Alpha Males and Alpha Females

Alpha Males

The term “alpha male” comes from studies of animals. The dominant male animal in a particular group is called the alpha male.  Alpha males are able to compete with other males and rise to the top of a tribe.  They can then have just about any female they want, and because of their position of power, they can exploit these females.  Recently the term has been applied to humans, and the human alpha male, like the alpha males of lower animals, tend to use their positions of power to exploit women.

No doubt alpha males have existed throughout human history and have often been viewed as heroes.  One thinks of Genghis Khan, who in addition to conquering Mongolia in the 1100s, was also one of history’s greatest ladies men.  One also thinks of Achilles, William Wallace, Napoleon, and John F. Kennedy, all known for their dominance of men and having their way with women.  Are such men born that way, or do they become that way as the result of environmental factors?  Usually it is a combination: they are born with the biological makeup such as an athletic build to dominate, but they are also brought up in an environment that fosters such dominance.  Famous gangsters grew up in the mafia, which extolled brutality of all forms, including rape.

One could argue that alpha male sexuality is not something a man chooses, but which is to an extent instinctual to him.  But there are many people, mostly women, who would disagree with this notion.  The recent rash of accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior, sexual harassment and sexual abuse by males in high places may be in reality an attack on alpha males, an attempt to criminalize what is actually normal behavior by such males.

For the past few months alpha males have been accused of sexual misdeeds.  One of the recent celebrities to be accused was Charlie Rose, a television personality known for his gentlemanly interviews.  Nine women have come forward and described various improper behaviors on his part.  The Washington Post first reported on eight women had charged him with “unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.”  Rose apologized for his conduct, saying he didn’t realize his behavior was harassment.  He was immediately fired by CBS and PBS and almost everybody assumed he was guilty without a trial, without a verdict, without a sentencing by a judge.

The focus in each case is on the man or men.  It suddenly appears that women all over the media are expressing criticism about and suspicion of men.  The spate of accusations makes it seem that men in general are sexual predators that can’t be trusted.  They make it seem that all men in high places, men with positions of power, need to be monitored.  Indeed there have been some notions that have been floated around that men are innately sexists and that white men are particularly sexist as well as racist.

Although feminists have contended from the inception that their goal is equality between men and women, their emphasis at present is entirely on the feminist interpretation of equality.  For example, the present outcropping of accusations of noted men by women has been almost always reported from the women’s side.  It is assumed by most that each of the men is guilty, whether he denies it or not, and there is a rush to judgment about the men.  Often, like Charlie Rose, the men lose both their reputations and their jobs.  One of the slogans of feminism is that “women should be believed” when they report sexual abuse.  Hence there is a tendency by people, both male and female, to accept the accuser’s version of the events they describe without question and to shut down anybody who expresses an opinion that is different from theirs.

This occurred when Geraldo Rivera took to Twitter to complain that “News is a flirty business & it seems like [the] current epidemic of #SexHarassmentAllegations may be criminalizing courtship & conflating it [with] predation.”  Rivera’s employer, Fox News, made him apologize for his tweet, and indeed we have had a plethora of apologies over the last few weeks by men.

Alpha Females

In studies of tribal animals, the highest ranking individual is sometimes designated as the alpha.  However, according to Wikipedia both males and females can be alphas, depending on the species. Where one male and one female fulfill this role together, they are sometimes referred to as the alpha pair. Other animals in the same social group or tribe will be submissive towards the alpha or alphas.  Alpha animals usually gain preferential access to food and other desirable items or activities, though the extent of this varies widely between species. Male or female alphas may gain preferential access to sex or mates; in some species, only alphas or an alpha pair reproduce.

However, just as there are alpha human males, there are also alpha females.  Males are not the only ones who get into power positions and use their power to exploit the opposite sex. Women also engage in inappropriate conduct, harassment and sexual abuse of men.  However, while male sexual misconduct and abuse has to do with exploiting women’s sexuality, more often than not alpha females use their power to not only to exploit males sexually, but also to psychologically castrate men, which means they dominate men by taking away what feminists call their “cock privileges.”

In fact, the ways in which alpha females castrate men can be seen in the manner such women have recently gone after male sexuality.  There seems to be a lynch-mob mentality among such women, an “off with their heads” attitude.  Alpha females are unable to make distinctions and they classify men who come on to women in a clumsy way (“misconduct”) in the same category as men who rape women.  Misconduct is not a crime while rape is, and among alpha females and the men and women who follow them the distinction between sexual misconduct and rape is lost.

Garrison Keillor, the elderly humorist who for years distributed a folksy show called, “A Prairie Home Companion,” was fired after a woman accused him of inappropriate behavior.  Minnesota Public Radio didn’t explain (which has been the case with many of the recent firings), but Keillor addressed the incident by immediately saying, “I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” he wrote. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”

This may be a kind of mass hysteria, which throws out the baby with the bathwater, and is in itself an abusive kind of behavior.  The tyranny that shuts down and punishes men like Rivera who have an alternate opinion of events (rather than a political correct opinion) is another form of abuse. It is easy for women to point the finger at men, but it is not easy to point the finger at themselves.  Sexual misconduct, harassment and abuse is not just about men.  After 40 years of being a psychotherapist, I can say that there is an equal amount of men who hate women as women who hate men.  Neither sex is entirely guilty or innocent.   A slew of female high school teachers have in recent years been caught having sex with teen-aged boys.  This has become public.  But many day-to-day abuses of men by women are never reported because men don’t report them.

I’m talking about women who lead on and then reject men; alpha females who put down men’s sexuality as an innate kind of sexism without any empathy for the difference in men’s and women’s sexuality; women who have taken over many parts of our culture, such as the educational system from nursery school to college.  Almost all elementary school teachers today are women, and they may be presenting, wittingly or unwittingly, a biased attitude toward boys, which may be the reason why today two-thirds of college undergrads are women.

A Case in Point

Recently I became acquainted with a case involving a professor who had taught at a college in Manhattan for about 15 years.  During that period many students had challenged him, as students are apt to do, but one case stands out in particular.

During the second class of his Introduction to Psychology course a young woman came up to him and said she would like to talk with him in his office.  Since professors are required to put aside an hour of time for students who had problems with particular assignments, he agreed to see her.  They met later in the office assigned to Adjunct Professors and before he knew it she had started talking about her problems.  He had been a licensed psychoanalyst in private practice for many years, and he had made this fact known during the first class, while introducing the course.  This student, a young woman of about twenty, apparently decided that he was therefore available to do therapy with students.

She spoke in a very soft voice and, even though it wasn’t his job to do therapy with students, he decided to hear her out.  She talked for about twenty minutes about her problems with men.  She said she was always seeing men on the street, on the subway, in the parks, and finding them attractive.  But once she noticed that the men looked at her, she was immediately disgusted by them.  She particularly felt angry and envious of men in positions of authority, and would think to herself, “Who does he think he is?”  She said at times she hated men so much she only dated women.  At other time she hated men her own age and limited herself to dating women and older men.  She spoke in a very soft and fast and circular way, and at times it was hard to understand her.   At one point she said she had seen a church counselor but had stopped after five sessions.

It was then that the professor broke in and said he thought she should return to the church counselor or to some other counselor.  He pointed out that free counseling for students was available at the college.  He closed by saying, “I think you still have some things to figure out in therapy, such as why you’re so angry at men, why you are so attracted and then nauseated as soon as a man looks at you.  You need to figure out why sometimes you’re only interested in dating women and sometimes you only date older men.”

At that point she suddenly laughed at him and said, “I never said I was interested in older men.”  She laughed at him with contempt, and it occurred to him that she had found what she was looking for.  She found a reason to have contempt for him, taking his words out of context and giving them a different meaning.  To her it was as though he were asking her if she was interested in older men.  She quickly got up and left the office, backing out as if he had done something inappropriate.

He pondered about what to do.  It was a delicate situation.  Women all over the country were accusing men of sexual misconduct, and they were always believed.  He suspected that if he brought this to the attention of his superiors at the college, who were all women, it might not go well. He questioned whether they would believe him or her.  It was apparent to him, from what she had said, that she probably suffered from a histrionic personality disorder.  She was angry and particularly envious of men in authority and he was a teacher, a man in authority.  It may have been that she found him attractive and then disgusting and wanted to find a way to knock me down.

He decided not to do anything about it, to just go back to teaching the class.  But she started acting out in class, sleeping during several classes, talking to the woman who sat beside her for long stretches of time, texting on her cell phone during class and asking him disrespectful questions during class.  He gave students a class participation grade, and at one point he called her up after class and informed her that her class participation grade was a C and that whether it went higher or lower was up to her.  She sort of smirked at him and walked shaking her head.  The next class he found out that she had gotten vengeance by telling students he had come on to her in her office by asking her if she was interested in older men.

Two students who had formerly liked this professor now played a game with him one day when he entered the class.  The teacher who taught before him was just finishing his class, and the two women students began making a big deal over how young this teacher was.  “Oh, you’re such a young professor.  What do you teach?  You don’t even look like a professor.  Oh, my, I think I want to sign up for your class.”  They were being inappropriately seductive to this young professor, and their professor could tell the young man was confused.  Their game was meant for his ears.  When he put my briefcase down on desk desk, one of the women asked, “Are you all right professor?”

These women had immediately believed this woman (the result of the well-known feminist demand that women be believed) and concluded that their professor was a pervert.  He was anything but a pervert.  He had tried to help this young woman with her problems, and she had jumped in and twisted what he had said to suit her purposes.  He thought about confronting this student in the next class, but since there were only a few classes left in the semester, he decided to let it go.  However, one of the two women who had at first liked him now dropped the class.  Another woman, who had planned to do a research project with him stopped speaking to him.

This case shows the power that women now have over men and particularly how an alpha female can use the present anti-male atmosphere—in which all women who make charges against men must be believed—to her advantage.

An Equal, Loving Relationship between the Sexes

 We need to have a truly equal relationship between the genders in which there is a real dialogue between them and a real agreement on how to accomplish the resolution of the divide between males and females.  Ordinary men and women, not alpha males and alpha females, need to be in charge of this dialogue.

An interesting study on stress bears on this discussion.  Robert Sapolsky, a psychologist, studied stress in a baboon tribe in Africa, which he documented in a famous video called, Stress: Portrait of a Killer. Sapolsky was interested in stress levels of the tribe, so he took the blood of each baboon in the tribe, measuring the degree of stress hormones in their bodies.  He found that the alpha male and the alpha female had the least amount of stress hormones in their bodies.  They were able to dominate all the males and females under them.  Meanwhile, the baboons who were at the bottom of the hierarchy, the so-called “runt of the litter,” whether male or female, carried the most stress hormones.  These were the baboons who were picked on the most and least able to fight back.

Sapolsky learned many new things about stress, and he also learned about the antidote to stress.  This happened by a random happening during the years he covered this tribe.  At one point the tribe discovered a garbage dump.  The alpha males and females got first dibs on the food in the garbage dump, keeping all others away.  They were the only ones to eat the food, which had gone bad.  All who ate the food from the dump died, which meant that all the alpha males and females died.  Those who were left in the tribe were the more healthy and loving members of the tribe.  The males weren’t into bullying other males or exploiting women, and the women were also not those who were into bullying other women and playing games with men.  As the result the tribe enjoyed a peaceful and loving existence.  When Sapolsky later took the blood of the survivors of this tribe, all of them had fewer stress hormones in their blood.

Love, according to Sapolsky, is the antidote to stress.  In order for males and females—whether baboons or humans—to form a loving and peaceful relationship, they have to be able to love each other.  In order to love each other, they must respect each other.  They must reach agreements through love and respect, not through battles for domination and control.

Feminism is basically a club for alpha females, which is attempting to force its values on the rest of us.  Those of us who are sane must resist the feminist misrepresentation of all males as perpetrators of sexual harassment and abuse against females.

Leave a comment

150 thoughts on “Alpha Males and Alpha Females”

  1. I watched lectures by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, neuroscientist
    at Stanford. He lends a lot of
    credibility to this article, but reproduction is no longer at a premium
    for humans.

    Relationships between males and females have degenerated into pleasure seeking, with contraceptives and abortions to ensure few consequences. Beyond that, females have become just a liability to the males. What will those “alpha” females do when the guys go MGTOW and only hire sophisticated Geisha girls when it comes to female company?

    1. There is no such thing as an “alpha female.” Women cannot survive without men. Those “alpha females” who are CEOs etc. making 6 figures are constantly crying “where have all the good men gone?”

      1. You seem to have married two different concepts in your comment – survival, and dominance hierarchies. You can have a dominance hierarchy, and still rely on others for survival.

      2. You seem to have married two different concepts in your comment – survival, and dominance hierarchies. You can have a dominance hierarchy and yet still rely on others for survival.

        As an aside, Steve Moxon briefly mentions the Alpha theme among women in his Woman Racket book, suggesting that it does exist but somewhat differently than it does among males.

      3. Since male and female are two distinct biological genders those who rise to the top of each group are rightly called alphas. However, once paired with a male an alpha female who submits to the male is indeed the beta partner within the relationship yet retains her alpha status within her own separate group of females.

      4. “Those “alpha females” who are CEOs etc. making 6 figures are constantly crying “where have all the good men gone?””

        And we can give them an honest answer – They’re all coming to their senses.

      5. There is no such thing as an “alpha female.”

        You are mistaken, and is is unwise to dismiss the existence of female dominance hierarchies. There are women who are dominate other women, and who dominate many men. Such women are among men’s most valued allies and most dangerous enemies.

    2. They will do what bullies always do find another victim. In the absence of alpha males to destroy and beta males to bully alpha females or feminist wymyn will turn on themselves and bully beta females.

        1. Can you please explain what you meant? I do know that their public face on trans women is probably misleading if that’s where you’re going.

          I am also well aware of their bigotry of trans men that attest to the fact that males are not privileged because they are literally walking in a man’s shoes now.

          1. Women naturally form cliques… a female “in group” at the expense of some other caste of women. By cultivating a solidarity within their caste they can monopolize the support they get from their men, shame the men into serving them and thus place themselves in a hierarchy.

    3. “What will those “alpha” females do when the guys go MGTOW and only hire sophisticated Geisha girls”

      lets just say the price on manwhores is going to rise.

      1. Is that why people around here are forever pecking at one another? Always pushing the next one aside? We’re just trying to get the corn and the good bugs? And occasionally get a good lick in on the other? Oooh, this a bad bunch.

          1. Bunch o’peckers ’round here. On a more substantial note, see my comment in reply to CeterisParibus re. psycho assholes.

    1. So is an alpha male just a psycho asshole?

      Animal behaviorists can assure you that there is indeed such a thing as an alpha female. Or are human females utterly unique in the animal kingdom, so very unusual as to defy such categorization?

      1. It’s curious. I remember reading that senior managers, corporate heads and general officers often tested as sociopathic at a high rate of frequency exceeding the average population by some single digit factor.

        In reply to “So is an alpha male just a psycho asshole?” I believe there is documentation that supports the idea.

        1. yes, I read the same. I suspect both male and female alphas have a tendency to psychopathy. I experience prominent leaders in the terf cult as utterly devoid of empathy or morals.

          1. Not sure that those TERF leaders are psycopaths, it could as esily be explained by a strong moral code that views you as a trans person as an abomination,
            and thus subject to outgrouping. (not saying I suport this view, but it is their world view)
            you can probaly tell more about their degree of psycopathy by looking at how they treat their fellow TERFs.

        2. I considered that while writing my comment. The same applies to politics, as positions of power attract sociopaths.

          I think our friend Luis is merely enjoying the perpetuation of the adversarial paradigm in gender relations that was created by feminists. And maybe he’s right, but only telling half of the story.

        3. Did you know that psychopaths are roughly three times more prevalent among top executives and perhaps four times more prevalent among CEOs than in the general population?

          And then there’s a perfectly plausible reason why those rough numbers on psychopaths may be a gross underestimate… Many of them are women, who, statistically, are less likely to occupy the corner office on the top floor.

          And it’s all in the following article:

          10 Unexpected Benefits To Being A Psychopath

          In another study on psychopathy and fashion sense, a group of people judged photographs of girls on a highly scientific “hot or not” scale. There were two photographs of each girl. One photo showed the girl dressed in clothes that she chose. The other showed the girl dressed down and with all her makeup removed.

          When the girls were dressed down, there wasn’t a big difference between them. But when they were allowed to wear whatever they wanted, the psychopaths began to soar in the hotness scale. The psychopaths knew how to make themselves look good, and they took the time to do it.

          Emphasis added. The whole article is good.

          1. With the exception of Suzy’s response my post regarding sociopathic behavior was followed by responses naming psychopathic behavior. In the linked Listverse article psychopathy is presented in some of its aspects as a thing-to-be. I don’t think that myself and believe that the author of the piece may have been looking for a way get noticed. (read get paid)

            If true that psychopaths are more likely to have children then the human race is on its way to truly ‘interesting times’ as noted by the Chinese curse.

            The idea that psychopathic soldiers are better in the fight than others is a little disingenuous. The military is all about controlled violence. A quick Google search using soldier and psychopath in the search terms will pull up a bunch of war crimes, courts martial and some ghastly stories.

            I think the Listverse article “10 Unexpected Benefits of Being a Psychopath” was a good title for publication but not a serious essay into psychopathy. Famous historical psychopaths: Jeffery Dahmer, Adolph Hitler, Genghis Khan, Elizabeth Báthory and her ‘bloodbath’ beauty treatments, Vlad the Impaler, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Robespierre, Blackbeard (Edward Teach), General John Bell Hood, pretty much he entire staff of Lubyanka prison in Moscow form the 1930’s through the 1980’s, ISIS and I could go on. Whatever advantages there may be to psychopathy it is a little rough on us low folk.

            Perhaps the greatest utility of psychopathy is its strangeness that allows an otherwise uninspired scribbler to get paid for a story that is the moral equivalent to a freeway rubbernecker trying to catch sight of a roadside wreck.

            I had a close encounter for nearly a year with someone later diagnosed as schizophrenic and subsequently treated with electroshock for the condition. By the way treatments failed. I keep psychopathy on the horizon these days, however far I have to travel to keep it there.

          2. Oh hey, I don’t believe everything I read, just because— authority? I just thought there were some interesting and plausible points in the article.

          3. Most military establishments try to screen out psychopaths as they cause trouble by fighting on base, while being unpredictable in a combat zone – ignoring orders, doing stupid stuff like shooting other men and officers, raping, looting and pillaging, committing war crimes, even rank cowardice like running away.

            Psychopaths have low impulse control and act mostly for self gratification. They’re just in the war for what THEY can get out of it. You don’t want one in your platoon, less so in the chain of command.

            Such a person was called a “moral imbecile” before the term “psychopath” was introduced. This archaism is a good descriptor for their behavioural motivations.

            The Baron

    2. As what is currently comprehended:

      I would see the animal kingdom ‘alpha male’ as having some purpose or useful utility for the tribe – protection of group members from rivals, defender of territory, contributing to cohesion and progeny. Whereas I see the ‘alpha female’ more as turning their convoluted sense of dominance inward toward unnecessarily badgering all other tribe members without a purpose other than for self.

      The ‘alpha’ territory in the human realm may mirror that of the animal. The strong willed alpha male moves those around him into levels of achievement and longevity for the community through a mixture of physical exertion, intellectual leverage and psychological persuasion. Sometimes to the point of death to others.
      The alpha male differs from the model of alpha female applied to the feminist movement. The dominant domineering female demands and takes, and steals as well, physical and psychological resources from the group for primarily self (and for their in-group bias – other women). The unmitigated selfish power and resource grab destabilizes the social climate further through scheming, and, especially, lying.
      One ‘alpha’ the producer, the other a drain.
      The lesser inwardly conflicted individuals provide the stability for the Machiavellian plans also decided upon by those on the next inner conflicted lower social scaled individual to the alpha.

      The article by Mr. Schoenewolf is a polite start for the academic community.

      1. I don’t think the alpha female is a drain in a situation where survival is iffy, which was the condition of most humans throughout most of our evolution. If she weren’t a valuable asset there wouldn’t be so many women playing ineffectually at dominance in imitation of her. My guess is that her role in protecting and raising the alpha males offspring, is the primary source of her value. When food is scarce and he’s out finding more of it, he needs one ferocious mate to make sure HIS kids are eating first from what food is available.

        Additionally, strong dominant women are crucial in the female social hierarchy. These are the people who teach core values to every member of a society. Imagine a society where domineering (but only when it’s convenient) women aren’t kept in check by genuinely dominant women. Oh wait, you don’t have to imagine it. You’re living in one. If you want to see the mechanics of how it works, look at your garden variety female HR manager – capricious incompetence spiked with occasional bursts of mediocrity, setting the standards for the entire culture. Civilization needs more alpha females, not fewer.

        1. I’ll add to this previously stated comment: “As what is currently comprehended:”.
          Our comments and observations are as good as what we’ve come to
          understand by what has been placed in front of us. Conclusions change
          with new learning.

          Perhaps the positive aspect of the alpha trait isn’t commonly directed toward it being in the realm of women in these times. My comments made earlier were in context to the current times. I wrote, “The alpha male differs from the model of alpha female applied to the feminist movement”. Incessantly
          unreasonable feminist-centric behavior observed today can be viewed as
          dominant where it’s likely to be anything but, thereby giving the
          impression to some that those aggressively pushing an unsupportable yet
          selfish agenda is more delusional than alpha. Hence, perceived as not

          So where does the positive alpha female surface? In some
          examples you gave – expanding the boundaries of the younger woman into
          more sensible perspectives, for one. As an aside, fathers, when placed
          in the close daily proximity of children also have and do pass on values
          to children. And a further aside, I’d prefer that both mother and father were there being positive examples for their brood. Together they are such a great team investing in the future. But, maybe the ‘alpha’ may have to be worked out between them, unless they’re both alphas and are quite aware of when to be and not.

          I won’t dicker too much over some the of the points you made but will say that many mothers “make sure HIS kids are eating first from what food is available.” Plenty of women, even single mothers – many of them – will and have emphatically ensured their children are provided for in all manner. The ‘mom hormone’ (a reference for this assertion is buried somewhere
          in my files). Yet, I wouldn’t necessarily equate this instinct of
          providing for children as an example of alpha as it appears to me as
          something quite common and great among women. In the historical survival periods women were right there surviving and being an asset to family, and beyond at times. I’m right there agreeing with you that we owe a debt of gratitude to our predecessors.

          This may be a ‘my’ thing but a presence of an outstanding ‘apha’ female, in their
          natural leadership positions among other women, isn’t surfacing as I’d
          like it to be – telling it as it is among their peers and lessors. Their
          (perceived) absence leads one to wonder – where are they all?

          (Tried to keep it brief)

  2. “Feminism is basically a club for alpha females, which is attempting to force its values on the rest of us.”

    Another way of saying feminism is about female supremacy…even if most of its participants are oblivious. Many of them aren’t clueless, as it is obvious and was often stated by early feminists. The rest? ‘ Been duped into believing feminism is about equality.

    If feminism was really about equality…read the last paragraph in this pychoanalyst’s article here to understand better. Taken from the last paragraph:

    “As the result the tribe enjoyed a peaceful and loving existence.”

    Equality the way it should be.

    1. “Feminism is basically a club for alpha females, which is attempting to force its values on the rest of us.”

      That comment rings true. I’m always amazed at how the mega-rich high status women come out as feminists, as if it were a crown for the queens. Think Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Emma Watson…. who then ram their HeForShe values down our throats.

      1. Much of the #metoo thing is bullies bullying the other bullies. Looks like so far, the slightly less alphas are getting their way.

        It doesn’t have to be that way, especially if many of the belated accusations aren’t true. Hence, #notme, that at least a few men are using to fight back and defend their potential innocence. However, notice that some of the women have come out bleating that a man can’t use the # motif.

        It is as if once accused, just be a good little punished male and never try to defend yourself.

        I sure hope men fight back on a large scale because a lot of these women basically advertised that they would be willing to…in order to get the best positions and parts. But I am not holding my breath.

        1. I’ve been arguing point this with some feminist twit on Spiked, but all she can do is call me a liar, a “tragic” MRA and other such infantile shite, and it takes her weeks to come back with these limp responses too. Get them off the script and throw facts at these animals and they’re even more hopeless than you think they are. Needless to say, I’ve made mincemeat of this insipid jerk every time.

        2. “I sure hope men fight back on a large scale”
          Even liberal manginas in Silicon Valley are going MGTOW, because they are being forced to. There is an upside to all this #MeToo after all.

    2. Yes, first wave feminists opposed black women’s rights. Then the upper class white feminists in the 1970s shamed marriage and motherhood; so that they became not only an educational or financial elite, but also a reproductive elite. Even NYT admits that marriage “has become a sign of privilege.” Of course rich white feminist women were unaffected by this.

      Feminism has always been an extension of female intrasexual competition. The females “at the top” developed feminism to exclude other women from reproduction and men’s resources.

  3. Mr. Schoenewolf I really enjoy the way you write !

    You make very logical points, then at the end of your article’s with one swift blow drive the truth into the minds of your readers.

    On a personal note: there really does seem to be a lot of hate towards men these days.

  4. “They must reach agreements through love and respect, not through battles for domination and control.”
    That’s impossible with the current laws; even the most beta female can dominate and control ANY male on the planet. Look at Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, etc. Or look at that landwhale Jemma Beale, she falsely accused 15 men of rape until she got caught. She is so goddamn fat and ugly, it doesn’t get more beta than her.

    As much as I appreciate and agree with the sentiment, it’s not gonna work. Women will not willingly give up their domination over men; because women biologically still consider themselves the inferior ones, the injured party, the victims, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE PRIVILEGE THEY HAVE. In fact, the more privilege is given to women, the more they consider themselves victims, as their brains keep searching for new fictional problems. Whereas the more real problems women have, the less they complain and the less they play victim. This is a survival mechanism for women.

  5. Human alpha males may exploit females, but only because human females make themselves available to be exploited. Think of groupies, women who make themselves available sexually to rock stars. These women are more than willing to be exploited. Does that make the alpha male rock star bad?

    On the other hand, homeless men living on the street don’t have groupies–nor do most of us. Why? Because most of us men aren’t powerful and rich, that’s why. Women are attracted to rich and powerful men–and to famous men. Was Anna Nicole Smith really exploited by that rich old guy she married? Or was he exploited by Anna Nicole? Apparently, she and her heirs ended up with a lot of his money–something his family was angry about.

    So who exploits who?

    1. You are posing the question in a puritanical sense. Mother nature equipped women with a physique and behaviors equal to the task of survival. A man does not exploit his ability to throw a spear or make a bow and arrow to hunt game. He engages his ability to do so. He utilizes his natural gifts. The term exploit has some connotation of unequal exchange. Women in a primitive past engaged their natural gifts in furtherance of survival and reproduction. They probably were not the spear chuckers and flint knappers of the tribe. Instead, adjusted for time and place, they engaged one half of the reproductive impulse seeking its complement. No doubt after a little jockeying teams were chosen. Sopolski’s data can be used to argue that a friendly and affectionate family group would have been healthier than the Alpha model. Humans may have kept their health simply by cooperating with one another and multiplying faster than those who did not. If it is not extrapolating out a window there is a way to read human survival also had the component of friendship, deep attachment of one to another as a prerequisite to thrive. If so we should work on being more human to save our very lives.

      1. Hey, who you callin’ a “flint-knapper”, Spear-Chucker! (Geez, I dunno, can I say that here? 🙂 But seriously, folks—

        It’s in the inherent imbalance of attention paid, one sex to the other. There we find the unequal exchange and the exploitation, a very “all natural” state of affairs gone badly TILT.

        As MGTOW-man has so often said, change men and you change the world. He’s right. As with the drug “war”, in which we tryin’ to kill the supply, we should be knockin’ down the express demand. MGTOWness might have some effect in this regard, but it’s not the whole answer, in and of itself, ‘cuz that’ll put an entire culture in peril as its population dwindles. Witness Japan, with its “grass-eaters” phenomenon, “herbivore men” who eschew sexual relationships to the tune of 25% of the male population, a statistical observation which we find in nearly equal numbers right here in the States, only it ain’t bein’ reported. For now, just where HAVE all the good men gone… (?)

      2. I think that humans developed a very excellent way of ensuring survival–the family. The family solved a lot of problems for humans, problems that are resurfacing now that a concerted effort is being made to destroy the family and the man’s role in the family. These include poverty and the anti-social behavior very closely associated with single mothers.

        The family was built on marriage, and marriage is a conjoining of a man and a woman under a contract of mutual obligations. For most of history, it could not easily be destroyed. The family created provided both financial and emotional support for its members.

        Included in this system were rules for sexual behavior, rules that applied to both men and women. These rules were meant to discourage sex outside marriage. Why? To protect the integrity of the family. Now if marriage is destroyed and the family is destroyed, there’s nothing left to protect. Sexual behavior reverts to a more primitive form, where all women become available and all men assume all women are available. The result is called sexual liberation but more closely resembles sexual anarchy.

        1. The biological term for marriage is pair bonding. From the ruins of buildings 7,000 years old it is clear that single families lived in dwelling spaces of family size. In some instances running water was actually supplied to the home. In other cases there were common wells which served the neighborhood. Family size implied pair bonding. People pair bond when they can and they have done so for a very long time.

      3. “a friendly and affectionate family group would have been healthier than the Alpha model”
        They also could have been overtaken by another alpha group, or fall behind economically and in advancement etc.

        1. They coulda, woulda, mighta, shoulda got cooties, ingrown toenails, appendicitis, hemorrhoids, etc. So could anyone else in the area. The thing about nighttime is that it gets dark for everyone in the area. There is advantage when you have a light.

    2. If females are making themselves available, then it’s not male exploitation. Harvey didn’t “exploit” any woman. Many women walked away from his offers with no impact to their careers. “Exploitation” is how women cover up their motives and blame it on men instead. Female projection.

      1. Excellent point, Bora. One of the principles of our modern gynocentric society is that women are never to blame for anything–they’re victims. Women like being “victims” because then they can not be blamed.

        I guess Uma Thurman is now complaining that Weinstein wanted sexual favors in return for her starring role in “Kill Bill,” a role that earned her around $200 million. Now she’s claiming to be the “victim.” But let’s be honest: she took the deal because she hoped it would bring fame and fortune. And it did. She got what she wanted. And she’s not giving it back.

        She could have walked away. But what was more important to her? Her sexual integrity? Or the money? We all know the answer.

  6. “All who ate the food from the dump died, which meant that all the alpha males and females died. Those who were left in the tribe were the more healthy and loving members of the tribe. The males weren’t into bullying other males or exploiting women, and the women were also not those who were into bullying other women and playing games with men. As the result the tribe enjoyed a peaceful and loving existence. When Sapolsky later took the blood of the survivors of this tribe, all of them had fewer stress hormones in their blood.”

    Does this mean feminists should all be fed poisoned meat?

  7. I love how succinctly this article describes both alpha males and alpha females. A century and a half ago this article would be received as a straightforward, sensible analysis. Unfortunately though, in the current social climate it will be mostly ignored because it acknowledges how male and female dominance are intertwined and interdependent. Since physical strength is the most obvious outward sign of dominance, it is too easy for us to overlook the more subtle complexities of dominance dynamics. It is therefore easy to presume that men have “all the power.” This results from the paradigm of division brought to us by feminism. Beginning with the Declaration of Sentiments, in which all of the differences between men’s roles and women’s roles were erroneously framed as “men holding women back,” gender ideologues have been building a false cultural paradigm in which the sexes exist in an adversarial state instead of a cooperative state.
    In spite of the fact that there are intersex and intrasex dynamics in dominance, the bottom line is this: Those with more power exploit those with less power. The sex of the person in power is all immaterial; it often determines the ways in which power will be expressed, but it has no bearing on how much power a person actually has.

  8. Excellent article. Enjoyed it. Feminism is a club of female alphas! Love it! So true.

    Also true that the aggression and bullying of women (alphas and more) is there but is basically invisible to most. The female alphas know how to hide it so no one can see. Our media has obsessed over a small minority of men who problem solve with violence and blamed all men. At the same time it has turned a blind eye to the female counterpart. The fascinating thing is that the research has been catching up and is showing now that the violence of men and women is equal if you factor in the relational aggression that is more often the path for women.

    I’m working hard on a new youtube that will offer the basics of the research on relational violence and it is critical for men to know. Nearly every problem men have with women is connected in one way or another to their relational aggression.

  9. “Those of us who are sane must resist the feminist misrepresentation of all males…”
    Is there anything for those of us who have already lost their marbles?

  10. Just thought I’d chip in to clarify our terms, and what is meant by the term “alpha”, especially seeing as it’s so much an integral part of PUA mystique.

    The PUA narrative revolves around the conflation emotionally stunted adolescent with “alpha”. They don’t get it. PUA losers masquerading as dominant alphas are anything but Boss. Genghis Khan would have had PUAs for breakfast. The moment that an eager PUA, pretending not to be eager, calibrates his behavior to impress women, he is anything but “alpha”. PUAs have completely misunderstood the role of the male… which is to lead… and by lead, I mean taking the initiative. Taking the initiative is an expression of masculine freedom, and it has been the man’s role for millennia. It plays out not only in disciplines like politics and science, but also recreations and arts like music and dance… particularly evident in traditional/folk dance. It is the man that is the prize. He is the captain of his ship, he makes his choices, and he directs his destiny. It is his life that is the adventure, the “something greater than himself” that women might seek to connect with… or not, if what he stands for is not in fashion at the moment, but he doesn’t care.

    PUA is about allowing women to take the initiative and to define the fashions of courtship. Thus they define the exciting bad-boy as the fashionable standard to which PUA males should aspire, and it’s not healthy. Theirs is a neurotic rationalization based on the bully-victim narrative… “If he’s not dominating me, then there must be something wrong with him.” Is this kind of woman an “alpha”? No she’s not… she’s an idiot. In feminist society, anti-male laws protect women from their dumb choices. They can act all “alpha feminist” and uppity if they want, without repercussion, because contemporary feminist culture exempts them from having to take responsibility. But in any other culture beyond our own, this kind of woman is a loser and deserves whatever smack-in-the-face her exciting bad-boy dishes out. Nature has its own way of holding men and women accountable, and dispenses its own justice. Feminist liberalism proves that trying to correct for nature only makes things worse.

    And I’m not sure that “alpha” women’s choices, these days, are in the interests of evolution. Swarthy midgets, goat-herding refugees, bloated slobs, and balding grandfathers are all in the running so long as they discover their emotionally stunted adolescent within. Know the rules of negging and do the cocky-funny routine, and even Quasimodo can get lucky. Women’s dumb choices are to be made fun of, not aspired to. PUAs are the quintessential loser… she says “jump”, he asks “how high?”… not very alpha, if you ask me.

    The conflation of emotionally stunted adolescent with “alpha”… male or female. This says something about the times that we are living in. It is a narrative that would be alien in most any other culture throughout human history. History-wise, we are freaks…. all thanks to our contraceptive technologies, progressivism and everything else that was seeded in the sexual revolution of the sixties.

    For women, security is their birthright. For men, freedom is our birthright. We squander our birthright when we calibrate our behavior to the expectations of others, men or women, and that is anything but alpha.

  11. “Love, according to Sapolsky, is the antidote to stress.”
    This statement and the article that leads up to it seem to be saying that getting rid of the alphas will lead to less stress and love all around, -another “Age of Aquarius” by the sounds of it.
    I don’t buy it, sound like utopia, sounds like team spirit, and it sounds like the good men’s project. What did I miss here?

    1. It was the Alphas that were the cause of the stress. The Alphas themselves were not stressed. Subtract Alphas and stress levels went down for every-monkey else. That is the correlation. The direction pointed to is how to be an Alpha, get Alpha things done, without creating an unhealthy quality of life for those who are not-A’s.

      1. I’m trying to think of a historical example of a alpha that fits your comment but I come up blank. I do get your point, but I’m sceptical.

        1. The democratically elected leader of Athens would be one example. High ranking military officers whose authority is clear but whose power is also circumscribed. Sometimes you will hear a female employee refer to her boss as a “sweetie”. Those men get results by behaving in a way that inspires loyalty quite beyond what they can legally demand as leaders. Any coalition of the willing will function better than a purely command driven group. As Aretha Franklin said, “R-E-S-P-E-C-T…”

          1. Where is the love again? Maybe the alphas are just the way to keep a pack together and stress and loyalty are in a balance under the correct alphas. I can’t see successful generals as non-stress leaders, elected or not.
            I am beginning to believe that alphas are normal and women and children need to be a protected class.

          2. Recent hollywood and other sexual harassment cases suggest that many alpha males were being manipulated to do favors for females… and now they are being made to pay for it again. I don’t think women need protecting, but our children certainly do from both male and female psycopaths.

          3. At what age should society say that men and women are no longer children. It would seem it starts very young for males and has no end for females. I ‘m not even saying that is wrong because every human society seems to be set up that way to some degree.
            Psychology likes to say that we as humans can change our behaviors and change our lives but I am beginning to see that there are limits. We really are just apes and we will alway do ape things.

          4. I don’t think anyone here is going to argue that a lot of gynocentric behavior is programmed into our wetware. Just how much of it is immutable though? How much nature over nurture can we overcome? I think the answer is quite a lot.

            I don’t think the answer is going patriarchal MGTOW; i.e. after the supposed collapse, men taking back all power and all rights at the expense of women’s rights like voting rights, and any shared parenting rights. This wouldn’t do away with gynocentrism anyways.

            There are certain behaviors that are so ingrained as a byproduct of evolution (statistically speaking) that we may never be rid of them completely…like women picking men primarily for their health and status, or certain job choices etc. However we CAN certainly change unfairness in the way the law is applied and achieve equality under said law.

            Also I believe that compassion and empathy for men can be achieved in spite of society’s revulsion to men’s pain.

            I dunno call me a dreamer,

          5. We seem to both have the same starting points and views but different answers. Recently I have also realized that MGTOW is not the answer but I no longer think that equality is possible either. I am beginning to embrace the idea that if you can’t beat them, you have to join them. MRA’s need to become the alphas. No one can win by fighting evolution and there has never been equality in evolution. MGTOWs are alphas who think not fighting is an answer, –it is time to rethink. MRAs need to be the men that society looks up too.
            Feminists and politicians will never allow equality because the society would collapse. Men are the productive engine and they must stay harnessed, we need to raise above it.

          6. Hmmm OK I like the idea of MRA’s being an inspiration to society. However, how does your if you can’t beat ’em join ’em philosophy work after that?
            Are we just supposed to shrug our shoulders at all the misandry and double standards and say “Oh well, becoming human ATM machines, having our kids taken away from us, no male shelters for DV, false accusations, male suicide etc. etc. etc. are just the price for being alpha males”?

            What about patronizing and ass kissing women about complete bullshit? Are we supposed to keep lying to their faces? Are we supposed to keep our mouths shut about how there is no equality, because it’s taboo to point out all the over top two faced double standards? Are we supposed to keep infantilizing them rather than treat them like adults?

            One if the big concerns I have with your post (aside from dealing with the misandry issues) is that it has echoes of some of the guys that have come on here that think patting women on the back and agreeing with them is the “high road” solution because “you can’t win an argument with a woman”. This is all part of the “keep your wife happy”, “if mamma ain’t happy, no one’s happy” horse crap. Sorry this is no solution, this just creates a monster.

            So is this what we will be left with as “alphas”? Still lying and pandering to women, while being stuck with male disposability?

          7. Maybe real alphas don’t pander to anyone. Maybe we look at today alphas and think that is the only model. Maybe we need to take MGTOW as our foundation and introduce the world to a new alpha. What if we started gathering men together under a banner of strength instead of withdraw. The men of Google could bring that misandrist organization to it’s knees in courtrooms and union hals if men stood together. I just don’t think MRA, MGTOW, PUA, etc, etc is bringing men together. It’s time to raise men up, top to bottom. Respect and honor, self improvement, and defiance, — unified defiance.

          8. OK I like where you’re going with “unified defiance”. I largely agree with the philosophy you laid out here. However, I don’t agree that MRA’s are not bringing men together. The very philosophy from MRA’s is unified defiance; FTSU and “Changing the cultural narrative” is pretty damn defiant.

            You confused the hell out of me though. Here you talk about banding together to fight misandry and take back our rights, yet in your other posts you talk about women being a “protected class” (with the accompanying double standards that go along with it) as probably a necessary thing to society.

            So my question to you is how do we have it both ways and give special privileges and protections to women, WITHOUT the accompanying male disposability and misandry that you say you want to fight?

          9. When, or even where, have women and children not been considered a protected class? Protecting women seems to be a evolutionary prime directive and being a MRA isn’t going to change it. Also, why would we want to change it? The problem is that society no longer respects men for their evolutionary roll. MRAs need to take back societies leadership, how, I haven’t a clue but we have gone as far as we can with our dream of equality. The only starting point I can think of is respect and honor for other men. Respect and honor for men who deserve it and disregard for the weak cucks. The first group to honor are fathers.

          10. I agree 100% that we should honor father’s. However my argument is that having women as a protected class (gynocentrism) leads to men sacrificing for them in every aspect of society.

            Of course women have always been a protected class. Which is all part of the gynocentrism that hurts men and boys. Plus children are another matter entirely; women are not children.

            Dude you are not stupid, you are highly intelligent; we have been reading each other’s posts for years now, so I know that you know where I am coming from. You know my question was how they (men’s rights and gynocentrism) can co-exist at the same time. This is the question that trad/cons can never answer (I am not saying you are a trad/con).

            So I rephrase…how do we compromise on CONTINUING with special protections and privileges for females without accompanying male disposability and misandry under the law? I don’t see how it can be done.

          11. We simply may not be able to change what classes society will protect. we can however define who in those classes get the full protection. If we withdraw from the game, how do we win and even more basic, – what do we want to win? MGTOW is passive aggressive and even MRA comes from a place of anger. We ask for a chair at the table but maybe we should be thinking, if there is no chair for me, there shall be none for other. Where does the big dog sleep?

          12. Point taken on your last sentence.

            Your argument however, has been we can’t fight evolution, society functions with our current system, and we have to find a place at the table within that current system. Welllll I think we have to start from somewhere, yes.

            I agree that evolution has nothing to do with morality, justice, or fairness, but are we complete slaves to our lizard brain? Nah I don’t think so.

            Look at the Renaissance and the Enlightenment; these had nothing to do with survival or evolution. Also civilization and humankind functioned perfectly well with slavery for thousands of years; as a matter of fact the necessary evil for society to function argument was used as the justification for slavery for many years, so why end it? It “worked”, so what if it was cruel and inhumane?

          13. I thought quite the opposite. Females mature much younger than males, but the men go on to mature in a different way. I think we should stop treating young people as children as soon as they become sexually aware, but we have to make sure they understand not to engage in sexual activity until they would be ready willing and able for the consequences: To raise children of their own.

          14. You maybe right of course about maturity but that is different than being protected as a child. Children are not held completely responsible for their actions because the think as a child. Adults are held responsible for their actions. I was drafted at 18 which pretty much sets the limit for coddling of boys but boys are treated firmly even before that age. Girls on the other hand are treated as if they are only partly responsible for any act are part of. A man hits his child and he is toxic, a woman hits her child and we look for what caused the action.
            I think that boys childhood ends very early, somewhere before 13, – harsh.

          15. I think what is often referred to as “love” is first the odd brain chemistry of endorphins and allied dopamine. The other love is a beneficial and supportive friendship of long duration. You can parse the definitions as you wish. My point is that the same word is used for two separate states that may differ in intensity but both of which are distinctly different from any other human experience. Whether it’s trust, loyalty, esteem or whatever else, an Alpha, doing the job that Alphas do and taking responsibility for success or failure is hugely facilitated by the existence of these sentiments in the group in which he has nominal charge. To the extent that the Alpha is a disciplinarian he will lose a comparable smoothness and efficiency of execution of the common group task. That is the correlation I am pointing to. I am simply saying that in this equation that consistently good outcomes from the group are dependent upon a favorable and quality relationship with the Alpha.

          16. Whoa sometimes a long time contributer in the comments section.

            Is this crygegio the MRA speaking lol? Women NEED to be a protected class?

            They certainly are, and of course we are all familiar with why they are. Gynocentrism and male disposability exist largely because of this.

          17. I know, I know, but look at how vulnerable women are to powerful men. Powerful men must go away or it is clear that some protections need to be in place such as requiring all management level men to be eunuchs. -Or you are a slut shamer

          18. Ahhh the sarc is strong in this one.

            My Padawan, you threw this one for a loop in your last missive; this one had thought you were drinking your bath water for such a bat shit crazy statement.

      2. The alpha directly benefits from creating an unhealthy quality of life for those who are not-A’s. They can’t rise up against him, and they pose no reproductive competition to him.

        1. I would argue this depends on the nature of the alpha.
          A- would be as you say a tyrent who supresses others to build themselves up.
          A+ would be one who bulids up others and uses that to rise to the top.

    2. I read it more as saying the non-alpha majority simply need to make their voices heard instead of sitting in silence and waiting for alpha women and men to tell is what to think….. isn’t that how the Aquarian hippy era manifest in the 60s?

      By ‘love’ I don’t read the author is recommending a new hippy era, but rather a less competitive and cynical relation between the sexes, and a more cooperative one. May be dreaming but sounds like a reasonable dream to dream.

      1. There are big prices to pay for that; that bloody, annoying competition brings so much fruit scientifically, economically, technologically; less competitive countries might have “less stress” and “more love” but they also fall behind greatly materially. The competitiveness is what made the US great.

        Moreover having low levels of stress is not always a good thing; humans need adversity and extremely stressful situations in order to overcome them, get stronger and thrive. Otherwise we end up with the snowflake generation.

        Going even further, we are severely underestimating human’s capacity for creating sources of stress out of nothing, when the environment is too safe and stressless. Look at what lack of competition is doing to boys in school.

        To see what I mean, take Sapolsky’s words to their logical extreme, and look at the bonobos, or the Mosuo matriarchy in China. Sure, they have “less stress” and “more love” as a result of low competition, but they are also very primitive and backwards; they have no art, science, law, tech, no civilization to speak of. They are weaker and stupider.

        I’d rather live in a stressful but advanced civilization.

        1. True, but you are describing a different kind stress.

          The one that keeps you up at night because you are extremely worried is a killer.

          The stress you are describing is actually one that you can take joy in; it is one that you can take pride in as you strive for excellence and as you aspire to certain goals.

          I am an artist and I will stay up working on a piece until the following morning whether for a client or a show, and it always very fulfilling even though I have the stress of going right to my day job and working a full shift.

  12. I thought the scientist who studied wolf packs and originally coined the term “alpha male” back in the 1970’s had later changed his mind and said he regretted it. There was a video clip of him saying this about a dozen years ago on YouBoob. I can’t recall his name.

    There’s been quite a lot of subsequent research showing “alpha” males don’t get more food first, more offspring, longer lifespans, or anything else out of being atop the hierarchy that can be measured.

    So the original idea, which so many were so eager to accept and apply to humans, bears little resemblance to the truth, which is way more complicated.

    One of many ironies is that back in the 1980’s there was a pop-hit book (for women) about “running with the wolves”. Now that they do, they’ve become wolves! lol

    It used to be that men’s success power was a way of earning equality with women’s sexual power, but now that hetero male lust is public enemy number one, that’s no longer the case, and being “alpha” just makes you a target not some winner.

    I remember reading once that a woman tried heckling Winston Churchill at some speaking event. She said (approximately) “I’ll have you know Mr. Churchill, that in 50 years women will run the world!”.

    Churchill paused dramatically and then said “What! Still?”.

    1. Agreed, though there is some merit to “alpha.” It was about wolves in captivity, taken from their natural place and brought together in an artificial place. That has some resemblance to big human cities. People from all over the country/world, different races, tribes, genes, religions, etc. come together in a fairly artificial environment and get mixed.

  13. Posibly I am jumping to conclusions based on my treatment as a Bi man,
    but it strikes me as the is something like the differance in the way BiM and BiF are looked at by lessbian feminists,
    “BiM are the most dangerous men out their,
    they can not even keep their hands off of other men”
    “BiF are empowered free spirets who are on the right path to radical political lesbianism”

  14. The Manhattan professor story is makes my skin crawl. It is like living in a horror movie. There are lots of unstable, vindictive women in the world. When one sets her sights on a man, he’s screwed. There is nothing he can do.

  15. “didn’t it used to be the GBLT at one time? I wonder when that changed and why!”

    From what older men in the gay rights movement say political lesbians coopted it after HIV decimated the gay men in the movement.

    As for Bs getting a persecuted within LGBT the are a few camps that do, people who think we undermine the “born this way” “its not a choice” argument.
    Some who have had bad experiances with Bi partners, (I have to say that the is some justification for this, the are a dispraportionate amount of sociopaths who are Bi)

    and as I said a rather nasty subgroup of lesbians. (One of my oldest friends is a buch lesbian who taught me everything I know about motorbike machanics, so it is definatly not all)

    1. Andybob does a great job arguing that gay rights was co-opted by lesbian feminists. These idiots that you describe are the one’s that undermine the movement. They oversimplify something as complex as human sexuality and put it in this little box. First off they conflate choice with “born that way”; these are two completely different things. Secondly, as you say, this undermines bi-sexuals.

      I mean how in the fuck do these idiots explain Greco-Roman culture in where bi-sexuality was rampant across society?

      1. The co-optinng was before my time, and yes Andybob was one of the people I was thinking about when I wrote that part (hope the chap is OK I have not seen him around for a fair old time now)
        As for people oversimplifying, I could not agree more,
        Some people take a slogan and run with it, rather than understanding the issue behind it,
        Not sure the Greco-Roman thing is exactly like Bi in the modern world,
        it did tend towards pedorasty
        But both in its similarities and its differances it raises some interesting questions.
        PS. hope you have had a good Chistmass.

  16. It was not dominance that created civilization. It was abstractions. Most so called beta males have no real significant/long-term contact
    with females, so what is the purpose of chastising them? The way to
    define most “alpha” male is if he’s been either married or had some
    period(s) with them. From the realms of health, there are MANY different
    types of alpha males. It’s just that women have a whore nature that
    constantly keeps dissecting alpha males into submerged levels. (as for
    myself, I’m beyond beyond being an “alpha male” because I already
    noticed the majority of the process.) Greater social acuity of women
    results with increased dissatisfaction or willingness to try more &
    more. That they are constantly comparing, even when they have already
    made it, males who are potential mates even with fictional characters is
    a moral failing that women have. “Alpha” & “beta” is very primitive. It comes from women’s archaic minds. For more science on that:

  17. Maintaining “alpha” & “beta” terms, especially with the much more complicated realms of humans that aren’t wild animals, is very dangerous because it allows for dismissing of reports by males as just “beta” males. The same thing happens after men get raped in the divorce courts: “Oh, you were just a “beta” male. It was abstractions that created civilization, not dominance. Males involved with abstractions is what most women would classify as “beta” males.

      1. I think a better way would be to get rid of all categories & replace it with acknowledging male level of abstraction. Zeta would also connote to guys “wearing corpse paint & living for Pokemon card,” which would only cause more distractions.

  18. If feminism is about alpha females, then why are the most influential feminists ugly, morbidly obese, have serious mental issues, or all of the above? It doesn’t get any more beta than that.

    The article makes the mistake of assuming that only alpha females would intensify sexual competition and force others into it. ALL WOMEN, no matter how fat or ugly or “beta”, can intensify sexual competition. Highly attractive women do it by shaming ugly women, ugly women do it by slut shaming attractive women, and ALL OF THEM SHAME AND BLAME MEN of being gay, not being a real man, etc.

    There is no difference between “alpha females” and “beta females.” Everybody sexually competes SOMEHOW in their own way. Consider how female intrasexual wars happen in the middle east. Beta females, who are the vast majority of middle eastern women, use men to enforce dress codes onto other women. They support female genital mutilation and the driving ban. And beta males try to compete by kissing women’s asses and agree with the male shaming and enforcing injustice onto other men.

    The last argument I can think of would be that alpha males and females forced the hand of betas, and betas had no choice to compete this way; but that’s nonsense too, betas are much larger in numbers and could oppose it if they wanted.

    To say that the current situation is the fault of the alpha males and females is giving the pussy pass to beta females, and not holding the beta male cucks accountable in their complicity.

    1. Alphas are dominant in many ways, not just in matters of sex. It’s unwise of you to assume that the only way women can be dominant is by using sexuality. Fat ugly feminists have become spectacularly successful by using sex differences as a tool, not by using their sexuality as a tool. Could it be that this has happened because so many people underestimate the range of tools women have at our disposal? Is using sexuality the only way we can succeed? If that’s what people believe, it’s no wonder feminists have completely taken over society within a century and a half. Is the entirety of all females’ existence defined by female sexuality? Is the entirety of all males’ existence defined by male sexuality? Are we nothing but sex organs ans hormone driven instincts, or are we capable of complex abstract thoughts and interactions?

      1. Alphas are dominant in many ways

        That’s a fact. There’s a great book floating around called ‘Kinds of Power’ that explains precisely this point – that there are dozens if not hundreds of aptitudes that can result in alpha status.

        1. If Dworkin is considered to have alpha status, then I really don’t know the meaning of “alpha” anymore. In my opinion she is as far extreme beta as you can possibly be. I really don’t think anybody in the world would consider her an alpha.

          But I guess I just don’t understand what alpha means. I give up.

          1. It’s a bit of a trigger word. People get attached to their own understanding of it, and don’t even notice that there are other perspectives. That’s why I think it’s so important to hash it out.

          2. Within her own clique even Andrea Dworkin was an Alpha. Alpha refers to rank in a social hierarchy.

            As Suz rightly points out, to view Alpha as getting lots of sex is to fall into the fantasy world of teenage PUAs. An Alpha can sometimes get more sex in certain species, but being Alpha is much more than that. The idea of social rank is not hard to grok.

            For those caught in the PUA fantasy, this broader definition will help:


          3. If someone gains a “dominant” position through bullshit means, whether they inherit it from their parents, or hurt other people, with threats, intimidation, bribery etc., or they accidentally fall into it (like winning a lottery), or they are given it by government subsidy (which is collected by force) for free by a gynocentric, man hating society, it hardly makes sense to call them “alpha.”

            We have instincts that allow us to sort through “real alphas” and “fake alphas.” We do instinctively expect some sort of physical, sexual, leadership etc. ability, against which we check that person’s status. Movies, books etc. are filled with tropes like this; bad characters who acquired “alpha” status that they do not deserve, through unfair means. The big bad fat ugly mafia boss guy, or the ugly bureaucrat with the low self esteem and confidence issues who makes everyone’s lives a pain; or the tyrannical, frigid, female school teacher / head master etc.

            We do not, at least instinctively, consider these people “alpha.” They are fake; these tropes in art are usually used to expose our corrupt social/economic/political structures that elevate the wrong people to the top; that promote bad, negative qualities which bring “dominance”. People will put up with such “alphas” but only because they either benefit (like women who slept with Harvey) or they fear the threats (Hitler, etc.)

            But IN OUR GUTS WE KNOW THEY ARE NOT ALPHA. Human social structures, ideas, laws, institutions, politics etc. can be very wrong, but people instinctively know the right thing about this. People instinctively expect a “dominant” person’s social status to MATCH their physicality, sexuality, ability, etc. to a degree. Just one look at these people, and we can tell what they are. I don’t care about Merriam-Webster dictionary definition (according to which feminism is about equality); I care about how ordinary people perceive what “alpha” is.

            I sincerely do not believe that a single woman who slept with Harvey considers him “alpha.” They are all expressing their disgust of him. Just like Andrea Dworkin; she might have been in a “dominant position” over her gender studies students and over the public with the books she published; but nobody would consider her “alpha”, she gained the status through a corrupt government in a gynocentric society. As for her dominance over her students, we know that gender studies students are generally women fucked up in the head anyway. That’s not actual dominance. Dworkin didn’t have to do anything to “dominate” those women; she just fueled their already existing hatred of men. ANYBODY could have done that; there is absolutely nothing about Dworkin’s ability, skill, effort etc. that made this happen.

          4. It’s not “new and improved and expanded.” Perhaps it’s new to you because you have considered it only in terms of sexual interactions and possibly athletic or military competition. Maybe someday you’ll see beyond the shiny bright objects on the surface of social interactions.

          5. If someone gains a “dominant” position through bullshit means…

            Obviously there are means other than “bullshit” ones (or other than the pimply-faced PUA fantasies of what Alpha means) that can elevate someone in the social dominance hierarchy. A five year old would likely understand that in his wider social circle.

            There are numerous distinct character qualities by which a person can stand out from the crowd, and can ride to Alpha status by it: like a high IQ, high emotional intelligence, narcissism, egotism, higher energy, ability to concentrate, higher than normal ability to persevere in difficult circumstances, fearsomeness, charisma, persuasiveness, rhetorical skills, flirtatiousness, and dozens more….

            These are not “bullshit” means, and the teenage PUA fantasy of how to reach Alpha status remains a reductive explanation in face of the greater variety of routes to dominance hierarchy status.

            And some women/feminists are particularly gifted in these areas.

            Some people have a special drive toward, or ability to spy-out opportunity for power that other people simply don’t possess. And all that without the need for muscles or pretty faces – which are alternative means again.

          6. I would like to toss in another alternative or different scenario to the one that is in the dictionary, which is the most commonly held belief.

            Let us picture a scenario where a huge disaster has destroyed the society that we have known and relied upon for all our lives. Say the after math of a great war, an asteroid hit that part of our world and all of govt and other services had vapourised into nothing. There are no longer any other services such as power or water or food and we have to make do with what we find on the land, until such a time as we can re-build and establish some semblance of control and govt.

            The men who are currently considered ‘alpha males’ in pretty much all countries will have little to no skills at all to even survive such a calamity as I have described above.

            Yet, the men in this world who toil and labour……… let us call them Atlas men, because it is true indeed that they carry the world on their shoulders.
            These men who have all the ability, the skill, the intelligence, the brute force power AND the determination to make something move or build something against all prevailing odds, will without a shadow of a doubt, become the new ALPHA MALES over night.

            These men will be the ones that all peoples left behind will look to, to rebuild and to save them from their peril. And in that group of grovelling child like wimps and simps, will not just be the overwhelming majority of women, there will also be the previous so-called alpha males who were super rich, powerful in only their station in society, but not in their ability to live in this world when the shit hits the fan.

            I believe that we are now at a point in our evolution, where we need to rethink the definition of Alpha male/female, by either reclassifying it or ditching it altogether.

            Because in my mind it is often times circumstance and opportunity that determines who will be the alpha and most definitely NOT based on ones ability or strength!

          7. I think you’ve got something there Shrek, the average guy is a civilization builder. Your words partly align with the author of the article where he says “Ordinary men and women, not alpha males and alpha females, need to be in charge of this dialogue.”

            The Alpha Beta discussion at goes in circles at best, and at worst reads like a teenage romance novel.

          8. “The Alpha Beta discussion at goes in circles at best, and at worst reads like a teenage romance novel.”

            Oh doesn’t it what!!!

            Because of this tripe, the true meaning of ‘alpha’ is sullied and turned into something akin to Superman or Wolverine or even a Rhett Butler (Gone with the Wind) character. All depicted on Hollywood screens as the epitome of a true alpha male for all men to aspire to, when in reality it is the ‘civilization builders’ who are the true males for a young man to aspire to, because it is indeed true that the civilization builders are the ones who hold all the knowledge, ability, strength, power and endurance.

            The women who work alongside and who support these civilization builder men, make up the backbone of their survival. Big claim I know!

            It is indeed also true that most men who are civilization builders, fair so much better and are able to extend their time of endurance, if they have a woman behind them who is fully supportive of his role and who is prepared to cater to his basic human needs, thus keeping him healthy in mind, body and soul. This concept may be offensive to both feminists and other men within the MHRM, but it has been one that has existed successfully for thousands of years and cannot be so easily dismissed.
            And she is most definitely not subservient to him. These women were tough, strong, but caring and charitable. They would rarely tolerate any crap from their husbands, but they would die defending him.

          9. You called it in that last sentence, alpha is one of those undefined terms like masculinity. The world seems to want it to be a macho asshole but I think both terms are flexible disigns created by evolution. Millions of years of life and death is on our side if we work with it instead of against it.
            I don’t have it figured out but society depends on real alphas and here we are, on the outside. Nothing has been taken from us, you eather take it and hold it or it is passed to others. –I think?

      2. Then I guess I don’t know what “alpha” means. I always thought it was mostly sexual for females and physical for males.

        From colloquial use, I don’t think that anybody thinks of someone like Harvey Weinstein as “alpha.” They would think of Brad Pitt as “alpha”.

        1. The alpha is the leader, the dominant one. The term was coined while studying wolf behavior. The niche of PUA culture, since it is designed to appeal to horny would-be playboys, has narrowed it to nothing but sex – one of the many reasons PUA culture is a dead end.

      3. “Is the entirety of all males’ existence defined by male sexuality? Are
        we nothing but sex organs and hormone driven instincts, or are we
        capable of complex abstract thoughts and interactions?”

        Maybe not; but everything we do, we do partly to be sexually selected. “Hormone driven instincts” do not define, but definitely underlie, almost everything we do.

        1. OK

          Surely though you are not going to argue the fact that women in general elicit far more empathy and sympathy from gynocentric society, whether they are sexually attractive or not.

          1. I agreed with that in my original post; I argued that even beta females have their own way of intensifying sexual competition.

        2. True, but let’s take it one step deeper. The reason we have a sex drive is reproduction – the perpetuation of the self – survival. There are so many more aspects of increasing the chances of survival for ourselves and our offspring, and social dominance is at or near the top. Social dominance is the framework in which sexual success occurs.

          1. OK, I don’t want to beat this thing to death; I’ll just say that social dominance, a very long time ago in hunter gatherer days, prior to technological advances, used to be almost exactly equal to physical dominance for men and sexual dominance for women.

            Even though our complex social hierarchies evolved on top of the physical and sexual, in our instincts physical and sexual dominance are still deeply buried; and even today, when we perceive someone to be “socially dominant” or not, we are still expecting physical and sexual dominance in our lizard brains, and we are largely unable to sort out these instincts and distinguish physical/sexual dominance from social. It’s a big messy stew in our heads.

            Someone who is very socially dominant, like Harvey Weinstein, will still be perceived as not that dominant because he is ugly and fat and weak etc. There is a reason for the trope of big fat ugly rich boss bad guy in movies. The trope is that “he doesn’t deserve his position,” “he didn’t reach there with natural, admirable alpha qualities, but by cruelty, stepping on other people.” There are similar tropes for women as well, like the old, frigid, angry, ugly (and sometimes fat) female teacher / school master. She is dominant all right, but it’s tyrannical.

            People will acknowledge him as rich, successful, influential etc. but in their gut, people won’t approve of him as desirable or “alpha.” He doesn’t have the charisma, the magnetism, etc. Bill Burr points out how in the hell did Hitler receive so much support. Because he is ugly, not physically or sexually dominant, and his speeches were ugly angry shoutings.

            Such “alpha” people have to supplant their dominance with other factors, such as threats, fear, intimidation, even murder, in order to maintain their dominance. At best people PUT UP with those socially but not physically/sexually dominant people, despite disliking them. People put up with them either because they benefit from them (like the women who had sex with him), or they put up with them to avoid the consequences of threats.

            I understand that in your extended definition of “alpha”, all these bad, harmful, negative qualities are also “alpha”, but humans dislike these things. Colloquially those tyrannical qualities are not considered “alpha.” At least that is my perception.

            OK, I said I wasn’t gonna beat it to death but I did. Sorry about the long post. Feel free to ignore.

          2. You have put the cart before the horse. Sexual dominance without social dominance would probably have led to the extinction of our species. Putting sperm in proximity to ova is not an effective reproductive strategy. It’s a necessary part of the strategy, but it doesn’t even guarantee conception, let alone the successful perpetuation of one’s DNA. We are a social species with complex brains. We have the mental capacity to optimize the chances for reproductive success, which is far more difficult and complicated than merely attracting and having sex with an appealing member of the opposite sex.

            Social dominance is the foundation on which sexual dominance can fulfill its purpose – successful reproduction. There would be no sexual dominance if we did not have the instinctive drive to pass on our genes via sexual reproduction.

          3. Sue, you really are opening a new way of thinking for the men’s movement that I agree with. I haven’t got it all sorted out in my mind yet but I think you are saying that we need to step up rather than step back.

          4. Absolutely! So many of our mores, norms and traditions are based in biology, and attempting to socially engineer instinct out of our lives is unrealistic and dangerous. However our capacity for critical and abstract thought gives us a superior ability to tailor our instinctive behaviors according to our complex needs. We shouldn’t toss out our species’ entire history of traditions, but we have the ability to sort through them and keep the ones that actually serve humanity. Shouldn’t we be doing that?

            Bora’s intense narrow focus on sex reminded me of Victor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning.” The sex drive is is indeed manifested throughout nearly every aspect of our behavior. This makes perfect sense because from a biological perspective, the whole point of existing is to reproduce – if a species doesn’t reproduce it ceases to exist. Nothing could be more obvious. However there’s much more to it. Life itself (basic survival) is a prerequisite to reproduction, and basic survival is manifested throughout our behavior to an even greater degree than sex is. It is so deep we don’t even recognize it much of the time, and it doesn’t attract our attention with deliciously appealing hormone induced emotions. Frankl’s book illustrate how the sex drive and all its baggage, all but disappears when, “I’ll be alive when the sun sets tonight” isn’t a safe bet.

            Survival comes before reproduction, and social institutions (even the smallest and most simplistic of them) enhance the chances for survival. Dominance, as a social rank, is present to some degree in every single human interaction. I suppose it is technically possible to have physical sexual contact with no social interaction, but the unlikeliness of such a phenomenon is made obvious by the extremely pervasive nature of sexual dynamics throughout most of our social dynamics. In other words, if sexual interaction was meant to exist outside of the bounds of social interaction, this statement would NOT be true: “The sex drive is is indeed manifested throughout nearly every aspect of our behavior.” Reproduction would be far more efficient if it occurred outside of social structures. But in our species it doesn’t. However, there are common social interactions which occur outside of socio-sexual structures. The fight to exist for the next 24 hours is one of them.

            I’m guessing that the struggle to literally stay alive through the day, isn’t in Bora’s conscious thoughts as often as is the thought of sexual reproduction. The sex drive is not our most important instinct, but it’s probably our second most important. If the most important isn’t an immediately conscious issue for him, it makes sense that the second would be very much on his mind.

          5. Unfortunately, too many who call themselves MGTOW or MRAs, are so hung up on being totally indifferent to the existence of women and the system or they wish to some how punish women, that they are unable to see the complexities of human nature and relations and the fact that no matter what comes of this social decay we currently experience, whatever is put in place in the future, will indeed have many aspects of the past included in it.

            The trick will be having enough clear thinking red pill men who are prepared to engage, so that their voices are heard and votes counted. This will ensure that a new form of equality is introduced to be infused into the new format of some kind of social construct that allows men and women to coexist and continue to procreate.

            If the red pill men all buy out, stay away from the table and are not prepared to be conciliatory at all, then the world of men will be doomed, because the only male voices heard will be the poncy voices of blue pill manginas.

            Now that would be a tragedy!

      4. Yes, yes.

        Been saying this forever. Fat ugly men don’t have anywhere near the tools at their disposal as fat ugly women.

        On talk shows fat ugly women can whine and tear up over the fact that good looking guys aren’t going out with them because they are shallow and don’t see the “real person inside”. And everybody says “Awwww the poor thing”.

        Can you imagine on daytime talk show fat ugly men tearing up and shaming good looking women in the audience for being shallow and not going out with them? No, I didn’t think so.

        This is just one example of many of take care of the poor poor wimmins ugly or not, based on sex differences

      5. I’m with you and think we need to rethink what is alpha and how to change from within. The equilty we speak of will never happen because feminists and politicians won’t let it happen. Men need a reason to stand up.

      6. “Are we nothing but sex organs and hormone driven instincts, or are we capable of complex abstract thoughts and interactions?”

        You are greatly overestimating human ability to overcome instincts. I would argue that humans are not good at overcoming instinct, but humans are extremely skilled at covering up instincts with complex looking thinly veiled surface layers of crap. Peel the surface, and the instinct is right there pulsating strongly like a bull’s heart.

        Humans are not all that complex at all; we have a piece of crap for brain that was made haphazardly by evolution by duct-taping different pieces together, which are all contradictory with each other. Robert Sapolsky agrees that all we do in our “complex” lives can be traced back to neuroendocrinology, instinct and evolution.

        Take women’s support of immigration for example. It is covered with complex looking layers of crap such as moral duty to others, empathy, compassion, ending “western capitalistic oppression” bla bla bla. Underneath all that is women’s instinctive desire to invite foreign men with high testosterone, who are not emasculated like western men, and to mate with them. Western women are hating on white men and dating others. They are defending migrant rapists, saying “it’s much worse when white men rape.” Swedish feminists are raping migrant boys.

        Same can be said of the ridiculous success of Fifty Shades of Gray, or feminist women’s support of Islam. INSTINCT. Women, despite all the “complex” ways they tell us what kind of man they want, desire being dominated.

        Men’s support of such female endeavors is also thinly veiled attempt at sucking up to these women to sleep with them. Low testosterone men who grew up fatherless cannot compete sexually in any other way; they use the “sneaky fucker” strategy. It’s the reproductive instinct.

        Same can be said of men’s football/soccer fanaticism around the world. There are all the “complex” bullshit surface layers, like team loyalty, national loyalty, brotherhood, etc. but at the bottom of it, stadiums are positive feedback loops of testosterone that reward our instincts with hormones.

        Same can be said of women’s attitudes toward marriage and divorce. If you ask them, they give all kinds of “complex” surface level crap answers like finding the one, finding a good match, not being “fulfilled”, “soul searching”, “emotional abuse”, “feeling suffocated in marriage”, bla bla. At the root of it is the hypergamy instinct, which is tied to maternal instincts.

        Same can be said of middle eastern women’s support of FGM, burqa/hijab enforcement, driving ban, wife beating, and so on. They give the “complex” answers of religious duty, modesty, chastity, maintaining society’s morals, etc. but at the root of it is female intrasexual competition. They want to prevent other women from accessing men’s resources by using their sexuality. That’s the instinct.

        If humans were indeed so fucking good at overcoming instinct and “being complex”, we would not be in this mess in the first place. Gynocentrism is caused by now-maladaptive INSTINCTS. The political movements, ideologies etc. such as feminism came later as a consequence of the instincts. The gloves were made to fit the hand, not the other way around.

        And don’t accuse me of reductionism, strawman, etc. I did no such thing.

        1. “You are greatly overestimating human ability to overcome instincts.”

          No. I’m not. I believe that most humans are incapable of overcoming their instincts. We’re not very good at hiding them either. What we’re good at is adapting our expression of them to fit our immediate and long term needs. You seem to think this is in some way dishonest. It’s not. Instincts are tools for survival. Animals with complex brains are adept at using tools effectively; we have the mental capacity to think through cause and effect, and recognize when acting on an instinctive impulse will likely cause us more harm than good. Instincts are often at odds with each other, and we have a number of them. Unlike many species, we can evaluate which ones should take primacy in different circumstances, and act accordingly.

          I don’t think you’re being reductionist per se. I think you’re either ignoring, or unaware of, many of the ways in which we express our instincts.

  19. Taking “alpha”, etc., terms seriously is stupid & a waste of time. It only promotes women’s immature sexuality, greed – perennial comparisons, & mental disorders. Women despise the different. Getting a tattoo on the arm does not make you different. To be different is to think differently: To be a scientist or philosopher. Women generally hate these men (or use).

    1. Discussing the dynamics of social rank, is anything but a waste of time. Understanding such dynamics is the only way (besides blind luck) to affect one’s place in the social pecking order. Taking charge of one’s social rank is the very heart of personal agency. The only other option is to let other people, and random circumstance, define one’s place in relation to every other person.
      No thanks.

  20. I have noticed something missing with all these talks about equality from Feminists, Social Justice Warriors, and Political Correctness. They want equality in wealth, power, authority, respect…but not a lot of talk about love. Where is the love?

    1. Nowhere Rock.

      Also they don’t want equality in all the things that you mentioned; the proof is all over the net, the media,articles, college campuses, and the entertainment industry.

      I could list several smoking guns. However look at the uproar over Facebook actually applying their no-hate speech policy across the board to include not using hate speech against men as well. The SJW/feminists had a veritable cow because they thought the no-hate speech rules shouldn’t apply to them saying awful shit about men; they actually come right out and say this shit! It’s all very extreme and very eye opening; your jaw will drop at some of the quotes.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *