overall male attractiveness (however each woman defines that) rather than be so constrained by needing whatever provider or protector they can get a hold of.
You could imagine, however, a free sexual market in a poor/dangerous environment, where parents don’t play as much of a role, and the women would tend to choose men more willing to provide/protect and stick around.
Another aspect of the sexual free market is that it is NOT marked by one gender being able to impose its will on the other. You could imagine a rape culture where the men have banded together and created laws that allow them to rape (a real one; not the BS one that feminists say describe today’s Western world where in the US completed rape declined by 68% from 1995 to 2010). This seems like an inherently unstable culture since fathers, brothers and would-be mates will not like that “their” women are open to being raped.
You could imagine a less severe culture where the men (and even the women) have banded together to enforce assortative mating for life with no divorce (one woman for every man and usually of equal marriage value). If the future spouses have no say at all and are simply married off then this would seem to be a completely non-free sexual market.
Thoughts?
@Ted
It is interesting to observe “wild horse herds” where women run the show.
And regarding the favored male, it brings to mind the SNL Tom Brady effect, where the top attractive males can do whatever they want largely and it’s interpreted as sexy while the average or lower guys can do the exact same thing and it’s considered sexual harassment. Why? Because the women don’t want the sexual attention of the lesser males but do want the Toms’ of the world.
Here’s the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY
Give it a view. Quite funny yet informative.
@Ted
And yes, the switch from Father Knows Best to Everyone
LovesDisrespects Raymond shows how the culture has placed the average man below the average woman in terms of value and influence. This also applies somewhat to the lesser alphas as well.“And yes, the switch from Father Knows Best to Everyone Loves Disrespects Raymond shows how the culture has placed the average man below the average woman in terms of value and influence. This also applies somewhat to the lesser alphas as well.”
So we are left with a “free” sexual market place, but one where one “team” is subverting the agency of the other, which makes it less “free” for everyone.
It’s not much different than claiming we have a “free” job market here in the States while we are still supporting hiring quotas, initiatives to increase hiring of minorities and underrepresented “groups” in specific careers/fields, and union shops that require dues to be paid. I’m not in the least bit against equal opportunity hiring, and in fact I’m a big supporter of hiring based on skill and merit alone. But any rules put in place to circumvent that “free” process make it less free, and there is a cumulative affect to it all.
No different in the SMP. It is a combination of individual influences that have accumulated into a big mess.
@Ted
I agree that the overall freedom of choice to women has removed some of the freedom of choice of the beta men, since a lot of women are hypergamous in terms of the minimum level of man they’ll accept for casual sex or marriage while most men are happy with an equal for marriage and will go down in value for casual.
@Ted
Did you watch the Tom Brady video yet? Only two minutes and full of awesomeness.
And I agree that the unfairness towards men in education, affirmative action and cultural bias against men makes it harder for them achieve career success which is still an important part of the man’s overall attractiveness, even though the value of the male provider role has been diminished.
Also, the cultural shaming of men and calling them creeps, potential rapists and patriarchally privileged only serves to discourage the average man from approaching women and having more self esteem and confidence. If you’re always on eggshells that a woman will think you’re a creep then you’re not going to be as able to display natural charm and confidence.
@Han:
Yes, actually, two:
http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Best-Can-Fatherhood-Inner/dp/0520274067/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373033948&sr=1-1&keywords=doing+the+best+i+can
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-Marriage/dp/0520241134
These two works would seem to challenge your contention of Women in poorer inner city environments choosing provider guys.
Please explain?
O.
@Han:
As to your parting shot about “Creep Shaming” and the like, I’ve been giving the whole push against “Street Harassment” on one side, and the enmasse excoriation of Nice Guys(TM) on the other, a great deal of thought, and will be presenting those thoughts in a future JFG post. In the meantime though, I definitely think you’re onto something when you suggest that there are elements of American polity that wish to control or otherwise regulate Male sexuality.
More on all this soon; stay tuned…
O.
@Obs
I never said the poor will choose provider guys. Rather, it’s the shift in wealth or poverty that will shift a given woman to seek more or less of a provider.
You can’t directly compare the poor to the rich since they are different populations in terms of their psychology and how future-oriented and self-controlled they are.
So, look at the poor women of 100 years ago. Their level of poverty was greater than the poor of the last 40 years. Also, they didn’t have welfare. They needed marriage and a man to make ends meet.
Then along comes the rising economy of the 1950’s and 60’s. Poor women can more easily make a living on their own (albeit a humble one). Then you add in welfare and between the two, the poor women are better off economically than 100 years ago and they don’t need men as much. Their job and the gov’t now play the role of provider.
@Obs
Also, a poor woman raised in the 50’s or 60’s wouldn’t have such high aspirations since she never knew or expected better. So then she can have a job and welfare and those seem pretty good compared to what she was brought up with. Plus they allow her to then pursue the kind of men she would really like.
OTOH, the wealthy girl is brought up with higher expectations and is more able to see the consequences of her actions and knows she better choose a certain kind of guy if she wants to be able to have a higher standard of living (often with a lot of family guidance or pressure to help her see the light; influences not so available to the poor).
Han – I saw that Brady skit on SNL when it aired. I’ve been an on and off fan of SNL for far longer than I care to admit. (I remember seeing some of the now very famous comedians on the show when they were nobody: think Bill Murray era)
RE: poor women – the truth is, other than a small group of real outliers, there aren’t very many truly destitute people in the U.S. Sure, there are plenty of poor, but our concept of “poor” compared to what is still seen in many 3rd world countries is living the high life! Most of our poor have a roof over their heads, access to clean water and electricity, and can get food.
Not to belittle the plight of those here actually starving and without a home, as I know they exist. But overall, our minimum threshold of living is by and large FAR better than many people on the planet. It may not be a high flying lifestyle, but it is by no means dangerous enough to force people into making better yet harder decisions about how they live their lives. And, in some ways, I believe it actually prevents it since a safety net is already in place for those bad decisions.
@Obs
For those content with a lower-class or poor socio-economic lifestyle (which really isn’t poor because they have food, an apartment, tv, computer, cell-phone, and often a car) then they are living in a certain approximate version of paradise island where they don’t have to do that much because they can get welfare, food stamps and work a 40-hr/wk job.
However, if poor women aspire to rise to the middle class or higher then most of them need to work smarter and work harder and find a similarly achieving man to marry. And there probably aren’t that many such men she will come into contact that also want her. Such women apparently value the freedom to go for out-of-their-league good guys or sexy badboys that are not interested in much more than sex for a season with these women. Once women reach a certain level of material security (and that will depend a lot on their expectations and the setting they were raised in) then they will often choose more to follow their hypergamous instincts instead of just look for an equal that might help them rise in SES but not make them tingle.
@Ted
Agree 100% with your take on the poor. Most of the poor in the developed world are pretty damn well off when compared to truly poor nations like Haiti, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
If a woman’s having her basic needs and some wants provided by either her job or the gov’t then even if we call her poor (which is a misnomer and abuse of the word IMO) then she doesn’t need a man to provide and will thus be free to pursue the men that more tickle her fancy.
Han – “If a woman’s having her basic needs and some wants provided by either her job or the gov’t then even if we call her poor (which is a misnomer and abuse of the word IMO) then she doesn’t need a man to provide and will thus be free to pursue the men that more tickle her fancy.”
Ok so this brings up a scary point to me: it seems that based on what we can observe, unless women are forced by some external force to “settle” for equal SMV value guys (meaning they settle down with “providers” because they must) they mostly don’t want to settle at all. Or at least not until their own SMV drops so low that the only guys they have any hope of snagging are the beta provider types.
Men on the other hand seem pre-programmed to accept an equal value partner, or at least not to question the relative values between himself and his mate too much as long as he is getting his needs met.
And this all plays out in so much of what we talk about: women riding the carousel in their youth, then finding no “decent men” to marry. Having kids with the “bad boy” and later locking down a “provider” to raise them, only to become bored later and eject using divorce law as a club over his head. And even on the less extreme side of things, there are more and more folks on second, third, and more marriages, probably due to much of the same influence. (In the interests of full disclosure, I am on marriage #2 myself, so I kinda represent that remark.)
I tend to believe that just about all natural human tendencies and desires need to be tempered with some form of external influence. My glass half empty opinion of humanity it we have the ability to be honorable and noble, but only a rare few people are born with that drive while most of us focus on what’s in it for us. As restricting as many of the rules from the “good old days” were, they served a purpose in protecting young people from impulsive and sometimes downright dangerous behavior, and those restrictions are all but gone now. The few remaining are hardly enforced, and most young people are encouraged to “discover themselves” in whatever manner they deem appropriate, without having the age or wisdom to have a clue of what appropriate is.
And now I’m sounding like a grouchy old guy yelling at kids to get off my lawn. Again…
@Swithunus
You point out interesting changes in the role of women. Their domestic labor is no longer as important since washing machines, dishwashers and frozen lasagna help out a great deal. And the pill has changed their reproductive role towards a more voluntary one, divorcing sex from necessarily getting pregnant.
Yes, many women have grabbed the old male role of working outside the house. But I must point out–and I know you’re aware–that women always worked for most periods of history and contributed greatly to the economy…it just tended to be at home.
Now to the stretching. I don’t see your definition of apex (or normal) alpha females as any different than mine. I’m referring to their position in the herd, which is independent of what they teach. You want them to teach lofty goals to women instead of just telling them to be men. Just as apex alpha males can use their influence for one thing or another but the hierarchical position of the apex alpha male is still there. Both Hitler and Churchill were apex alpha males (even if only political and situational) but had different causes.
I would say that the SAHM route where you don’t have to work was/is an anomaly. 100 years ago on the farm or 20,000 years ago on the Savannah women had to work and help provide by sewing or cooking or gathering food. They also took care of children. And in many cases that was hard work.
I agree that tearing down the beta male is removing available men to be the “financial host” or provider. Men are slow to change, in part due to the conflicting and confusing messages they got: on one hand be a provider but on the other seeing that that wasn’t as rewarded anymore. Men are finally waking up to the lack of incentives to be a provider.
And, as you say, women are seeing that the feminist focus on career over all else is causing them to not achieve their goals of marriage and kids (as we saw in that Atlantic article in my last post).
So, I agree that the alpha females and the apex alpha females should provide a different message, one that values men more and allows women the true freedom to choose what they want.
I just don’t see that as a different category or role for apex alpha women. Rather, I see it as women with a different message and focus filling the role of apex/alpha female.
Thoughts?
“I just don’t see that as a different category or role for apex alpha women. Rather, I see it as women with a different message and focus filling the role of apex/alpha female.”
A change of the old guard so to speak?
That’s truly where my hope for the future lies. I don’t have much faith that any woman currently in a position of power and influence will do much good, despite the best efforts of women like Dr. Helen Fisher and a few others like her. I think our best hope for a better future is to educate the women that will become the next “alpha mares”, and hope that the herd will follow their lead.
Which is why sites that attract young college age women, to me, are the platforms from which to push such an education agenda. Unfortunately, those sites want/need “herd approval” to succeed, and the current herds are NOT on board with a shift in SMV dynamics. And why would they be? Right now it is highly slanted in young women’s favor in many ways. And even women that don’t and won’t abuse the system for their benefit still gain from it all, so there isn’t much incentive for them to make life tougher on themselves.
And men still want access to sex, which is why it is taking so long for men to get clued in.
@Grouchy Ted
I agree with what you just said if we assume it applies to maybe 1/2 of women–the other half or so seem to still be fairly “traditional”:
As I pointed out here, without the constraints of needing a provider/protector to be with them long-term and faithfully then women will be free to be more demanding in terms of mate value and many of them (not all) will do so.
This is just a natural consequence of the rich/safe developed world we live in. Just as much as the gravity we feel from the earth is due to its mass and radius.
Now on top of these natural “forces,” culture can serve to either amplify or restrain the tendency that is natural for a given environment. At the moment, feminism, raunch queens and promiscuous apex alphas are amplifying the natural leaning towards promiscuity in a safe/rich environment.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. If enough people can see the wisdom of reining that all in then we could have a force that counters the natural tendency or force towards promiscuity in the safe/rich env.
But it takes people to first understand what is going on and then desire to change and go about making those changes. Blogs like these are a small step towards a more sane society. A book like “Men on Strike” is another.
As I point out in this post and as Swithunus mentioned, many women aren’t happy with feminism’s imperial mandate to focus on career above relationships and family and are ripe to be spoken to with the message that they should be truly free to choose, not the faux-choice of the Fempire that says you are free to “JOIN US OR DIE.”
@Ted
I agree that the best step is to educate the next generation of alpha mares. The current ones are too steeped in feminist dross.
But we have a powerful tool to start this. And that is namely to tap into most women’s innate desire to have relationships and mothers and point out how the Fempire has denigrated those things and urged women to “lean in” and sacrifice those deep desires.
There is a lot of underlying disappointment that can be tapped into and even turned into rage against the feminist overlords, that many women were lied to that career was the most important thing or that being a slut to some extent would be empowering.
By pointing out that the Fempire doesn’t want women to be free to choose what they want most as women (but only choose herd-approved behaviors) then we can discredit the femperors and turn the herd away from the dark side.
Han – “By pointing out that the Fempire doesn’t want women to be free to choose what they want most as women (but only choose herd-approved behaviors) then we can discredit the femperors and turn the herd away from the dark side.”
I concede to your higher ability to communicate to the masses on this.
See, this is exactly why you are a great communicator, and I’m a repository of information. I don’t put 2 + 2 together to get “show them how their own system sucks and they’ll consider ours.”
I just see a shitty system, and want to fix it regardless of how others feel about it. Feelings don’t matter much to me when something isn’t working. Fix it and learn to feel good about the changes after the fact is my preferred operating method.
@Ted
I agree that many women are benefiting in many ways (though hurting in others) so it will be difficult to change the herd direction but I really believe that progress can be made by pointing out how feminists led women to the hurt they’re experiencing by telling them to focus on career too much and slut it up.
I also agree that many men just want sex and so it takes them a while to clue in to the long-term consequences and that they’re getting screwed over. They buy into the blue-pill narrative that men are privileged oppressors and thus they try to make it up to women for the collective sins of themselves and their fathers. They do this thinking, in part, that it will help them get laid. Maybe keeping a woman appeased works to some extent. But in the long run she’ll lose attraction.
The sad things is that many men will double down on the just-be-nicer and more understanding strategy. Often, it takes hitting rock bottom to be so shaken from one’s worldview that one can then take the red pill and start to see the matrix.
“The sad things is that many men will double down on the just-be-nicer and more understanding strategy. Often, it takes hitting rock bottom to be so shaken from one’s worldview that one can then take the red pill and start to see the matrix.”
This is pretty much a great synopsis of my first marriage and divorce. Married, “settled down” and went full Blue Pill, she got “unhappy”, I doubled down on Blue Pill, she gave me the “ILYBINILWY” speech, separation and divorce. Took 12 years from “I Do” until the end, but truth be told it started getting bad well before then and we both just lived in denial for awhile.
Even that alone didn’t wake me up. Meeting my current wife and finding myself, once again, considering a relationship is what led me to start looking at what I did wrong in the past, and that brought me to MMSL. Basically if I was going to take the plunge again, I didn’t want to repeat my past mistakes. I found a lot more than I bargained for!
@Ted
I’m glad your current marriage is going much, much better and that you were able to learn from the past.
With me, I had a gf that I wanted to marry but I totally pedastalized her and did tons of nice things for her and was too needy and she was more aloof and not so romantic so a lot of my behavior was the exact opposite of what would have been effective with her. In hindsight maybe I should have seen her aloof and unromantic nature as signs that she wasn’t so compatible with me but OTOH we had amazingly fun conversations and had a conversational chemistry I’ve never experienced with anyone else, and she was pretty.
Anyway, she started to pull away and that hurt. Then she broke up with me and I was emotionally devastated.
I started to look for reasons why. I looked on the internet. I even looked into whether our signs weren’t compatible (actually, they were!). lol That’s when I came across David DeAngelo’s Double Your Dating and the summary of it seemed to fit with the times I had had success with women and also with the things I often did wrong so I bought it.
90% of if was very good advice and started me down the path of understanding women better…though I’m still a work in progress and intellectually understanding truth is far different from being able to put it in practice.
Han, Swithers
If this is the true state of affairs, what strategy must a man then pursue that is to his advantage ?
@Marellus
Good to see you.
I see basically two options: become more attractive or settle for what one can get as is.
1) I think the better option is for men to up their value as much as they can. For this to be personally satisfying they should do it in ways that are congruent with who he really is. He shouldn’t just try to become someone that he outright is not.
That said, there are certain attitudes and behaviors and qualities that are attractive to women.
I would recommend that a man identify which of those things attractive to women are also in line with who he is at heart, or at least portions of himself. Thus by working on those areas he is still being true to himself but strengthening his aspects that will be more attractive to women. He is bringing out his best self which will be beneficial to himself even if no woman responds. I suppose he could also adapt some things that aren’t really part of who he is at the moment but do NOT conflict with his core.
I don’t think that completely reinventing oneself as a entirely new creature that is in utter disalignment with his true self is really possible or desirable. A good actor might be able to do it and it might even help him get some short-term attraction but it’s not a recipe for a stable and happy life.
2) The other option is to simply say that one is how they are and not change at all and adjust his sights to the women that will respond. That could include just forgetting about women altogether.
The post and comments all bring up very good points, but I’m not really one to take part in the current conversation…wouldn’t work.
Instead, I’ll throw this out there; What category are we to put MGTOW or WGTOW? By that, I mean the (still relatively few) men and women who truly don’t care what the herd thinks, but are also not the “trend setter” alphas. Those of us who strive to follow their OWN beliefs rather than what happens to be popular at the time.
Thoughts?
@Sophia You’re more than welcome to take part in the current conversation if you’d like.
As to your question about people outside the herd or the social structure, I will say that broadly speaking, the males that want to dominate the social structure are alphas, those that are more followers are betas, and those men that are very similar to alphas in terms of ability and charisma are sometimes known as sigmas. There hasn’t ever been much talk about the lone-wolf equivalent of the beta but I once coined the term ‘zeta.’ That’s a play off of the s-sound in sigma and it rhymes with beta.
A zeta might be some not-particularly charismatic, soft-spoken artist that doesn’t follow social convention, lives off his paintings but never achieves much in terms of sales or great art. He’s talented enough to not have followed the conventional path of getting a job with a company. Let’s say he makes $30k or $40k.
A sigma will be much more charismatic and capable. He’d be more of the whiz who didn’t follow the conventional path but achieved great success. Perhaps Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg could be seen as career sigmas, though definitely not as charisma sigmas. Once they build an empire though then they basically become businessmen alphas because they have a social structure that they’re leading. Charisma sigmas might be someone like a rockstar who really just walks to the beat of his own drum.
If you have to narrow it down to just alpha and beta then sigma would be within the alpha category because he is able to dominate the sphere he applies himself to, even if that is often outside the usual social structure. And zetas would be seen as betas in the broader sense.
I suppose you could loosely apply these categories to women as well to some extent.
Thoughts?
Ok, that makes sense in a way.
Yes, I’ve heard of zetas and sigmas before but didn’t mention them because I wasn’t sure if you also knew about them. Then again, I’ve been seeing more and more of these terms in the manosphere as of late. I’m a little leery of this overzealous labeling…I understand it’s necessary for ease of discussion and whatnot, but I fear that it may lead to overt generalizations that only serve to alienate those that don’t really fit a single label.
As for taking part in the conversation, I greatly appreciate your willingness to allow me in…but I’m afraid my view is probably too confusing for people. I’m not trying to promote my own blog here, but if you read my posts titled “An Androgynous Woman” and “Wrong Body, Right Mind” you might understand why I’m hesitant to jump in with my opinions.
@Sophia
I have no idea what percentage of women would be similar to you but regardless you’re welcome here. No one will try to fit you into one category or another. Everyone who comes with an open and fair mind and presents whatever they want to about themselves with sincerity is more than welcome.
I personally am always looking to expand my understanding so I think you have valuable input. And your input doesn’t just have to be about you either. You have a brain and can think and can put yourself in other people’s shoes as well.
I’m trying to understand the dynamics of relationships and sexual attraction and so forth and how that connects with societal structure and so forth.
I read over your posts just now. You have the body of a woman but feel your mind is more male in terms of how most men are. That’s fine (and feel free to clarify anything if I’m getting it wrong). I find that I have a strong masculine side in me (love sports, competing, logic, etc.) but also a stronger-than-usual feminine side in me. I love Jane Austen movies, romance and like to avoid conflict unless I’m really mad. I also have good taste in things like flowers, jewelry and clothing for women. Though I have guy friends I tend to have more female friends. I think it’s part genetic or at least innate. I also have some gay siblings so I think I understand where my love of more stereotypically feminine things come from. So I have a more feminine than normal side to me but also a strong masculine side. They’re both strongly there. It’s not like I’m neutral.
Anyway, you’re free to choose but I’m inviting you to stick around and comment.
You sound like an interesting person and that’s often how we learn, from someone who is not exactly “normal.”
What about the nerds who avoid conforming to the herd?
Granted, there are various countercultures such as geeks/gamers, hipsters, etc., that seek to avoid the mainstream herd but simply fit into a herd of their own. But actual nerds tend not to form their own herds, and are willing to risk social ostracism to do their uncool (at least in our culture) activities and interests…
Ah I see Sophia essentially beat me to that question. Zeta males eh?
@Han
Thank you for your understanding. I will certainly keep coming back, even if it means clarifying my views from time to time. In regards to your own masculine/femine sides…have you read any of Carl Jung’s work with his theories on Anima and Animus? If not, it may be worth a skim through.
@Nemesis
Yes! These are exactly the types I’m talking about! Those of us who would prefer to spend our Saturday nights playing D&D instead of clubbing…who frequent coffeehouses and tea shops rather than bars…who only really argue over whether Kirk or Picard was the better Captain. If we be Zetas, then so be it.
@Han
I see part of your question is gone, but I’ll answer it for you anyway. I’m attracted to men (more specifically my fwb) but definitely appreciate other women’s bodies. I’m not attracted enough to pursue a lady for myself, but would agree to a threesome if my lover arranged one. Hope this answers your question.
Ted,
Re: women being forced to settle.
Women, not necessarily. A woman should be able to figure out what she really wants in life, which are relationships and family (what 84% of women want to be SAHMs?) and pursue that with the available men.
The issue is one of maturity. Unfortunately, our society does not do a good job of promoting maturity in the population, hence the ever-greater demands for government assistance, lack of savings, etc.
Our system is an immature one which leads to immature results. The stats Susan trots out showing greater life well-being for college on practically every metric does not demonstrate the benefits of college, to me, but rather how a tiny portion of the population has any grasp on maturity and they all go to college.
We also had the discussion on “equal” males briefly…at a 4th of july party, I was listening to the girls in an Americanized “religious” group talk about guys. One was mentioned as being cute, another girl clarified he had BECOME cute.
Of course, I knew him, and knew him through college. I can see what they mean. And this has played out for numerous men since the college years, the “delayed” SMV peak.
It seems that an intelligent woman would aggressively pursue these under-priced assets, especially while she is a the height of her power. Hence, Ring by Spring mentality.
Unfortunately, most women do not pursue this strategy. Instead they try to Time The Market, and try to Buy on Margin with sex. Unfortunately, that means a lot of times the guy bails and takes the “investment” with him and the girl is left with nothing.
It appears that women are not able to exploit these market inefficencies en masse, though individual women can make a killing by grabbing under-appreciated men.
re: educating future alpha mares
Dumb strategy. You cannot educate them and you have no right to because you are a man. You are allowed to discipline your daughters and try to teach them values but education of females is best done primarily by other females.
The ancient successes were because the Male Pack assembled and had to accomplish something. The Apex Alpha Males like Hitler and Churchill had to fight WARS. Trying to fight a war with a small professional military of priviliged men was moronic: Revolutionary France, empowered by radicalized Beat Males, utterly destroyed every European power at the same time. The “Alpha” Officers of Prussia and Austria were nothing more than mince-meat at the bayonet against a radical French Beta backed up by his buddies and under the direction of Ur-Compensating-Alpha Napoleon.
No, you require the Apex Alpha Males to stand up for male rights and to demand male involvement. It is the ONLY way.
Long-term this is the natural equilibrium and we will return to it. Too many foreign policy pressures. They are not manifested right now, but Europe will become a hollow shell and Eastern Europe is being depopulated by emigration, leaving a series of rump states along the Russian frontier. Our collection of allies against China is inherently unstable and will almost certainly collapse at some point.
Anyways, changing the message is just that, changing the message, without changing the substance. This was actually quite the problem with the USSR back in the day…
Churchill wanted to negotiate with Stalin. Didn’t realize that? Makes perfect sense, he didn’t want another war, he wanted to roll back Soviet advances and was willing to accomplish that by peaceful means.
Stalin would never do that? Maybe. The USSR was not strong and Stalin knew it. The late 40s were periods of escalation because he was trying to extort a huge bargain from the West and essentially got it. Then NATO was formed, the US committed itself to the defense of some piss-poor backwater in Korea, and we tripled our defensive spending.
Essentially, once 1951 rolled around, the Cold War was finished. Just a matter of how long it would take until the USSR collapsed.
Stalin was offering some peace overtures. Partly, an attempt to undermine NATO. But, open to settlement, too, probably.
The US view was divided into good and evil, though, and Stalin was evil, therefore, there would be no negotiation.
Amusingly, Kruschev SOUNDED cool at the first Geneva Conference, and the US went crazy with how much the USSR had changed, even though Kruschev had no intentions of settlement.
But America, and democracies in general, were uniquely vulnerable to a change in rhetoric, without a substantive policy change. Thus the US empowered the man would later place missiles in Cuba.
Morons, collectively.
Women are the same way. Changing the rhetoric of the message is all that you will accomplish, not a change in the substance.
Collectively, the Apex Alpha Males need to stop being dumbasses. In the long-run they are screwed without the Beta Males. This will become increasingly clear as the Beta males drop out, society detriortates, we lose our immigrants that supply the bulk of our doctors and scientists, an our historic enemies become resurgent.
“But actual nerds tend not to form their own herds, and are willing to risk social ostracism to do their uncool (at least in our culture) activities and interests…”
Count me in, but I like to think that I can do sociable, in fact I reckon I can be pretty good at displaying my shining wit when in the right mood.
@ADBG: “though individual women can make a killing by grabbing under-appreciated men.”
I did!
Though I didn’t know it, just knew I loved him for a laundry list of reasons that offered success over time.
Actually, back then I always assumed women flirted outrageously with him all the time and pursued him (it was pretty blatant), but he said it really started when we started dating.
ADBG
I think that maturity is very underrated in a society that believes compromising (settling) is a form of being a victim of reality. Settling is also seen by many as making a bet that might not turn out well, it is easier (and more cowardly) to pick later when it’s not such a gamble. In the recent decades this has worked out okay (marriage was there to be had later) for women. We shall see, but I reckon giving men a chance to get on top of their testosterone and work out the consequences of divorce, by delaying marriage, is probably not going to work out for everyone. The 64000 Dalrock question.
@Beth
“but he said it really started when we started dating.”
so, you socially validated him in the eyes of other women, in effect?
Hi Marellus (again)
You can go Han’s route (PUAish), or the MGTOWish way of making your life fun by doing things that please you, that should raise your SMP value anyway (and boost your outcome independence with a woman because whether it works out with her, or not, your life is good). I’m somewhere in that spectrum, more toward the MGTOW end due to believing the odds to be so poor that the investment in the chase is unlikely to pay off. But I am divorced and twentyish years older than him. Is something good comes along, fine, if not fine as well.
“if not, then fine as well”
@ Swithunus: “so, you socially validated him in the eyes of other women, in effect?”
I think that’s one way of putting it. Everything is relative and many (probably most) people tend to value others based less on their own merits than the “stuff they carry”.
An ‘attached’ person can be seen as a very valuable item (hey, he got her, she’s gorgeous, he must really be great…I want that man!).
That, and women can be pretty evil…there are any number of reasons a girl might want to instigate drama, just for the sake of drama.
“That, and women can be pretty evil…”
hey, I like to think that men can hold their own too, generally speaking. But I think that you’re right, this scenario is more common among the drama loving amongst us. If I had to pick a sex, then…okay, I’m with you.
I’ve never seen the SATC II movie, as described in the Reginald D Hunter clip I linked to previously. But I suspect that I agree with his conclusion of the movie; “Narrator-Girl got rewarded for being a cunt”. That stuff pisses me off, but it clearly works for a lot of women. When I was blue-pill I’d have just disliked the movie as drivel. Post red-pill I see it as actively hurting society.
@Nemesis
Nerds and geeks and so on are not really outside the social hierarchy, even though many of them like to flatter themselves that they are. Rather, most of them have jobs within the system and are simply of low value in terms of political, economic, and sexual influence.
Probably a clearer way to think of it is to go back to the hunter-gatherer days. A zeta would be someone that would go out in the wild by himself (or herself) and live off the land by hunting rabbits and gathering food. They aren’t a particularly good hunter so they never bring deers back to wow the tribe like a sigma would. In that setting, zetas would likely be few. The nerds back then would most likely stay in the tribes as most nerds do today but simply exercise little power in the tribe. Exercising little power in the tribe but staying in the tribe while thinking in one’s mind that one’s not playing by the rules simply is a form of self-flattery and unwillingness to accept one’s low value. Today’s nerd/geek who just works at Best Buy is simply a low-value beta or even omega. A more ambitious nerd who gets, say, an engineering degree and makes pretty good money working for a business or gov’t is not working outside of the system. They will have more influence and power over society than the Best Buy nerd but they would still be a beta, just one of middling value. To rise higher, he needs more charisma or very-high levels of accomplishment.
Perhaps a nerd who is very entrepreneurial and never goes to school but teaches himself programming or painting and can get enough work while never hitting it big would be a zeta. But most nerds don’t do that. Most succumb to the need of working for the Man and do so.
Thoughts?
@Swithunus
I saw many episodes of SATC and in spite of their poor message to women were fairly entertaining and informative about the lives of self-centered, feminist, and promiscuous women. Also, the way that Big would fuck Carrie but never really commit and married the hotter girl (an actress that was Tom Brady’s gf in real life) seemed pretty true to life.
I saw the first movie and it was just crap. It switched from the somewhat realistic world of the promiscuous woman in NYC to total romance-novel fantasty where Big actually marries her–she tamed the alpha! And reading the plot of the 2nd movie, I decided it was even worse and have no need to see it.
@Sophia
Just read about the anima and animus. Since it’s largely unconscious but can manifest itself from time to time I’m not sure exactly how to know what state my anima is in. As to the four levels of anima being like Eve, Helen, Mary and Sophia, I’m not sure how my unconscious views women. I see that each category would describe some women and some women would perhaps be multiple archeypes at once as well.
On a practical level, the one thing I’ve had to do to not turn off most women is tone down how much I express my feminine side up front. It seems that once the masculine side is more established and I’m acceptably so to a woman that then the feminine side is more acceptable and even welcome, kind of along the lines of many women wanting to bring the soft side out of a strong man instead of building up a strong side in a soft man.
Also, interesting that you’re more attracted to men but like women in the context of a threesome and where you don’t have to make much effort.
@ADBG
Women should be able to but they will often sacrifice their own desires to maintain the acceptance of the herd. That’s partly why 100 years ago women that didn’t want kids would go along with it anyway and why now many women that do want reln and kids put them off in order to please the feminist herd.
Maturity can help people to realize that they should not necessarily give as much heed to the herd but there are often real consequences of bucking the herd, though not as dire as the prehistoric environment.
As to college and poverty, I think that however people ended up where they are (genes, environment, personal choices) that we really are dealing with different populations (though it would really be a spectrum and not bimodal) when we look at the “poor” vs the MC or UMC. The latter do have better future orientation and impulse control.
Agree that most women these days try to time the market and want him already made instead of a work in progress. Just like picky employers that have the upper hand, women in their 20’s are picky in this environment because they simply have more power. Now, even when they hit their 30’s many often don’t realize that their power is starting to decline and they keep high demands.
Totally disagree that educating or creating future alpha mares is a dumb strategy. This can take on many forms. It can be by creating discontent within the beta mares and pointing out how their alpha mare masters are leading them “over the cliff” to not pursue relationships and children, what most of the beta mares most want.
Yes, women are the best to convince other women but normal men can do it too to a lesser degree if they communicate effectively and simply phrase things in the context of the women’s desires, for example, noticing an article about women being shamed for wanting reln and kids and sympathizing with how horrible is that, for a woman to be deprived of her deepest desires.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic but men do have a “right” (whatever rights mean) to educate other women. However, I’ll grant that in today’s misandristic society that many women do not want to be educated by most men. But they will listen to men they deem attractive or charismatic. If men present it in the right way women will listen.
I totally agree about the power of mobilizing betas in a cause.
As to requiring Apex Alpha Males, that’s nice in principle but how do you actually go about requiring it? Who? Yes, the betas can eventually rebel and that is part of the more general idea that the powerful are constrained to some extent by the masses. Like in Egypt where the people rose up against Morsi (one powerful figure) and got an even more powerful figure, the military, to see that without the coooperation of the beta and lower-alpha masses that things would get worse and worse. So, yes, betas (male or female) can revolt against the leaders (male or female) and demand change.
So in the developed world, as I pointed out in the post, most of the political, business and celebrity apex alphas very much like feminism and/or raunch culture. They’ve prospered greatly in terms of wealth and/or pussy. At the current moment, the apex alphas are in alliance with the alpha mares and lower alpha males and much of the partially brainwashed beta females and males.
The low birth rates and economic stagnation that occurs when women go hypergamous and both men and women embrace a culture of no new life in order to enjoy material wealth and pleasure is leading to a decline in many countries (China and Iran too, btw, don’t have replacement level fertiility).
This decline, combined with the likely possibility of more men checking out economically or from marriage, will put some pressure on the apex alphas to provide more incentives to men once again.
This is a slow process and will only work if the apex alphas see their current power and perks threatened. Short of that the apex alphas are very happy as is.
A faster process seems to be to focus on the awakening mass of beta males that feel lost and emasculated and get them all doses of the red pill.
In conjunction with this, get women a few focused portions of the red pill that show them that the feminists and raunch queens are speaking to their female desire for herd acceptance, hypergamy and economically independence of a man via job or gov’t so they can pursue fun and hypergamy. Combine that with exaggerated claims of female victimhood and accusations against the patriarchy and the feminists really tapped into powerful female emotions that were both there to begin with and were then amplified by the feminist propaganda like 70 cents on the dollar and rape culture and so forth.
But, there are other powerful female desire being ignored, most notably relationships and kids. Barring some total collapse that removes the female empowerment due to cheap energy and machines make male physical strength largely irrelevant, we aren’t headed back to a totally male-controlled patriarchy.
But we can tap into women’s desires for reln and kids and show them that they are worthy goals that the Fempire doesn’t want for them. We can cause them to see that they should be allowed to desire those goals and that in order to achieve them they will need the beta male to be respected and incentivized again, in contrast to the beta male bashing that causes them to check out today.
By mobilizing both beta females and males we can create enough pressure from below to retreat from the feminist-supremacy society to one that really is more equal and free, that doesn’t demonize men and exaggerate female victimhood, that really does allow women the freedom to choose instead of guilting them out of reln and kids.
By getting the betas and even lower alphas the red pill and showing them the ways that society is fucking them over then we can create enough demand for different treatment. Since it will still be a free society, the apex alpha males will still have lots of customers and pussy and they will realize that since the underlying masses are starting to demand an end to misandrist and anti-kids-and-relationship feminism that something should be done about it. The alpha mares will either change their radfem views or gradually be replaced by new alpha mares that are more egalitarian and fair.
This is where are voices come in, either via blogs or in person, to get the message out about the poor situation and start to convince more and more people. Just a mere two years ago I was still rather blue pill, thinking men were an oppressive patriarchy and women purely innocent victims.
Ironically enough, HUS was where I got most of my red pill from, especially through the male commenters. My eyes were opened that men aren’t all the utter villains that radfems and watered-down feminist society portrays them to be. I can be proud to be a man. Now I’ve banded together with some other red pill “outcasts” from the blue pill herd and we are raising our voices here. I believe we will be able to similarly influence others, both men and women.
I say that the female herd is so important to influence because most men are herd followers and do what is required to get sex. And since women are more desirous to be part of a herd then by influencing the voices that they listen to, namely discrediting the current alpha mares and creating both room and demand for fairer alpha mares to take their place, we can shift the herd which will then shift what most men do to get sex from the herd and that will collectively put pressure on the apex alphas to promote fairness instead of a pro-feminist culture.
We also work with men as much as we can to get them out of their pussy trance of getting meager amounts of grudging sex and thinking that what they’re doing right now is working. We teach them how to adapt to the current environment and share the message to other men and women.
Working with both men and women is important but I believe that in our fem-centric society that women have more power to influence things under the current situation (excluding the apex alpha males who are complicit with the feminists and raunch queens).
Of course, the other alternative is to let things burn and hope that things don’t fall so hard that the apex alphas can get the message in time to fix things before everything burns to the ground.
I choose to work on the former because even if it fails society wide at least we will have helped some people along the way (including ourselves) know how to live better in the environment we’re in. And the upside is that we can have a soft landing to a better world as opposed to a descent into the fire that may or may not emerge better.
@Swithunus
It is interesting that when you get men into their mid-30’s and beyond that the power starts to shift in their favor over 30+ y/o women and a lot of these men will either choose LTRs as opposed to marriage or casual to LTRs. Also, even if they do want marriage, more will be leary because of divorce laws, assuming they’re the higher earner.
I think that under a fair legal system that most men would love to marry a woman around 25 y/o. But in today’s system, if they have to wait til the woman’s 30+, then there’s just less incentive.
@HS: “Also, interesting that you’re more attracted to men but like women in the context of a threesome and where you don’t have to make much effort.”
“Like women in the context of a threesome” being a hypothetical, if I read her post correctly. Reality differs from fantasy, and not usually in a better way. There aren’t a lot of women who really enjoy watching their man with someone else.
@Beth
I don’t know if it’s just fantasy or if she’d actually like to do it. While I agree that most women don’t want to have a threesome, we can let Sophia tell us, if she chooses to, whether she really would want to have one. To me it sounded like she’d be up for one.
@HS: “So in the developed world, as I pointed out in the post, most of the political, business and celebrity apex alphas very much like feminism and/or raunch culture. They’ve prospered greatly in terms of wealth and/or pussy. At the current moment, the apex alphas are in alliance with the alpha mares and lower alpha males and much of the partially brainwashed beta females and males.”
I just don’t see this in the real world. Perhaps the celebrity world, but in the real world the vast majority of millionaires are, and have been married to one woman for many many years, (yes) monogamously. They are more conservative than average. How have you come to this paradigm?
@Beth
First of all, how many of these millionaire men have been faithful? Hooking up or hiring prostitutes on business trips happens, though I don’t have any stats on how often.
Also, read carefully what I wrote, though perhaps I could have worded it better. I said that apex alphas benefited from feminism and/or raunch culture, in terms of wealth and/or pussy. There are multiple paths or combinations of how apex alpha men benefited from today’s society.
So, I never said that the wealthy businessman who happens to have been faithful got lots of pussy. He would be in the category of benefiting from cheaper labor than if only men were the primary workers (I’m not saying men should be or that women shouldn’t necessarily work), from more overall wealth being created by having more workers creating more wealth, from more consumers due to more women having money, and he benefited sexually by being a successful man that would be able to attract an attractive wife. If some portion of women are hypergamous then that necessarily means that he will have more women to choose from since he is a top man. And with many of his fellow apex alphas choosing promiscuity then he can be the monogamous prize for an amazing woman.
So I’m not saying that every apex alpha benefited in every way I mentioned, just some of them.
Thoughts?
@Beth
In terms of married athletes, some of them marry the type of women you’d expect but often they marry below what they could get. Regardless, in many cases they have lots of women on the side. Look at Michael Jordan’s first wife. He was a 10 in sexual value (not saying he’s a 10 in looks) and an apex alpha and she looked more like a 7. But he had pussy on the side. In the case of marrying down then it’s more likely she’ll put up with the other women.
Same thing with Bill Clinton. If Bill wanted a hotter woman he could have gotten one but he likely saw Hillary as a good political partner so they could achieve great success; and then he had loads of affairs on the side, and some of those women were more physically attractive than Hillary.
Look at Elliot Spitzer. No idea what his wife was like but he was out hiring high-end hookers (aka escorts).
Look at John Edwards. David Petraeus.
I don’t have stats on business people but I don’t doubt that many of them cheat as well. Here’s an article that looks at the topic:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-04-19-air-fidelity-usat_N.htm
Han Solo: “But I must point out–and I know you’re aware–that women always worked for most periods of history and contributed greatly to the economy…it just tended to be at home.”
…and cleaning the floors and windows of other people’s homes. I wonder how many of these women worked only within their own homes. It seems to me that this is a privilege of the upper-middle and upper classes. I’m guessing that a large nummber, if not a majority, of middle and lower class women worked outside of the home to supplement the household income. This was certainly the case for my Southern family. Which brings to mind an important point about feminism…it wasn’t all about freeing women from their own homes, but freeing them from the limitations of being offered only domestic/service work outside of the home.
@RWC
Great to see you come by. How are you doing?
You certainly raise a good point about women working outside the home in order to make ends meet. In what time period did your family or ancestors do that?
I think I was referring more to farm life of 200+ years ago where there would be so much work to do to make the farm work that that’s what women would mostly do. Even in the modern world my aunt worked a lot on their farm and ranch, cooking for not only her family but the other workers. She also drove combines and took care of their garden and other farm duties.
I think that the class of work you’re talking about would be with more urban or suburban folk where a woman wouldn’t have all the farm duties to do and could also find lots of people to work for cleaning, sewing, or whatever. However, this could also work in a rural setting too. People with a farm too small to live off of would need to supplement with labor outside the home by the man, woman or both.
And when you talk about feminism it brings to mind that there were different waves of feminism. I am all in favor of what I would call fairness feminism that would allow women to vote and work and own property and whatever other things were lacking.
The kind of feminism I rail against is the later-wave man-hating type that says all men are privileged and likely to be somewhat tyrannical. I’m against the kind that is all about exaggerating how women are victims (but I’m not dismissing real victims) and the constant demand for more and more gov’t support for women that turns the gov’t into the provider. I’m against the feminism that can see boys doing poorly in school and not going to university as much and gloating or, at best, not caring.
So, I am for equality but modern feminism is about achieving female superiority, IMO.
@HS: That story in the link about traveling betrayal is saddening.
Still think those are outliers, the exception not the rule. Good, steady longstanding relationship doesn’t usually make the headlines. Reality isn’t Bill Clinton or the superstar athlete. It’s closer to ‘the millionaire next door’. Politicians lie for a living, no surprise about their conduct, a normal person wouldn’t want that job. Entertainers tend to be narcissists, no surprise there either.
“First of all, how many of these millionaire men have been faithful?”
Most, I’d bet. They’re just like everyone else, in my experience. Except more confident (which ipso facto means they don’t have to jump into bed with a piece of strange to validate themselves, unlike some less confident folk).
What about Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, Jim Rogers, et al? I don’t particularly like Mark Zuckerberg but I doubt that he is philandering and his wife isn’t a 10. I wouldn’t actually put Petraeus in with the pack either, he has been married 40 years and I doubt there was much if any (other) philandering during that time…life changes lead to relationship stressors, but whatever, obviously he chooses his wife and he has expressed a deep regret for the harm he caused her.
@Beth
Here’s an article that gives the range of what different studies have found in terms of men having cheated at least once. It seems to range btw 20 and 75% for men, depending on which study. Due to the sensitive nature it is likely difficult to get fully honest answers.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-13/opinions/35442797_1_current-partner-wealthy-men-text-messages
“In a 1991 study, sex researcher Shere Hite found that 70 percent of married women have cheated on their partners; a 1993 follow-up study found that 72 percent of married men have as well. According to a 2004 University of Chicago study, 25 percent of married men have had at least one extramarital affair.”
Here’s a lower estimate:
http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/how-to-avoid-infidelity/#ixzz2YJsbyYsw
“According to a 2008 Gallup poll, 54 percent of Americans know someone personally who has an unfaithful spouse. And the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey consistently finds that 20 percent of men cheat in their lifetimes, compared with 12 percent of women. Look around you: attractive colleagues, flirty baristas, hot neighbors. Your day may be coming.”
@Swithunus
Along the lines we talked about of the invaders of Britain seeing it as the frontier and that helping develop more independent-minded women (and men), look at this article and how they speculate much of the individualism started back in the 10 hundreds. Food for thought at any rate.
link
Thanks for the links, HS.
I find it very very hard to believe much of Shere Hite’s handiwork (I’ve read that less than five percent of her subjects respond in polls), and Kinsey’s (bisexual and self-described polyamorous). I also reject a lot of Freud’s assertions. Reasonability test, I know far too many people to believe half of all marriages are screwing around on their spouses, and I’m in a community where cheating would be disproportionately high by stereotype (unless we’re counting people who are separated). One in five? Maybe. I’d bet my house 70 percent is a crock of crap. However, I do find it easy to believe 54 people polled know someone who has cheated in his/her spouse. I could list a whooole lot of them. I know a whooole lot of people.
I thought loyalty is considered one of the most important character attributes a person can have? To men in particular. I don’t believe they’d irreparably discredit themselves in their own eyes either often or easily.
Want to add “in general” to the last bit there.
@Han
that’s a very cool find indeed. I had mentioned I’d heard the basic ‘British Isles being the new frontier’, but nothing as clearly justified as that.
I’ve long wondered what side I’d have been on the War of Independance, usually I come out not wearing a redcoat. It’s not totally clear cut because I would always have wanted a safety net for people, but not a comfortable life style. So I’m toward the US on the US-Europe spectrum, but not all the way.
Given mechanisation, though, I think we’re getting to the point were there are genuinely, with the best will in the world, people not worth employing in any way. So you have to offer them a way of living at some level…Financial zombie apocalypse or no, there is going to have to be a complete restructuring of society, without humans having achieved post-scarcity (or not comfortably anyway).
@Beth “Reasonability test”
I am a huge fan of the sniff test on any social ‘science’ result. Too many of these people have agendas and mindsets out their arses.
A great example is the 1 in 4 women raped quote, a large number of the responders defined as being raped did not consider themselves to have been raped. Even if you started with factual survey results (this is doubtful in the area of sex), the agenda defined rape on its own terms.
I guess that they cook the results for shock value, I oppose legislating on the back of anything other than fact. As a logical person, all these cooked up headlines just turn me off – I do not believe them. When enough people fail to believe them, then maybe we’l see some worthwhile debate. CAGW is moving in this direction as surveys increasingly show that people don’t believe the headlines…12 years ago some meteo-expert-twat in the UK told us that children would grow up not knowing what snow was. The winters preceding the last one were COLD by UK standards. -19degrees C near where I live was a record, believe me, we had snow. We had snow in Marseille for a couple of years running recently. There’s a reason people don’t believe the lies anymore.
We need intelligent debate based on fact, not what the Daily Wail headline says.
@Swith.
It will be interesting to see what becomes of humanity if we invent ourselves out of a job. Meaning, if we are able to invent such skillful and cheap computer-robots to do most everything better than humans then what will be left for humans? Will we go cyborg to compete with the comp-bots? Or just live lives of leisure and hope the machines don’t stage a coup? lol
And anyone incapable of rational debate should not get to vote…slightly controversial there (and NO, this is NOT code for women. There are plenty of men that shouldn ‘t be able to vote either – IMHO naturally!)
@Swith.
I see the feminists and global warming crowd both using similar tactics of exaggeration, shaming, and deception. But they both tend to favor liberal, collectivist policies so they do have that background in common.
@Beth and Swith.
I think the 50% and 70% type of cheating estimates are too high but the 20-30% range seems plausible to me.
@ Swithunus: “I am a huge fan of the sniff test on any social ‘science’ result. Too many of these people have agendas and mindsets out their arses.
A great example is the 1 in 4 women raped quote, a large number of the responders defined as being raped did not consider themselves to have been raped. Even if you started with factual survey results (this is doubtful in the area of sex), the agenda defined rape on its own terms.”
Agreed. Too much agenda-driven manipulation of “conclusions”. The latest is the media embellished release of the SAPRO report mandated by Congress. Only a 24 percent response rate, claiming thousands of ‘sexual assaults’ when the survey was for ‘unwanted sexual contact’, not sexual assault. The definition of USC can be interpreted to mean that someone hitting on another person who puts his/her hand on the other person’s thigh, waist, or buttocks. By that definition anyone who has had his/her butt or thigh touched in a bar has been sexually assaulted.
By that definition, I was “sexually assaulted” a few weeks ago by a woman in a bar/dance-club.
Good links for the ‘men should only have kids under forty too’ standard feminist lie.
( from http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/07/05/the-institutionalized-extortion-of-heterosexual-men/#comment-191912 )
I know that this is off topic, but it is an extremely common trope used by women when the subject of the menopause comes up. It seems to be viewed as an issue of essential ‘fairness’ that men have a time limit too, even if the stats are not there.
TL;DR nature created these limits, not men. Deal with it, that’s how it is..
That’s a big increase for women. What’s the actual rate for men so we can compare the actual rates due to men and women’s age?
@HS: “By that definition, I was “sexually assaulted” a few weeks ago by a woman in a bar/dance-club.”
You were!
Actually, the SAPRO report indicated that more men were “victims” of USC (unwanted sexual contact) than women in the poll response. That didn’t make headline news either of course. It would interfere with that smug assurance of moral superiority along with the tingling euphoria of self-assured continuing “victimhood” status. A twofer! Squeee!
But I could go on all day about this one (it’s what brought me to the ‘manosphere’). And then I’d sound monomaniacal.
@Han
“The increase is not statistically significant for some studies, and where an effect is found the increased probability of autism is generally given as between 20-40% for older fathers.”
I’ve spent the day in the sun(UK! HOT! 90+ old degrees!) running around with boy-toys, have had a couple of beers, make that a few beers and am now watching the Grand Prix from Germany
TL;DR I didn’t read the links yet…
Beth, I love you…but I’m not entirely sober (at 18:45)
p.s.
I am putting some of the blame on dehydration; nobody expects dehydration in the UK
@Swithunus: Sweet! I’m doing a seductive improvisational dance in front of the computer right now (works best on drunks).
@ Han
I do not deny that your strategy of trying to educate the future Alpha Mares is the best strategy. However, the ODDS of that working are very low. My attitude is more cynical: the nostalgic dies of yonder are gone for a long-time and we have entered a slow decline.
The only thing we can do is metastatize the message of civilization so it has hold-outs and can one day spread again, with however the future wants to use it.
Civilization collapse is going a little far. I foresee a longer “dark” period of energy shortages and where the rich acquire an iron grip on all social institutions, and essentially use their position to extort resources from the rest of us and compete against each other.
A low phase, not a terminal death of civilization.
My point about the Beta-Alpha tension is not so much that Alphas can be tamed by the Betas they subject. That era of history is over. In old days you could easily kill your Alpha tribe leader if necessary. In the era of strong governments and institutions, successful revolutions DO happen but they are more exception than rule. It will obviously happen to any country given enough time, but you can’t rely on them for course correction, things have basically gone VERY bad for that to occur.
Revolutions are actually bad mechanisms to rely on, as explained below…
No, my idea is more that state vs. state competition encourages development of good policy over time. Empires like China that can lord over local competitors and face little competition grow weary with easy victory. In fact, with their largest competition being other competitors within the state, knowledge becomes a precious commodity and is kept precious, because there is a chance any knowledge can be used against you.
Relying on Beta Revolts against Alpha OverLords would probably result in a China like system of retarded progress.
Contrast with Europe, where the system is FIERCELY competitive. Your citizenry must be empowered to fight and you must marshal all available resources. Over time this state on state competition is going to produce superior results to paranoid state with no external pressures.
You are correct in saying that the modern world likes feminism, but our modern world increasingly looks like China as opposed to the state of competitive Europe. External pressures are minimal and the biggest competition is whether you are going to get voted out of power and no longer be able to use your connections to extort massive wealth from the standard population.
But external pressures will return. They always return.
@Beth
Well, anyone who’s against the tyranny of exaggerated victimhood is usually pretty good in my books.
@Beth:
“You were!
Actually, the SAPRO report indicated that more men were “victims” of USC (unwanted sexual contact) than women in the poll response. That didn’t make headline news either of course. It would interfere with that smug assurance of moral superiority along with the tingling euphoria of self-assured continuing “victimhood” status. A twofer! Squeee!
But I could go on all day about this one (it’s what brought me to the ‘manosphere’). And then I’d sound monomaniacal.”
O: Hi Beth,
Interesting that you point out the above; I’d be very interested in getting your reaction to the following comment I posted up, over at Feminist Critics:
“I’ll respond to the comments directed at me shortly; but first, and in keeping in line with the theme of this post, I’d just like to share the following thoughts and observations. I invite and appreciate any responses, thoughts and comments any of you may have.
1. I have just come back from spending a bit of tie over at a popular web venue that is by no means any stranger to many of you reading along: Manboobz, by David Futrelle. He’s been mentioned by either Ballgame and/or other FC team member in the past, and I bring his blog up now because I consider it and him, to be examples of the kind of “opponents” FC is up against.
By all accounts, the view of Futrelle and his readers, is that they have NOTHING they wish to discuss with ANY part or member of the Manosphere – MRAs or PUAs. In fact, they loathe and despise us, fullstop. On the PUA side, they consider us to be rapists-in-all-but-name; on the MRA side, they consider us to be vile racists and misogynists, who are whiny, bitter losers in life. I simply do not see how FC could effectively reach out to them and even get the time of day out of them, much less get a dialogue going. They have no use for any of you.
Moreover, Futrelle, per his Twitter page, has good relations with many of the leading Internet Feminists that I discussed in my comments/post; and Futrelle himself is a player in the wider debate on what I consider to be Sexual Politics issues. I’ve had private email communication with him, and he considers the Manosphere to be a joke at best, a scourge on humanity at worst, and he’s not alone – again, the aforementioned Internet Feminists have been waging a low-level war on the Manosphere for easily the past five years if not longer, and while their results are at best limited, the point is made that that have no desire for detente with any aspect of the Manosphere, of which I would include FC. My recent time spent there, has only confirmed that not only do they wish to discuss anything with us, they would have no interest whatsoever to do with you guys, either. They would see you as apologists for PUAs and MRAs.
Period.
2. One of the commenters upthread has suggested, that FC has been exceptional at making the case for pointing out a host of thoughtful, legitimate critiques of Feminists in general. Now I’ve been a reader of FC since 2009, but I was wondering if anyone out there, and perhaps Ballgame or another FC member, could simply list out the basic critiques they have with the Feminist movement as it currently is defined, circa 2013? Since I’m the one asking the question and making the request, let me one to enter the following critique of Feminism into the record for your consideration:
3. As a Black Man, I find many of the core arguments in favor of Feminism not only to be problematic, but also to be potentially ruinous to me personally. How? Here’s a few examples:
The Kermit Gosnell Case Raises Some Ticklish Questions For Black Feminists http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/06/26/the-kermit-gosnell-case-raises-some-ticklish-questions-for-black-feminists/
Charles Ramsey Proves that it Doesn’t Pay to be a “White Knight” http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/05/30/charles-ramsey-proves-that-it-doesnt-pay-to-be-a-white-knight/
Again, the above articles by yours truly lays out some of my core critiques against Feminism; but allow me to take things a step further:
4. When it comes to more specifically Sexual Politics issues and questions, I find the Feminist position at times inconsistent, craven with self-interest and often flagrantly hypocritical. How so? Let’s count the ways:
– Reproductive Rights: Feminists fight tooth and nail both for the right of Women to abort their babies, and also to force Men to fund the care and upkeep of babies they never intended to create. Most Feminists on the Internet, such as Amanda Marcotte, are vehemently against Roe For Men, on the grounds that it would only give bitter MRA types leave to leave their children on their own after a bad marriage as ended. Of course this was never the intention or purpose of RFM, but, like Futrelle and a host of many, many others, Marcotte has no problem whatsoever deliberately and with malice of forethought, misrepresenting the facts of the matter for purely ideological ends. At any rate, the “reasons” given by so many Feminists, as to why they’re so cool with denying Men the very same basic rights to autonomy and agency they so vehemently fight for themselves, calls their entire notion of/for “equality” into serious question. In truth, this issue alone, makes them look like rank hypocrites.
– Desire to control or otherwise regulate Male sexuality: another area of blatant hypocrisy on the part of Feminists, is this one; despite Feminists’ oft-repeated cry that the Patriarchy did and continues to control Womens’ sexuality/reproduction – a not completely inaccurate assessment I might add – in truth, Feminists have the same desire when it comes to Mens’. Street harassment, Game, Roe For Men, the excoriation of “Nice Guys(TM)” and so on, all add up to various schema with which to control or otherwise regulate Male sexuality, no matter how well intention or even necessary said strictures may in fact be. The point is that it is indeed about control and/or regulation. One cannot make the case for human rights along these lines, and then turn around and seek to do the very things they claim to be against.
I could go on, but by now I think I’ve laidout a very convincing set of critiques of Feminism in our time, and since we know there are indeed quite a few lady readers of FC, I invite them to kick the tires and have their say on what I’ve said here.
Looking forward to hearing from all of you…
O.”
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2013/07/04/a-response-to-obsidian-noh/#comment-541887
@Beth
not drunk yet been a good day, gotta savour the Summer here. Summer could be over tomorrow (that’s how it works here). St Swithun’s Day on the 15th will determine the path of the weather (there is some justification for the legend, variations of which exist in several European countries). Cool day, came second in a comp.
Are you sure that that dance is legal? let alone moral
@Ms. RWC:
“…and cleaning the floors and windows of other people’s homes. I wonder how many of these women worked only within their own homes. It seems to me that this is a privilege of the upper-middle and upper classes. I’m guessing that a large nummber, if not a majority, of middle and lower class women worked outside of the home to supplement the household income. This was certainly the case for my Southern family. Which brings to mind an important point about feminism…it wasn’t all about freeing women from their own homes, but freeing them from the limitations of being offered only domestic/service work outside of the home.”
O: Oh snap!-hiya, Ms. RWC! Glad to see our little treehouse. Hope you like how we’ve done up the place. Now then, let’s get to your comments:
Let’s cut right to the chase – what you’re talking about above, in the American context, speaks more to racial concerns, in this case, Black Women ala “The Help” and so forth. Which brings up some interesting questions, that I am hopeful you might consider; here’s a recent article I wrote addressing just that:
The Kermit Gosnell Case Raises Some Ticklish Questions For Black Feminists
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/06/26/the-kermit-gosnell-case-raises-some-ticklish-questions-for-black-feminists/
Would love to get your reaction…
O.
@Obsidian, I’m very new to these forums and not familiar with the ones mentioned…it’s a long post, but well said IMO. Don’t have time to do it justice right now and will have to get back later.
I’m going out on the boat! With a beer (Swithunus has given me ideas). Cheers to no blue laws on Sunday!
@Obs.
Good points on feminists denying reproductive freedom to men in terms of Row for men. And also, the desire to control male sexuality, often meaning shaming average guys so they won’t approach and can easily be charged with sexual harassment.
Gonna read your Gosnell piece now.
@Beth
“(Swithunus has given me ideas)”
hey! no fair! own your own guilt (but having said that; you’re welcome)
@Obs
Good stuff at the spearhead on your point of how black men don’t oppose black women getting abortions (in fact, since they vote overwhelmingly democrat, they support it more than any other group of men) or going to college.
And interesting stuff from Athlone about black men not having any power over black women in the West and often not that much in Africa either.
@ADBG
You raise interesting points about the nation-on-nation competition as seen in historical Europe as opposed to isolated-and-strong historical China and that required more use of every resource (idea, person, weapon,etc.) possible in Europe.
I alluded to that idea in my evolutionary incentives post about how the wise apex alphas will sacrifice some of their short-term gain for longer-term stability and cooperation from the betas by sharing enough of the booty and the power with the beta males to keep them invested in society.
As you point out, there don’t seem to be a lot of external pressures on the apex alphas to do so and so they’ve gotten greedier in terms of wealth distribution, pussy distribution and dignity distribution. The beta males have less of a lot of those three.
I think there is a lot of potential energy ready to be unleashed by educating both the beta males and the beta females about how the elites are not looking out for their interests in key ways, by getting them to understand even just a few red pill truths that are most relevant to them.
For women it would be the feminist attack on what many of them want most, relationships and children.
For men it would be that
1) they are not patriarchal oppressors and they don’t need to keep ceding more ground to never-satisfied feminist demands,
2) that slut culture really doesn’t benefit them because those women who become slutty will tend to slut upwards in male value, and
3) their role as provider doesn’t return as much bang for the buck and they need to focus more on enhancing their attractiveness via developing charisma, removing anti-game, increasing looks (style and fitness), increasing confidence, etc.
Many of the paternal age studies fail to control for the age of the mother.
Nerds and geeks and so on are not really outside the social hierarchy, even though many of them like to flatter themselves that they are. Rather, most of them have jobs within the system and are simply of low value in terms of political, economic, and sexual influence.
Wow nerds must be gathering a lot of power for the manosphere being bitching about them.
Nerds and Geeks might not have social power but they more likely don’t care about society either way. Is not that they think that society is cool but since they cannot rank high they rebel against it. They simply consider the effort to get a higher rank not worth the reward.
When I entered modeling I became briefly the girl every person in the room turned to when she entered and I got chatted up by many guys that were the typical ‘hot and mean’ Expending 5 hours and a consistent amount of money just to hear that “comic books are stupid” was not worth the effort at all.
I don’t know how many nerd/geek friends you have but most of us are not posers. We do find a lot of societal definition of ‘hot and cool’ being completely stupid so we band together because we find our passions more interesting. Getting a job that is good enough to pay for our passions is not selling out is the easiest way to get our needs met. Read this essay for further explanation: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
It doesn’t matter if they don’t care or what they think. It doesn’t matter if they’re not trying to achieve social or other types of dominance. Most people aren’t. Most people are just normal betas that go along within society to get along. The vast majority of nerds are this way. It’s really only the greater betas and alphas (and sigmas too in their own way) that are trying to really achieve a lot and dominate things.
Striving for great success is often a high risk endeavor and that’s why few people really go for it. I’m not faulting them. But most people just get an average job, marry an average person and have an average family. Nerds will tend to be smarter and do smarter jobs but they often don’t make a lot of money. They do contribute their technological solutions or inventions or what not. But the vast majority of nerds live their lives within the social structure, working for companies, universities, gov’t, etc. Just because they’re mostly not trying to climb the ladder to great heights (with some exceptions) doesn’t mean they’re outside the social structure.
As for me personally, I have a strong nerd side. After all, I did a PhD in physics and have lots of nerd interests. In fact even writing about herd hierarchy is rather nerdy if you think about it. No nerd hating coming from me. But the simple fact is that most nerds are smart cogs in the machinery of society.
I will correct what I said about them being of low value economically. The smarter nerds and geeks do contribute with middle or high-middle income jobs and often invent technology that creates a lot of value for society. But most of them don’t make much off of this while their companies do. Gates and similar are the few sigma-nerds who make it super big.
No nerd hating coming from me.
Nerd condescending then? Your first explanation sounded like nerds not caring is mostly sour grapes because they couldn’t do it if they tried. I mostly tell you that power is not universally desirable, YMMV.
Not even condescending against all nerds but, yes, condescending towards nerds that think they’re not part of the social structure just because they’re more on intermediate or lower rungs of the ladder and don’t care to try to climb higher. I’m not saying that power is universally desirable. In fact, I’m saying most people don’t aspire to it and are content enough to live ordinary lives.
But those that work in the “system” but think they’re not part of it are delusional. Someone who works for Best Buy or Microsoft or whatever level of achievement they can, or the gov’t, isn’t outside the system and thus really isn’t either a sigma or a zeta. That’s all I’m saying.
Hi Ana,
*kissinthecheek*
Savour your Sunday evening, it’s already Monday morning here.
Hope all is well chez toi…
Just about to start my day
@han
I’m not sure that I share definitions of geek with you, so I’ll bodyswerve that one TYVM
But I have always found the long hair hippy types who claim to be rebelling, by assuming another stereotypical uniform, somewhat amusing.
I have developed the opinion over the millennia (I am old, after all) that society is becoming far too worried about fitting in to the herd. Right labels on clothes, right opinions, right car, right house, right words…you get the idea. I swear that it wasn’t this bad back at the birth of time in the seventies (UK). But I saw the brand brandishing grow in importance massively since.
@Swithunus
Heh you keep doing that. I have no idea who you are but you surely know who I am. :p *kissinthecheek* for you too. An hour for Monday here in too hot Southern California.
But those that work in the “system” but think they’re not part of it are delusional. Someone who works for Best Buy or Microsoft or whatever level of achievement they can, or the gov’t, isn’t outside the system and thus really isn’t either a sigma or a zeta. That’s all I’m saying.
I don’t get it. The only people that are not in the system are hermits. Sigmas or Zetas or Alphas or Betas are part of the system if they shower, use the Internet and employ themselves in anything…We all are part of the system and it would be delusional to say otherwise specially in the Internet. Care to explain?
@ Anacaona
So glad to see you here! (I’m INTJ. Nemesis is just my new alias).
@ Han
I don’t think most nerds like to flatter themselves that they are outside the social hierarchy. Growing up, it was a great source of worry for I and most of the nerds that I know that we didn’t fit into the social hierarchy or adhere to social expectations. We just were too stubborn to actually change our behavior so we would nicely fall into place in the social hierarchy as ordinary beta males.
Ah I see what you mean. You see the Zeta male as a completely independent person who avoids the tribe with a passion. Nerds certainly aren’t like that. In prehistoric terms, the nerd would be the guy who lives with the tribe and does his part to participate in hunting activities, but doesn’t have much of an inclination to participate in tribal rituals and other activities. Instead, he’ll be busy doing random stuff on the side like inventing agriculture. (Alright, that’s what the greater Nerd would do. The lesser Nerd would be inventing knew tools and stuff).
The thing is that, like Anacaona pointed out, most nerds are socially independent, not economically independent. They will happily participate in cooperative economic activities, and fit into the hierarchy, but that doesn’t mean they’ll try to adhere the social hierarchy. In other words, they’re losers on the social hierarchy because they aren’t even trying to win at the social hierarchy. That’s not what nerds want.
It’s like the examples I gave above of zeta and sigma. In the tribal days the mighty hunter that goes off on his own would be a sigma. The guy that can survive on his own catching squirrels and eating berries would be more of the zeta. In today’s society, they wouldn’t be so isolated but wouldn’t follow the “conventional” path so much. So a low-earning artist that sells his work would be a zeta while a great artist that just taught himself would be more of the sigma type, in terms of career. There are other dimensions to judge whether someone is more in or out of the typical social structure.
Ana, if you JUST think about it a little, I’m pretty sure that you’ll see through my cunning disguise…just1 sayin’
@Nemesis
We agree on the economic front, I believe.
I don’t think the “nerds” are really that out of the social hierarchy either. They’re just part of the tribe and are the less active ones. But they are still mating with the other nerds of the tribe. It’s not like the sigma who goes off to some other tribe and sleeps with the hottest woman, or the zeta who might be able to seduce some herb gathering maiden or comes to visit the tribe and help them out for a while and hooks up with someone.
@ Han
I think you’re mixing up “the system” with “the social herd”. Nerds choose not to participate in all the social rituals and other stuff that ordinarily bind society (or a tribe) together. Thus, they’re outside the social system in the sense that they are not conforming to social norms and not taking social orders from Apex Alphas. That is not to say they’re outside the system as a whole. They (at least the responsible ones) participate as productive members of society and adhere to the economic and political structure of the society. They just don’t adhere to the social aspects of society.
@ Han
Ahh I see. I would make a distinction between “society” and “social hierarchy”. While nerds will participate in society, this is because they see the zeta or sigma strategies as being inefficient and bad for society. They do not participate in society because the apex alphas tell them to. That’s what someone in the social hierarchy would do.
@Nemesis
I think you could view many of the nerds as forming a sub-group for socializing that’s off to the edge of the overall big herd while the more “popular” or ambitious are doing their socializing at the center of the herd. But the nerds are still following many of the norms of society in terms of socializing. The do go out with girls (or guys) though perhaps less often and they do marry or cohabit (with some that stay single forever, I guess).
I never said nerds participate because anyone told them to. In most cases people participate in order to make a living, because they have to. Perhaps in more totalitarian societies you’d have more compulsion but even there most people just work to make a living.
Ana, if you JUST think about it a little, I’m pretty sure that you’ll see through my cunning disguise…just1 sayin’
I will give it a shot Desi?
@Han Solo
I think nerds and geeks are a recent phenomenon that is allowed by the wealth of the western culture. I think that is where your hypothesis gets weak. There is no tribal equivalent for the nerd/geek because their pursues are a luxury they are not survivalist and can only be exercised with spare time and money. What do you think of that?
How about I give you a slightly bigger clue? What if I add just one x?
I’m a bit hurt that you’ve forgotten the guy that told you about Cockneys vs Zombies. Oranges and lemons (London bells nursery rhyme).
I can’t believe that you guessed Desi, you dropped a major clanger there…
Stuff to do, so I’ll leave you lot there. Have a good good start to the week peeps
@Swithunus
JUST!
I’m sorry the statue made me think of him. How are you doing? Good to see you here. I know I still owe you 5 dollars for Big Man Japan so I haven’t forgotten about you at all.
@Ana
I’m talking more about the type of person and not the actual activities so much and those personalities that are currently nerds would exist in the tribal setting but would mostly spend their time doing daily “chores” to survive and not have much time to be “nerds” in terms of activities by today’s standards. But given leisure time if they are on paradise island then they might be given to trying to think about things or invent tools.
So I agree that modern society gives many people leisure time (if they want it and aren’t working their heads off to “get ahead”) and so we see much more diverse activities than in the hunter-gath. days or the famer days, but the underlying personality types were likely the same and the nerds were mostly beta males and females that did their part and didn’t take on as many leadership roles. Maybe the smartest would become advisers to the chief or something.
Ana, St Swithun forgives you *Kissinthecheek*. I can see that the statue might confuse you and lead you in that direction. As usual, I have others.
I’m a bit confused as I didn’t think that I was making any effort to hide. I guess that I’m just not memorable…
I used to have John Wayne as an avatar, if you remember? I watched the newer True Grit movie again recently. On his (Cogburn’ s) gravestone it is written that he was born on St Swithun’s day. (15th July in the UK.). Guess I still have an eye for trivia.
@Han
@Beth
Apologies for taking so long to respond. Busy, busy, busy…
Anyway, let me clarify: Yes, I would be willing to have an actual real life threesome with my FwB. It is something he has always wanted, he just wants it to be perfect and so is waiting to find another who is open to a ONS with 2 partners rather than 1. It’s not so much that I’m too lazy to find a female partner for myself, I just don’t enjoy spending time with “other” women. Basically, I’d be willing to do it because I know it would make my lover happy…not because I especially want to.
@Tarn,
you have to be careful (IMHO), caring for your male partner (however you describe the relationship) is really frowned on by feminists. And worse! It’s that kind of attitude that makes a relationship endure – consider yourself warned.
p.s.
do you get more pushback from women or men in your day to day life? I suspect that I know the answer (that male is the laissez-faire sex), but I would be interested in your response based on your real-world interactions.
Don’t understand the “issue” with nerds?
“Nerds/geeks/et al” have never lived in more empowering times. The microchip is to the nerd what the discovery of tempered steel was to the warrior. Per the nerd of “ancient tribal days”, you’ve overlooked religion, a key part of life for even the most primitive tribes (rituals served many purposes, they reinforced taboos (which served as law then), promoted social bonding, as well as offering salubrious psych benefit. The “nerd” was the proverbial ‘medicine man’. They’ve always served an important function in society. We’re social animals, it doesn’t all amount to fight and f*ck (or even if it does, the equation is a very nuanced algorithm).
“I just don’t enjoy spending time with “other” women”
have you a link to your blog that explains this, that you’d recommend?
I mean, feel free to do it here, but I’d be interested in your views on outsiders (at any level) relating with run-of-the-mill herd members even if I have to ‘travel’ to find the answer, if you feel the answer belongs elsewhere.
I like women, but I really find the amount of drama that they seem to feel necessary (NAWALT) is quite a considerable ‘cost’ sometimes. While I prefer girly girls for relationships, sometimes the best response to “What’s your issue here?”, would just be a clear description of the problem. We could then proceed to find a solution…just sayin’
In my ex-marriage (blessed peace be upon me nowadays) I often found ‘us’ spending hours talking about pretty petty crap (‘decoy issues’) before I managed to track down the issue that she really wanted to address. This as well as the ‘just want to complain about issues that she had no interest in having solved’ scenario…why didn’t she just talk at her female friends, who would empathise (without actually helping in any way). Also, in the evening I would ask if she wanted to talk…no. But when I later tried to get to sleep (with work the next day), THEN there would be defcon-1 level issue that we had to talk about (after spending an hour talking about decoy issues)…
I am very sure that the scenarios that I talk about are far from unique to me
I admit that nowadays I would be in a far better place to manage these issues, but really? Is it very helpful to act this way, ladies? (NALALT)
Ana! RWC! Glad to see some familiar names here.
I can’t speak for all nerds of course, and when I was young there was no such thing as a “nerd” officially, but I’m cut from the same cloth.
I didn’t participate in social stuff much because I knew beyond all doubt I wasn’t welcome or wanted in those circles. I can’t say for sure if I “gave up” or simply never tried, but the end result was the same.
I had a small, select group of friends from different cliques in high school, but I mostly didn’t participate with the majority of my classmates. In fact, I really didn’t like them much.
Was that sour grapes? Maybe on occasion. But mostly it was simple self preservation. I didn’t see the point in setting myself up for disappointment, and I was mostly content to have my handful of good friends.
But I’m sure many of those kids assumed it was all sour grapes.
@Swithunus: “why didn’t she just talk at her female friends, who would empathise (without actually helping in any way).”
Oh, she did talk at her female friends, and they talked at her too. A lot. That’s why she was talkin at you. All that talkin with friends drummed up a host of issues you wouldn’t have had if she hadn’t talked with female friends in the first place. Henpecking is contagious.
Perusing Obsidian’s articles now….
@Beth
it wasn’t what I’d call henpecking.
She’d explain how ‘XX’ was mean at work and yada yada (I never met XX, I never heard any details, but boy were they given). The male response to that complaint is, “well, don’t speak to XX then”.
This was back in the days when I stupidly believed that men and women were exactly the same…dumbarse that I was. Of course everyone said that there were no differences…Brainwashed, the both of us. She thought I’d be interested in just listening to her mini-drama (MEN ARE NOT). I thought she was searching for a solution for a real problem (SHE WAS NOT). No wonder we divorced…
“Oh, she did talk at her female friends, and they talked at her too. A lot. That’s why she was talkin at you. All that talkin with friends drummed up a host of issues you wouldn’t have had if she hadn’t talked with female friends in the first place. ”
Yeah, this strikes a chord. But:
a) why keep talking to friends about such things then? If, you know, they make things worse.
b) why beat around the bushes? why not just get to the point (with me)?
No wonder we are so strongly wired to seek sex, otherwise the two sexes would leave each other alone…
Ted: “Men on the other hand seem pre-programmed to accept an equal value partner”
Don’t give us too much credit for being superior. Polygyny means many of them are willing to do that with lots of women.
@Obsidian, I think your observations (regarding reproductive rights, white knighting) are spot on. I cannot speak knowledgeably regarding Manboobz/ Futrelle, just briefly perused his handiwork and got the general idea. He doesn’t seem to have much of a following, however.
I understand FC’s (again, a place I was completely unfamiliar with until now) interest in engaging in “good faith dialogue” between ideologies (per their response). There is something to be said for passion, but if we ever hope to find common ground it won’t be through winning a shouting/knockdown match or mandated legislation, but via the coming of a state of mind.
@Swithunus: “Yeah, this strikes a chord. But:
a) why keep talking to friends about such things then? If, you know, they make things worse.”
They don’t look at it that way. To them, they’re “sharing experiences”. Most women tend to think sharing and talking things over make the problem better. There’s an entire industry centered around it.
“b) why beat around the bushes? why not just get to the point (with me)?”
Because they have hormones that create mood swings and effect their personality in large ways. Sometimes they just want drama. They don’t know why. Sometimes they are sad, when at another time of the month the same set of circumstances would make them laugh. It’s the cost of being the bearer of humanity. High-maintanence equipment.
TS, a FFM threeway is really more about the women with the man as guest… at least at first. Unless the guy has impervious game, having a third party when the women are not bi-curious, is likely to disappoint.
It’s kind of a catch-22 for the man, if you plan it out, then there’s a lot of expectations that can kill the fun, but if you let it be spontaneous, it may never happen. If you are both open to it happening, eventually it could.
@Beth
“They don’t look at it that way. To them, they’re “sharing experiences”. Most women tend to think sharing and talking things over make the problem better. There’s an entire industry centered around it.”
How do we get women to understand that men don’t think that way? We find drama tedious (I am putting that extremely mildly). We find talking about problems that we have no interest in solving – pointless and irritating. Seriously, you could make a lot of money telling men how to get their women to understand this…
“High-maintanence equipment.”
Yeah, sure! You tell me this now! lmao
There are a lot of men who think that MGTOW is the only (but potentially sexually lonely) sane path for a man. Women forced us to that conclusion, just sayin’
@Beth
this guy is sort of on-topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUfOQesBckPZr87owcDTEogw&v=HK-5QNIJjnY&feature=player_detailpage
he’s talking about feminism, but one might be tempted to generalise
(attempt to embed the same link as above)
okay, embed fail…
@OTC
“It’s kind of a catch-22 for the man, if you plan it out, then there’s a lot of expectations that can kill the fun, but if you let it be spontaneous, it may never happen. If you are both open to it happening, eventually it could.”
Is that not just a statement of the male condition in the SMP (now, then and forever)?
@Swithunus: ““High-maintanence equipment.”
Yeah, sure! You tell me this now! lmao”
Hey, it was always evident. Notice the long line of female supplies in the grocery store? Takes up an entire aisle. The male stuff covers about half a shelf.
“There are a lot of men who think that MGTOW is the only (but potentially sexually lonely) sane path for a man.”
I understand. Don’t know what I would do if I were a man. I think you just have to understand they’re going to be nutty, just steer around the nuttiness and it can work. Humor helps a lot. That thing between their legs keeps you from killing them (and, for some, the desire to raise children).
@Beth
I think that, post red-pill, I am far better positioned to ‘handle’ intersex relations. (This is the Ted-Experience as well, I suspect). My tragedy is that I actually prefer girly-girls for relationships, but ‘sane’* women to deal with outside of sex.
I guess that I could say that “I never hated women during my divorce, but I sometimes despaired of them”…The red-pill was actually the remedy. Once I understood women more (NAWALT), I stopped being annoyed by the incongruities between what I had been told and what I found in real life.
All this blank slate crap about men and women being the same actually hurts both sexes IMO. I would rather people understood ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits existed, but on a broad spectrum. It’s okay for women to be ‘women’ and men to be ‘men’, while allowing individuals to choose their own reality base path. In the same way that short people aren’t usually very good basketball players (Harlen Globetrotters excluded), most women are unsuited to play pro-football (though they are welcome to try).
Can we please try and deal with reality, not what some aerosol thinks is ‘fair’, because life is NOT fair. I was taught that at age 5.
*sorry, sense of humour thing
@Swithunus
I’ll clarify my “other”women statement simply by saying I live with gender dysphoria. If you want the longer version, visit my blog pages “An Androgynous Woman” and “Wrong Body, Right Mind” where I go into it more. Feel free to ask more questions while you’re there if you want.
As for caring for my FwB…duh. We are friends who have sex, of course I care about him. Even if we only had sex or only were friends, I’d still care. There’s a reason I feel incapable of ONS. As for Fems…well, I’m egalitarian. And when I bother to talk about relationships with women I get more trouble for it. But then again, that’s why I haven’t had female friends since 8th grade.
@Off the Cuff
The scenario he wants is to be included after just watching for a bit. Fairly typical fantasy, it seems. One of us on his face, the other on his penis…getting a double blowjob…so on, so forth. I’m 90% hetero, but if he’d find a bi curious woman I’d use my latent “lesbianism” to help make his fantasy a reality. He’d be willing to have the FMM session I want someday, so it’s really only fair that I be open to the same.
@Ted D
Preach it, man. You’re speaking my story as a geek/nerd, too. There’s only so many times you can be pushed into a locker, shoved down the stairs, have your books stolen and otherwise beat up before you say “Screw it” to dealing with anyone besides your friends. Us nerds have to stick together!
@Tarn
“As for caring for my FwB…duh.”
and that’s a great thing, I was celebrating that two people were making each other happy…congrats
I am not a fan of ONS either. Without any emotional content all you are left with is deluxe masturbation as far as I am concerned. I know that others feel differently, and as long as it’s consensual between sane adults – fine. I will go my own way.
thanks for the suggestions, taking a gander…
OTC – “Don’t give us too much credit for being superior. Polygyny means many of them are willing to do that with lots of women.”
You should know me well enough by now to realize I’m in NO WAY a “men are superior” kind of guy. We have our own issues to be sure, they are just different from women’s issues. Plenty of blame to go around, just not on this particular subject.
Swithunus – “I think that, post red-pill, I am far better positioned to ‘handle’ intersex relations. (This is the Ted-Experience as well, I suspect). My tragedy is that I actually prefer girly-girls for relationships, but ‘sane’* women to deal with outside of sex.”
LOL all too true. I’ve mostly stuck to the tom-boy type for relationships despite liking rather feminine traits for a mate. I like the kind of woman that cleans up really well, but is down to earth enough that she doesn’t go through a 30 minute + routine to get ready to leave the house to go shopping. Actually, my wife hardly ever takes more than 30 minutes to get ready for any event. If we include the shower 1 hour is plenty of time for her. I suppose I’m looking for the perfect blend myself: a woman that can hang with me camping in the wilderness for a week without freaking out, but can put on a dress/heals/and make-up and be comfortable doing it. We all want our fried ice!
“Once I understood women more (NAWALT), I stopped being annoyed by the incongruities between what I had been told and what I found in real life.”
Yep. I’ll add that for a little while there, I was on the fence in terms of how I felt about “women” and their natural behavior. It was truly difficult to digest the Red Pill while trying to maintain a relationship and not allow that anger/bitterness/resentment to affect how I interacted with my wife. (then girlfriend) But I had to get my head wrapped around the behavior in general before I could start to see where NAWALT applied to my mate, and that was when I finally was able to start letting go of it.
Put another way, I had to accept that my wife was indeed a female, and that IN GENERAL females behave like XYZ. Then, I could compare that general behavior to my wife’s and go from there. Once I could easily see where she deviated from the “norm”, I began to feel better about her and her ability to resists baser desires. I realize that sounds rather harsh, but it isn’t meant to be. I always try to judge each individual on their own merits based on how they act. What was difficult for me was realizing that women had MANY traits/behaviors that I never realized and/or judged against, and that meant I had to revamp my entire judgment process.
Blank slate is hurting people, and not only in the mating and dating arena. We are NOT all the same. We are not all as strong, fast, or tall as each other, so why in the world would we assume that we are all exactly the same on the inside? IQ alone proves we are NOT all the same on the inside anyway, so trying to fit all people into one mold is pointless and sure to cause frustration for many.
““As for caring for my FwB…duh.”
and that’s a great thing, I was celebrating that two people were making each other happy…congrats”
Well for me the rub is: if I’m having sex with a woman, and I care about her at all, I’m going to fall head over heels. There is NO stopping it. The second issue is I tend to be VERY posses of my lovers. By that I mean, there is no way in hell I could ever “share” a sex partner with anyone. Once I’m in a sexual relationship with a woman, I expect all other outside sexual contact to stop, and it will stay that way until we are no longer together. (and once we are apart and she’s had sex with another guy, there is no reconciliation possible. She is mine until she isn’t, then she will never be mine again.)
So the FWB thing would never work for me. I’d have a better shot at a ONS working out, because at least I’d never see her again to get all attached. It seems my “bonding” system works too well, and my desire for sexual variety is far too small to push that boundary. For better or worse, I really am best suited for monogamy…
@Tarn, 1 comment in your mod process ( https://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/an-androgynous-woman/comment-page-1/#comment-294 )…taking a look at your second recommendation
Ted, I was just adding it for completeness here… I’m pretty sure you know!
@Tarn
interesting blog. I find your viewpoint very easy to empathise with. I wish that your life was easier, but the problem seems to be with society rather than you (FWIW). I’m glad, but not very surprised, that you have found a partner that makes you mutually happy. Long may that continue.
Be well, be lucky
@Ted and @Beth
I didn’t grew up in America so I never had the bully that comes with nerdiness. Still I had to find outlets for my geek because my friends were into things that were completely uninteresting to me. I even had an intervention at college because I was making my herd look bad by not dressing up and wearing make up and heels. I almost drop them all right there. So yeah this nerdy thing is like a sexual orientation we don’t have much choice in it we just deal with the others the best we can. If is working in Best Buy so be it, YMMV.
How do we get women to understand that men don’t think that way? We find drama tedious (I am putting that extremely mildly). We find talking about problems that we have no interest in solving – pointless and irritating. Seriously, you could make a lot of money telling men how to get their women to understand this…
Look for someone that is low drama herself and a problem solver. She will get sick of hearing herself whining and cut contact with the bitches before you get off the rails. That is what I do. I also never start DRAMA! because I enjoy my boring peaceful life too much, the only exception is when I get into something and married to a nerd it comes with the territory so that is kind of a different type of DRAMA!.
I also can’t write when I’m worried so I try to keep my real world as a sanctuary. The demons in my head offer enough DRAMA! thank you very much.
@Ted
it wasn’t so much about the three-way, I was really talking about the attitude of ‘what makes my partner happy’ + (I would personally add) ‘that I don’t mind doing’. That, to me, makes for a very healthy relationship. Two (or apparently more) human beings looking to make each other(s) happy without requiring a significant self sacrifice (usually, sooner or later, a sacrifice needs repaying, which is why I would prefer it not to be required).
I would not wish to share ‘my female’ either. Nor do I think that a second woman is a primary part of my bucket list, but then I haven’t really put much thought into that scenario TBH…
@Ana
It is always there in everything that I intend to write.
given our extensive history, surely I don’t need to add NAWALT?
The tragedy of my attraction cues is that I like girly girls (I married one…for a while) whilst being a ‘boyly boy’.
post red-pill I think that making this ‘opposites attract’ malarky work would be easier to achieve, unfortunately I found the red-pill after divorce. Though, to be honest, had I been smarter, I wouldn’t have married her in the first place. She asked…I blame her (as well as me, for not rejecting the script by saying ‘thanks, but no thanks’).
I’ve known a girl from age 5 that was the ‘sane’ choice for me, but she never ignited my flame. My fiancée / wife hated her on sight…femme-dar (like gay-day) perhaps? It was mutual, but my friend had the class to rise above it. Much respect Sara, though you might have warned me (until I noticed(?)).
The tragedy of my attraction cues is that I like girly girls (I married one…for a while) whilst being a ‘boyly boy’.
Had you considered trying to develop your feminine side?
I noticed that men with a strong feminine side are a bit more resistant to the girly girls than others. Hence find matches with less issues than their addicted to girly girls. As with excess of Testosterone excess of Estrogen comes with a high price. Excess T= Violence, sex addiction, cheating. Excess Estrogen = DRAMA!, hypergamy, emotional cheating. Just a though…
Ana
I know that it’s me saying it, but…
“Excess T= Violence, sex addiction, cheating.”
doesn’t sound like me. Sex drive does (as long as there is an emotional connection), but as a mechanical act with an ONS…no.
I mean that I am highly rational in my attitude to decision making (the marriage was a blip – deny it if you dare, and I do dare you!).
Beyond that, I like nurturing my partner (not as a child, but as an old-style male-female relationship) and do not value male attributes in her very much. In other women? yes! But not in my partner. I like feminine women, make-up, skirts, heels etc. A relationship of equals is fine, but we wouldn’t be bringing the same things to the table. Captain / First Officer is probably more likely to happen, but I wouldn’t feel any requirement that this be spelled out. I wouldn’t need it explicitly stated who was in charge of logic (an’ stuff).
At the end of the day, however, I am in favour of sane, mature people doing what they want to do, and it being nobody else’s business. I believe that the world would be a happier place if people stopped judging other people for things that do not affect them. I doubt that we have much of an argument on that FWIW…
“develop your feminine side”
this does sound like it could be fun though…suggestions via private email please
“it wasn’t so much about the three-way, I was really talking about the attitude of ‘what makes my partner happy’ + (I would personally add) ‘that I don’t mind doing’. That, to me, makes for a very healthy relationship.”
No doubt that wanting to make your partner happy goes a long way towards long term success in a relationship. In terms of “that I don’t mind doing” the trick is to be clear about boundaries early on, and hope that at no point in the relationship your partner decides your boundaries are too strict.
My boundaries are pretty simple: When it comes to sex, I’m down for just about anything that doesn’t actually cause physical harm, and doesn’t involve a third party. (well, watching a 3rd party might be OK, but I would have to tread very lightly with that lest my jealousy monster might pop up. Damn my possessiveness.) Once I’m exclusive with a woman, all outside sexual contact stops (and if it hadn’t stopped prior to that point I wouldn’t be going “exclusive” anyway, but post Red Pill I clearly outlined all this with my wife, just to be sure. LOL) Sexually speaking, I require 100% full exclusivity. No exceptions (I won’t even tolerate the discussion of an “exclusions list” like a free pass for celebrity X. It makes me a little ill when I hear other couples discussing it in fact…)
I didn’t pull a bait and switch and made sure this was all clearly explained up front. I simply stated my boundaries and told her it was a take it or leave it deal, one-time offer on the table. Once accepted any breach of those sexual boundaries is an instant eject, no questions asked and no “working it out” choice is on the table.
Harsh? Yep. Strict? Sure, but I hold myself to the exact same standard. And now that my children are older and I’m once divorced, I am far less fearful of the process and family court. Divorce would certainly be my very last thought on most marital problems, but it would be my go to for any cheating. Once discovered there would be nothing left to do but file the paperwork.
Fortunately my wife is on the same page. (which is why she is now my wife) She also understands my possessiveness and to some extent finds it endearing I think. Part of my old school charm perhaps?
To be clear:
(well, watching a 3rd party might be OK, but I would have to tread very lightly with that lest my jealousy monster might pop up. Damn my possessiveness.)
means watching other people having sex, NOT watching my wife with someone else. That would NEVER happen. But, I could possibly manage to watch others, provided I didn’t get the idea that my wife was paying the other guy too much visual attention, which would be the real problem for me. It has been the only hangup I’ve had with watching porn with her in fact. Part of my possessiveness is a large dose of jealousy. It really isn’t an issue in most circumstances. (I don’t get jealous when other guys hit on my wife. In fact most of the time I find it amusing, unless they don’t take her hint to bug off the first time around.) But, when she gives any indication that she finds some other guy attractive? Yeah, I still struggle with that one all the time. So, in the case of watching porn or another couple, if I in any way got the idea in my head that she found the other guy really hot, it would end badly.
“My boundaries are pretty simple: When it comes to sex,”
at this point, I almost put my fingers in my ears and went la-la-la, fortunately I didn’t and so I can announce that the rest of your comment was fine…FTR
also FTR, I’m (even) older than you
this does sound like it could be fun though…suggestions via private email please
Heh I’m not very feminine myself, I think. Other girls might chime in. Heck maybe we should take this one to HUS and see what the other girls say about it. What kind of traditional feminine traits they find attractive that you can adopt and see if you get cured of your ‘girlishness addiction”
” (I don’t get jealous when other guys hit on my wife. In fact most of the time I find it amusing, unless they don’t take her hint to bug off the first time around.)”
sounds like a very reasonable attitude for a guy that trusts his partner to take. Being there to support her is also pretty healthy, I reckon.
Once again we fail to ignite a flame war…damn, imagine the site hit statistics…alexa is crying right now
@Ana
I don’t go there any more (I wish the gang there all the best without me though).
Your suggestion goes right back to the ‘never let a woman tell you what women like’ argument. Which I tend to have sympathy for. It’s not that I believe that most women tell porkies*, but a lot of them don’t end up giving useful advice to men (IMHO). I am even perfectly willing to assign most women giving such bad advice, the best of intentions, but…I do not believe that their rational minds’ desires are 100% coincodent with their baser desires. I do not claim that men are ‘better’ human beings, but I do believe that we are more capable of describing what we really want.
*porky pies -> lies. I am exhibiting my ethnicity here…it’s fun.
Swithy, Han.
Your responses to me are food for thought …
@marellus
chat in a minute? just about to jump in the shower…
Not tonight unfortunately. I’m on the web looking for a job. Eish.
Best of luck guy!
Cheers
another day
@Swithunus: “I do not claim that men are ‘better’ human beings, but I do believe that we are more capable of describing what we really want.”
You are more capable of describing what you want because you actually know what you want. Most women don’t. Even when they think they are describing what they like/want, it isn’t actually what they like/want.
FWIW, I’m not so sure “girly girls” are more or less likely to be nutty than “boyish girls”. I think you’re probably describing level of attractiveness in general, and (no surprise, that) you like women who are more attractive…which in honest-speak usually means they look, sound, and act less like men.
Your suggestion goes right back to the ‘never let a woman tell you what women like’ argument.
Read the best seller romance novels and/or Rom Coms then? Surely if women pay for it the men depicted there are fried ice. Just a though again.
“You are more capable of describing what you want because you actually know what you want. Most women don’t.”
In the words of Francis Ewan Urquhart / Francis “Frank” Underwood (House of cards UK / US), “You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment”.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Urquhart – ‘FU’)
Make-up, skirts, long hair (curly if poss) do tend to be correlated with my definition of ‘girly’. It’s my curse. Thank the lord that all women aren’t like Millie Tant.
“Read the best seller romance novels and/or Rom Coms”?
Ana OMFG!
Have you ever heard the expression that ‘the cure is worse than the disease’?
FYI
Have you ever heard the expression that ‘the cure is worse than the disease’?
How can reading/watching be worse than being lonely or endure the highs and low of an unstable partner? I would read a bad book or watch a bad movie a thousand times than being single again. Of course it might be me. Feel free to dismiss it just though of suggesting it.
@Ana
“I would read a bad book or watch a bad movie a thousand times than being single again.”
Pick one (or two):
a) You’re a stronger stomached man than I am, Gunga Din! ( http://www.bartleby.com/103/48.html )
b) I’m pretty independently minded and am generally speaking dubious of the nett added value of having a woman in my life long term. I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, but I am saying that it’s unlikely and am not a gambling kind a guy…
p.s.
Big Man Japan wasn’t totally horrible (the concpet isn’t bad IMHO), but the ending is terrible. Cockneys vs Zombies is similarly weak at the end, but to a lesser extent, and it is funnier until then…YMMV
@Marellus
Feel free to share your ideas or put out questions for everyone to give their take on.
@Beth
It would seem that someone who can rise to the level of being a spiritual leader or shaman in the tribe would have to have a certain amount of charisma or actual spiritual ability. I don’t see how nerds would necessarily be more apt at either. But I’m certainly not ruling out that some sort of person with a nerd personality could be talented at religious leadership.
The strong point of the smart nerd (there are average and dumb nerds/geeks as well) is logical thought but that seems more suited for philosophy, science or engineering as opposed to the tapping into emotion, feelings, intuition and revelation that spirituality and the role of spiritual guide would tap into. True, if there was merely a mechanical propagation of what some previous prophet figure had “revealed” then perhaps the nerd could do well at that but they also might be poorly suited to it if they started thinking about the message too philosophically to see if it was consistent or too scientifically to compare with the observable or experimental world.
Big Man Japan wasn’t totally horrible (the concpet isn’t bad IMHO), but the ending is terrible. Cockneys vs Zombies is similarly weak at the end, but to a lesser extent, and it is funnier until then…YMMV
I like to think taht BMJ had a Monty Python non-sensical ending. I still haven’t watched Cockneys vs Zombies but at least Netflix has it listed now as date of availabilty unknown. That is progress!
There’s an interesting article at returnofkings that looks at the sexual hierarchy.
They list it as alpha, female, beta, omega.
I agree that in just sexual value terms that this is true basically.
My post here wasn’t focuses solely on sexual value, though it takes that into account, but more on overall power over and influence on society. And that’s why I think it’s:
-apex alpha (nearly all males: billionaires, top movie stars, etc., but throw in the few very powerful women I guess, someone like Oprah with her wide reach comes to mind),
-alpha/top female,
-non-apex alpha male,
-beta female,
-beta male,
-omega female,
-omega male
http://www.returnofkings.com/13133/the-sexual-hierarchy-of-usa-favors-alpha-males-more-than-ever#comment-955975557
For terms of my comment above you could really just replace alpha with top value.
@Ted D
@Swithunus
I’ll clarify a little more:
My FwB is 15 years older than me, has never been married, but has had around 18-20 sexual partners in his life thusfar (more than I think most geeks/nerds get, for sure.) For the last 8 years I’ve been his only lover…he’s rather tired of drama and “female issues”.
On the other hand, he has been my only sexual partner ever. I like that he’s confident without being egotistical, has a great sense of humor, is into comic books/gaming, doesn’t mind when I spoil him with gifts, and has a sexy body (even if it’s a bit pudgy).
Our FwB relationship doesn’t mean that we’re not exclusive…though as I said, I’d be willing to fulfill his fantasy of two women just as he would be willing to fulfill my fantasy of two men. So far, neither of us has done so. I’m not jealous or possessive at all, and his level of jealousy barely warrants a blip on the envy o meter. He could probably still get some ONS with a little effort, but I’m happy being “monogamous”.
Hope this sorts things out a little. People hear the term FwB and tend to think it’s all about having a relationship with lots of casual sex on the side…
@Tarn
“People hear the term FwB and tend to think it’s all about having a relationship with lots of casual sex on the side…”
your definition sounds pretty rational to me FWIW. You seem to be getting your needs met by one guy, why go looking elsewhere? Probably the essence of a happy marriage by a guy’s definition, or at least those guys that don’t get some feeling validation over sleeping around. A guy getting ‘shagged-out’ at home probably isn’t all that fussed at finding alternatives, let alone pursuing them.
Glad it’s working for you, long may that continue.
—-
you can ask for this bit to be deleted, I’d be fine with you considering it too personal
Is the age gap significant to you (a positive thing for you)? Is it easier to have sex as a woman when the guy is more of a patriarchal* figure?
*I can’t think of the right way to put it, that doesn’t end up looking like I’m pussy-footing around ‘father’ bit. I don’t really mean it as father, patriarch is the closest that I can come up with right now.
Sophia – “Hope this sorts things out a little. People hear the term FwB and tend to think it’s all about having a relationship with lots of casual sex on the side…”
To each their own. Seems to me, if you are both exclusive it is past a FwB situation, but it isn’t mine to define.
I can tell you that as much as I love my wife and want to make her happy, there will never be an addition of another guy in our bedroom, and I highly doubt there will ever be an addition of another woman. (because I believe in keeping things fair, and I won’t be inviting any other men to have sex with my wife, so…)
I’m not a jealous person in general, but when it comes to actual intimacy of any kind (past a friendly hug or peck on the cheek) I have no tolerance to speak of. Sexually she belongs to me and me alone, (other than to herself of course) and I tend to see it as a stewardship of sorts. Once we became exclusive, she gave herself to me. So, her sexuality is mine now, and she is simply the steward OF it and her physical self FOR my interests. Of course I see it the same way from my side. If I were to have an affair, I would not only be breaking my word to her, I’d be stealing, because I already gave my sexual self to her. And this is also why I’ve put a lot of effort into getting into better shape and exercising. I’m taking care of the body I exchanged TO her when we married. It’s only fair I make sure my physical self is at least worth the trade, and I’m doing my best to make it worth more than it was when she agreed. Who gets angry when they get more than they paid for after all?
And FWIW, when I hear the term FwB I usually assume it is a man and woman that enjoy sexing each other up, but for any number of reasons are not willing to commit to more. I figure it is a sexual relationship of convenience at best, and an easy way to scratch the itch at worst. Not a very flattering light I know, but that’s where my thoughts are. If its a FwB “relationship” that has gone on over the course of months to years, I’d say shit or get off the pot, but I don’t like grey area and FwB pretty much exists solely in the grey between nothing and official relationship. I prefer all my relationships to be clearly defined, categorized, and outlined in detail. But then again, I’d prefer it if life could be so organized and cataloged as well.
I’m glad it works for you, but it isn’t something I’d be in any way satisfied with. I would want the full package, or nothing at all. I don’t do half-way hybrid relationships, with friends or lovers. All or nothing, I’d never be satisfied with less.
@Ana
I definitely think that Cockneys vs Zombies has a weaker ending than the beginning. But not nearly as bad as the BMJ film. Monty Python and the Holy Grail has a BMJ style complete cop out ending IMHO. Either the budget or the script ideas ran out…
Life of Brian was the stand out movie by Monty, nothing else gets close, but then I have always been a highly conditional fan. MP was a product of it’s time and (even) I am not old enough to like a lot of it.
Having said that
Monty Python – mouse organ sketch – hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9nGyPz9uT0
Life of Brian
– Stoning – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
– Biggus Dickus – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8_jgiNqUc
Life of Brian
– Welease Woger & Welease Bwian – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX0XDHF3M60
@Swithunus
I liked this excerpt you shared with me. It shows that men are more likely than women to think they’re in a sex only reln. Kind of like that other study I saw where 31% of young men were saying it was sex only and 19% of women. Well, I think in that case I’m going to believe the man.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/new-study-men-and-women-have-different-goals-and-expectations-when-cohabitating/
Carson Weitnauer shared this fascinating article from the Atlantic, authored by marriage researcher W. Bradford Wilcox. The article discusses the variances between cohabitating men and women regarding goals and expectations.
Hey Ted, like the new masthead pic.
Han,
One gets the feeling that many women might be hamstering a compromise between feminism’s have sex in the same way as a man (more accurately, how they ‘think’ men have sex) and a more traditional (innate?) makin’ sweet lurve within a relationship, baby (channel a little Barry White there).
They’re taking their current relationship circumstances and ‘believing them’ into being more significant than they are. I agree that the guy’s view is probably the more objective usually (except LJBFs). Our different natures mean that the sexes need to put different english on our realities, but women are more gifted at it (imho), or men are less concerned about any reality gaps, perhaps.
“Hey Ted, like the new masthead pic.”
Thanks. Still playing around with that. Got a new one up again.
Maybe we should have a poll: which banner is the best?
Even betterer masthead. That gets my vote, just look at all that patriarchal privilege on show.
@Obs (from other thread)
I did the “premarital sex, AND, have cohabitated for sometime prior to getting married, in some cases, years”, personally I only regret the getting married bit.
Of course, if cohabiting for two years had entitled me to a trip to family court (as it does now in some parts of the world), I would have regretted that too.
I guess feminists don’t even want men and women living together any more. Iirc in the 70s/80s they were trying to persuade women to become lesbians and cut off the supply of sex for men…it’s almost as if they hate men…
@Ted D
I’m glad your relationship works for you and your wife…hopefully you’ll have many happy years to come. I agree completely that FwB is a gray area, but both of us are of the opinion that life is very rarely ever black and white. We are not in any hurry to become more committed, so FwB is the best we’ve got to tell people. Prevents others from asking us about marriage/moving in together/sharing bills at any rate. To each their own, yeah?
@Swithunus
I’m very glad you didn’t really mean “father figure” or anything…that would have been extremely uncomfortable/painful for me at least. I don’t know how many other posts you looked at on my blog, but my one entitled “Unloving Kiss” might help to explain my…feelings…towards describing my relationship even remotely as “patriarchal”. It’s not something I’d ever do, for fear of flashbacks.
But to actually answer your question, no I don’t even think of him as being older most of the time. Other that the grey in his temples, he often gets confused for a man of about 10 years younger (of course, people also mistake ME for being 20 instead of 29, so it’s STILL not a wash!) He is incredibly funny, watches cartoons, reads comics, plays video games, is the Dungeon Master our group’s role playing games, and has *ahem* noticeable ADHD. If anything, I’m the more mature one in the relationship…I imagine its similar to dating an 19 year old, honestly.
Of course, I’m into all the same hobbies so I can’t really talk. As we like to say, “Growing OLD is mandatory. Growing UP is optional”.
@Swith
Agree that there if no sex is going on and you ask and the guy says she’s his gf and you ask her and she says he’s just a friend that the girl is the one to believe usually.
I once had the other convo. The guy said she wasn’t his gf and the girl said he was her bf. lol
@Tarn,
sorry, didn’t mean to bring up unpleasant memories. I hadn’t read the post that you mention. I’ll not bring the subject up again.
The other issue? don’t feel bad about that. What woman wouldn’t find grey hair sexually attractive? Everyone knows that to do so is the most natural thing in the world. That’s probably why they had to stop people powdering their hair grey a couple of centuries ago; they had to get people to stop having so much wild, uncontrollable sex and get on with inventing steam, conquering the world and stuff.
In fact this issue impacts me in my real life. I often have to carry a stick around to ward off overly sexually aggressive women wanting to run their fingers through my hair. Honestly, I can’t blame them, they just can’t control their baser instincts, being only human and all. (wanna guess what colour my hair is?)
I’m working hard to stay young at heart, it’s going quite well.
I appreciate Andrew from http://www.therulesrevisited.com giving a plug to JFG. He gives good advice to women based on how he as a man sees things (and many men will be quite similar to his views). I’d recommend his blog as a good resource for women.
http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2013/07/do-you-really-want-dating-to-be-easier.html?showComment=1373406919825#c7703736594674999956
Take a look at this woman. She made 5 false rape allegations and only goes to jail on the 5th one, and only for two years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358759/Leanne-Black-finally-jailed-FIVE-false-rape-allegations-ex-boyfriends-years.html
Sophia – “I agree completely that FwB is a gray area, but both of us are of the opinion that life is very rarely ever black and white.”
Well like I said, I do my best to make the world fit into neat little categories. Especially when it comes to my own life. Others can stay in the grey if they want, but I tend to draw my lines in the sand and stand by them. *shrug*
Indeed if it works for you, by all means do the FwB setup. The only issue I have with it in any way outside of my own moral constraints is that I’m not so sure FwB really does much for society as a whole. I realize how antiquated my thinking is, but I still believe that everyone should act in ways that are best for themselves AND benefits society somehow. We are all very good at acting in our own best interests, but not so adept at acting for the best interests of everyone else as well.
I”m a supporter of marriage simply because I truly believe that it IS good for society, but not necessarily in its current form. Marriage 2.0 is far too easily tossed aside to be any kind of real building block for the foundation of a society. It used to be the bricks that held us together, but that foundation has been undermined almost to the point of collapse. I don’t see any way to improve the situation unless we figure out how to get family and marriage back to being that foundation. We also need to figure out how to get people that should be having children to it, and those that shouldn’t be having so many to stop. A troubling trend of the college educated is to skip having kids completely and instead go the DINK (double income – no kids) route and travel the world or whatever. Sure, that’s great for those two individuals, but they are depriving society of children that would be likely to also get degrees and become productive members of society. To me, doing the DINK thing is supremely selfish and self-centered, but its what I’ve come to expect from our brand of “adult” in the U.S.
@Han
http://takimag.com/article/the_crying_rape_game_jim_goad/print#axzz2YTMnqCXY
lots of links from it
Weather is too nice for me to get into this right now. Reading too much of this kind of thing makes me as pissed off as the guy who wrote the article. When men read this stuff and then notice the lack of women fighting the injustice in any numbers, well, that’s how men take the red-pill and society gets handed the hemlock. And it fully deserves to drink deeply of it.
@Swithunus
That article you quote is emblematic of my whole beef with feminism. If they’re truly seeking to achieve equal and empowered women then they need to confront the false rape accusations that happen and not just say that the men falsely accused are the necessary collateral damage in their “quest” to eliminate rape. They need to look at fairness for all and not just privilege, power or fairness for women only, while ignoring or even exacerbating the unfair plight of men.
I read some of the comments on one of the linked articles (no, I can’t find it again).
Basically the woman/white knight dismissed concern about false rape accusations by saying that ‘most accusations were true’.
Even assuming the veracity of the statement (which I don’t), just how many innocent men are being thrown under the bus by the sentiment expressed?
If I accused that person of paedophilia, destroyed their life and they finally managed to prove their innocence by sheer luck after spending all their money. By their standards I could look them in the eye and just say that most accusations of paedophilia are true, so they should accept everything…really?
I don’t know if this is misandry, solipsism (and they don’t ever think that it’ll apply to them) or just an utter lack of empathy…but I know that this is how people lose faith in justice from the current system. I don’t see any good come from that for anyone.
moff
Private man nails the thing about the Manosphere
http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/men-are-bitter-and-angry-and-thats-awesome
@Swith
Vox posts an article about how two men were saved of rape charges by filming the voluntary sex with a woman.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.ca/2013/07/on-advice-of-my-lawyer.html?source=delusiondamage.com
Great article from privateman. It’s so true how men kept soldiering on even though the incentive structure had changed. Now men are realizing it, mostly in small numbers but those numbers are growing. And even some women are recognizing it too. I think that once we hit a critical mass that we can make a lot of changes for the better.
@Swithunus
No worries. You didn’t know, so no real harm done. And yeah, I bet you DO have to beat the ladies away with a stick. Then again, grey hair is sexy on most people imo…I can’t wait til my light blonde hair turns silver years from now!
@Ted D
Huh. We come from very different viewpoints in would seem. You are very marriage/offspring oriented, whereas I’m the exact opposite. In my 29 years of life thusfar, I’ve never wanted a husband or children…even as a youngling. My FwB relationship is 8 years strong at this point, so it does work for some people, though I can understand your view as well.
I wrote a post about my decision to stay single entitled “The Cheese Stands Alone”. If you want, tell me what you think. As for children, I’ve not written about that decision yet but I know it would be hell for me. I’m already living with gender dysphoria…even imagining myself pregnant causes severe nausea and an incredibly uncomfortable feeling in my mind. Don’t get me wrong, I love children and am very good with them, but could never have any myself.
@Han
By the Gods…what the blazes is WRONG with people nowadays? Why would a woman try to use an accusation of rape to get even with a man? It’s absurd.
Do these bimbos not realize the full extent of their stupidity? A man can get beaten to death for an accusation like that. He can lose his kids, his spouse, his job…maybe even any professional work licenses he has. What if he gets raped or molested in prison? What if he loses his home? What if his extended family believes the accuser for some reason and shuns him, causing depression and suicide? And when it finally comes out that it was false, what about all the ACTUAL rape victims who are now looked at with hostility and suspicion?
I’ve often thought that people who make false crime reports towards another person should be given the same sentence the “perpetrator” would have gotten. For some reason, this idea has not caught on…
Sophia, I’m not sure. I imagine some of the false accusers are just solipsistic and don’t think about the consequences, as you see many try to say they didn’t mean it in domestic violence cases when the cops show up and take the man away. And then there are some people who really are just hateful and vengeful and know what’s going to happen and go ahead with the false accusation. And some people are likely a mix.
And then there will be a few people that have mental health issues that causes them to make false accusations.
Saying this is not to disparage accusers of real abuse. I would like to get rid of abusers and false accusers.
Sophia – To me, children are the only lasting legacy I can leave here on earth. No matter how successful my own life may be, once I’m gone that all ceases to exist. But, my children will live on, and through them so will I and my family before me.
I would even say that some part of me feels it is my duty and obligation to my family and lineage to pass on our genes to another generation. And as the last adult male with my particular surname, that duty is doubly important as I am responsible for passing on our name as well. (our “branch” of the family uses an uncommon spelling of our surname. My son and I are the last two males left using that uncommon spelling…)
Truth be told, much of what drove me to want a family was obligation and duty, not so much a desire to have and raise children. Don’t get me wrong, I love my kids a great deal! I simply didn’t base my decision to have them on my desire to raise them. To me that decision wasn’t as important as carrying on the family name and lineage. Whether I wanted a family or not, it was and is my obligation to do so.
I’ll have to check out “gender dysphoria” since I am not familiar with it. I don’t really have a problem with any individuals choice to have or not have a family/marriage/relationship/whatever. My concern is more that if too many educated people make the choice to NOT have a family, who is left creating the next generation?
“My concern is more that if too many educated people make the choice to NOT have a family, who is left creating the next generation?”
Idiocracy…mixed with a kleptocracy
idiocracy – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
klpetocracy – see the financial news
(edit feature would be nice)
“(edit feature would be nice)”
I think registered users can edit their posts… I’ll look into that!
@Ted D
You bring up an interesting point: That of having an obligation to reproduce. Was this instilled in you at a young age due to the surname dilemma, or was this opinion something you came to by yourself?
I personally think that while we all have an obligation to care for, protect and educate the new generation, no one is under any obligation to contribute more to it if they don’t wish to. Of course, this could be because relatives and strangers have felt the need to tell me that “all women want children” and “your body’s job in life is to create more people”. Even my mother has been harping on me to “give her grandkids”…as though a new human is something kept between the dairy aisle and the fresh produce. She has my 3 younger siblings though, and they all WANT children so she’ll get her grandkids in less than 5 years.
I think that putting pressure on men (and women) to marry and have children is fine in it’s own way. People need to be supported in their goal of creating a happy, healthy and intelligent family. I’m all for that, and have helped new couples raise children whenever they needed it. But if someone tells you 74 times that they have no desire for that role, and like contributing to society in other ways, do you really believe that they’ll change their mind the 75th time you pressure them? Probably not, and it might even destroy a formerly good relationship!
On the other hand, people who have no need to pick up kids from school or stay home with infants can still do good for the community at large. For example, I babysat for free for neighbors who were less fortunate, I volunteer at my local SPCA during the summer, help with a toy drive in December, and donate to the closest food pantry and veteran’s fund in the winter months. If I had babies at home, not only would I not be able to do my actual job (which I love, and hope to be a partner in soon), but it would be very difficult to be so charitable with my time and money otherwise.
As always, I’m glad that having kids worked out for you and your wife.
@Han – “Was this instilled in you at a young age due to the surname dilemma, or was this opinion something you came to by yourself?”
First of all, my family is VERY old school. (my grandfather came to the U.S. as a very young lad, and my grandmother moved here after marrying my grandfather during WWII while he was on active duty: she was a war bride) So, think old world Catholic upbringing, which means LOTS of focus on marrying and having kids of my own to “carry on the line” and all that. Add to it the unique surname, and I’ve pretty much heard my whole life that it was my duty to carry on the family. My cousins who are female don’t count by those old standards, because they would not be passing on the name along with the lineage.
Don’t get me wrong, we aren’t descendants of royalty or something. But, my extended family was/is very concerned with lineage and family lines, and old world families in general tended to focus a great deal with passing on the family name/property/etc. (in fact I often wonder if my grandfather’s offer to help my mother with raising me as a single parent in 1970 was partly because I was a male that could carry on the family name…)
So it definitely wasn’t something I came to myself. I was led to that conclusion, and in many ways pushed to it. In fact, I decided to leave the chance for a career in music simply because it wouldn’t have been secure enough to raise a family on. I basically made the decisions for my “life’s work” based solely on how well it could be leveraged to acquire a wife and raise a family, not in any way on how much I actually wanted to DO the work involved.
I’m in no way suggesting any of that is the correct way to go about life, but it’s the hand I was dealt. I do instill a bit of obligation in my son, mostly because he is the last male left to pass on our surname, but with marriage 2.0 being the minefield it is I also can’t push marriage on him with any sense of a clean conscience. Instead, I will do my best to make sure he knows exactly what he’ll be signing up for IF he marries, hoping that he still sees having a family as important enough to take the risk. Because I want to see my family name passed on, and I want to have grandchildren that are biologically mine. As it is, my 19yo daughter (step-daughter technically) says she doesn’t want to have children, and would only consider adoption if she met and married a man that wanted kids. For now I figure she has time to change her mind, but she seems pretty set on it. (another intelligent person opting NOT to pass on their “smart” genes. Very depressing IMO.)
And honestly I can’t blame her. Children are expensive and time consuming. She is getting into nursing, so she will make a decent living on her own and is likely to pair up with a man doing as well or better. Their combined income will probably be a comfortable living for a couple, but not so much for a family of four. Without kids they’ll be able to enjoy life and do what they want. With kids they’ll be spending that money on food/clothes/etc. And she doesn’t feel any sense of responsibility for carrying on my exes family lineage, because there are plenty of other kids in the family already.
It seems like more and more the people that make enough to properly care for children aren’t having them because it infringes on their “lifestyle”, while the people that truly can’t afford to have a family keep on having more. I know of many younger DINK (double-income, no kids. A term I first heard in the 80’s from the gay community but that now applies to many hetero couples who choose not to have kids.) couples that have no intention of having a family because they enjoy their vacations, leased cars, and big house. These are smart people that would be likely to have successful kids, but choose not to grace the world with their progeny out of convenience.
On the other hand, I see crowds of kids around the section 8 areas of the city. Poor parents (often single mothers) with kids that are unlikely to do any better than their parents when it comes to education and earning potential, let alone making positive contributions to society in general. These are the folks that should be thinking long and hard about having kids, since they are not in the situation to properly care for them.
Somewhere along the way, we’ve removed the incentive for smart, educated people to have children, and moved that incentive to the people that shouldn’t be having children at all. (not because of anything genetic, but simply because they lack the financial resources to properly care for kids. If you can’t afford to feed, cloth, and shelter a baby, in my opinion you have no business having one.)
“As always, I’m glad that having kids worked out for you and your wife.”
Listen. I’ve said before that at this point I am very much looking forward to our youngest graduating from high school in 6 short years. I’ve done my duty for my family and lineage and had kids. Now I’m ready to enjoy my life for my OWN purposes and goals. My wife is on the same page. So, once we’ve completed our obligations as parents, the sky is the limit as to what we’ll do with ourselves. Hell, I may seriously consider a major career change at that point since I will no longer have multiple people relying on my income. We may travel! Perhaps even move to another part of the country or even abroad somewhere! (my wife can claim Irish citizenship. Her biological father was born in Ireland and was adopted to a U.S. couple when he was a young child. She is considering doing it so we have a viable option if the States fully go to hell. Never hurts to have a backup plan…)
I don’t want anyone to get the idea that I’m all about being altruistic here. I’m taking my life back the moment I can, which will be a few moments after our youngest gets that HS diploma. Surely we’ll continue to help them through college, but once they are 18 and have their HS education, we are done with the required stuff. They’ll get help from us based on how much they help themselves, which is to say if they aren’t busting their asses on their own, they won’t be getting a free ride from us. I’ll offer them the deal I got: a place to live and at least one good meal a day free of charge AS LONG AS they are in college and getting good grades. If they want a car they’ll need a job to pay for it. If they want to go out on the weekends they’ll need a job to pay for it. Basically, if they stay living with us they’ll be our room mates that are still required to follow our rules. (my house; my rules is how it goes. They don’t like it at 18 they can move on out!)
Even if they take us up on that offer, I make no promise that we’ll be home to cook them that meal every day. We might decide to just go away for an extended weekend, and they’ll have to manage on their own. My 19yo is learning the hard way this summer. She asked a few times “what’s for dinner?” and my reply was: “dunno. What are you making? Be sure to make enough for all three of us!”
She stopped asking. LOL
@Ted
“She stopped asking.”
Ted! You hardass! LMAO j/k
And not a big deal but that quote above was from T. Sophia. Not me. I want to have 4 kids myself. I need to get on that.
@ Ted: “my 19yo daughter (step-daughter technically) says she doesn’t want to have children, and would only consider adoption if she met and married a man that wanted kids. For now I figure she has time to change her mind, but she seems pretty set on it. (another intelligent person opting NOT to pass on their “smart” genes. Very depressing IMO.)”
If she meets a man who wants children, he’ll probably want his own children not an adopted bunch. And if she meets the right man, she’ll change her mind. I never thought I’d have kids but my husband wanted them and I’d definitely have it no other way now.
(actually, your general stated opinion that kids are resource sucking leeches sort of saddens me. I’m not looking forward to the empty nest, myself. Kids are expensive because they are worth it, but it isn’t something a value that can be measured in pounds or dollars, it’s a value beyond price.)
“kids are resource sucking leeches”
that is an objectively true fact. Whether you think that they are more than worth it is the subjective part, which can be happy or otherwise.
Now, personally, I hope that every parent believes that that is true, but I can see scenarios where it’s unlikely.
One’s stomach is also a resource sucking leech. This is an objectively true fact.
Yet few people eat only the minimum amount necessary to survive.
@Beth – “actually, your general stated opinion that kids are resource sucking leeches sort of saddens me. I’m not looking forward to the empty nest, myself. Kids are expensive because they are worth it, but it isn’t something a value that can be measured in pounds or dollars, it’s a value beyond price.”
I knew someone would take that stance.
I said I love my kids, and I do. I wouldn’t trade them for anything. Hell, at this point I’d even go through my life again KNOWING what was waiting for me just to have them.
All that being said, having three children under 18 and one over in the house, I can tell you they take vast amounts of money. The wife and I could easily take two or three solid vacations a year with the money we spend on groceries and clothes for our kids, and probably still have some left over. Add in the costs of extra-curricular activities and the gas to get them to and from, and it starts to add up.
I agree that you can’t put a price on leaving a legacy, and there is no price on my children’s heads here. But I’ll tell you, I can’t wait for an empty nest! I want my children to grow up, get out there and make a life for themselves. I want grandkids! (not anytime soon though…)
And I want my life back. I want to have the flexibility and money to come home from work on a Friday, tell my wife to pack a bag, and just disappear for the weekend. I want to be able to simply go and buy something, instead of having to weigh it out against the family budget.
Understand, I married for the first time at just a few days past 26 years old. My wife had a baby girl, so it was a “just add dad” situation to instant family. I had only been in my first “real” job for about 8 months at the time. I went from living my life at home, to a short period of living my life for me, straight into living my life for my new family. I’m not complaining. I’m simply stating that I see my years of raising kids as something I was obliged to do for my family to carry on our line. I see those years as something I owed my kids because I took on the responsibility of doing so. Once they are adults, I am no longer responsible FOR and TO them, and I can begin to enjoy them as individuals and not “my kids”. I want to be free of the responsibilities to others so that I can enjoy being responsible to myself (and my wife of course.)
I love my kids, and I am sure I’ll miss them once they are gone. But I will also make the best of however many years I have left once they are out and on their own. It will be MY life again, and I’m going to enjoy it as much as I can. My wife and I intend to travel as much as possible, and are already talking about where in the world we may like to live once it’s just the two of us. We certainly wont need the 5 bedroom three story house we have now! And perhaps we can move out of the city and into a more rural setting with less traffic and less people. (we live closer to the city for convenient access to things like shopping, school, and all the stuff our kids do outside of school.)
I can tell you this: my wife and I will NOT be sitting at home moping over an empty house. As it is, our children are gone all summer as they spend those months with our exes and their families, so we get to practice being “empty nesters”. (this summer our 19yo is in college, so we are actually a little bummed because we don’t get the summer all to ourselves. LOL) My wife is in her mid-30’s and I just turned 43. Our youngest graduates in 6 years! So, I’ll only be closing in on 50 when we are free of parental responsibilities, and my wife will be in her early 40’s! Plenty of time for us to do whatever the hell we want. I fully intend to do so anyway.
Wish you the best, Ted. I guess it depends what you want…not saying you haven’t done your job.
My opinion is simply 180 out from yours. We could take several vacations a year with the money we’d save without kids, too (and I’d have a lot more work experience and money from that source too). But from my perspective, what’s the point? The point of a vacation is a smaller version of the point of having kids. A happy life is just a collection of happy moments. I’d rather have the kids than the trip. That is all. And I’ve been married since I was a teenager (we waited a few years to have kids). Just celebrated what my husband quips his ‘third seven year itch’. And going strong.
“One’s stomach is also a resource sucking leech. This is an objectively true fact.
Yet few people eat only the minimum amount necessary to survive.”
?
what are you talking about?
I stated my preference that parents saw their kids as blessings. Are you actually reading what Ted and I are saying? (Not that we’re saying the same thing, necessarily.) Because it doesn’t look like you are, you appear to be emoting because somebody has said anything other than kids are a pure blessing to all.
@Swithunus, I’m referring to quality of life.
I is objectively true that everything beyond the absolutely essential can be deemed a superfluous resource sucking thing.
I agree, the price of bacon these day is completely wibble.
Lol!
There’s a reason why two major religions banned it. Water hogging animal!
Of course in my opinion bacon IS essential to life.
(sorry for the triple post…)
“(sorry for the triple post…)”
I blame the subject matter, bacon mmmmmmmmm
Your reaction is entirely normal
and have a nice weekend Beth
Just because I have something negative to say on a subject, should in no way imply that I have ONLY negative things to say.
My kids are great! They are a source of joy, pride, and never ending entertainment. They are by far the most important contribution I’m making to human existence.
Doesn’t change the fact that they cost a lot in terms of money, time, and other resources. I’m simply looking at it from a practical and realistic POV, which I realize is the exact opposite of how most people look at and discuss their kids.
Knowing my kids are expensive doesn’t change how I feel about them in the least. And to be clear, I’m in no way comparing my children to a vacation in Cabo. I am however pointing out that many people ARE seeing it that way, and they tend to make it an “either/or” scenario.
Ted, that’s off topic. We’re talking about bacon now…
I love bacon but I’m currently struggling with gall bladder issues, and that means cutting out fat in my diet.
It’s a sad thing, but it does help a great deal on my efforts to get into better shape. If I get too far off my diet, the hours of agony during the ensuing gall attack reminds me of my priorities. LOL
At some point I’ll need to get it removed I imagine. For now I’m trying to control it with diet. If/when that stops working, I’ll discuss having my insides removed. :p
Bacon vs an operation?
dang! that is serious shit right there…and I’m using ‘dang’ as a non-American. that’s serious ‘stuff’. How can that issue be unknown to me?
“How can that issue be unknown to me?”
You didn’t abuse your body so badly that your gall bladder refuses to function normally?
Here’s the real rub: it is likely that losing weight and getting into better shape actually caused (or at least accelerated) the issue. You see, as I was purging my body of all that accumulated fat, my digestive system had to devour it and process it on through. That increased the amount of fat and cholesterol in my blood stream, which my doctor informs me may have very well caused my gall stones. (since stones are normally formations of cholesterol/fat sediment. Gross I know…)
Don’t feel too bad, I can and do enjoy a little bacon here and there. I just can’t go eating a lot of it, and certainly not the kind I prefer. (fatty and chewy) Bacon bits in a salad? OK. 5 strips of bacon on a burger? Not so much.
@Ted
Maybe you could come to appreciate the dark and crispy side of bacon? lol
That way you still get the flavor but less of the fat.
I’m personally a crispy bacon lover.
@Ted
my mother had her’s removed, they were very pretty, if little gruesome, HTH
rather bacon than beer, but man, that is a tough call.
Crispy bacon? mmmmmeeee tooo
fwiw.
Nobody does crispy bacon like the Americans – credit were credit is due.
Well, Hobbits do it quite well too…just in inopportune times when Ring Wraiths just happen to be scouring the country for you. lol
Nothing like the smell of bacon to waft across the plains and hills of Middle Earth.
OTOH, maybe the ring wraiths were pointing swords at Frodo because they wanted the bacon. “Give us the bacon. Where have you hidden it?”
[…] we look back at the posts on evolutionary incentives and herd hierarchy, we see that the male sex is the riskier one: the males most valued by women will clean up while […]
[…] will have a follow-up post, likely next week, that talks about the hierarchy of the herd and the influence that …, as hinted at here in the raunch queens section. The hierarchy of influence on society is apex […]
“I will correct what I said about them being of low value economically. The smarter nerds and geeks do contribute with middle or high-middle income jobs and often invent technology that creates a lot of value for society. But most of them don’t make much off of this while their companies do. Gates and similar are the few sigma-nerds who make it super big.” – Han Solo
Love this statement! I happen to love nerds/geeks as long as they’re courteous and make the effort to be sociable. I love the hot-male-babes as well, ie. the Chris Pine look-alikes, but there is just something sexy about guys with glasses
Guys with Glasses
Don’t believe the myth that Lois Lane did not have the hots for Clark Kent. That is so untrue!
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2013/07/alphas-who-murder-children.html
I think that the title is misleading, the post is interesting and relevant to this post
sorry about the teaser ending of the quote Han, but you should read the whole thing, I think
@Swithers
It’s some interesting stuff about archetypes.
I think he goes overboard in saying “the Manosphere concept of “Alpha” makes very little sense.” If you want to divide men into two broad categories, leaders and followers, those who dominate the social hierarchy and those that are mere cogs in the machinery, then it makes perfect sense. Of course, reality is more complex than this but as a shorthand it’s very useful.
I completely disagree that alpha can’t describe both good and bad. Of course it can. Since alpha/beta is more about who dominates and it’s obvious that you can have tyrannical dominance and benevolent dominance.
So, I’m not sure why he had to go on a diatribe against the sphere using alpha/beta. That part was just bullshit. However, his comparing the archetypes to both the sphere and Star Wars was interesting but of course there he’s dealing with many more variables than just alpha/beta (which can in themselves just be seen as different ends of the same variable of how dominant you are over the social structure) and so he can delve into richer description.
He would have been well advised to just focus on the archetypes instead of accusing anyone who uses the alpha/beta concept of being a fool.
What are your thoughts?
@Han,
yeah, I liked his exposé, it was rather informative, however, as far as I am concerned ‘alpha’ is a loose, hand-wavey, time-savey term for things that work in the SMP/MMP. It allows the codswallop being spouted to remain on narrative. Or, as you so succinctly put it, shorthand.
In my original attempt at making this reply, I finished by proving my GUT of life, the universe and everything. Sadly this Nobel winning paper (and likely a Pullitzer prize (sp?) to boot) was lost in the interwebz. sacré beaulux, as les mecs francais might dire.
In a “free” society, especially a femcentric free society, most women have more power than most men (except for the apex alpha males that call most of the shots at a fundamental, root-cause level). In such a society, it’s women who are needed to make changes. Of course, if the males decide to go all totalitarian or strict then the males calling the shots are the ones that will make the changes and force women to go along. For now, the apex alpha males have been mostly ok with women and the female herd having a lot of power. The female herd acts as the army of sorts to pursue the apex alpha males’ ends.
The fastest way to get change is to get the apex alpha males to decide to change but they’re also usually the hardest to influence, due to their power. So, in absence of that, getting the herd to change by helping cause dissension in the ranks is probably the best way since women tend to be more herdlike and beta and regular alpha males are more herd followers (especially in a femcentric society).
Women have dual mating strategies too and feminists have tapped into their desire for society-provided independence, their hypergamy, their sluttiness, and have stoked their sense of victimhood and anger at men. Raunch queens have assisted in tapping into the hypergamy and sluttiness of many women. By controlling the narrative, the alpha mares are able to tap into women’s desire to be in the herd and get many of them to go against their own non-slutty and relationship and having-kids desires. But some women are realizing that feminism isn’t just a shit sandwich for men (they may not even realize or care) but that it’s a shit sandwich for some women and are starting to voice their concern.
I think that this is an opportunity for fair-minded people to grab and create further conflict in the herd by pointing out that feminism (the 2nd wave and later stuff, not the 1st wave equality stuff) only aligns with a certain portion of female desire and a certain portion of women and throws the rest under bus.
[…] http://www.justfourguys.com/hierarchy-of-the-herd/ […]
[…] system of attraction between the sexes is rigid, unchanging, and ruled by biology with an iron […]
[…] mares can rise up to replace the current hateful, feminist-supremacy alpha mares that guide the female herd and the beta-male followers (of course, the apex alpha males are the ultimate controllers of the herd and will use feminists […]
[…] reviewed the broad hierarchy of society–namely, the order is top men, then top women, then average women, then average […]
[…] often argued that it’s the elites who have the most influence on the direction a society takes. Usually the very top elites are male but sometimes […]
From the description of Apex-Alpha it almost seems as if it combines the typical alpha and sigma traits. The alphas ability to control the group dynamic along with the sigmas ability to be independent and stand out from others, thereby not following the demands of society and winning.
[…] this insightful essay about the hierarchy of the herd, the author explores why this is and how this herd mentality drives social norms, movements, and […]