Raised without those things, they fell right into the Manosphere trap of thinking "Alphas" exist (grandiose self-image) and that the worst thing to be is a "Beta" (devalued self-image).
That split is purely purely narcissistic and based on insecurity and a poor self-image. Funny that in history not only was the word "Alpha" never used to describe men, the concept didn't even exist.
In the past a man was someone who was a protector and provider (the so-called Beta) yet courageous/confident (the so-called Alpha). A whole man was both.
Of course people tell me, "That's not what an Alpha/Beta is, it's this, blah, blah, blah." They can never figure what the concepts are, because each believer makes up his own definitions. They don't believe that, either. And they defend their beliefs with every rationalization and excuse in the book.
But the ones I listed are close enough. Besides, I repeat, what the definitions are is narcissistic, being based on that split. And the split is based on a weak, insecure, grandiose "Alpha" self-image covering up an even weaker, devalued "Beta" self-image. The one that was created by those weak/nonexistent fathers, clueless incompetent mothers, and worthless schools.
The concepts of confidence/courage were covered thousands of years ago with the Four Cardinal Virtues: confidence/courage, prudence, justice, and self-control. And if you lack one of them, you lack all of them.
You cannot have courage/confidence without prudence (choosing the right path out of many), justice (giving each his due) and self-control (not being impulsive). I have seen the truth of this without exception in my life.
Because young men are lacking so much courage/confidence today (many don't even look at women anymore, or approach them), women prefer whatever confident men there are. And men get confused about that too, coming up with that weird concept that women prefer jerks and those of the Dark Triad (I was raised with such guys, have two relatives in prison, and none of them are popular with women). The only reason guys believe this nonsense is because they read it in the Manosphere, not because of personal experience.
What it's coming down to is confidence. It's hard to develop it with those aforementioned lacks of fathers, dipshit mothers and schools and the media, and no mentors. You can't get those things from mommy, no matter what form she takes.
And you sure aren't going to get what you need with that narcissistic Alpha/Beta split.
If dark triad guys aren't popular with women, how do you explain the fact that Scott Peterson was getting BOXES of letters containing marriage proposals from women, while decent guys cannot even get a date?
Fallacy of composition. Also look up the word "Hybristophilia."
Also, if you dispute the use of alpha & beta, how do you explain the mass POPULARITY of Roissy, Roosh, etc.? What about the fact that a mighty intellect in the form of Vox Day subscribes to what Roissy says?
Vox Day claims he is a Christian but in fact is a heretic, Roissy is a wimp who had his heart broken and never got over it (read the Memoirs of Casanova to understand this) and he hates women no matter what he says.
Roosh hates himself, too, and has admitted he is bored and jaded with his hedonistic and nihilistic life. The same destructive, hedonistic and nihilistic problems apply to the fraud Rossy, too.
"Vox Day claims he is a Christian but in fact is a heretic,"
Which is *only* relevant to what he has to say about Christianity. Thus as an assertion related to the 'manosphere' it is irrelevant.
By the way, is the term 'Uncle' some sort of rank in one or other established Christian hierarchy? Such that you have some sort of authority denounce heretical thought.
Otherwise your opinion on Christian doctrine is irrelevant.
"Roissy is a wimp who had his heart broken and never got over it "
Assertion, but so what?
"and he hates women no matter what he says.
Assertion, but so what?
"Roosh hates himself, too, and has admitted he is bored and jaded with his hedonistic and nihilistic life."
None of your assertions have any bearing on the veracity or otherwise of what these people claim to have demonstrated to be effective.
Where do men learn confidence and courage? From whom are they to learn it?
Anonymous: ad hominem attacks. As I predicted
De ti: you know what? That's the problem. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We're at the pound of cure, stage, aren't we? It's a terrible problem, and made worse by some women's attacks on young boys and attempting to stomp the last vestige of being male right out of them. And men aren't helping. Some of them are fathers. It's almost as if the whole thing has to be rebuilt from the ground up. I try to do my part, and it's just words but the whole attitude, which young boys pick up on and imitate.
"Anonymous: ad hominem attacks. As I predicted"
Bob, I criticised what you said, and further in each case gave adequate reason why the criticism was warranted.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between criticising the things a person says and criticising the person, but I can assure you there is one.
I agree with you on one thing: I, too, have questioned the veracity of Vox Day's Christianity; I don't know if I'd call him a heretic, but he does depart from some more orthodox tenets of the faith...
Deti: “Where do men learn confidence and courage? From whom are they to learn it?”
Bob: “you know what? That's the problem. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We're at the pound of cure, stage, aren't we?”
I wasn’t asking a rhetorical question. I was sincerely asking where men are supposed to learn this stuff. If not from the manosphere, then from whom? The manosphere isn’t perfect, and maybe it gets some things wrong (you certainly believe so), but a blunt tool is better than no tool at all.
I see a few critics in and around the manosphere, but what I don’t see is too many people offering something better.
Post a Comment