And again, I will point out that the ideas in our heads are not reality. The map is not the terrain. The better those ideas conform to reality the better they work. And when people can poke gigantic holes in those theories...those are not workable theories.
As for Vox Day and John Scalzi, I suspect Day is deeply envious of Scalzi's success, which he will never equal, even though he is a better writer than Scalzi.
And his and Roissy's obsessions with "Alphas" speaks volumes about their profound insecurities with their own masculinity.
I'll repeat: just because I post an article from a blog does not mean I agree with everything in it.
This article is from the Black Pill blog.
"There are fundamental problems with the so called manosphere’s alpha/beta system. (This also applies to the variants that include sigmas, deltas, gammas, and other categories.) The 80/20 rule of (approximately) 20% of men being attractive to women, and 80% of men being unattractive to women is correct. However, the manospherian alpha/beta system doesn’t accurately describe this phenomena. Instead of using 'alpha' to mean the 20% of men attractive to women and 'beta' to describe the 80% of men unattractive to women, the so-called manosphere adds a huge amount of their own ideology to what 'alpha' and 'beta' are. As a result the manosphere’s alpha/beta system doesn’t reflect reality or the 80/20 rule correctly.
"I noticed this problem most recently when I followed link to Roissy’s most recent 'beta of the month' contest. One of the nominees is John Scalzi, a crappy science fiction writer, who also happens to be a feminist magina freak. He also engages in cross dressing. I don’t know if it is just to promote feminism or something he actually enjoys. It doesn’t matter. Scalzi is clearly one of the biggest manginas ever.
"While Scalzi is a huge mangina, this says nothing about him being a beta or being in the 80%. Being a mangina isn’t equivalent to being an excessive beta. In fact, there is really no such thing as excessive betaism because being the 80% simply means that you’re unattractive to women. What the so called manosphere is attempting to do is smear two separate things together, being in the 80% of men unattractive to women and being a mangina. As a result, in manosphere ideology being an alpha means you can’t be a mangina. Both ideas are wrong. A man in the 20% can easily be a mangina, and a man in the 80% can easily not be a mangina.
"Take someone like Hugo Schwyzer. With his sexual history (especially the perverted side of it), Hugo is an alpha. He is also clearly a huge mangina like John Scalzi. Scalzi is in the 80% while Schwyzer is in the 20%, yet both are huge manginas. On the other hand, you have guys in the online gaming community (who are deeply in the 80%) using extremely harsh (but necessary) measures to keep women out of their space. The online gamers working to keep women out of online gaming are probably some of biggest anti-manginas around. A man who is in the 80% is not more likely to be a mangina than a man in the 20%. A man in the 20% can easily be a magina because women can control him with sex. The anti-magina online gamers can’t be controlled with sex because women aren’t having sex with them already. It’s not like women can refuse to have sex with them any more than they already are. However, being in the 80% doesn’t guarantee that a man will not be a mangina. A man in the 80% might become a mangina in a desperate attempt to get laid and/or get a relationship with a woman. (Manospherians aren’t getting laid, and they are manginas.) And you also have freaks like Scalzi.
"Despite it being contrary to manosphere ideology, alphas (or more correctly men in the 20%) can easily be manginas. Since the so-called manosphere can’t understand this, it means they can’t see the reality that’s right in front of them. This is evident in the conspiracy theories that the manosphere believes in. Manospherians treat the Jews/Illuminati/Bankers/Whoever they think is ruling the world in their conspiracy theories as alphas. Thus they can never see women as being the driver of feminism. This drives them deeper into conspiracy theories about feminism despite the fact that such conspiracy theories fail to describe what is happening in the real world. Until manospherians can realize that alphas can be manginas, they will not understand how feminism works in the real world."
Me again. I'm going to point out that those who cannot handle criticism and respond with ad homenim attacks and denial...are "Betas" if not lower. Heh heh.
"The online gamers working to keep women out of online gaming are probably some of biggest anti-manginas around."
This is either wishful thinking or projection of insecurities.
The way way I see it:
The modern man gets mad that life is rigged, so they "cheat" (PUA) to get back at the womenthat set them up.
This doesn't fill the hole in their soul.
Then they get mad at life again, so they decide to really "fight" back against men that set them up(MGTOW).
This also doesn't fill the hole in their soul.
Everything (maginas, alpah/beta, etc.) is just window dressing to this.
There was never a hole or there was never a soul.
That's the mystery that causes all the teeth gnashing.
I think people apply 80/20 pareto rule when it doesn't apply. How do they know that it applies to human behavior?
The problem with the manosphere (Roissy, Rollo Tommassi, etc.) is lack of scientific rigor and analysis in supporting their theories about human behavior.
Only 20% of men attractive to women?
Are you fucking kidding me? Really?
If that was the case, we wouldn't be 7 billion people today.
Post a Comment