Page 3 of 3

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

PostPosted: 21 Dec 2013, 22:36
by Elliott
Yessica, the alpha/beta thing is more about capability than assets. Neither of the men you describe is alpha.

The first man has assets (money and intelligence) but, from the description, might not have any strength, courage or integrity. I personally like people who are soft-spoken and unassuming, but, by the definitions of manosphere, being soft-spoken and unassuming are signs of weakness.

The second man is just a thug. He has strength but he has no integrity. He might have courage, but it's a stupid, blind sort of courage. Picking fights is not something that an alpha male does. In fact, that need to show off his fighting prowess is probably a sign of insecurity and cowardice. A real man, and certainly an alpha, does not need to beat people up (and certainly not his inferiors) in order to feel confident about himself.

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

PostPosted: 21 Dec 2013, 23:20
by Charlie
Elliott wrote:...but, by the definitions of manosphere, being soft-spoken and unassuming are signs of weakness.


I agree with everything you've written there, Elliott, and I'd just like to add that, while I've read many sound things by manosphere bloggers, there are also people within it who remind me of Christian Bale's performance as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho!

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

PostPosted: 21 Dec 2013, 23:40
by Gavin
I would agree with that, Charlie. Also, re. what Paul said, some men get "success with the ladies" simply by trawling round and "cold approaching" hundreds of women in the street. If they can get three "successes" after one hundred approaches then they think they have done well. None of these will lead to interpersonal relationships, but just to animalistic sex, with the attendant risks.

In a society where the wrong values are widely admired, there is arguably nothing admirable about being "alpha" (as this is commonly understood in the "manosphere"). The qualities to which I refer are: open greed, brutishness, utter selfishness, rudeness, the list goes on - on the the point that Charlie describes (sociopathy). But inner strength and decency, to which I think Elliott is referring, those are indeed admirable qualities, and more admirable women (even if there are fewer of them) will find them so.

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

PostPosted: 22 Dec 2013, 23:59
by Paul
Gavin wrote:I would agree with that, Charlie. Also, re. what Paul said, some men get "success with the ladies" simply by trawling round and "cold approaching" hundreds of women in the street. If they can get three "successes" after one hundred approaches then they think they have done well. None of these will lead to interpersonal relationships, but just to animalistic sex, with the attendant risks.

In a society where the wrong values are widely admired, there is arguably nothing admirable about being "alpha" (as this is commonly understood in the "manosphere"). The qualities to which I refer are: open greed, brutishness, utter selfishness, rudeness, the list goes on - on the the point that Charlie describes (sociopathy). But inner strength and decency, to which I think Elliott is referring, those are indeed admirable qualities, and more admirable women (even if there are fewer of them) will find them so.


I would just like to say that the 'attribute' of being 'popular with the ladies' was not meant to be intrinsically a good thing on every occasion, but it is probably still a good pointer to a certain kind of sharp, dominant and noticeable Alpha-ism. James Bond is popular with the ladies and is certainly an Alpha male, but you wouldn't necessarily say he's a crude, underclass thug. His alpha-ness is very refined (and yet deadly) but he still attracts the girls (and takes them on). Of course James Bond is a fiction, though his character is constructed somewhat as an archetype. The archetypal traits include popularity with the ladies as one of the proving factors of his dominance. People may tut-tut at the 'leisure' antics of James Bond but I don't think anyone really thinks him crude or unworthy because of it. There is in his behaviour a certain amount of grudging appeal.

Well, all the above applies to anyone except Liberals and such types I suppose.

The real world Alphas whose descriptions may well have been continually enhanced by archetypes, would still doubtless be thus described as tall, handsome, athletic, capable, fearless, risk-taking, and even rakish and 'devil-may-care'. The latter two attributes may well be some of the reason why another (and not least) of their talents would be a popularity with the ladies. These type of men are the ones that carved out empires, explored new horizons, conquered great adversity and accomplished seemingly near-impossible feats. Many of them have gone down as heroes of entire countries or eras.