Nature is an ecoterrorist!

What is this crap I keep hearing from MRAs about “alpha men” and “beta men?” Are these people living in another universe? Assuming that “alpha” and “beta” are taken from the social structures of wolf packs—which undoubtedly they are, since humans have this unexplodey fetish for comparing themselves to the species, complete with ridiculous misconceptions—the assumptions involved are… unrealistic.

First! It’s irrational and tellingly biased that alpha and beta only get applied to those who are or who we’d like to imagine as predator-types. So there are references to “alpha men,” but very few to alpha women—who, in a strict hierarchal power-structure, would by necessity have to exist.

Second, it assumes characteristics that aren’t necessarily present in wolf packs. Humans like to believe that “alpha” means an aggressive, assertive power that commands everyone else to submit or they’ll rip you apart… but that isn’t the case in wolf packs: alpha wolves are actually the most social and are only rarely involved in a dispute. Actually, alpha wolves are alpha wolves not because they’re the biggest and meanest, but because they are the most charismatic—others want to follow them, trust them, and do what they say. I’ve met only a few alpha humans by the actual wolf definition of “alpha,” and that trait doesn’t have anything to do with looks—although it helps, given the persistent disregard and dismissal of those who aren’t freaking Barbies and Kens.

The MRA definition of alpha seems to be: aggressive, powerful, threatening rapist. Let’s talk about how far these types of individuals get in any social species outside of a civilization and imposed societal structure that prevents them from being straight-up disposed of because homigosh murder!!1

Then there’s the slander against “beta males.” Eh? Betas are actually those who work very well with everyone in the group, and are usually arbiter/secondary-Mommy role, and get this: they’re actually not that maligned or disempowered in wolf society because, hey! They are the second highest-ranking!

Actually, as a whole, the rage about alpha males and beta males and how those stupid beta males give in to the evil feminists is based on the idea that if the feminists weren’t around, women wouldn’t be able to stop men from getting their dicks wet whenever they wanted. Which doesn’t do much to convince me that MRA isn’t all about “those bitches won’t spread their legs for me!” Which speaks of entitlement, and guys… entitlement doesn’t come up in a society where you are underpowered and disenfranchised: nonwhites and women actually have to struggle against the idea that they aren’t as worthy, good, or smart as whites and men (and white men).

On the other hand, what’s the problem? Nobody but the alphas get to breed—ever. Betas, regardless of what sex they are, do not get to breed—it is one of those fundamental laws of wolf society: you don’t get to do this. That it’s a social tenet is underscored by the fact that wolves raised outside of wolf culture—by humans, for example—have no qualms with mating even though they’re not alphas.

… So, ironically, the MRAs have nothing to complain about: men and women are already equal, unless you count men’s disproportionate presence and representation inside politics, high-paying and high-prestige jobs, etc. They’re fine to object to that if they want—I agree, capitalism is fucking awful and drains your soul, and I’ll be happy to welcome them over to the anarchist side of things as soon as they get rid of their patriarchal, white and human privilege.

I do have a further problem with the idea of alpha as it is applied to humans: “alpha” standards for men and women differ, massively, in ways that are not borne out by personality differences between men and women. Men are supposed to be hyperaggressive, warlike rapists—chill, I said supposed to be, as in by society, and I appreciate your agreement that men are not inherently rapists and shouldn’t ever be—but women’s “alpha” status is… appearance. You have to be thin, made-up, perfumed, conventionally attractive—and silent, apparently, because no mention of women’s personalities are ever made in “alpha” standards. Because to men, women are fuckholes. Wait, I missed the part where society is supposed to value women more than men again, I think.

In conclusion, shut the fuck up and stop slandering other species you honestly know jack shit about. They do not support your concepts of how the world is supposed to be run, and if you weren’t constantly using only the measures of your paradigm on them, you’d know that. But what is carnism if not exploiting animals’ lives to reinforce your own sense of superiority?

Comments on: "The Alpha Rapist in Popular Culture" (3)

  1. I do not know what specific sources you have encountered (the treatment may, obviously, differ from source to source), but the image I have encountered so far has not had anything inherently with violence, aggression, or similar. On the contrary, your description of wolves (“Actually, alpha wolves are alpha wolves not because they’re the biggest and meanest, but because they are the most charismatic—others want to follow them, trust them, and do what they say.”) comes far closer to the mark. What you may be doing is confusing the concept of alpha with the women-like-a-holes hypothesis.

    As for the differentiation in alpha and beta, the typical attitude that I have encountered has not been derogatory towards beta, but more on the line of “Most of us start as betas, but in order to be successful with women we have to remodel ourselves to be or appear to be alphas.”—something very far from your description. (Obviously, this applies more to pick-up theory than to Men’s Rights Activism.)

  2. Michael, thanks for offering another viewpoint. These perceptions are based on those I’ve met who talk about this at all, which are admittedly few in number (bio/zoo geeks ftw!), so it’s interesting to see that others have not had the same experience.

    I have qualms with the concept of betas as “starter” personalities, because in wolf societies they have their own, very important roles to play, not merely as “underlings,” but their own social assignments. Moreover, I think that characterizing the role of alpha as “ideal” still frames wolves incorrectly, since there’s nothing particularly wrong with not being an alpha. I’m also not entirely sure that one can change into someone more charismatic; you can certainly use your innate potential to its fullest, but very few people will see that translate into “alpha” behaviors. Instead of charismatic, some people become charming, others resourceful to the point of necessity.

    Ultimately, the point I’m getting at is this: variations from a very strict and narrow personality group are not inferior (i.e. less desirable), and that strict and narrow personality group’s characteristic are not necessarily true to life.

  3. Well, I would not use the word “starter” (as in an “entry level” position): What I wanted to say was basically that the majority of all men tend to naturally be non-alphas (and be happy with what they are), but that a deliberate “re-modelling” into an alpha is two-thirds of what pick-up experts teach.

    As for charisma, we may have a semantic issue, because I would view charm as a central part of charisma. The general principle stands, however: We can train many aspects of our image (including charm, body language, …) and these will influence how we are perceived and treated, followed or not followed by others, liked or not liked by women (resp. members of the appropriate sex), etc., even if they do not count as charisma.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: