Recently, in the comments to my Secret Life as a Group of Women post, our old friend evilwhitemaleempire offered this intriguing theory as to why I started this blog:
Your just a runt.
You put up that picture of Charles Altas so folks will think your not.
Your entire adult life has been about coping with the aggressive sexual displays of bigger, taller, more attractive men by throwing anti-male grenades at them. That’s why your a feminist. … you support the false rape/harassment industry because it acts to jail all those better men you can’t compete with.
You and your mangina ilk are what you have always been since high school. Nerds who think they can win the cheerleader if they can get the football captain jailed as a rapist.
I can’t fault his logic here, though evil here is making several incorrect assumptions that call into question his conclusion. One, I don’t actually support sending innocent men to jail on false rape charges, even if they were the captain of the football team in high school. Two, even in high school, I was never interested in the cheerleader type; as a nerdy alternative-music-loving slacker guy, I was much more interested in the girls who listened to The Jam rather than Journey. Also, the high school I went to was basically a high school for nerds; even the cheerleaders were a little nerdy. We didn’t have a football team; our basketball team was legendary for the length of its losing streak, while our chess team, meanwhile, racked up victory after victory.
But enough about my high school. The key point here is that manosphere dudes have somehow managed to convince themselves, despite massive evidence to the contrary, that sexual attraction is a very simple and straightforward thing: men want cheerleaders and Hooters waitresses; women want jocks and thugs. These are iron-clad rules, and apply to everyone, including the nerdiest of nerds and the feministest of feminists. (By everyone, of course, I mean cis heteros; manosphere dudes have no real theories about lgbt sexuality, and tend to forget it exists.)
So evil assumes that I (and presumably the rest of the feminist guys out there) have adopted feminism as a way to get into the pants of the cheerleaders who wouldn’t date us in high school. On the flip side, manosphere dudes often assume, bizarrely, that feminist women are all secretly obsessed with boning thuggish jocks.
In reality, of course, people tend to be interested in and attracted to people basically like them: gym rats go for gym rats, nerds for nerds, goths for goths, lawyers for lawyers, and so on, and so on, and scooby dooby doo.
To illustrate this point, I’d like to present some relevant anthropological data, in the form of video footage of the “aggressive sexual display” of one “alpha male” of a certain subspecies of homo sapiens. You will notes that this mating dance has attracted the attention of a female of the same type — and not a feminist. Unfortunately, as far as well can tell from the video itself, the dance did not result in successful copulation. In the end, our subject finds himself competing against the aggressive display of another male of the same type.
The Greek hierarchy is only relevant in terms of social and sexual success (and, of course, they are often interrelated). There are of course ways to be respectable and successful outside of the Greek hierarchy. As I stated earlier, a beta can take solace in the fact that he can always be financially successful, artistically exceptional, or some other variation thereof. It doesn’t stop him from being a social and sexual beta, but in other aspects of his life, he can be dominant. As for the boxer/professor comparison, well, it depends on how they conduct themselves socially and sexually. A boxer is probably younger, taller (this is huge with men, I forgot to mention… height is a big deal) and better looking, and thus more likely to be an alpha. But if it’s a hot, charismatic prof, the prof may be a bigger alpha.
It is okay Kirby-he never even noticed that I said I was not skinny (which apparently is the only requirement for a woman to be an alpha) not that I was fat.
And he also has not denoted what constitutes a fat person-is it a size two, eight, ten, twenty? Is it someone who has a high BMI or just a lot of extra pounds for what is “ideal” for a person’s height?
I do find it interesting how it all does boil down to Clique’s. Nerds and Jocks or whatever else people like to use to make them feel connected.
No, a woman must be HOT to be an alpha (thin and facially attractive).
A skinny woman without exceptional looks is probably a beta (of course, there are internal beta levels, generally determined by the level of attractiveness and, in small part, level of social charisma of the woman).
Being fat immediately dumps you into omega category, no matter what. This sounds, harsh, but I didn’t make the rules, I just report on the facts.
That makes you the Mike Damone of the world of high school cliques Tit.
Anyway I just dropped by to expose Futrelle for the snivelling little omega that he is. Now you can’t pretend you don’t know.
Ah Elizabeth you never shy away from the insult do you?.
@PosterwhoimprettysureisstillElizabeth
Actually, I didn’t catch that till you pointed it out. Clever. 😛 I think its more to do with the fact that when somebody says “I am NOT skinny”, it usually is a euphamism.
It’s starting to look, as MRAL’s position becomes more clear, that the Alpha/Beta/Omega labels are simply a means of saying who’s hot and who’s not. Any other derivatives (that Alphas are out to get Betas) are simply baseless assertions and conspiratorial hand-waving.
Sorry for the entirely unrelated, but we have emoticons?!?!!? 🙂 😀 😛 Awesome!
Again MRAL-as Kirby and I pointed out-it is illogical to base the level a woman is at on only her weight.
Oprah, one of the most powerful women in the media, once went from being 238 to being 160. Then she went back to 200. I have no idea what she is now. She is one of the alpha types except when she is heavy? Does your little theory add in the fact that weight is something that can be lost and gained? Is a recently pregnant woman (who still has the weight from her baby) an omega because she has not lost the weight?
Do you see how this is a stupid thing to claim yet? Oh wait, forgot I was dealing with omega level intelligence. Never mind.
For women it kind of is who’s hot and who’s not. For men, it’s more complex- an intersectionality of strength and height and attractiveness and social charisma, who can be the most well-liked and get the most pieces of ass. It’s possible to succeed outside the system but the Greek system is the most common avenue to success.
I think alphas actually like betas, because they affirm their superiority. This is why the higher-level betas often run with alphas and utilize this advantage in order to get alpha ass. On the other hand, alphas and betas have an almost pathological hostility toward omegas. They like to cockblock and torment them constantly- see the root of Futrelle’s anger.
Men’s rights acknowledge this system (unlike dreamland fymynysts) and understand the pain it causes many men. This is why MRAs embrace Game, that which can level the playing field somewhat, but surprise surprise, the femibitches don’t like Game, because then they have to give up some of their power. Feminism is at its core pure undistilled selfishness.
@Posterwhosooni’lljustbecallingElizabeth:
Of course, even if MRAL’s little Greek hierarchy (as if that lends it any credibility) is soley for the purpose of sexual preference, he obviously haven’t heard of the BBW kink. (If I have it wrong, I’m sorry. I’m not googling it. Just a personal preference.) Even “fat chicks” get some lovin.
MRAL:
I said it last time. You have not provided a speck of evidence of any kind that anything you say is true; you just assert loudly that it is true and we just don’t want to believe it.
In the interests of illustrating why this is stupid, I’ll present an alternate theory that we’ll call the psychic theory of attraction.
Some people are psychic. They are attracted to other psychic people because of the power of their awesome psychicness. They also look down on people who aren’t psychic. They’re successful through judicious use of their psychic powers. You think of them as attractive because they’re using their psychic powers to make you think that.
You just don’t know there are psychics because you’re a non-psychic loser. They never talk about it or write anything about it down because they can communicate psychically and there’s no point in sharing the fact of their awesome psychicness with a loser like you.
There are thousands of websites that have BBW porn videos showing that plenty of people are not limited to those three categories Kirby and that plenty of overweight women are able to get somethin’ somethin’.
A model is only as useful as the predictions it can make. Some models may be able to make startlingly accurate predictions in specific cases, but fail generally. While those models may be useful (in the specific cases) they cannot be accurate views of reality.
My guess is that many people can’t grasp that last point, which is why you have people like MRAL proposing a model that, while it may be very accurate in his (my presumption) experience (otherwise he wouldn’t believe it), obviously fails in the general case. Thus it CANNOT, no matter how much positive evidence is presented, be an accurate model of reality.
The whole idea that a “beta” individual can be “dominant” in some other area of life besides the social/sexual as a consolation prize made me think about something.
The reason self-described “betas” and “omegas” are unhappy is that they view some form of “dominance” as the goal. And that’s just silly.
When I enter social or sexual relationships, I don’t do it to win some kind of power game; I do it to be happy. I am an “omega” by the standard MRA classification, since I’m chubby. Because of my tastes and the circles I run in, my life experience is more like that of a “beta”; I can make friends and get dates, but I have to work at it.
But you know what? I have a great circle of friends, and a great relationship. Which means, as far as I’m concerned, I have achieved the ultimate social/sexual success: getting myself to a place where I’m happy.
The fact that someone hotter, thinner, and more charismatic than I am could have achieved all this bit less effort, or could have ended up with a girlfriend who is “higher status”, is completely irrelevant to my life.
I think a lot of beta/gamma/delta/epsilon dudes could benefit from a similar outlook.
Perhaps more relevant than the BBW phenomenon:
http://love.twowholecakes.org/
Overweight and obese women so sometimes have a tough time on the dating scene, but most still get laid and most end up getting married. Anyone who claims that no self-respecting guy would date a fat chick is denying reality.
@Lovlace:
Thanks (?) for the link. The problem we’re dealing with is that these people are oblivious about reality. They simply take their own desires and project them upon everybody else. This is probably why MRAL is so dissatisfied with his relationships (I’m being generous here). He has no notion of what his partner may desire, and therefore cannot be a desirable person.
I’m sure MRAL will be horrified to see “fat chicks” dating, and will just dismiss it as “omegas” getting what they can. What an insidious and perverse idea that distorts reality and therefore cannot be disproved.
MRAL appears confused about his stupid dogma. Stoners are badboy thugs, aren’t they?
Also, in my experience, my personality has gotten me at least as much laid as my 20.1 BMI. I’m fairly funny, socially awkward, intelligent, nice, geeky… and that’s what gets me laid, not my looks. If I’m in a situation where personality is irrelevant, I get no sex at all.
And I don’t know about you guys, but I could care less about strength, height or social charisma. Give me a skinny androgyne with some eyeliner… mmmmm.
Feminism is at its core pure undistilled selfishness.
Once again: projection, thy name is MRA!
kirby, about models:
Necessary, but not sufficient. A model can have perfect predictive value, but still not be what’s actually happening, as any scientist can tell you. So even if MRAL’s theory worked, that wouldn’t make it true.
@katz:
I refer to what I think is meant by what Stephen Hawking (and others) call M-Theory; that is, if a model is 100% predictive, it might as well be reality. Imagine two mutually exclusive models, each of which is 100% predictive. Which is reality? Normally you go for which model has the greatest predictive capacity, but when that doesn’t apply, you really can’t determine which is reality and which isn’t. I believe at this point scientists will say that both models, in a sense, are reality.
Okay, okay, MRAL, I believe you. You’re unpopular with women because you were born genetically “omega,” and not because, say, you spend your free time trying to get a rise out of chicks by accusing them of being fat over the Internet. It’s all completely out of your power.
Reassured now? Great.
And a typical omega is… a middle-class white guy of average height and weight with brown hair. Right, got it, that’s obviously the lowest of the low on the social ladder, what with the brown hair and all. What hair color do alphas and betas have? I have to admit I’m kind of curious.
The reason this “MRAL” failure of a human being likes hierarchy so much is because it gives him hope that he can one day be promoted out of the hole he’s in. My partner constantly has these “alphas” and game-using “betas” sniffing after her even though to MRAL I’d likely be considered an “omega” because I’m a feminist male and because I’m not worried my balls are going to fall off if I’m seen in public buying feminine products. I’m also married to a woman he’d consider a female omega. Who was the first of the two of us our partner was attracted to. So the “fat chick” got a woman who wouldn’t even give MRAL and his ilk the time of day. 🙂