Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)
Despite the different names, the story is always, monotonously, the same: In their late teens and twenties, when they’re at the height of their sexual appeal, women (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) have sex in rapid succession with an assortment of charismatic but unreliable alpha males and “bad boys” who make their vaginas (or just ‘ginas) tingle. Then, sometime in their mid-to-late twenties, these women “hit the wall,” with their so-called sexual market value (or SMV) dropping faster than Facebook’s stock price. As Roissy/Heartiste puts it, in his typically overheated prose:
So sad, so tragic, the inevitable slide into sexual worthlessness that accompanies women, the withering tick tock of the cosmic clock stripping their beauty in flayed bits of soulletting mignons like psychological ling chi. A sadistic thief in the night etching, billowing, draping and sagging a new affront to her most preciously guarded asset.
While many women try to pretend they’ve still “got it,” even at the ripe old age of thirty, they inevitably have to either get off or get thrown off the “cock carousel.” At this point the more savvy women glom onto some convenient “beta male” who, while somewhat lacking in sexual appeal, will at least be a good husband and provider for them – and in many cases the children they’ve had with alpha male seed. Those women who don’t accept the new reality are destined to end up alone and childless, surrounded by cats.
To borrow the phrase South Park used in its episodes about Scientology and Mormonism, this is what manosphere men actually believe. Not only that, but they claim that this fairy tale is based on real science.
So who are these mysterious alpha males that get the women so excited? As one guide to pickup artist (PUA) lingo puts it:
In animal hierarchies, the Alpha Male is the most dominant, and typically the physically strongest member of the group. For example, in wolf packs, the “alpha wolf” is the strongest member of the pack, and is the leader of the group. This position of leadership is often achieved by killing or defeating the previous Alpha Male in combat. Alpha wolves have first access to food as well as mating privileges with the females of the pack.
Social status among human social groups is less rigidly defined than in the animal kingdom, but there are some recognizable parallels. Although people don’t often engage in physical violence to achieve dominance, there are still recognizable leaders in different fields who have wide access to material resources and women.
Because the qualities of the Alpha Male (such as social dominance and leadership) are attractive to women, many PUAs have adopted these ideals as models of emulation. In fact, the term “alpha” has come be shorthand for the qualities of an attractive man, and it is a common refrain among PUAs to be “more alpha” or to “out alpha” competitors.
There’s a certain logic to all this. But unfortunately for the PUAs and other manospherians the notion of the Alpha male is based on bad science. The notion of Alpha dominance, as the definition above notes, came originally from studies of wolf packs. Even if we assume that wolf behavior is somehow a good model upon which to base our understanding of human romance – as manosphere men and evolutionary psychologists tend to do – the science behind the Alpha male wolf has now come completely undone, with many of those who promulgated the theory in the first place decades ago now explicitly repudiating it.
The problem, you see, is that the studies underlying the notion of the alpha male wolf, who aggressively asserts his dominance over beta males in order to rule the pack, were all based on observations of wolves in captivity. In the real world, wolf packs don’t work that way at all. Most wolf packs are basically wolf families, with a breeding pair and their pups. When male pups reach adulthood, they don’t fight their fathers for dominance — they go out and start their own families.
As noted wolf behavior expert L. David Mech, one of those who helped to establish and popularize the notion of the alpha wolf in the first place, explains on his website:
The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,” written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book’s info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.
One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. “Alpha” implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today, the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” or “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.” In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the “dominant breeder” can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a “subordinate breeder.”
So the dominant male wolves – those whom manosphere dudes would still call the alphas – achieve this position not by being sexy badasses but simply by siring and taking responsibility for pups. To use the terminology in the manner of manosphere dudes, alphas become alphas by acting like betas. That’s right: alphas are betas. (For more of the details, see this paper by Mech; it’s in pdf form.)
Also, they’re wolves and not humans, but that’s a whole other kettle of anthropomorphized fish.
We *are* quite closely related to chimpanzees, that’s true.
Oddly, what is rarely brought up is how closely we’re also related to bonobos…
Another totally non-related question. Id some neanderthals, floriensis or denisovans had survived until today, would/should they be recognized as humans in conventions, law and so.
I think in that scenario, we’d have another look on what we call “human rights” IRL to begin with. IRL, things are easy, because our species is in fact the only sapient one on the planet. if that were not the case, maybe we’d have rights based on sapience, and not on a single species.
Point for talacaris! Genera is right. 🙂
As for the “How would we deal with extant early hominids, legally?”
I’m kind of all for the ‘If they have a language capable of transmitting novel (to them) ideas, let’s treat them like humans’
I’d try to keep it as broad as possible, just so we wouldn’t repeat the whole “We’ve just arrived here, and they can’t speak English/Latin/whatever, so they must be incapable of behaving like real humans’ thing.
At the same time, my furrinati can totally convey meaning in dog-speak (not technically language that we recognize), but I’m not sure if him voting would be a good thing. Maybe a million years from now. Cephalopods might beat canids in the sapience race, though.
Defining sapience is tough…
As far as we know.
Interesting question though.
I often feel that maybe we’re just not acknowledging the fact that we’re not the only sapient species because of a combination of ego and unwillingness to admit that if we’re not the only sapient species then maybe we don’t really own the planet, and maybe that means we need to treat it (and other living creatures) better.
Well, it’s a matter of definition. There just is no clear, pre-determined border between sapient and non-sapient, so we have to define one, even though the differences between single species can be pretty gradual. So there is the risk of circular reasoning: We define sapience so that we are sapient and nobody else is, and then based on that claim we are the only sapient species. However, I do think the intelligence difference between us and the next intelligent species is in fact so considerable that, even though the details of where *exactly* to draw the line, it is fair to hold ourselves special in that regard: That in fact we are sapient while other (living) species aren’t.
Given how bad we’ve historically been at designing intelligence tests that don’t, for example, assume that thinks like the test designers and shares the same cultural reference points = more intelligent, I really don’t think we’re objective enough about this to say with any confidence that we know for sure either that we really are that much more intelligent than every other species or that we’re the only sapient species. There’s also the difficulty inherent in measuring intelligence in a species that we don’t know how to communicate with.
The communication issue seems to be the main thing; no matter how intelligent dolphins are, there’s no point in giving them the vote if you can’t you can’t explain to them what they’re voting for and why. So there may be practical reasons to *act* like we’re the only sapient species even if we aren’t.
But, yes, “humans are special, not like those other animals” is no doubt a big factor too.
Incidentally that was one of the last really dogmatic beliefs I held onto, that there was some sort of inviolable difference between people and animals.
I’ve also seen people attempt to argue that we can’t say that, say, crows may be sapient if we don’t think other birds are, which is just silly, because people argue that humans are sapient and chimps/gorillas/whatever aren’t all the time. The communication issue really is the key, though. We just don’t have any way to definitely confirm sapience without communication, not matter how we’re defining “sapient”.
Harry Turtledove wrote a series of stories, collected as “A Different Flesh”. They’re alternate history of a sort; the point of divergence is the absence of the Bering land bridge. The Americas have a population of Homo erectus, but no H. sapiens. As a result, history is altered in many ways. One of the recurring themes is how humans treat the ‘sims’, as they’re called. Not beasts, but not people either.
It gave me the idea for a similar AH, in which the Americas are likewise cut off from Eurasia, but capybaras evolve into a sentient, sapient, tool- and fire-using species. When they and humans encounter each other, neither perceives the other as anything other than bizarre monsters.
Do they go to war?
I was wondering if Robert had seen your capybara.
You’re totally humansplainin’. DOLPHIN SUFFRAGE NOW!!!
p.s. I love the new Pierre.
Katz, didn’t get that far. Knowing me, I would have twisted the story to avoid that – I don’t even have war in my Civilization games. Given how frequently H. sapiens has resorted to warfare IRL, that is wildly unrealistic.
Regarding Dolphin Rights, that’s touched on in the Uplift War SF series. I haven’t read enough of it to speak about it, though. In brief, humans have modified dolphins to be fully sapient, able to communicate with humans and vice versa, and use specially modified technology.
Goes back to the old “doesn’t speak my language, ergo is barbarian/unintelligent/non-sapient”, doesn’t it?
And on the original nonsense from Gemma – the species that have hierarchies also have them for the females (who’re the real pack leaders in some at least) yet that never gets translated into MRA bullshit about humans. I wonder why? /s
Even before people started admitting that the whole alpha wolf thing was the wrong way to frame things they would talk about alpha females as well as alpha males. People see what they want to see.
Aside – I actually love talking about linguistics and theories about how language shapes our ability to think/what we’re able to imagine, so I’m not trying to shut down those kinds of conversations, I just get a bit eye-roll-prone when people act like our ability to measure intelligence isn’t compromised by all kinds of prejudices. Seriously, this is undergrad psychology and sociology stuff, there’s lots of information about the ways in which cultural imperialism, sexism, and all kinds of other nasty human emotional baggage have shaped the way we frame this stuff out there.
Given the rest of what you said in your ugly wall-o-text, I doubt that very much. Nobody wants to sleep with an asshole who thinks she’s worthless beyond sex and reproduction.
Yeah, but do MRAs? I can’t recall having seen them do anything but talk about whether womenthings are HB10s or not.
PUAs occasionally refer to very beautiful women as alpha, or at least I’ve seen Roissy do so (he had some ridiculous calculator at some point). Regular MRAs, nope, I think they assume hot women are beta and un-hot women are naturally supposed to be omegas, but our evil commufeminaziliberal society has allowed them to be un-omega’d, which is terrible.
I think it’s because they imagine that all women are catty and in a constant state of competition with each other; one woman can’t be “dominant” because all women are constantly trying to tear each other down.
Which is funny for me because I went to an all girls boarding school, no guys around most of the time, and when you have a social group that’s all women/girls there are most definitely dominant personalities and clear leaders, and everyone knows who they are.
Unomega sounds like some terrific new vitamin found in obscure plants.
Or a very unpalatable fish. Don’t eat the bony-finned grouper, it has un-omegas.