2012 April 06 Friday
Heartiste: Why Beta Males Pedastalize Women
Betas have too little experience with women to see their darker aspects.
Why do so many betas harbor gauzy delusions about female sexual nature? Why are monogamously inclined traditionalists, manginas and white knighters so quick to sanctify women and paint their misbehavior in rose-colored hues while simultaneously offering unconditional support and shitlapping amen choruses for women when they accuse men of committing a litany of hackneyed misdeeds?
Iím here to provide what I believe is the most parsimonious answer to this riddle:
Beta males are rarely in a position to witness the worst of women.
This is so true. A beautiful girlfriend from hell did much to rewrite my software for evaluating women. Getting propositioned by young married women and other experiences with women have made additional contributions to my much altered view. If I could only tell my adolescent self what I had to learn the hard way...
I am struck by how many myths about human nature survive and how many different people see it in their interest to promote assorted myths. Take marriage for example. Some married people encourage other people to get married basically in order to validate their own choice. Some do not want to admit to themselves how dissatisfied they are with their mate and their lot in life. They'd rather see everyone stuck in the same boat because they want more company for their misery.
You are better off knowing the truth. The more accurate your model of humans becomes the more possible it becomes to make sense of the world. One needs to be a genius to rationalize huge falsehoods with the world as you experience it so that you can make good decisions for yourself and yet still maintain the falsehoods. A correct model of the world lowers your cognitive load substantially. The behavior of others becomes much less surprising. Misunderstandings happen less often. Dealing with others at work and in your personal life becomes easier the more you understand the implications of everything from differences in cognitive ability to the differences in mating strategies of men and women (e.g. why women want the confirmation of other women for their choices whereas men make up their minds about love interests on their own).
Movies, TV shows, and most of what passes for mainstream media discussions of human nature make you you less able to understand the world. You've got seek out the best heterodox writers if you want to understand human nature.
Good grief. What's with the obsession with broads? You've got a market value in the mate game. Realize it, and stop obsessing. It's not like women are all that different anyway. We're talking minor traits that are important, sure, but if a space alien had to spot those traits, he'd be hard-put to identify them. I guess I'm a "monogamously inclined traditionalists", but I don't put women on pedestals. You recognize each other as human, and go along to get along.
And, those "gauzy delusions" are just a necessary feature for folks to get together when the time is right. There's no beta or alpha about them. You grow out of them, when the time is right. I presume it would be when folks are past prime mating time (for early plains dwelling hominids).
It seems that the author of the article divides the alphas and betas into two simple classes, but within the alphas and betas there are many subdivisions. Many alphas and betas have different kinds of goals and different moral standards within their classes, different levels of intelligence and different forms of intelligence. The author also paints all women as traitors who are ready to abandon their present commitment and sell themselves to any alpha who has power. Certainly many beta women would do this, but many other beta women would not. By the way, I am a beta male, but in college and graduate school I have met many very decent beta women who were not only happy about their beta natures, but they also wanted a beta man that was compatible with them, in such a way that they were not interested in alphas. In fact, a beta woman that I knew actually rejected many alphas before she met me and wanted a stable beta like her father, and unfortunately I hesitated and she ended up marrying another beta. And in the end my beta ex-wife did turn out to be a beta that was interested in alphas (as described by the author's article). So I know which beta girls are better than others. Another factor is that various betas have different levels and forms of intelligence: even without much experience, intelligent betas intuitively know what women are thinking and feeling, but due to their insecurities they are censoring their own perceptions and falling into traps. Some betas are so intelligent that they can read all alphas like a book, and if they can overcome their insecurities, they can use their intelligence to avoid getting victimized. Also the quoted article seems to imply that all alphas are the same, but in reality some alphas have very high moral values.
Games boys always remind me of former smokers. They hate what they used to be. Scratch a game boy and you'll find a 'beta male who used to pedastalize women' not far below the surface.
They were wrong then and they're wrong now, even if wrong in a different way.
>"Why do so many betas harbor gauzy delusions about female sexual nature? Why are monogamously inclined traditionalists, manginas and white knighters so quick to sanctify women and paint their misbehavior in rose-colored hues while simultaneously offering unconditional support and shitlapping amen choruses for women when they accuse men of committing a litany of hackneyed misdeeds?"
One of their more irritating traits is this habit of talking in their own private made-up dialect, one which has their own view of the world built into its language. I'm reminded of communists screeching about "imperialist capitalist running dogs" whenever I encounter these nitwits babbling on about "monogamously inclined traditionalists, manginas and white knighters".
>"A beautiful girlfriend from hell did much to rewrite my software for evaluating women."
So who wrote your software for evaluating women in the first place?
One thing which has become obvious to me with respect to the popularity of bloggers like Heartiste is that a significant minority of American men grow up with a faulty view of the nature of women. They grow up thinking that women are creatures of pure goodness. At some point they discover the error of this assumption, at which point they rebound to their new but equally dumb position of "Women are all lying whores!"
Here's a radical possibility - perhaps the belief that women are all X or all Y is the root of your problem. Perhaps women are a lot like men. Perhaps some women are smart while other women are dumb, some women are chaste while other women are promiscuous, some women are good while other women are bad, some women are honest while other women are liars, some women are loyal while other women are backstabbers. Perhaps the error lies in the attempt to shove all the women in the world into a narrow categorical box, and you can't rectify this error simply by substituting one tiny box ("women are alpha loving sluts") for another ("women are the distilled essence of goodness").
>"They'd rather see everyone stuck in the same boat because they want more company for their misery."
There's a textbook piece of projection.
"Here's a radical possibility - perhaps the belief that women are all X or all Y is the root of your problem. Perhaps women are a lot like men. Perhaps some women are smart while other women are dumb, some women are chaste while other women are promiscuous, some women are good while other women are bad, some women are honest while other women are liars, some women are loyal while other women are backstabbers. Perhaps the error lies in the attempt to shove all the women in the world into a narrow categorical box, and you can't rectify this error simply by substituting one tiny box ("women are alpha loving sluts") for another ("women are the distilled essence of goodness")."
Except, men have a lot more to lose in the workplace, in marriage and in relationships than women do. The work, the legal and the marital laws are all in their favor. To navigate this minefield, you need rigid categories to avoid the catastrophic losses entailed in dealing with women.
Solaris: spot on.
Wolf-Dog: Your comment made me think of Rick Santorum and how his success with women was ignored in the "manosphere".
In the middle of the GOP primaries, the story was emerging that Rick Santorum, in some states, was overwhelmingly winning
the women's vote. You even had young, college-aged women being quoted as saying that they agreed with his stances on birth
control. One pretty co-ed even said, "Abstinence is best!"
Now, you would have thought that a story about gender and politics would be a hot topic here, tailor-made!, but... crickets.
New York Times, Washington Post, every mainstream publication wrote about it and came up with their own theories. At first,
I believed that the "manosphere" would come along and amend those theories, but nothing.
A guy like that is not supposed to exist and so must be ignored. His existence exposes so much of what they say as lies and
that's why he was ignored.
The best they would be able to do is lie about him and say he is a "beta" and that his choice of wife is proof (Ferdinand
did just this way back before it was known the ladies liked Santorum). Ferd's piece was half-baked. I've read a lot about Santorum
and found that given who he was back then (and not assuming he was always a crusader), he did marry someone similar to himself:
he was wild, drank a lot, had a bombshell blonde girlfriend in college and was pro-choice up until around the time he and
his wife became engaged.
Game boys STILL pedestalize women, just in new ways. They used to do it in beta ways by trying to impress women with being *nice*, now they do it by trying to do all sorts of acrobatics to impress women with how *tough* they are.
The psychology of a beta is essentially the psychology of a guy who does game, thats whats so hilarious about it.
It seems that for the type of guy who needs female validation, all that changes is the methodology, never the basic mindset ;)
Yesterday it was being *nice,* today it is being *tough*, tomorrow it will be whatever new their master, woman, desires. Heartiste tries so hard to impress you with how cool he is it is laughable - dont try so hard, buddy, we get it, you are super-cool and all the girls love you ;)
For myself, either a girl likes me, or she does not. I would try to to impress her with how *strong* I am with all the silly game tactics, and I would never try to impress with how *nice* I was with all the mainstream stuff you read about.
On my god! So much testosterone is making me doubt my manhood, ha, ha. Since all posts here seem to come from men implying to be alpha, I'm just gonna go ask my girlfriend, my girl-friends, my sisters and my girlfriend's sisters what they think about stuff. Maybe I'll even ask a queer too.
Everybody here seems to have a good idea of what an alpha male is, but I'm not so sure they do about a beta one. Or a gamma or asigma or an epsilon or a theta. I wonder if there is a well-established criteria for malehood on whatever letters of the Greek alphabet.