Feminists and Alpha Males vs. Civilization

by Female Masculinist on April 29, 2010

One of the big puzzles of feminism is how it ever got off the ground at all. Men run the world and always have; men are smarter, stronger, and more aggressive than women; feminists could never have gotten anything they wanted if men hadn’t permitted them to have it. So why did men give up their position of power?

This is only partly answered by the inventions and discoveries (made by men) that made female independence remotely possible. Birth control methods were unreliable until a few decades ago, when scientific advances by men improved them. Before a man discovered penicillin, sexual experimentation could lead to horrific incurable diseases; the well-founded terror of syphilis, not “men’s need to control women’s sexuality”, was what used to keep the unmarried chaste. And before the many machines men invented, a lot of work required more musclepower than women have; their engaging in it was impossible before men made it easier. Not to mention that men’s labor-saving inventions created enough prosperity to create more jobs that were not back-breaking manual labor. I would have a great deal more respect for feminists if any of them ever thanked men for these gifts which have made all of their current privileges possible.

The reason men allowed feminism to progress is that alpha males are not harmed by feminism, and it is alpha males who have the power to grant women the privileges of feminism.

In fact, alpha males often benefit from feminism. If women have contraception and can sleep around without censure, this means the alpha males have harems who don’t whelp children he will then have to support. If women have disposable income of their own, they can and will buy piles of junk from companies owned and headed by alpha males. If women are permitted to vote, they will vote for the alpha males who 1) make them tingle and 2) promise to steal lots of stuff from the beta males and give it to them. This is what motivated alpha males in government to allow such atrocities as default mother custody, alimony, ludicrous “domestic abuse” laws, and sex discrimination lawsuits. Really, women were only given the vote because alpha males in government knew that they would win the next election or two based on the gratitude of the females they enfranchised, i.e. women would vote for the men who gave them the vote. That another decade down the road they would have to find more bread and circuses to trade for votes, and that allowing the irrational sex to vote would progressively damage the country over the years, did not concern them; politicians do not take a long view of consequences, they care only about winning the next election. In the next couple of decades we will see politicians extending the vote to twelve-year-olds so that said twelve-year-olds will vote for them.

PUA websites frequently conflate the terms “beta male” and “omega male” (or “mangina”). This is a grave error. A mangina is a doormat. A beta male is not the dominant stud who can melt a woman’s panties off with a glance, but he is far from a doormat. Furthermore, beta males are the foundation of civilization.

Really, civilization could get along without alpha males if we were not hierarchical creatures; psychologically, we need to have a figurehead playing the part of leader, even if their role is ceremonial, which it often is. The fact is that beta males not only do most of the work, they make most of the discoveries and advances. Alpha males don’t do this because they’re too busy convincing everyone around them that they are alphas. Most of the time, the only useful functions alpha males serve is to hold the ceremonial place of “leader” and to make ginas tingle.

Polygyny and female hypergamy is the natural human social system. Women will claim that they want a man all to themselves, but what they want is the wealthy handsome playboy from the Harlequin romances to stop playing the field and commit to them exclusively. When he won’t, which is almost always, women will and do settle for sharing one alpha male with several other women. On a personal level, this is more in their interest; an odalisque in a harem with two dozen other women will be better provided for than a peasant’s only wife, and so will her children.

It is an irony much remarked on by PUAs that the “sexual liberation” of women has lead to a harem system: “Women want the top man…so the top man fucks lots of women. That’s right – the sexual revolution, feminism, etc has resulted in a return to harems. Women, at the mercy of their own emotions, are volunteering for the modern-day equivalent of harems.”

But while the sluts and alphas are having fun, this is not a good system. Polygamous societies are notoriously politically unstable. They are prone to civil wars. Further, they tend to have high levels of poverty and crime and very little scientific advance or artistic achievement.

The most that any government (authoritarian or otherwise) can do to control the behavior of its citizens is to threaten them with death. From an evolutionary psychological perspective, as Rubin himself (2002, 120–21) recognizes, the threat of death does not carry much weight for young men in highly polygynous societies faced with the distinct possibility of total reproductive failure because of a lack of reproductive opportunities. From the perspective of the genes, total reproductive failure—not leaving any offspring—is death. Thus, for the same reasons that polygyny (and a consequent lack of reproductive opportunities) inclines men to murder, rape and assault, despite the distinct possibility of state criminal penalty, the same desperate situation can lead them to wage civil wars for potential reproductive opportunities (Kanazawa 2007). There is very little the state can do to control the behavior of young men in polygynous societies even with the threat of death.

Evolutionary Psychological Foundations of Civil Wars by Satoshi Kanazawa

Why? Well, because of their treatment of the people who make both social stability and cultural advance possible: beta males. As Roger Devlin pointed out, “No one has ever discovered a better way of employing [young men's] time and energies than by making fathers of them.” With children of their own to raise and provide for – or at least the reasonable hope of such – young men will educate themselves, work hard, and submit to mind-blowingly dreary jobs instead of robbing, rioting, and raping. (Note that those three activities are common pastimes of young Muslim men, the ones always referred to by left-wing journalists as “youths”.)

By denying the majority of males any stake in civilization, any incentive for good behavior, feminists and alpha males are conspiring to create a world in which violent crime is commonplace and scientific advance is doomed.


Note: For some pro-beta material, check out these links:

The Roissysphere and its moral and intellectual objectives: a proposed manifesto

The Beta Revolution

The Alpha Male, the Beta, and Pitcairn Island, or Watch Your Back

Why the Beta Male Exists

Previous post:

Next post: