Thursday, August 30, 2012

The Lost Boys of the Manosphere

I have been reading the Manosphere for about the last six months. Before then I had never heard of it. But there is nothing in it that hasn't been covered hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

The Manosphere is in some ways a needed corrective to the destructive influence of leftist/lesbian feminism, which, being enforced by law, has been immensely destructive to society and the relationships between men and women.

One of the things feminism has done is damage and sometimes destroy the traditional concepts of masculinity. Since leftists believe there is no human nature, and that people are plastic, they think they can remold men’s characters and in effect make them more like women. Oftentimes this involves the use of drugs such as Ritalin.

This attempt to change men's inherent characters is not only nonsense; it’s dangerous nonsense. As the late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn noted, “Leftists don’t merely misunderstand human nature; they don’t understand it at all.”

Since men are responsible for the creation of civilization, the attempt to destroy men is in fact the attempt to destroy civilization. As Camille Paglia noted, without men women would still be living in grass huts.

Unfortunately, many young men have lost the idea of what it means to be a man. So they’ve been looking to the Manosphere for ideas.

People learn by imitation. I’d never realized that until years ago when I read Thomas Jefferson and he pointed out that people only learn by imitating other people. Unfortunately this imitation can be for good or bad.

People not only learn by imitation, they look to leaders to teach them. Role models and mentors, in a nutshell. Again, unfortunately, mentors can be good or bad.

One of the more foolish concepts in the Manosphere is the concept of the “Alpha.” No one can agree exactly on what an Alpha is, but they’re generally supposed to be good-looking guys with lots of money who get all the women. They are supposed to be immune to what women say and are predatory toward them so they can pump ‘n’ dump ‘em.

I’ve had guys quote to me the exact definitions of an Alpha, a Beta, a Delta, a Gamma, a Sigma and an Omega. Those guys are particularly lost.

Apparently there are younger guys reading the Manosphere who think, “Well, if I imitate what Alphas are supposed to be then I’ll become an Alpha instead of being the Gamma or Delta I really am.” Good luck with that.

The idea of the Alpha I listed above is the classic definition of a narcissist or at worst a psychopath. Such people have no conscience or empathy.

Narcissists appear to be confident and unconcerned with what others think. In reality they are using those traits to cover up their feelings of inferiority and feelings of humiliation. That’s what a narcissist Alpha really is: a fake confidence on top covering up feelings of shame.

I once watched an Alpha on TV claim he’d had sex with about 130 women. This guy clearly has no concern for the feelings of these women. He is predatory and uses them. He had no empathy or compassion toward them. To him they are just things for him to use.

The original term to define these “Alphas” is a cad. My experience with promiscuous exploitative cads is that all of them are cowards.

As I’ve written before these Alphas end up ruining their lives by middle-age. I’ve seen it. And younger men think these are the men they want to emulate? And these are the kinds of men the leaders in the Manosphere say are the ideals who should be imitated? That is the best definition of a fool that I have seen in a long time.

These Gammas and Deltas are humiliated by what they are so they try to cover their feelings of humiliation and inferiority by pretending they are Alphas or Sigmas. It ain’t gonna work.

The traditional definition of a man in the West (I am unconcerned with what a man is supposed to be in non-Western cultures) is that of the chivalrous man.

Chivalry evolved from Christianity and is based on the better warrior virtues. It was based on defending the weak and helpless, including using violence if necessary, and being noble and honorable. It was the code that knights were ideally supposed to use.

The code of chivalry is the exact opposite of what an Alpha is supposed to be, according to many bloggers. A narcissist or a psychopath is not something you want to be.

The worst of psychopaths are particularly gruesome. All serial killers are psychopaths and they are so utterly lacking in a conscience that some them are cannibals and necrophiliacs. Think Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.

I have never seen anyone in the Manosphere make the connection between what an Alpha is supposed to be and the fact they are narcissists and sometimes psychopaths. I have seen a few make the connection that Alphas are cads and cowards. I have also seen a few make the connection between chivalry and masculinity.

I've also seen some who don't understand the concept of chivalry and apply their misunderstandings to their Manosphere beliefs.

I consider the modern concepts of Alpha, Beta, etc., to to basically ridiculous. These concepts were covered several hundred if not several thousand years ago.

The original concept of a chivalrous man was an armed knight willing to do violence to protect the weak, helpless and powerless. They were noble, honorable and self-sacrificing. Is that not both Alpha and Beta traits combined?

On one of the more popular Manosphere blogs that idealizes the narcissist Alpha there was posted a picture of Prince Harry with an adoring beautiful woman (who I suspected was supremely stupid) whispering in his ear. He had his chin in his hand.

The caption was “The Alpha Male Look” with the text under the picture reading, "If you can adopt this posture in your dealings with women, you will alter their perception of you in the direction of presuming your sexy alphaness." Really? An effete degenerate aristocrat who's never had a job in his life and never will is an Alpha to be imitated? I had this image of a bunch of foolish guys sitting in a bar with his chins in their hands and thinking, “Where’s the babes? I’m imitating an Alpha!”

The degenerate behavior of aristocrats has been noticed for thousands of years. There are many jokes about the perversions of them. In fact, one of the reason the Constitution forbids titles of nobility is because the Founding Fathers were well aware of what aristocrats were.

Why do so many people fall for dubious concepts? They seek meaning and importance and community in their lives. Security. They seek to be part of a group that agrees with them. They seek leaders who know have confidence and know what's going on.

I don’t know how this Alpha/Beta/Delta/Gamma/Omega nonsense got started. But I do know it’s a detour from ancient wisdom and those who follow it are confused in the first place and just might end up even more confused. In some cases - far too many - they will end up confused.

The problem, ultimately, with these wannabe Gamers/PUAs, is that they're terrified they're wimps.


Ian Ironwood said...

Apparently three months are not enough. You've grasped the basic concept of the Manosphere, but you seem woefully ignorant of the specifics and terms-of-art. You say that no one seems to be able to ... define, detail, explain, but that is an error. If you haven't found adequate explanation then you were distracted by the temptation to look down on these men as misguided and foolish, instead of seeing the reality of the situation. In that, the fault is not with the Manosphere.

The SocioSexual Heirarchy is well-known as Vox Day's, and may be found here:

The 16 Commandments of Poon are Roissy's, and they may be found here:

If you cannot understand the concept of "Alpha", as such, then let me explain it to you like this:

Did you ever get laid without begging, pleading, or paying for it? Then you displayed some Alpha. Or if you've ever been the life of the party, you've displayed Alpha. If you've ever been the dominant member of the group, you've displayed Alpha. If you've ever been the one to take charge and make something happen, you displayed Alpha.

Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Three months is barely enough time to scratch the surface of the Manosphere. And not nearly long enough to form an informed opinion.

Bob Wallace said...

I have forgotten more than you will ever know.

Ian Ironwood said...

Memory is often the first thing to go.

If you know so much about the Manosphere which you have studied for all of three months, then how come you have not included all of the non-PUA stuff -- Athol Kay's work, for instance, or the other aspects of Game which fall outside the very narrow view you present here? That's like saying that because you read Andrea Dworkin you "know all about feminism".

The Manosphere is made up of all specifically male interests and issues. And yes, getting laid is a prime masculine issue. So how does teaching men how to do it better score so low in your personal book? Would you prefer a nation of stumbling buffoons who can't even approach a girl? Because that's what we're headed for. Guys come to us for advice on Game because our stuff works. "Be yourself" and "be a Nice Guy" clearly doesn't.

Bob Wallace said...

It amuses me how the ignorant, who cannot think for themselves, and know nothing of 3000 years of what it means to be a man, can do little more than imitate the narcissistic blowhards of the Manosphere, whose biggest fears is that they are wimps.

Ian Ironwood said...

Thankfully, we're not here to amuse you.

Say what you will -- despite your talk of unoriginal thought, the fact is that the views on masculinity being expressed in the Manosphere are the novelty, not the tepid ideology espoused everywhere by feminism for the last forty years. If it "amuses" you then you've declared your own ignorance, because if you actually understood what was going on at the very least you'd be thoughtful and a little bit frightened. You certainly wouldn't try to diminish your fellow men for their honest effort with shame and scorn, which is either a blatant attempt to curry favor with the women in your life or a heart-felt expression of a self-loathing and stunted masculinity.

The currency of Men is respect, and when you fail to give it appropriately you deny yourself the dividend. And when you demean your fellow men, you impoverish us all.

SirStanley said...

I only discovered the Manosphere after I created my own website about damn near the same thing. I was tired of seeing guys on the internet and in real life saying "I'm a nice guy, why don't girls like me?" and "Why do girls like good looking guys with money?".

This crap is so ridiculous. I treat women well. But I don't pander to them and bow down to them. I have money, big house, all that jazz. And I have never had any problems getting a girl. I have helped friends in real life get over this "nice guy" BS and actually start meeting women.

After I started my web site about all the crap that's wrong with this world (not just the man stuff, but religion, economics, etc) I discovered the Manosphere and thought these guys hit the nail on the head. And a lot of them have.

But sadly, it's about 50/50. 50 percent REAL MEN trying to blaze the trail of being real men again. And about 50 percent wimpy, whiny, beta, losers. And instead of trying to teach these poor wimpy guys to be REAL MEN, they just teach them to IMITATE real men. I don't agree with that at all. Instead of telling a guy to PRETEND he has money, confidence, and leadership qualities, you should tell him to hit the gym, get a better job, become a man, then go get the girls. Actually, the girls will come to him.

Just my little rant. I still respect the Manosphere, but I hope we see real men teaching others to be real men soon, and less whiny boys trying to imitate,

terrence popp said...


Anonymous said...

That degenerate aristocrat happens to be a soldier. Who has been in the real bang-bang war at the combat zone.

Military is the traditional career choice of the aristocracy. Both degenerate and vigorous.

DeNihilist said...

Here Bob, is the most cogent description that I have been able to find in the Mano. Seems though, that most "leaders" refuse to see its' validity.