In light of some recent discussions here, I thought this cartoon seemed relevant. I got it from my new favorite Tumblr blog, Comically Vintage. It’s astounding how many of the comic panels posted there — especially those from melodramatic 60s-70s romance comics — apply to the arguments in and around the manosphere today. Perhaps because the world in which these guys live is as imaginary and out-of-date as the fantasy world of 40 or 50 year-old Romance comics.
And while we’re on the subject, here’s a bonus cartoon. Here, crawling from the primordial soup, is the world’s first PUA! (Granted, he hasn’t quite worked out all of the tenets of modern Game, but, hey, he’s still a lizard. Just as human evolution took millions of years, evolving something as complex as modern PUA theory takes time.)
I think he’s desperately googling xD
Real, fake, freal or not, I love how questioning height can put him on such a tilt xD
Perhaps this is a silly question… MRAL, you have a system where you can describe a bunch of people. Seemingly successful, in wealth, life, or in bed, people are labeled “Alphas”, regular people are “betas,” and ugly or unsavory people are Omegas. What, exactly, is the point?
Here is the problem: you claim that Alphas, all Alphas, are out to get, spit on, trample, or otherwise inconvenience the “lesser” people. Which means, therefore, everyone you describe as an Alpha, by looks alone, is also someone you claim does this spitting, trampling, etc.
In short, you claim all Alphas act a certain way. You then classify people as Alphas based solely on looks and physical attributes. Why can’t you see the utterly failed logic in this?
Johnny – I’d actually like the word “men” when used to mean “people,” if the “wer-man” construction were preserved. Having “person” be the root of the term for both genders is nice, the fact that both are modifications are fair, and it makes words like “policeman” and “chairman” gender-neutral again. They are more elegant-sounding than “police officer” and “chairperson,” in a world where “man” doesn’t imply maleness.
“Desperately Googling Iverson”
or are they both Omegas for even being part of the NHL and who cares about hockey?
Thems fightin’ words.
Also, does anyone think it’s terribly ironic that the effort to differentiate the words “women” and “men” meant adding a ‘y’, of all letters, to the word “women”. Maybe that’s why the usage was dropped.
And for the record, I’m a rampaging band of tarrasques! Krie! Krie! (A no-prize for anyone who gets the reference.)
But I thought there could only be one Tarrasque on any plane? (I only know this cause one of my old DM’s defining traits was finding especially obscure monsters with which to give us the fear)
I’m about to get jerseyed aren’t I? -_-;; That or somebody’s about to roll a D20 xD
Holly, he’s not an alpha from your description, perhas a beta.
2-D man
http://www.gamestreet.net/content/profiles/201/984/images/633636917916939350-FlyingTarrasque.jpg
Sorry, that will be all from me.
Holly, your boyfriend is lower on the scale than Karl Pilkington – who is an Alpha (I can’t emphasise that enough).
Okay, so if my boyfriend is a beta, and he’s dating two chicks and generally happy with his life, why the hell does it matter that he’s a beta?
Because he’s not as cool and awesome as Karl Pilington. Doesn’t it just eat you up inside that you’re not boning this man right now?
Because shut up, that’s why!
And yes, my life is worth nothing to me since I’m not boning Karl Pilkington.
Yo MRAL, not to rush you or anything, but are you going to get around to answering my question? It’s a rather pressing one considering you are making all these judgements about people’s boyfriends and such…
Not all alphas act in a certain way, just most of them. In other words, being an asshole isn’t a REQUIREMENT, but the entitlement placed upon alphas by society often INDUCES them to act in assholish ways.
First: Ami, I got your YS reference (Have only played the first two games, though).
Second: So, MRAL, now that your “Greek System” has been recognized as completely worthless (not that it was ever useful to begin with), what do you plan to do? There’s a whole world out there ready to be explored, as opposed to gnashing your teeth so much.
Indeed. Some Alphas, like Karl Pilkington, like to talk about the time their Auntie Nora broke wind for five minutes.
You know, my boyfriend is hot enough to be a model for Abercrombie & Fitch, and a lawyer to boot. And I’m dating him in part because I find him attractive, and I like educated people. And I don’t feel like I should have to apologize for it, or point out the less attractive, educated or poor men I’ve dated to make up for it. We’re happy together, and we have fun sharing our thoughts with each other on whatever Amanda Marcotte just posted on Pandagon.
If a woman only wants to date highly educated models… so fucking what? Isn’t that her right as a human being, to try and seek out the sort of companionship she desires? Like an attorney who is expected to give up a certain percentage of hours for pro bono work, should she allocate a certain number of dates for men whom she does not find attractive and does not care to spend time with?
It’s only a problem when a woman is not alpha-level herself but refuses to even talk to betas or omegas, considers herself better than them, and is in general a bitch.
I “refuse” to talk to 98% of the men in the world! I’m the bitchiest ever!
You don’t have a right to attention from a woman who doesn’t want to talk to you, whether you “outrank” her or not.
(P.S.: Neither do alphas. Unless he’s an actual celebrity, even a super hot rich guy of exactly the right height doesn’t get to go up to random women and demand their attention and approval.)
…By the way, don’t you think it’s “bitchy” of alpha men not to drop everything and entertain omega women? Those bitches!
No I don’t have that right, but she’s a fucking bitch if she chooses to spit on non-model men. This is standard for almost all alpha women and a good solid chunk of beta women.
MRAL, a woman has never spit on you.
Ever.
Stop with the whiny hysterics.
I should elaborate: If you’re nice to women and friendly and appear to actually like them, some (not all) will like you back and interact with you, with varying degrees of intimacy.
This is not unfair, since you also pick and choose which women you want to talk to and be intimate with.
If you call women bitches and constantly complain that not enough women are fawning over you, far fewer will like you. It’s like a selfe-fulfilling prophecy! Unfortunately. (This is also fair, since I’m sure you wouldn’t want to spend time with a woman who talked about men that way.)