I’m both Alpha and beta. There’s a navigation process in asserting oneself that most betas lack for it takes will and skill to be Alpha in the first place. To protect loved ones, I am very Alpha (physically, mentally, spiritually) in short very capable.
As a women though, being Alpha full-time turns me into a micro-manager with a perfectionism complex: efficiency, effectiveness, doing…done. Then Alpha, for me, becomes like a job I’m chained to, a never ending stream of projects. Then gibwiser asks if I can have any fun. Not with my cranky pants on.
But this designation is functional within the group. Like I mentioned in the wolf doc. the more assertive she wolf, Wyakin, was not picked by alpha male, and so was relegated to the Omega female status. That means she could not reproduce and was the last in line to eat. As to why this happened is not certain, but the success of the pack depended on a decision like this. Alpha, beta, omega designates functional status within the group, and despite her personality, or skills, she is functional Omega, just like Melania is functional Alpha, and just like Trump is a functional President.
Yes, she is Alpha by association.
And this is why I say Alpha is a functional designation, just like an idiot boss is still a Boss; except in the wild, the skills and adaptation of alphas to natural environment decides success of the whole pack, or rather, the ever fluctuating natural environment selects for best suited alphas.
Interesting article. Did you notice how most people’s opinions on an Alpha female are very different from each other’s, especially when giving female examples. I would disagree with some of the women chosen to represent an Alpha. It seems as though it is actually difficult to determine.
With the picture of the woman and the baby, I would not necessarily give her the title of Alpha. In fact, she represents what a woman is naturally but this seems to be lost in this generation, hence she is singled out as being different. I suppose she is, because today, she is becoming a rarity. For a woman, it is a privilege to be a mother and wife, but, this also depends heavily on what type of man her husband is. You can’t separate the two. Each complement the other and for the relationship to be successful, there must be respect at least and affection and concern for the well being of each other. A woman does not want to dominate a man, neither does she want to be dominated. I think feminists have much to answer for in this respect.
Once a person gets to know you, Wendy, it’s obvious you know how to have fun.
Pandora, I’m dense right now, so you might have to explain this too me a few times.
Sounds like you’re saying “alpha-ness” is not always a matter of genes, and it’s not always a matter of environment or upbringing, but can be the result of what social roll we are put into. I consider myself to be relatively beta but if I were forced into the roll of group leader at some company, I could probably train myself, or become conditioned, to be alpha. It might also just come out as a function of what people expect from you. For example, the beta she wolf who gets selected by the alpha male (was it beta she wolf? I didn’t watch the whole video) all of a sudden gets the respect and subservience of the rest of the pack (right?). She doesn’t have to do anything. They just treat her as alpha. And so it becomes incredibly easy for her to slip into that roll.
That’s just the point. Most of what we individually consider to be alpha and beta is based on our own subjective thinking and biases unless we really delve into the subject.
Personally, I don’t think that any of us are pure alpha or pure beta. But I may be wrong. Some may be more this or that at times.
Human beings, such as they are, how could they be? I think that we flow in and out of these categories, for the most part, based on outer influences, what needs to be done in the moment. Yes, there is the influence of DNA and upbringing which contributes.
So basically, except for a chosen few, who may be men and/or women, I think we are like alphabet[a] soup.
I consider myself to be like alphabet[s] soup. I’ve been the alpha to the extreme when called for and I’ve also been the beta.
Gib mentioned an alpha and beta gene which surprised me. I am wondering if there has been evidence found for this.
[quote]
With the picture of the woman and the baby, I would not necessarily give her the title of Alpha /quote]
I definitely agree with this but I was taking it further along the lines of what cannot be seen. We judge by appearance without seeing deeper… many of us are like the iceberg but then again, many of us are not.
But let’s say that during childbirth, this woman’s baby was breach and her water broke but she utterly refused to take anything which would be easier on her during childbirth because it could possibly harm her child – now this woman for me would be an alpha female in the moment and probably has alpha strains within. Do you realize the war and the struggle and determination which goes into pushing a beautiful breached daughter into the world? lol That was me and that’s also many women. But I’m like alphabet[s] soup.
But I still think that for many of us we flow in and out of this physical and mental asset…for lack of a better phrase for it. That “spirit” is within but it needs something to call it out. Without that spirit, we’re basically wimps when life demands something of us ~~ or just plain normal humans.
But why is it so important - like i did - to give ourselves such labels? Do we actually need that kind of affirmation in order to be self-satisfied and happy?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not claiming to know such a gene exists. I’d just be really surprised if our alpha-ness/beta-ness wasn’t in part tied to genetics.
‘alpha in relation to children’ That makes no sense at all. Alpha is a term used to denote the highest position/s in a social hierarchy, usually also signifying those who have most offspring in relation to others in the group. Not all dominance makes one alpha. If a group has 100 organisms, is the 2nd lowest ranked organism alpha because it dominates the lowest ranked one?
gib
Females only act aggressive while others tolerate them due to the unofficial “pussy pass”.
As soon as they are treated the same way a man would be treated in the same situation, or even a bit more lenient, usually this change of attitude happens:
If a man slapped a policeman like that, I don’t think he would be treated so nicely and slapped only once.
Anyway, my point is that female dominance/aggression relies completely on male permission.
It’s very different when a female acts aggressively and when a male acts aggressively - for a man the possible costs are much higher because other men will not be as nice and tolerant of him as they would be of a female. They might challenge the aggressive man and beat him mercilessly. So for a man to be aggressive takes courage. This is why male aggression is respected and admired.
The only way a woman’s aggression would deserve the same respect is if she had to face the same costs as a man, if she somehow successfully convinced other men that she is a man so that she is treated as a man. Like this woman:
[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7kP_dd6LU[/youtube]
I remember a game us boys played in school when we were 13-14 years old, we’d randomly slap each other on the upper back as hard as we could. Looking back, it was typical male bonding and testing each other on how strong/resistant to pain we are. The boys who complained and/or didn’t want to participate were considered wimpy and honestly, they were. Of course the teachers were against it, but nobody took it too seriously. Then the tomboy girl came. She wanted to play with the boys and show us she’s no weaker than us, just as tough, blah blah. Then she got smacked on her back and guess what she did - yep, she started crying and went to complain to the teacher, parents were called and the boy who smacked her was in trouble.
That’s basically the problem with most aggressive females - they want to be considered just as tough as the boys, they want the respect the masculine boys have but they don’t want to pay the costs for it. When things don’t go their way they revert to being victims, innocent little girls.
Presuming wolves are anything like humans in this regard, assertiveness is not an attractive trait in females. Males are already in conflict with other males, either minor conflict with other males in their own society in times of peace, or conflict with foreign males in times of war. In his home a man wants to rest and recover to prepare for further conflict, he doesn’t want more conflict there.
Sure, you could say that. But in this thread, I have been focusing only on alpha predispositions–i.e. how one is genetically predisposed to act–a man can be born predisposed genetically to be more beta than alpha, or he can be born predisposed genetically to be more alpha than beta–at least in part. As Arc pointed out, there might also be an environmental element (which can go so far as to knock the alpha “instinct” out of a man, as you and Magnus are trying to say), and as Pandora pointed out, there might be a functional/social element. But that man can pass on his genes. And what if he had a daughter? What if he passed on the alpha gene to his daughter? Would she not then possess the alpha gene? It would only manifest as a predisposition, that’s ture, but my point is only that the gene would be there. Imagine we take a group a girls and drop them on a deserted island and had them grow up together–no men, just women–I guarantee you there will emerge alpha women and beta women–leaders and followers.
I can appreciate this. I’d be reluctant to hit another man in fear that he may hit me back (and be stronger). I wouldn’t fear similar repercussions from hitting a woman, at least for the same reasons (instead I’d feel reluctant from greater feeling of guilt).
But I think this pin-points the crux of the problem–that which women fear most. We are only discussing the male perspective. Sure, women, in this day and age, might feel less fear/reluctance about hitting a man in virtue of the more lenient/effeminate culture we have moved into, but women have always–always–feared the brutal fist of man. I guarantee you that most women (maybe not the one in the video above) still fear this–even in our more lenient/effeminate times. Men still have the potential to overpower women physically, and from a woman’s point of view, they cannot know whether a given man will hold back or spontaneously deliver a bunch. ← That’s still enough–for most women–told hold back. ← That’s why, when a woman hits a man, it takes extreme courage.
In a man’s mind, if he gets into a scrap, he might win, he might lose. In a woman’s mind, if she gets into a scrap with a man, she’s guaranteed to lose. ← It’s a fear that men will never know.
=D>
That’s a really excellent video. It rings so true–about the experience of being a man.
I like the initial story, about how Ned joined the bowling team and found out then men actually aren’t a bunch of neanderthal monsters, that it’s easy to form comradery. ← It really dispels a lot of myths.
I’ve always been more partial to trying to demonstrate men’s good side rather than their villainy. ← It is there. And this video really does the trick.
I think more videos like this ought to be made.
Yep, we’ve all seen that behavior among feminists–the whole “men get to be assholes, why can’t I?” ← They take part in the assholery, get burnt, and then wine and complain.
Again, it’s the typical attitude of “men get to be assholes, why can’t I?” ← I think there’s a serious misconception on the part of feminists that men approve of the asshole boss–like if my boss is being a real jerk to me, I give the thumbs up–you go, sir, treat me like shit some more! Why? Because you’re a guy, and I stand being other guys treating me like shit!–no… no, no, no, and no! ← That’s not the way it is. If anything, guys are more intimidating than girls. If my boss is an asshole, I feel a bit more reluctant to stand up for myself than I would if she were female (I mean, just being my boss, I’d probably feel intimidated anyway, but I think there is a slight matter of degree). I think consequently, it ends up looking like people approve of the male asshole boss more than the female asshole boss–but trust me, no one likes an asshole.
Furthermore, I have a theory of victim mentality that goes a long way to explaining feminist aggression when it comes to women (or at least feminists) becoming the boss. When one is a victim of abuse, one learns the psychological tactics of what puts one’s self into a state of subservience. One learns, by why of experiencing it one’s self, the reason why one is compelled into subservience. If you act out, if you stand up for yourself, you’re going to get it–dire consequences–and so you simply submit, you obey, you do your master’s bidding. And so if one, by chance, gets to be in the master position, if one gets to be the boss, one knows only one thing–how to coerce those below one’s self into submission–how to beat those below you until their will is broken–it worked on you, so it should work on others–that’s the only way the victim knows how to maintain their position as master–it’s what they’ve experienced, it’s what they know works–and so they act the part, they become the asshole.
It’s subtly different from the mentality of the master (thinking here of Nietzsche’s master mentality)–the one who was originally the boss–sure he could be an asshole–but that wasn’t his primary goal–he wasn’t going out of his way to be an asshole, certainly not as a means to maintain his dominance of those who are subservient to him. What he’s doing is going for what he wants. He wants to build his business, make capital, contribute something to society, even making the world a better place–the goods he produces, the services he provides–and the fact that he has to be aggressive in order to do so, the fact that he’s insensitive to the needs and feelings of others, the fact that it requires that he walk over other people in order to get there–is only a means to an end, a side effect–it is not the primary goal as the victim mentality would have it.
That doesn’t necessarily excuse what he does, but I think is dampens the demonization of the asshole boss.
This may seem like a subtle difference but it makes all the difference in the world to those under you. The man who goes for what he wants–aggressively, relentlessly–can still inspire admiration in others, can still perform as a leader. But take that away–the drive to go for what you want–and replace it with a drive to crush others under your heal, and no one likes you.
This is the reason I admire Claire Boucher–the woman quoted in my sig–it summarizes the master mentality. She’s one of the few feminists I admire–she’s sick and tired of talking about feminism, she doesn’t want to gripe about men, or how hard she has it–she just wants to be a producer, she just wants to go for what she wants. ← I really like that.
=D> YES!!!
Really? I thought you said this:
^ That lead me to think you considered goth degenerate.
Any abrupt change from the common pattern of behavior can rightfully be considered an act of degeneration.
If you spend most of your life living in one way and then one day decide to live in a completely different way, then it is rightful to consider your behavior degenerate, self-hating and pretentious.
If your ancestors lived their lives in one way whereas you’re living yours in the opposite way, then it is rightful to call you pretentious, self-hating and degenerate.
If your ancestors were interested in having children, which is what made you possible, whereas you are not, then it is perfectly fitting to call you a degenerate.
If women throughout history spent most of their time following rather than leading, then any women who spends most of her time doing the opposite, which is to say leading, can be considered a degenerate.
You are what you – and not only you but also your ancestors – were in the past.
You are NOT what you want to be or what makes you feel good to be.
The problem with people fighting for liberal values – people like Gib and Mr R – is that they ignore history. They have no respect for it. They have no respect for it because they hate it. They hate it because it is painful; in order to accept it, it is required of them to possess Herculean level of patience which they simply don’t. So it is easier for them to dream.
What is left of reality once you reject history?
Nothing.
Except for fantasy.
Every possible outcome becomes equal to every other.
Nothing to limit your choices.
Everything becomes arbitrary.
Will the sun rise tomorrow?
Maybe. Maybe not. We don’t know.
We have no memory of the past.
Thus no ability to assign probability to any possible outcome.
You might as well through a dice.
Or simply believe in what is pleasing to believe.
Gib is adapted to modern times but what good is that when these modern times are an exception rather than the norm?
Not to mention that democracy, as history teaches, is the dying stage of civilization.
Yes. And based on my observations, I am also inclined to think that some leadership traits are inherited. You can observe from a litter of pups and can tell which ones are most likely to become alphas. In my experience, these are the ones which are usually the most outgoing and curious (not fearful to explore). But who or what decides which traits are the best for a particular goal (in this case, survival)? I don’t think in life it’s always this straightforward.
I had to fight boys when I was around that age too, and never called for help (in fact, it was one of the girls who complained about me during a group fight and I got into trouble…long story…). Anyway, there were 2 boys that picked on me who were older than me (I was 11-12, and they were maybe 13-14, in a more senior class). This was a hangout turf war that was going on between our groups and it just happened that they liked to single me out, when I was alone (I think it was schedule related). Oh, they did not spare me any punches or kicks, trust me, and I had to fight back just as hard (I had no choice, really). I wasn’t going to complain because this thing was between us; it was personal. This was going on for months until they finally backed off, as they weren’t getting anywhere. (this was also when I got into Wushu, which helped me more mentally than anything else)
I don’t think your girl was a real tomboy, I think she was just a manipulative girl who wanted to appear tough. She took the easiest and the most effective way to deal with the situation (and girls can do that to other girls, too, just so you know, and I’m a living proof of that). I’m just saying there are girls who choose not to run for help when they lose, and I have met other women like that. Yes, some of them are hypocrites, but they don’t speak for everyone. Now, this was just teenage macho display stuff, in adult life situations, stakes get much higher. We are not talking about some bruises, or cuts, or damaged ego, (or a poked out eye ); here we are talking about a potential serious damage or likely death, dependent on intent. You’d have to make some serious risk/benefit calculations and do so pretty quickly. Usually, and for the most part, violence, even in adults, is only about submission, its intent is display of domination; but sometimes, the intent is to kill (big difference). It is said that most men will not want to hurt a woman, because they feel uncomfortable doing so, and I have seen this reluctance in training while being paired with a guy who was specifically instructed to strike me with a full force. He was uncomfortable, even though I was fine with it. And those very few men that exist that have no problem in doing so, really have no problem in hurting a woman. Those few is what that training was about. (Women usually have no problem with striking other women. When I was later paired with a little feisty Mexican girl, she beat the shit out of me! She gave me her all! lol! )
Magnus … I don’t recall our paths merging in ILP … I’ve read some of your posts yet never felt inspired to respond.
Seems today is different … your apparent reverence for ancestors … I hope I haven’t misunderstood you … struck a cord with me. I penned(on a keyboard) some thoughts about our past … our ancestors a few months ago. If interested you can browse them here …
Reminds me… When I was in the first grade, I wanted to know what it’s like for a woman to slap a man (after seeing it done so many times in the movies). So, I picked a boy at recess at school and approached him. I said hi and after a short pause I just slapped him. He looked at me in shock, like what’s wrong with me and then he slapped me back. And I was like, that’s not how it works in the movies! lol! Oh, my!
(and no, I did not complain or cry, I was just confused. And a little frustrated maybe, because he was not acting like men are supposed to in the movies. That was a learning experience for me. (I don’t think that boy ever spoke to me again)
I think as children we learn a lot about proper behavior from the adults interacting and try to copy or emulate them.
Pandora … do you think our childhood experiences turn out to be ‘markers’ for our adult experiences?
In sharing some of your childhood experiences … feels like I know you better as an adult … even though I only know you from the few of your posts I’ve read.
As a child … adolescent … you were a ‘scrapper’ in the arena of body. As an adult you are a ‘scrapper’ in the arena of intellect.
As a child you expected life to be like it is in the movies. As an adult you are searching for “Truth” about life.
I think it’s the feeling of guilt mixed with the awareness of possible consequences of hitting a woman. I think men don’t hit women back because of one or more of the following reasons:
externally imposed psychological barriers (indoctrinated with “you must never hit women”)
the only reason you feel a desire to treat them [women] like they’re special is that your brain has evolved to release compassion chemicals when you look at them.
The reason your brain evolved like that is that naturally, most men long ago when faced with a whining woman would have just killed her or left her to freeze to death or starve before she was able to give them children. So it was the men with nonsensical levels of compassion for women that were able to successfully reproduce.[/tab]
If the man is the woman-beating type aggressor and she has to deal with him herself then yeah, definitely. But I’d point out that there is a fine line to be drawn between courage and stupidity - a woman is better off leaving an abusive man than getting into physical conflict with him.
As for goth girls, I made a quick judgment based on the images you posted in the OP and on shortly skimming through the text you wrote about them. In all honesty tho, I don’t know anything else about them which is why I never criticized them specifically the way I did Gaga and Madonna, whom I both know more than I’d want to and enough to confidently make the judgments I made.
Pandora
Yes, these are the mental barriers. They serve a purpose and can be useful, but they can also destructive to both men and women of the group if a man’s innate compassion for women is exploited by convincing him that ANY form of physical dominance over women is undesirable.
Too bad you weren’t watching as I fought back the wimp who assaulted me and tried to rape me. I won out ~~ as scared and shaky as I was. He got up and ran eventually. I was too much for him although I do realize that had it been another man things might have turned out differently. But I would have still done my best to inflict as much on him at least I would have tried.
Your remark is completely off the wall and biased and it is in part this kind of mentality which contributes to females being abused. It also sets both men and women alike, those without self-awareness, way back in time.
I might change your word “permission” to another - it might rely on male barbarianism and his lack of inner power; thus, he has to prove his worth to himself by trying to take sadistic control of the so-called weaker sex. What an alpha male!!!
It isn’t a man’s permission which makes us fierce - it is his astounding biased blind spots which cause us to rise up to take a stand. A woman doesn’t need a man’s permission in the realm of the personal to do anything.
That remark was of the “wimpy” mentality. It’s also a feeble attempt from a particular kind of man to create a smoke screen so that a woman cannot see him in his true fearful, weak form.
Which ancestors? Customs, rules, beliefs, traditions, behaviors and so forth morph through the ages.
The problem with being too orientated toward tradition (a broad term which is hardly ever defined clearly by proponents) is that one looses the ability to perceive & affirm beneficial changes.
Traditions are carried on by instinct. There is little to no need to codify them at this point. If they are codified, it is only in order to help future generations remain in touch with their instincts. Because instincts are plastic, which means they adapt to external circumstances, traditions evolve. I would say it is more accurate to say that tradition is an evolution of one’s instincts rather than a set of instincts or a manifestation of one’s instincts within some period of time.
However, when instincts degenerate, they no longer evolve. This manifests in many ways. One is that people become too attached to dead things such as code. Another is that people become adventurous, future oriented, literally waiting for Peter Pan to take them to Neverland.
Not every change is bad. This is why I only speak against abrupt change.
Adopting habits that are held in high regard is not necessarily a good thing. You must evaluate their effect on your spirit.
Whatever introduces too many foreign elements – contradictions – within your behavior is bad.
A peasant makes himself weaker by suddenly changing his profession to that of a businessman.
Though he might be able to fulfill such a function in the short-term, and acquire various social and material riches, biologically it makes him impoverished because he introduces too many foreign elements in his behavior. His new way of life, being in contradiction to his old way of life, is unsustainable in the long-term.
The same applies to unprotected women, practically abandoned and otherwise unwanted children, who after being forced to endure harsh circumstances become corrupted by excessive stimulation of masculine impulses.
Then gibwiser asks if I can have any fun. 
Not with my cranky pants on. 
I like that.
); here we are talking about a potential serious damage or likely death, dependent on intent. You’d have to make some serious risk/benefit calculations and do so pretty quickly. Usually, and for the most part, violence, even in adults, is only about submission, its intent is display of domination; but sometimes, the intent is to kill (big difference). It is said that most men will not want to hurt a woman, because they feel uncomfortable doing so, and I have seen this reluctance in training while being paired with a guy who was 