The men’s right movement is sadly anti male for the most part. You can find the article I am replying to here.
“For some time now I have watched the immensely popular HGTV as a window on the culture—a large picture window letting in “lots of natural light,” as the rather silly and predictable house hunters are fond of saying—providing a cameo on the conventions of middle-class society. One notices, with few exceptions, that the wives tend to be voluble and bossy; they speak first, far more often, more insistently and more authoritatively. Their needs and desires are clearly predominant. The husbands, for their part, are mostly bland and subservient, almost leguminous in comparison, generally deferring to their wives with only the occasional mewl of protest.”
Why is this articles author David Solway surprised by this? Marriage is an anti male slavery contract for men, designed so women can exploit them. If you are married to a woman, you are a slave full stop.
“One notes, too, the lack of genuine taste, the utter preoccupation with trivialities, and the cloying banality of conversation among the often obese participants. They are obviously hewing to script, but the ideas, habits, physical attributes, speech patterns, attitudes and expectations on display are close enough to the cultural norm to seem authentic. People recognize themselves and their aspirations in these TV episodes. Although the self-indulgence and broadly decorticate behavior one observes is certainly off-putting, the absence of gender parity, in favor of the wives, is perhaps the most conspicuous quality that affirms itself.
One might dismiss these observations as making too much of a mere reality TV show, but HGTV does let in a lot of natural light on a culture grown flaccid and critically disoriented. The ascendancy of the now-dominant, rule-giving female and the attendant decline of the proud and assertive male is the order of the day.”
Married men have never been proudly assertive, you get married you submit to the women.
“The male essence is not a privilege but a fact of nature—that is, when nature is allowed to take its course. Yet, everywhere we look men are surrendering their right to be men—to be strong, confident, honest, unashamed and productive.”
Men gain status so they can be productive and pander to women. Many men will be dishonest if they think it will gain them the girl.
I do not blame the vindictive and self-righteous feminists for the debacle. I blame the men
Of course this trad con blames the men, because like all trad cons he doesn’t believe women have agency. Men and women must of course share the blame for how society has turned out, but women have played a very big part. Women wanted things this way, so men have given them what they want. Men should stop pandering to women, but women should also stop expecting the things they expect out of relationships.
who have allowed a social disaster to come to pass. We now see the gradual disappearance, or at least the alarming paucity, of alpha males in the social mix accompanied by the rising tide of beta males—apologists for their “toxic” nature, Michael Kimmel types— who are complicit with the feminist agenda.
There is no such thing as alpha male, so there can’t be a disappearance of Alpha males. There is no such thing as beta male, so their can’t be any rise of them. I not only consider the concept of alpha and beta males to be anti male, but crypto fascist as well. The alpha and beta dichotomy stems from the right wing desire to have a rigid hierarchy and weak men to scapegoat and bully.
In an important talk delivered at the ICMI conference held in Chicago in October 2019, the video of which is soon to be released, former vice-chair of the Maryland Commission for Men’s Health Tom Golden pointed out that testosterone levels are markedly declining among Western males.
Not this nonsense again. So what if testosterone is dropping? This right wing anxiety is based on anti maleness.
As is well known, testosterone is a male sex hormone that stimulates the production of sperm and the growth of muscle mass. But it is less well known that testosterone is also genetically engineered for status-seeking.
Testosterone is genetically engineered for status seeking? Complete pseudo science babble. Women seek status as well, just as much as men.
University of Zurich neuroscientist Christoph Eisenegger in a major research paper, “The role of testosterone in social interaction,” suggests that testosterone “might be best conceptualized as bringing motives for social status to the fore.” Eisenegger showed that those who maintain that high level of testosterone lead only to corruption, aggression and emotional sterility have not adequately considered the evidence; such studies have been “clearly refuted.” Testosterone is the chemical engine for risk-taking, reciprocity, generosity and competitiveness.
Why is risk taking good? Risk taking to get the girl is wasteful and is missing society up. Anyway I have read articles claiming that left wing men have higher levels of testosterone, and I have read articles claiming that left wingers have lower testosterone. I tend to ignore nonsense like that. These articles often misrepresent the studies they are linking.
Writing in Forbes, Neil Howe alludes to several analytic reports showing that “men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades.” Among the many complex factors involved in the downward trend, a crucial element seems to hinge on “dismantling age-old ideas about masculinity and triggering real anxiety over changing gender roles.”
Gender roles for men suck. The age old ideas about masculinity suck, masculinity is anti male.
There is no doubt that the economy is shifting away “from jobs that favor men [and] toward sectors dominated by women.” Howe is plainly a man of leftist sympathies—Donald Trump is “old-fashioned, overtly macho,” plenty of testosterone there.
Really? How do we know Trumps Testosterone levels? Also I thought testosterone had a calming effect and made men less aggressive? Also look at the children Trump has made with the women he has bred with. Does Trump have Alpha genes? Even if i believed in such a stupid concept, I would not class Trump as an Alpha male.
Nonetheless, while admitting that he might prefer “a less testosterone-laden world [which] might be less aggressive and more emotionally expressive”—as Eisenegger indicates, a thoroughly mistaken notion—Howe remains concerned that America, a once “‘pro-testosterone’ nation: restless, striving, and rowdy…is losing the dynamism, mobility, and enterprise that made it special.”
A pro testosterone nation? What the hell does that even mean? Also this talk about dynamism, mobility, and enterprise is a euphemism for status seeking and attacking other men to take their resources. That is what America is based on.
“In other words, testosterone is an alpha hormone.”
No it is not, there is no such thing as alpha, it is just a made up concept. There are many flaws in this authors logic. First he presumes that alpha males are a thing, also he assume that someone higher testosterone makes men more alpha. Huge leaps in logic there.
“When men strive not to excel and triumph but to conform and acquiesce, to blend in safely with majority sentiment, to not rock the boat (even if it is leaking), to go along in order to get along, and to accept the deformed image of masculinity with which they are daily bombarded, it is a sign that the testosterone pool is drying up.”
Explain the military then? Conformity is what the military demands of men. Most men in the past joined the military because they had no choice, and needed an institution to feed them. They joined and conformed or face violent punishment. This is in fact a very submissive thing to do. Right wingers of course consider the military a masculine thing. When conformity gains men status and the girl, right wingers absolutely love conformity.
“as Tom Golden fears and research has borne out. What is cause and what is effect is an open question. “Has testosterone declined in response to a changed world,” asks Howe, “or has the world changed to accommodate less virile men? Or is it both?” Whatever the answer, the result is the emergence of the beta man.”
“Lets attack the weak beta men, so we can feel better about being low status. ” Nice scapegoating.
“Of course, I am using the Greek alphabet somewhat loosely. Status is to a large degree context-dependent and social prestige may not arise exclusively from the alpha hierarchy.”
There is no such thing as the alpha hierarchy. This is just more made up junk from the hostile lizard brained right wing mind.
“But the distinction between alpha and beta, despite the many shades of gray between them, is a useful one and one that is commonly understood.”
The concept of alpha and beta in human males is vague, nebulous and based on pseudo science. Why do right wingers insist on keeping this nonsensical idea alive?
“As psychologist Scott Kaufman informs us, “The most attractive male is really a blend of characteristics, including assertiveness, kindness, cultivated skills and a genuine sense of value in this world. The true alpha is fuller, deeper, and richer.” It follows that the true beta is emptier, shallower, and poorer.”
No such thing as a true beta or true alpha. All this language is highly subjective and vague. What does a genuine sense of value in this world even means? Is there such a thing as an un-genuine sense of value? Also true alpha and beta? What is the difference between a true alpha and a untrue alpha? I am not nit picking, vague subjective emotional language is very common in right wing articles.
“I’ve had occasion to write in a previous article about the posturing feminist firebrand, Mona Eltahawy, who urges the weekly killing—she calls it “culling”—of men. Eltahawy cites a local instance of her determination to resist the patriarchy and her fierce courage in fighting it, referring to an episode in a Montreal club in which she physically beat up a man who groped her. I am willing to bet the story is apocryphal. Yet her fable limns a social truth, if only metaphorically, for the straw man in Eltahawy’s fevered imagination is the fictive representative of the actual beta male who has permitted, and even abetted and cultivated, the travesty of his unmanning. Though exacerbated and more than ever extensive, this development is by no means a novel phenomenon. It has its history.”
High status men pander to women. Who enforces feminism? It is not the so called “beta males” that is for sure. I think David Solway most likely believes that alphas can pander to women in the correct manly way, and that somehow puts women in their place. Perhaps David can explain how beta males pander to women in an incorrect way? This authors delusional illogical ramblings is a based on the concept of male hyper agency. Men are always to blame somehow and are repsosnblie for everything. Also trad cons want contradictory things, they want men to be “alpha and in charge” yet they advocate for male gender roles based around pandering to women. When this doesn’t work out for right wing men, they have to scapegoat and lash out.
This is a link to a junk article scapegoating un-masculine men. More proof the concept of masculinity is anti male, and is based on male hyper agency.
As far back as 1913, E. Belfort Bax in The Fraud of Feminism framed the issue with his characteristic insight and precision. He is worth quoting at length. “In any conflict of interest between a man and a woman,” he writes, “male public opinion…sides with the woman, and glories in doing so.” Bax finds himself baffled by “the intense hatred which the large section of men seem to entertain toward their fellow-males…and their eagerness to champion the female in the sex war.” It is undeniable, he continues, that the Woman’s Movement, unassisted by “a solid phalanx of the manhood of any country, could not possibly make any headway.” The members of the phalanx—legislators, judges, parsons, magistrates—“all vie with one another in denouncing the villainy and baseness of the male person…To these are joined a host of literary men and journalists…who contribute their quota to the stream of antimanism…the design of which is to paint man as a base, contemptible creature.” Thus “the anti-man cultus has been made to flourish [with] the whole of the judiciary and magistracy acting as its priests and ministrants.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Bax could have been writing at this very moment.
It is ironic that the author of this article is trying to paint “beta males” as base contemptible creates. What Belfort Bax was talking about, is something right wing men do to men as well. This whole article is just male on male hostility. Feminists love attacking all men. Right wing men just want to attack out group men, or men they call soyboys, or betas.
These men may have acted from motives of chivalry or principles of moral virtue. They were not necessarily weaklings or beta males,
The author of this article is a moral coward, and a moral weakling. He is just as anti male as any radical feminist. He just wants to throw a weak target under the bus, to boost up these “masculine men” he worships.
but the consequences of their actions led to a dilution of the male spirit and temper and to the formation of a class of sexual herbivores who took the path of least resistance.
Pandering to women is based around getting status and conformity, there is no spirit of resistance is gaining access to romantic relationships. If Men want to pander to women, They should be a good servant and keep their mouths shut when it backfires on them.
They are our contemporaries, men who may believe they act from high ethical considerations but in reality are feminized creatures who have sold their masculine birthright for a mess of saccharine pottage.
No men pandering to women are not feminised creatures, since pandering to women is a big part of male nature. Gaining status and giving it to women is pandering, and pandering hard.
Men can’t fight back due to a lack of solidarity among men, nasty right wing men like this author love throwing other men under the bus. This hostile attitude makes it harder for men to show solidarity with other men.
For example, if something happened to this articles author, I would feel no sympathy for him, or a desire to help in any way.
As poet Robert Bly writes in his 1990 bestseller Iron John, begging forgiveness for being a man, in violation of natural male vigor and energy, is a form of psychological suicide. It is a function, says Bly, of male naïveté, increasingly prominent in the modern era. “We see more and more passivity in men,” he writes, “but also more and more naïveté. The naïve man feels a pride in being attacked. If his wife or girlfriend, furious, shouts that he is a ‘chauvinist,” a ‘sexist,’ a ‘man,’ he doesn’t fight back, but just takes it.” In fact, he will offer to carry a woman’s pain before he checks with his own heart to see if this labor is proper in the situation…He rarely fights for what is his; he gives away his eggs, and other people raise the chicks.” (Italics mine.)
In Bly’s analysis of the Western tragedy pitting the sexes against one another, “Powerful sociological and religious forces have acted in the West to favor the trimmed, the sleek, the cerebral, the noninstinctive, and the bald”—Bax’s “judges and magistrates”—who are the progenitors of the beta men
This is contradictory nonsense, Judges and magistrates are high status men, yet they are somehow the progenitors of the beta male? Right wingers can’t make up their mind what the term beta male means.
we see all about us today. The beta man is the source of the cultural decrepitude and social dysfunction brought about by the feminist assault on the psychic and biological boundaries that differentiate the sexes. Beta men are committed to resisting what they regard as their raw and turbulent masculinity. They believe that masculinity as historically conceived and as feminists insist is demonic.
Psychic and biological boundaries? What does that even mean? If that means gender roles, feminists have not been attacking that at all. Feminists have in fact fought to enforce gender roles. Feminism is about making gender roles stronger. Feminism is about privilege for women, and servitude for men.
Right wing politics is the same as well. Some lip service paid to very mild gender roles for women, roles hardly ever enforced, and servitude for men. Right wingers basically offer the same deal as feminists, they just package it differently.
For Bly, the antidote to this febrile declension is the Wild Man of myth and folklore—pagan, classic, Celtic—who has been injured in his sexuality and who must return in all his strength, “in touch with God and sexuality, with spirit and earth,” that is to say, with himself. A man must rediscover his “Zeus energy.” And this not only for his own sake but for the sake of woman as well, whose fecund and magnanimous nature “has suffered tremendously,” as a consequence not only of her own resentments and illusions but also of the favonian influence of compliant men. “The goddess Aphrodite,” as he puts it, “alive inside the female body, is insulted day after day.” Regrettably, the Wild Man, or his contemporary avatar the alpha male, whom the mateless woman and the disaffected feminist secretly crave, is very much a minority species. (Interestingly, Neil Howe recognizes that “Millennial women yearn for guys who can ‘man up’ and take care of business,” but there are not enough of them around.)
Manning up and taking care of business? That just means serving women, why isn’t that classed as beta? Because most likely the author is a mentally defective tradcon who contradicts himself all the time. He wants to pander to women in a predictable secure manner, and is upset that female social dominance has disrupted that. Right wing men want to pander to women, but thump their chests and strong man posture at the same time.
Bly has been mocked by critics who find his thesis one-sided, expressing a return to the primitive, and risibly “phallocentric,” a reproof that many would apply to cult hero and magister Jordan Peterson.
Not surprised this nutter is a Jordan Peterson fan.
There is much misunderstanding in this position, for Bly accentuates the virtues of male sobriety and duty and Peterson those of competence and responsibility. In his recently published 12 Rules for Life, Peterson, with his considerable authority as a renowned clinical psychologist and an erudite thinker, elaborates the argument for the retrieval of healthy masculinity in a feminist age.
There is no such thing as a healthy masculinity, as the concept is toxic and anti male. In fact masculinity is “beta” Masculinity is about taking pride in ones male disposability and serving women. No wonder this article is such a emotionally driven mess based on male on male hostility, the author has a contradictory world view that makes no sense.
Following psychoanalytical pioneers C.G. Jung and Erich Neumann, Peterson points out that consciousness, “always symbolically masculine, even in women…is constantly tempted to sink back down in dependency…and to shed its existential burden. It is aided in that pathological desire by anything that opposes enlightenment, articulation, rationality, self-determination, strength and competence”—in effect, the beta capitulation to the triumphant female, the renunciation “of order and of the Logos” by men who have become feminized and submissive.
Masculinity is based on conformity and submissiveness. This is the harsh truth right wingers can’t deal with. They advocate for male slavery, then try and put on a strong man front by pretending they are brave non conformist individuals.
For such convictions Peterson has been denounced as a muddled thinker, a chauvinist, a huckster, a phallocrat, a misogynist, a fascist—you name it. But Peterson’s strength and manliness is evident in his ability to soldier on, to rise above such mean-spirited attacks, to lift his voice against the meretricious orthodoxy of the day, and to turn the tables on his detractors, furnishing an example of the alpha sensibility at work.
Peterson Alpha? Don’t make me laugh. He panders to an ugly unattractive wife.
In economist Tyler Cowen’s terms, America is suffering from a “low-hanging fruit” mentality. We need high-reachers, innovators, motivators and stubborn achievers to renew a lost momentum; in other words, alpha men. Cowen writes from a leftist perspective, with a hefty dose of social justice theory, and focuses mainly on economic parameters over the last two-to-three centuries. But the concept of making do with low-hanging fruit fits the beta man with a strange perfection. These low-hanging fruit are the ideas, attitudes, compulsions, platitudes and opportunities associated with the feminist movement, which serve the appetite for conformity and approval—until, that is, the tree is bare. For a great reckoning is approaching unless we can learn once again to struggle upward where the best fruit can be found.
This is just non sequitur ramblings now.
“It is surely time,” writes Duncan Smith in The Vast and the Spurious, to redefine “the state of gender relations.” It is time “for some major gaslighting, some alternate ways of viewing social life,” to explode the “feminist racket” and educate its male collaborators. This will be a monumentally difficult task. The beta male (aka the “soyboy”) is now the Western model of masculinity to be emulated by all right-thinking men.
Yep he used the term soyboy. A term based on the anxiety of weak low status right wing men, who do not understand how science works.
Unfortunately, Nancy Sinatra’s boots are walking all over him. After all, “you keep samin’ when you oughta be a’changin’”—though, indeed, he is a’changin,’ and at breakneck speed, under the stiletto heels of the Gorgonocracy. The feminist shrew is not the shrew of Shakespeare’s play; she will not be tamed, for there are precious few Petruchios around to right the balance and equally few Katherines who are “meet and amiable.”* As Kate says in her concluding speech: “I am ashamed that women are so simple/To offer war where they should kneel for peace.”
I think that is enough of this trad cons ramblings. This hostile lizard brained nonsense is from a men’s rights site. It is in fact from the biggest men’s rights site on the internet.
The false alpha and beta male dichotomy is anti male and has no place in men’s rights spaces. Anyone who uses that term is pro male spaces need to be told to stop, and if they refuse to do so after it has been explained why, they need booting out. Men who want to cling to this alpha and beta nonsense, do so out of a deep desire to look down on other men and disparage them.
I think it is clear that A Voice For Men is right wing reactionary anti male nonsense. The concept of masculinity is just a stick to beat men with for not conforming to impossible ideals. (They are ideals that are impossible to conform to, because they are based on submitting to women, but somehow being in charge of women.)
There was a time when Paul Elam came up with the idea of the Zeta male, based on rejecting alpha and beta. There was a time when Paul Elam criticised the right, and trad cons. The site has done a complete 180, and is right wing anti male pap. I think it was was important I talked about AVFM and how problematic it is.
A Voice For Men are not our allies that is for sure.