Alpha, beta, men, women

The article for today at Athol Kay’s fine blog is What’s Alpha and Beta… For A Woman? My nerves always get itchy when I read about the distinctly male categories of alpha and beta linked to women because there’s a lot of confusion out there about this subject.

The core of the problem is that there are two different meanings to the word “alpha”, which are tied together when talking about males. These words are: dominant and attractive. When we say that a men is “alpha” it means he’s dominant and attractive, because these two characteristics are tied together very closely. But this is not true in the case of women. This is a source of a lot of confusion.

Women’s eternal solipsism and limitless capacity for projection is well-documented by now. Those are the culprits this time too. Women know and see that there’s a social hierarchy amongst men (corresponding to those men’s attractiveness) and they think that there’s a social hierarchy for women too. Of course there’s no such thing but they wouldn’t grasp this for the life of them.* On a side note, this is why lots of them dress according to the latest trends and put on makeup to win against rivals, not to impress men. They think if they beat the other girl they will rise in their imaginary social status hierarchy and will get better men.

So, if you use the word alpha when talking about women, it should be asked: which meaning of the word “alpha” do you use? Dominant or attractive? Because the two has nothing to do with each other in women. Berlusconi might bed 18 yo models without paying them directly but Hitlery Clinton never will, that’s for sure. She’s dominant but she’s as unattractive as it gets.

There is no such thing as an “alpha woman”. What is a coherent concept about males is fractured beyond any meaningfulness when used on females. Feminists pushed women into the hierarchy of men by forcing women into the workplace but they didn’t realize that by doing this they actually became men in a way: the status they acquired is men’s social status to attract a wife, and it can not be used to attract a husband. They fought for status but didn’t recognize that the price for it was way too high. It’s not a difficult concept to understand though; the more they fight to rise in the male hierarchy, the more male-like they have to become, thus losing their feminity and in turn they become less and less attractive to men. Dominant women are unattractive to men, I’d even say outright repulsive. Not because “men are afraid of strong women” – which is the usual feminist BS showing they don’t understand even the most basic concepts about relationships – but because a dominant woman is a pain in the ass. Evolution is a tricky business; it shaped men to fight against anything to protect his family. But dominant women fight against everything, including their family. No sane man wants that at home. Dominance in women is not a positive trait, no matter what feminists say.

So, what’s an alpha women? An illusion at best. When feminists talk about it they mean dominant women. They use the hierarchy of men as a benchmark and don’t quite get that men and women are different and can’t be measured on the same scale. When Athol talks about it he means attractive women. But this makes the whole excercise a little bit meaningless because instead of saying “female alpha”, which is a bit confusing, he could actually say attractive woman – this is what he means, isn’t it? The feminists and Athol both take one half of the original concept and try to project that half onto women using the original phrases which are obviously too complex to survive this assassination.

Now of course I understand that Athol uses his own “tweaked” alpha-beta concept here which kind of translates to alpha=attractive + beta=comfort , completely ignoring how it relates to the social hierarchy. Still, using the male-originated concepts on women are confusing. What’s attractive in a woman is totally different from what’s attractive in a man, so using the same expression for both is a bit odd.

* There is a hierarchy amongst men because there are leaders and there are followers – it’s impossible for everyone to lead. But it’s different for women. Every women can be attractive (theoretically) and female attractiveness has nothing to do with status. Men don’t give a sh*t about women’s imaginary status hierarchy. I’d say that 95% of men don’t even realize that women think there’s such a thing as a social (attractiveness) hierarchy for women.

This entry was posted in Blogging, Game and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Alpha, beta, men, women

  1. Richard says:

    Hmmm, the whole alpha-beta concept is becoming silly IMO.

    There are examples of men who fall into the alpha category that are sexless, and men who fall into the omega category that are not sexless.

  2. Deansdale says:

    I’ve just bookmarked your blog to my daily routine a couple of days ago and now you show up here. What gives? :)

    Anyways, the Anglobitch post you link to means nothing else to me than idiots can have (natural) game. It doesn’t mean that game theory is flawed or somethin’.

    One other confusing thing about the alpha-beta nomenclature is that some people use it in an old-fashioned way describing social dominance (ie. ‘an alpha is the leader of other men’), while others simply use it to describe the level of game one has.

  3. I am a little tweaked compared to most of the Game writers, but you slightly miss one of my critical points Deansdale. I’ve linked Alpha to Dopamine and Beta to Oxtocin/Vasopressin. Once you make that connection everything snaps into a clear focus. I’m following the Dr Helen Fisher viewpoint of the three hormonal systems that govern interpersonal attraction.

    What is it about women that triggers a Dopamine response in men, is quite different than what triggers a Dopamine response in men.

  4. Deansdale says:

    Your system is working perfectly and I like it – I even use it. Nevertheless, you’ve hijacked the terms and redefined them :D
    The descriptions alpha and beta originated from zoology and they were used to define positions in a social hierarchy. They’ve worked for men because men have a social hierarchy too. Women don’t have a hierarchy and thus it’s meaningless to talk about alpha or beta women (in the original sense of the words).
    Then again, as I’ve already said, you have created your own system – which is fine – but your use of old terms with new meanings is a bit confusing to some. This is hopefully resolved by your latest article :)

  5. Women do have a hierarchy of sorts… one based on beauty. It just doesn’t look like the male one.

  6. Brendan says:

    Women do have a beauty hierarchy, but it’s much less significant than the male hierarchy is, because men are much less hypergamous in sex partner selection than women are. That is — men also try to maximize the sexiness of their partner, but, when blocked access to such high-beauty-hierarchy women, simply ratchet down the hierarchy in the interests of getting laid, whereas women are more inclined to pick up the ball and go home when the most attractive male mates are not available.

    So the male hierarchy is much more significant than the female hierarchy is, for purposes of sex partner selection, although the female beauty hierarchy does have a significant impact on the relationships of women with each other –> very few very close relationships among women who are at vastly different points of the hierarchy.

  7. Deansdale says:

    I reckon it’s only guys who organize women into a “beauty hierarchy” in their minds. Women themselves do not do this, or at least beuaty is not the only criteria. A good example for this is fashion. They try to rise on their social ladder by “outsmarting” the others fashion-wise, while we men know that fashion has nothing to do with actual beauty or desirability. It’s just stupid mindgames for females to compete for imaginary social dominance men don’t give a flying f*ck about.

  8. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Alluring Edition

  9. Luming Zhou says:

    Spot on with the imaginary social hierarchy! This was I was trying to convey for the whole time in many months.

    It’s not uncommon to notice that women buy boots which cost $200, while never realizing that their money can be well spent on other items, which can be far more effective in making them attractive. Women spend thousands of dollars on designer-label clothing, thinking that their hundred-dollar Polo Ralph Lauren shirt, that they rarely wear, would be worthwhile. Women spend so much on their Brooks-Brothers pants which costs $500, and spend $2,000 on their Louis-Vuitton handbag which you think is a wasteful usage of their money.

    You wonder, “Why are women spending so much money, on things which don’t matter?” Why are women buying those expensive, designer-label products, when in reality, men don’t care. Men really don’t care about them. You know, women don’t look more attractive in them, by just wearing clothing which just have a label on it. Women don’t look more attractive, by wearing clothing which is made by some expensive brand, when you can buy cheaper products from other brands.

    Why do women do this? Why do women spend so much? And why don’t women use their money on more productive things, rather than those expensive clothing that don’t do a thing for men?

    You will eventually make a conclusion. Your conclusion is that “Women buy those expensive articles of clothing, to show off to other women?”

    Do you know why women spend much more on clothing than men do? Do you know why women shop more than women do? Women buy expensive handbags and shoes. Do you know what’s the reason?

    Let me tell you a fact. Let’s talk about status symbols. Some clothing items function like a status symbol. Handbags are a status symbol. Shoes are another status symbol. Status symbols are very popular with women. Do you know why expensive clothing is popular with women? Do you know why women like to spend so much time and money on shopping?

    Here is the answer: Women think that they are impressing men with those expensive shoes and handbags. Those are status symbols, and women think that having status symbols would make them look richer, thus more attractive to men.

    But they are wrong. Women are actually misconceived of what men like. This misconception is the root of the problem. Women are wrong that if they look rich, they would become more attractive to men.

    Let’s look. It’s a fact that men generally don’t pay much attention to women’s shoes or any accessories. There are article warning women about this:

    [quote]For the most part, guys do not notice or care about shoes and accessories (for the first few days I had to remind James that he needed to choose these). So instead of wearing those killer heels that you think he will appreciate, just wear whatever you want. High heels, flats, sneakers, doesn’t matter. On that some note, guys also don’t notice a lot of the time-consuming beauty rituals you obsess over, so you can also ease up on the heavy primp time.


    Do you know why it’s the case? Why don’t men pay much attention on women’s shoes? The reason is that they don’t care to look. They aren’t affected by status symbols. Status symbols do nothing to make a women look more attractive.

    Women are misconceived of what men want women to wear. Women think that men are attracted to high-status or rich women. So they buy expensive clothing, designer-brand shoes, gold/silver jewelry, and expensive purses. While in fact, cheap clothing would just work the same.

    Women don’t need to buy expensive clothing. A simple form-fitting t-shirt or dress would work. Women don’t need to buy expensive shoes or sneakers. A cheap sneaker or shoe would do. Women don’t need to buy those expensive silver bracelets to turn men on. A steel bracelet would just do the same.

    Women are spending way too much money on things that men don’t care about. They should spend more time taking care of their bodies and physical appearance rather than clothes.

    But the reverse not true. The case doesn’t exist for women, but it does exist for men. It had been proven several times that women are attracted to rich men. Therefore, if a man buys status symbols, such as $500 shoes, then he would surely improve his chances with women.

    Do you know why women are attracted to rich men? Well, look, just look at all those businessmen. They have all the power, they control more resources than almost all other men control, and get all the girls. Why is that? Why are business men so sexy? Isn’t because women have an instinct for gold-digging? No. No way.

    Then what is it? Isn’t because it’s an evolutionary instinct. Say, the women want men who can provide resources, and those men who controls business can provide the most resources for woman and their offspring? Isn’t that? Isn’t because women like men with all the resources so he can feed any offspring that she produce?

    Close–but no cigar. Women don’t like men who are rich because they have lots of money to provide for any children that she has. Women are attracted to rich men, not because of their rich resources in itself, but because wealth in an indicator of power.

    Let’s look at a rich man. A rich man has a high-status job. Usually, he is in the managerial/executive positions. Women like those men, because they have power over other men. Power of their subordinates, power over telling their employees what they do. So what’s going on now? It’s the power that women desire, and not their money.

    Also, those rich men also have “authority,” which means that lots and lots of men look up to them. Respect their decisions. And never questions their choices that they make. This is a symbol of leadership, and dominance: not being afraid to tell other people what to do, and then people came respecting their decrees.

    While the poor man has to work for another person, the rich men has people working for them. While the poor man is subordinate, the rich man is dominant over their employees. It’s like a dominance hierarchy. First you have poor people being obedient to their rich bosses. And then you have the rich bosses controlling their less wealthy employees. See what this resembles? This perfectly resembles the pecking order of our ancestors. With the poor men being submissive. And the rich men being dominant. And this, is the reason why women like rich men.

    Women are not power-hungry whores. They are not gold-diggers. They are just sexually attracted to rich men and athletic men. Those are the men who are more likely to have the highest quality genes, during the Stone Age.

    Here is a study which is performed on mating preferences between the sexes. The study made those conclusions:

    [quote]Women did not perceive traits directly referring to a mate’s material wealth as more desirable than men (traits such as capability to earn, success in job, or to have money). The differences are obtained concerning the traits more indirectly related to material prospects of a potential mate, and to his readiness to share resources as well.

    The hypothesis formulated on the basis of the evolutionary psychology perspective received qualified support: results indicate that males tend to attach relatively greater weight to physical attractiveness of potential mates. Nevertheless, sex differences in the evaluation of strength and thinness could be interpreted as referring to male physical attractiveness, and therefore as evidence of women’s specific emphasis on mate’s physical attractiveness.

    Source: Todosijevic, B., et al. (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia.

    This is an essential read:[quote]

    Evolutionists and art historians agree that fashion is all about status. In their dress, women follow fashion more than men do: Yet women seek clues to status, which change with fashion, and men seek clues to fertility, which do not. Men should not care less what women wear as long as they are smooth-skinned, slim, young, healthy, and generally nubile: Women should care greatly about what men wear because it tells them a good deal about their background, their wealth, their social status, even their ambitions. So why do women follow clothes fashions more avidly than men?

    I can think of several answers to this question. First, the theory is simply wrong, and men prefer status symbols, whereas women prefer bodies. Perhaps, but that flies in the face of an awful lot of robust evidence: Second, women’s fashion is not about status after all: Third, modern Western societies have been in a two-century aberration from which they are just emerging: In Regency England, Louis XIV’s France, medieval Christendom, ancient Greece, or among modern Yanomamo, men followed fashion as avidly as women: Men wore bright colors, flowing robes, jewels, rich materials, gorgeous uniforms, and gleaming, decorated armor. The damsels that knights rescued were no more fashionably attired than their paramours. Only in Victorian times did the deadly uniformity of the black frock coat and its dismal modern descendant, the gray suit, infect the male sex, and only in this century have This suggests the fourth and most intriguing explanation, which is that women do care more about clothes and men do care less, but instead of influencing the other sex with their concerns, they influence their own. Each gender uses its own preferences to guide its own behavior. Experiments show that men think women care about physique much more than they actually do; women think men care about status cues much more than they actually do. So perhaps each sex simply acts out its instincts in the conviction that the other sex likes the same things as they do.

    One experiment seems to support the idea that men and women mistake their own preferences for those of the opposite sex. April Fallon and Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania showed four simple line drawings of male or female figures in swimsuits to nearly five hundred undergraduates. In each case the figures differed only in thinness: They asked the subjects to indicate their current figure, their ideal figure, the figure that they considered most attractive to the opposite sex, and the figure they thought most attractive in the opposite sex. Men ‘ s current, ideal, and attractive figures were almost identical; men are, on average, content with their figures. Women, as expected, were far heavier than what they thought most attractive to men, which was heavier still than their own ideal. But intriguingly, both sexes erred in their estimation of what the other sex most likes. Men think women like a heavier build than they do; women think men like women thinner than they do.

    However, such confusions cannot be the whole explanation of why women follow fashion because it does not work for other features of attraction. Women are far more concerned with their own youth than men despite the fact that they mostly do not themselves seek younger partners.

    And yet the notion that fashion is about status revolts us in a democratic age. We pretend instead that fashion is actually about showing off a body to best advantage. New fashions are worn by gorgeous models, and perhaps women buy them because they subconsciously credit the beauty to the dress and not the model. Surveys reveal what everybody knows: Men are attracted by women in revealing, tight, or skimpy clothing; women are less attracted by such clothing on men. Most female fashions are more or less explicitly designed to enhance beauty; for example, a gigantic crinoline made a waist look small simply by contrast. A woman is careful to choose clothes that “suit” her particular figure or hair color.

    Source: Ridley, Matt (1993). The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Pages 301-313: [/quote]

    Here is another misconception that a “deep voice” on women is sexy:

    Read that article.

    I have another theory of why women like to sing:

    Men who have a good voice turns women on. Women are attracted to male singers more than any other kind of musician because a resonating, confident voice is a huge turn on for them. The reverse is not true; you don’t see many males idolizing female singers.

    But women still believe that the other way around is true. They believe that men are roused by women who sing good too.

    Have you noticed that women outnumber men in your school chorus? Have you noticed that a lot more women than men take singing lessens? Those women are in fact misconceived that men are aroused by women who can sing good. So women waste their money taking singing lessons, in their failed attempt to impress men.

    Women think that they men care about status, even after men told them again and again that status doesn’t matter.

    I can think of many reasons for this:

    1. Women are attracted to high-status men, so they think men are attracted to high-status women too.

    2. Women tell other women that men like high-status women. The media reinforces the myth that men like high-status women.

    3. Women will be too upset to find out that status doesn’t matter. You see–a woman grows up and spent thousand of dollars on clothes, jewelry, and shoes. But she is soon told by her brother that buying expensive clothing won’t make her more attractive. She will be upset by this if she is convinced. But usually, she will rationalize it away and believe that her expensive purchases are worthwhile. She’s too afraid to admit to herself that all the money that she had spend on clothing is of no use. So she continues to believe that men find women in expensive clothing attractive. This is called [url=]post-purchase rationalization.[/url]

  10. Pingback: FCS - enough already - ALPHA is a gender neutral term - Page 5

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s