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.
But, Anand Jain, we DON’T have misguided views. The views expressed on the site are a direct result of published writings by prominent MRAs. Nobody put those words in their mouths. If those views are repugnant to you – they certainly are to me – then maybe you are not an MRA. If it’s equality you support, maybe you are actually a feminist! What MRAs would call a mangina, because equality is NOT what they are after. .
(Notice two-dot ellipse, in solidarity. 🙂 )
Anand, I’ve written more than 800 posts about MRAs. All of them have been based on actual things written and said by MRAs, some prominent in the Men’s Rights movement (Warren Farrell, Paul Elam, etc), others not so prominent but fairly representative of MRAs; I’ve done another 600 or so posts on other sorts of online misogynists. I actually know a lot more about MRAs than most MRAs do, and so do many of the commenters here. I suggest you check out the archives here before assuming we don’t know what we’re talking about.
Shorter Anand: Wow, I really got my ass handed to me.
Yes, that’s what we do here.
Anand Jain, you’re committing a classic logical fallacy known as the argument to moderation. Here’s a link to Wikipedia’s take on the matter to get you going:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
While it may seem like a good idea to stay neutral while what you see as two extremes are duking it out, you cannot by default assume that both sides are equally right and equally wrong and that they only need someone with your capacity for neutrality to bring them together. You’re being extremely arrogant for assuming that others are not as rational and objective as you, when you yourself have failed to take into account that you may not have enough information to have a truly objective picture of the situation.
Try reading what MRAs write. Apply Occam’s razor when hearing their beliefs; MRAs are notorious for their conspiracy theories and willful twisting of facts. When they make claims of feminists being hateful, see if they base their accusations on actual quotes. If they do, instead of believing their interpretations of the quotes, go to the original source and look at the context. I’m willing to bet a small sum that they completely misinterpret what is being said at least 90% of the time. And I’m being generous, here.
Read the archives on this blog and see the countless quotes David has gathered from actual, prominent MRAs. No twisting of facts, no quoting out of context, just actual quotes that can be traced back to their original sources. See what ‘activism’ the MRAs have engaged in. Read about non-feminists reacting to MRAs and their ideas of equality. See MRAs being called out on their awfulness and see how they try to backpedal and claim ‘parody’ when cornered. Dip your toe into the murky waters of misogyny, the only thing keeping these angry, willfully deluded guys together. Take away the vitriolic hatred of women and feminists, and the MRM will cease to be.
Read, compare and be critical. Don’t look for similarities where there are none. Being objective does not mean you try to appeal to everyone equally. Being objective does not mean you assume that your preconceived notions of neutrality are correct. It means you look at the facts and make your decisions based on them.
If one side tries to stop animal cruelty and the other one invents stories about how dogs actually enjoy being electrocuted so it’s okay to keep doing it, would you assume the truth is somewhere in the middle? If one side says the south side of the ravine is much more habitable than the north side, and the other side says we should all just stay on the north side because patriotism, would you assume the truth is somewhere in the middle? If one side says that eating your vegetables is good for you and the other side says that the only good greens are dead space aliens, would you assume the truth is somewhere in the middle?
Sometimes, the truth does not lie smack dab in the middle. Sometimes, the other side is simply wrong.
So what are you trying to prove by coming here? That you’re not that bright?
“I’m an MRA and as rational as they come.”
Which is not saying much — or rather all that needs to be known, given that “rational MRA” is an oxymoron.
@Anarchonist – Wow. I kind of want to laminate that comment, or parts of it, and carry it with me everywhere. Any time I hear “both sides do it” I can just whip that out instead of having to go through it all over again.
You’re also a fool with rotten grammar. But what would I know, I’m just another “man-hating feminist”.
Liar.
Anand: You all have misguided views about MRAs just like they have about man hating feminists.
What are these views, pray tell? I don’t know how many posts (with links, and stuff) have been made here, but I’ve used years of evidence (well, decades, actually) from looking at the MRM, and equality isn’t what they want.
But feel free to point to where you think they are pushing for equality.
I guess i wont be able to convince both sides of anything.
Not if you don’t try. If you think, “You are wrong, trust me,” is good argument… Then I feel for the people who tried to educate you.
But next time if you show a little empathy towards someone who comments here then maybe they wont feel offended for using ‘dots…………. ”
Oh… did us not saying, “BY GOD!, he’s right!” at your declaraction of our wrongness hurt your feelings? Or was it that we mocked you? If you look up, you will see that the header says that’s that we do. Your position is mockworthy. If that bothers you, make better arguments.
“I’m rude and insenstive to everyone.”
Uh, okay. That’s nice. Why should we put up with you, then? Why should ANYONE?
LBT: Because… EMPATHY!!!!!!!!!
For trolls on the Internet? I have better uses of my energy.
Unless you’re 13, you’re too old to think that being rude and insensitive to everyone makes you super cool. Even most 13 year olds know better, actually.
On the bright side, it’s going to be about one more comment before his speech dissolves entirely into random punctuation and emoticons and loses its last vestiges of content.
Y’know, I just can’t find it in me to be concerned about the hurt fee-fees of a self confessed rude and insensitive bad person.
🙂 … . XD .. O_o … .. . .. … XD
This comment has inspired me: Maybe the trolls are communicating in Morse code! Let’s see, you said: SEISIEIS…
Why did Ana[l Gla]nd shorten his name?
@drst: Thanks!
However, I should probably rephrase what I wrote about MRAs (probably intentionally) misinterpreting a large part of feminist quotes. Here are some relevant links:
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/02/15/factchecking-a-list-of-hateful-quotes-from-feminists/
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/11/03/a-quick-factchecking-of-yet-another-list-of-misandrist-quotes-reveals-the-same-old-mra-sloppiness-and-dishonesty/
Maybe MRAs don’t always misinterpret feminists, willfully or not, when they voice their hatred of the feminist movement. Sometimes, the MRAs just have asinine or outright terrible beliefs that they don’t like seeing challenged, and feminism frequently challences social beliefs that are based on unequal assumptions. Many MRAs seem to embrace some form of authoritarianism. Some are religious conservatives who oppose women’s reproductive rights, others are asshole atheists who rely on evopsychbabble to justify their misogyny. Whatever the case, they don’t seem to realize that oppressive phenomena (the pay gap, gender roles, the objectification of women in media, slut shaming etc.) existing in society is not automatic proof of their right of existence. They frequently fail to explain why certain institutions, say, traditional marriage, should never be questioned.
Feminists pointing out the problems in a system built on oppressing other groups is not hateful, it’s absolutely essential for equality. Unlike actual activists, MRAs frequently try to convince people that not paying attention to social problems like abuse and rape will somehow make them go away. Whenever there is public discussion about societal issues that predominantly hurt women, such as male on female rape, MRAs show up and try to derail and/or silence the discussion. Go and read such a discussion (shouldn’t be hard to google), and you’ll see how, despite not having a single rational argument to make, MRAs will flood any discussion with pointless non sequiturs and derailing arguments like the infamous “what about the menz?”, just to make the discussion stop. Silencing is a common tactic used by abusive people and their apologists, which is why the MRAs are sometimes referred to as “the abusers’ lobby”.
But I’ll stop this now. I’ve probably given way too much benefit of the doubt to someone who has admitted to being a rude and terrible person who cares about no one else except their friends and relatives, but still whines about others “not being nice” back to them. Go sit on a cactus in a desert of Legos, Anand Jain. And grow a conscience while you’re at it.
“Anand” is a traditional name from the Indian sub-continent. Please don’t do that.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anand
Okay, sorry, Z.
Well, You attacked me again and yes my name is ‘Anand’. Hate on my mother if you dont like my name coz i dont care and i love her. Lets see here..
1. Attacked for my name. Check.
2. Called a troll. Check.
3. Called a fool. Check.
4. Attacked for my grammer. Check.
(English is my secong language.)
5. Called a Liar. Check.
6. Insulted my teachers and my education. Check.
7.Called a thirteen year old. Check.
Thanks anarchonist, i appreciate your reply. I still dont agree with you but you gave me something to think about.
Uhh.. Your secong reply is also good but i think you will do better on a cactus since i already got butthurt here…
David, Sorry, Im not coming here again.
Z, thank you.
And to all of you sexist, racist and homophobic people who insulted my name, my gender, and indirectly called me a gay thirteen year old..
Namasthe.. And Fu¢k you..
P.S: I still wont think bad of ALL feminists because of you all and this is the LAST time im ever coming here.. So goodbye and keep calling me names.. Adios..
Promise? Because if you do come back the mockery will continue.
I wasn’t sure if I should say anything about the grammar/punctuation snarking, because I didn’t want to assume he was a non-native speaker just from his name and self-description, but now I kinda wish I had.
That said, Anand, you’re still wrong and you’re still a dishonest debater. Like the accusation of homophobia just now…who exactly called you gay?