Woman-Hating Betas

Most women, and some men, believe that the bitterness and misogyny of beta males accounts for their failure with women.  That betas are their own worst enemy.  It is a common human compulsion to want to believe that the tortures of the sexually damned are self-inflicted — unlike poverty or gender discrimination, the first instinct of the moralizers in matters of unequal distribution of sex and love is to blame the victim.

To me, it’s a chicken and egg argument.  Betas and omegas are certainly bitter and their retreat into self-pity and sour grapes only worsens their predicament.  But I don’t believe bitter betas started out that way.  They got that way through repeated failings in the dating scene.  Here’s an illustration of how that happens.

Imagine two men, one a beta with low dating market value and the other an alpha with high dating market value.  By dating market value, I am referring to the aggregate of traits the men possess which either move them closer or further away from the general attractiveness standards.  Some of these traits are beyond their power to remedy, such as stature and looks, while other traits, like humor and charm, reside in the gray area of innate attributes that are somewhat changeable through deliberate effort.

Their respective suite of traits means that Beta is attractive to 1 out of 1,000 women and Alpha is attractive to 1 out of 10 women.  (The absolute number values are not important in this example; what matters is the relative disparity.)  If both go to a club that has 100 women in attendance, 10 of those women will be attracted to Alpha while Beta would be lucky if his 1 out of 1,000 woman is even there.

If Beta and Alpha begin their careers of hitting on women it’s likely that Alpha would have banged 100 women before Beta even lost his virginity.

Over time, the repeated failures of Beta and the repeated successes of Alpha would mount.  Both may have started their journeys to poon wide-eyed with optimism and hope, but after a few years it’s easy to picture what kinds of attitudes each would develop as a consequence of his dating market value.  Alpha would embrace dating; he would see it as a playground full of excitement and fun and adventure and joy.  Beta would dread the dating scene; he’d go to every date with a feeling of frustration, expecting the rejection that he had become accustomed to experiencing.

Success breeds success.  A surfeit of pussy means Alpha would acquire discriminating taste in women.  He would learn how to screen for what he wants and how to qualify women for the values he looks for in a mate.  This, of course, would make him even more attractive to women.  But poor Beta… he’d take what he could get.  Beggars can’t be choosers.  After many years of their divergent paths, Alpha would achieve great knowledge in the ways of women and romance while Beta would know next to nothing.

What do the unsympathetic beta-haters think would result from this illustration I’ve laid out?  It’s simple.  Alpha would be a very happy dude and Beta would be embittered.  So for those whose advice to a loser in love is to “just be himself” around women remember that that is exactly what brought him to his miserable condition.





Comments


  1. Your point makes sense in some ways. What might complicate it, however, is that two men with such a wide disparity in dating market value aren’t likely to be competing for the same types of women. Unless he’s totally clueless, after experiencing enough rejections the Beta in your example is likely to change tactics and target the sort of women the Alpha would scorn, for example women who are a little older, single mothers, or overweight women. Except in the most extreme circumstances he’s likely to appeal to substantially more than 1 out of 1000 women in this new dating pool. He may never close the gap with the Alpha’s 1 out of 10 ratio, but given a little luck he might be able to find a suitable match, eventually.

    Like


  2. If a dude has a shitty or “I’m a victim” attitude when it comes to women, odds are they have it in other areas of their life too, or in general, which would make them unattractive to women. Likewise a guy with a good, can-do attitude will change his situation if it isn’t to his liking. Again, a chicken-egg argument, but people with shitty attitudes generally have shitty attitudes and the opposite sex can see it.

    Like


  3. People inherently want what they do not have and there are too man people, men and women alike, who resent those who are “getting it,” whether it is sex, money, love, fame, power…whatever.

    There are also lots of women-hating alphas, most likely b/c they started out as a beta and either due to a change in financial, social, or sometimes even physical status, evolved into an alpha (aka Roosh). Most of these guys never find a fulfilling relationship b/c they perpetuate their women-hating beta ways throughout their alpha careers.

    The same argument can be made for “cougar haters,” a popular topic of conversation for you and your blogging compatriots. The true definition of a cougar is a woman who is so financially independent that a man cannot use money to attract her. She prefers younger males to avoid the entanglements of a “relationship” in favor of the freedom of the hunt. The types of men who hate cougars are the men who resent their financial status.

    Like


  4. All right, I’m finally going to post here after being an occasional lurker for the last two months or so.

    And what I want to say is that your definition of alpha and beta males is too simplistic, and it’s confusing both you and your readers.

    It’s possible to be a beta male (even by your definition) and do well with women; it’s possible to be an alpha male and do less well relative to some betas because you lack the social skills of some of the more good-natured betas.

    Here’s an example. Two men I used to know, one of whom I dated for several years. The story comes from the one I dated. The beta male – call him K. – was only average looking, and because of his relatively low intelligence, not particularly successful. The alpha male – call him D. – was highly intelligent, good-looking in a tough street-kid kind of way; athletic to nearly pro standards in hockey; and extremely successful in his work. (He’s now a venture capitalist.)

    In their single years, into their early 30s, D. and K. used to go to bars together trolling for girls. K. outscored D. every time. I mean every time. Why? Because he was so verbal, such a good talker, and so charming that women were drawn to him like flies to honey. Oh, and he never gave women stupid compliments either – flattery wasn’t part of his schtick, a mistake that many beta males make. D. was capable of doing quite well in the girl-pickup business on his own, but when K. was there, they seldom looked twice at him. Of course, they eventually stopped going to bars together…(D. was the one I dated, BTW.)

    So, beta males: if you can learn not to be bitter and resentful, and learn how to have conversations with women – non-geek conversations, unless you happen to meet fellow geeks who are female, you might just have a chance. It does help if you have very conventional interests, though. That was one of K.’s strengths.

    Like


  5. Now I can’t decide who’s more pathetic, tracylord or the inspirations to this post.

    Like


  6. I agree and disagree as per usual. Again, I assume you base all of your arguments on short-term quantity, and I think only of long-term quality.

    Humans posess many qualities that make them unique individuals. Quality of mate is not just about high-market value (bell curve), it is also compatibility of various personality traits.
    If going for large quantities of poon, it is usually helpful to have high market value and read Bang.
    If going for quality, in the way I define quality, as in the way that he’d actually want to spend time with her, then she has to match him in all those necessary, quirky ways.

    With that being said, my niche is super tall nerdy men. There seems to be a mutual attraction. I would pass off an Abercrombie model (if he wanted me) to date a philosopher. I would pass a self-centered philisopher for an optimistic, kind-hearted not-so-smart guy. You really never know.

    Like


  7. Sorry correction exponential increase in relationship stress per unit value difference in dating value.

    This is because arrival rate has linear dependence on the difference of the dating value of the two partners.

    I think when you do it for the girl all you need to do 1 – P(M, F), however it is a conditional probability and you might have to ‘integrate’ over the entire range to do it properly, so it may just be easier to do the binomial calculations again.

    Like


  8. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it’s both incorrect and misleading to divide men into just two categories (alpha and beta). Men occupy a spectrum of alpha-ness, just as women (allegedly) occupy the 1 – 10 scale of looks.

    Like


  9. tracylord:
    There are also lots of women-hating alphas

    i’ve known some of these guys, but they were never bitter or hateful in their dealings with women. any hurt they caused was an incidental effect of them being able to fulfill all their desires in the absence of female constraints. as for former betas, the majority of them are elated by their newfound success with women. if they are perpetuating their woman-hating ways then they have not completed their journey to alphaness.

    The true definition of a cougar is a woman who is so financially independent that a man cannot use money to attract her.

    no.
    financial status has nothing to do with cougartude.
    cougars are older single women on the prowl in venues that are unsuitable for their age, wearing clothes that make mockery of their physical deterioration. believe me, if these cougars could attract a man of means they would jump at the chance, but too bad for them their shelf life has expired and only the dregs of malehood or socially awkward younger guys looking for an exceptionally easy NSA lay would have them.
    hed, you give yourself away so easily.

    The types of men who hate cougars are the men who resent their financial status.

    jesus, you are so far off the reservation i don’t know why i bother.
    men don’t hate cougars.
    your mistake is in equating cold indifference with hate.
    please, get with the program.

    alias clio:
    And what I want to say is that your definition of alpha and beta males is too simplistic

    it’s artistic license.
    a more robust definition would be:
    alpha – man who gets what he wants from women
    beta – man who doesn’t get what he wants from women

    Why? Because he was so verbal, such a good talker, and so charming that women were drawn to him like flies to honey.

    iow, K. was an alpha, not a beta.
    male power comes in many permutations. smooth talking and charm are manifestations of power that attract women.

    So, beta males: if you can learn not to be bitter and resentful

    they will need positive experiences with women to unlearn their bitterness.
    so… who’s volunteering to aid the betas in their time of need?
    *crickets*

    quirky irina:
    Again, I assume you base all of your arguments on short-term quantity, and I think only of long-term quality.

    high sexual market value improves quantity as well as quality. long term compatibility (or connection, as the pick up artists call it) is vital to a relationship but low value men rarely get to that point in their dating lives.
    compatibility is greatly enhanced by high value. low value men are constantly struggling to keep a relationship going against the threat of a higher value outside interloper upsetting the apple cart.

    Like


  10. The true definition of a cougar is a woman who is so financially independent that a man cannot use money to attract her.

    Cougars can only exist when women do not need to attach themselves to man in order to sustain a middle class lifestyle. For a cougar, there’s no incentive to marry, if the marriage doesn’t improve her financial situation. If you want cougars to go away, you’ll have to strip women of any ability to earn an income that would support a comfortable lifestyle.

    cougars are older single women on the prowl in venues that are unsuitable for their age, wearing clothes that make mockery of their physical deterioration.

    From what I’ve seen in photos, the cougars look better than a lot of the younger women out there. Given the choice between a one night stand with a cougar or a so-so looking young woman, I’d choose the cougar. She looks better, and she might actually orgasm…

    low value men are constantly struggling to keep a relationship going against the threat of a higher value outside interloper upsetting the apple cart.

    If you fear an outside interloper upsetting the apple cart, then maybe it’s best for one to leave said relationship, and let the interloper win.

    Like


  11. No, K. really was a beta. That’s what I mean about your definition of alphas and betas being too simplistic; it defines the alpha as success with women plain and simple. But there are plenty of beta males who have this kind of success, and there are some alphas who don’t – though they usually aren’t the very top alphas.

    An alpha is a leader. He’s someone other men want to follow. He’s someone that other men will risk something for – their lives, their money, or their reputations. A true alpha is someone like a great general in a war or a great businessman running a company with skill and daring.

    No man in his senses would have risked anything for K. The most they might have done was get dating tips from him, or hang around to grab at his surpluses.

    He was a beta who had one alpha characteristic, and used it all the more unscrupulously because it was the only one he had. I knew him quite well; he was my room-mate’s boyfriend for a while and drove her to distraction with his infidelities. He realised early that he’d never have any great financial or other success; success with women had to make up for his failures at school and work, which were disastrous. I’ve seen that tendency in many betas who were lucky enough to have quasi-feminine empathy and a gift of the gab.

    D., also from my story, was an alpha minus, because, lacking that empathy, he couldn’t lead effectively because he couldn’t put himself in anyone else’s place, a necessary skill in a true alpha leader, though you’ll probably not believe this. (I think Steve Sailer talks about this somewhere – if an argument from authority might convince you.) But he may have learned as he got older – he certainly had everything else he needed for success, with women and at work.

    Like


  12. on July 31, 2007 at 3:35 am nullp0inter

    You sound sort of like I did 10 years ago, except my reasoning was that this girl isn’t worth fighting over. I have better things to do than to waste time on a girl that I will probably never see after high school/college.

    It sounds like you’re reasoning is that you’re going to lose so I might as well surrender now.

    Like


  13. on July 31, 2007 at 3:36 am nullp0inter

    Oh yeah, my ex’s mom found the adderall I had foolishly let her manipulate into giving her. Now I get to go to jail! Hurrah! Now I’m whether every non-white person belongs 😉

    Like


  14. “Most of these guys never find a fulfilling relationship b/c they perpetuate their women-hating beta ways throughout their alpha careers.” — TracyLord

    There is something to this assessment. Many men who learn to be PUAs go on a rampage, fucking and chucking women by using their newfound skills. The natural question women would ask is whether such women deserved to be treated so poorly. This is the wrong focus. Former betas with PUA skills are simply playing the game better than they did previously, much to the chagrin of women who can’t manipulate them any longer. In such situations, the proverbial shoe is on the other foot and the women who get offended don’t like it one bit.

    “If they are perpetuating their woman-hating ways then they have not completed their journey to alphaness.”

    True, but most former betas don’t necessarily hate the women they fuck and chuck. Rather, they simply have no feelings towards them at all. Such women are simply tools for satisfying their sexual needs (to paraphrase Arnold Schwarzenegger). There may be a “revenge fuck” stage, but it doesn’t last that long once a former beta becomes accustomed to his newfound PUA skills (repeated success with women).

    Like


  15. TracyLord:

    He’s right about women hating alphas. They’re not really women hating they just have no reason to pursue women for whatever reason at that point in time. I’d say I’m probably an example of that.

    to you:

    High sexual market value only improves quantity, if you choose to seek women for the point of sleeping with them and nothing else. If a guy was that alpha and high sex market value and actually wanted a to get a decent girl he’d probably no enough to pull it off smoothly and avoid and all the traps (unlike me due to lack of experience).

    Also, I do think you are over simplifying your description of low value men in relationships.

    It’s like you’re using the tangent plane approximation to a function at a point when you’re too far outside the neighborhood.

    I tend to think mathematically and I’m too lazy to translate so here’s the way I see it:

    M = male’s market value
    F = female’s market value
    t = value gap threshold

    P(M,F) = P(M finding F’, s.t F’>=F+t && !(M-F’ >> t) )
    conditional probability of a guy finding a better a girl than F.

    To model guys and girls meeting each other we’ll go with a simple poisson process:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_process

    The arrival rate would be a function of the M & F. i.e you can model arrival rate itself as the number of females a guy interacts with in a given day, then use P(M, F) to treat that that many independent binomial trials to get the arrival rate.

    What is the mean of the binomial? np! Gotta love it
    nP(M, F). I like when math works out like that

    So let’s assume a guy meets 10 girls a day, his rate of meeting girls that sufficiently exceed the threshold of dating value such that it would be worth pulling out you investment would be nP(M,F).

    A Poisson process is modeled using the exponential distribution, with arrival parameter nP(M,F).

    What you want to measure if how much stress the lower value guy would be under. Clearly the stress is not necessarily symmetric (but it might be normalizable since it’s inversely proportional to each other). So essentially do the calculations for the female, determine her arrival rate, if the male is more attractive flip it around. Thus the stress on the relationship would be a function of how many arrivals with a certain time period. Run a few simulations in pro-log or sigma and get a number. Voila! As

    Of course, this all sketchily done, but that’s how I think about differences in attractiveness. To state it in simpler terms it’s a fancy way of saying you should date someone approximately equal to you in terms of value. If you actually take the time to implement my model, you’d see that as arrival rate goes up, there’s a negative exponential decrease in the interarrival time. So delta-t is exponentially smaller 24 hours / delta – t => exponential increase per unit value of dating value difference in between the two people.

    I’m a Math/CS/Industrial & Management Engineering major.

    Sorry for the long post. I forgot all the other points I was going to make that was so much fun.

    Also as an aside, if you’re a player you could use Little’s Law/Formula to estimate what kind of throughput you should be having with the girls if you can actually get a good quantitative approximation of your dating value.

    Like


  16. But it’s a lot different today when the babe at the bar is also your competitor for political and economic power in the job market. It’s a lot different when there are huge risks involved in trying to establish a relationship when all the places where you might meet someone (school, work, even church/synagogue) are littered with traps. Why take the risk when you could have your career and even life ruined by a sexual harrassment charge made under the “flexible woman” theory of “feminist jurisprudence”: it’s whatever she says it is, whoever she says did it, and whenever she says it happened.

    The “dyadic” power in relationships is always in the females’ favor. Every reader of this blog knows there isn’t a female alive (up to and including cougar age) who can’t find a sex partner on demand. No man can ever do this.

    What we’ve seen in the last thirty years, however, is a shift in “structural” (economic, political, institutional) power to female hands. Today almost every new position of leadership accrues to them.

    Female critics of feminism, such as Midge Decter, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Katie Roiphe have always claimed that feminism was a good deal for men because it gave them a lot of access to pussy without responsbility.

    Uh-uh. If you were an alpha it was in fact the greatest thing to happen to you. You could bang away and let her pay for the abortion. After all, she had a career and could take care of herself.

    But if you were a beta, and the process had the effect of multiplying their numbers, you found that you were not only not getting laid, but you were shunted aside in the job market by affirmative action and what I call “cunt politics”. Public policy didn’t care whether you starved to death so long as your tax dollars paid for day care for the assortatively mated. It remains to be seen whether the public will buy the deal made by Assortative Couple #1–two terms for him and two terms for her.

    In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell had Winston Smith’s tormentor O’Brien describe a vision of the future: a boot stamping on a human face, forever. He didn’t realize the boot would be a stiletto heel and the face would have a beard.

    My image of the more immediate future is something more like The Fight Club, where rootless young men beat each other senseless and work as banquet waiters, peeing in the soup served at events where feminist give each other awards.

    Like


  17. Nullpointer, on various occasions, I’ve facetiously said that in case my girlfriend ever cheats on me, as long as we’re still having sex, I won’t care. In contrast, if the sex stops, or she gets pregnant from him, that’s the end of our relationship, and it’s quite obvious that she is more interested in him.

    Quite frankly, it’s best that if she’s found an alpha male to let her fight for the alpha male, and live off the fat of the land by having sex with her until she stops. Only then do you leave for greener pastures.

    Leave the emotions for platonic female friends. Sex is only for slutty looking, hot women. 🙂

    Like


  18. behold: david alexander, the human throwrug

    Like


  19. The term cougar comes from the west coast. And financial status is absolutely a qualifier for this status. Anyone from LA, Scottsdale, or Aspen will confirm this. An older woman (a la Dewey Beach, frequenting Starboard in a tank top with her belly hanging out, showing off her C-section scar is NOT a cougar). Libet Johnson is the
    classic example of cougar
    .

    Like


  20. On what are you basing the idea that the icky, bitter, betas would change if they had more positive experiences (by which, I guess, you mean strings-free sex, freely offered?) Why do you think that would make them nicer? More experienced, perhaps. And given all the nasty comments y’all have made about women who have a lot of sex, why do you think anyone would volunteer for the job of, um, educating these unhappy, awkward, inexperienced twerps? Do you want to have awful sex with someone who is trying to use you to fulfill some high school fantasy? Because I’m sure there are some nice girls out there who’d be happy to use your services.

    Like


  21. He only had trouble scoring when he was in bars with K. He simply couldn’t talk as well. But then few men could. Otherwise, D, did very nicely as far as attracting beautiful women is concerned. Mostly dancers and waitresses too; I was a bit of an aberration.

    And at the risk of being, er, provocative, I’d say that your tendency to count alpha points only or mainly for scoring girls may be a tiny bit self-serving too.

    Anyway, have you really never seen a man who had lots of female action but nothing else you’d envy about him?

    Now I should depart. I only dropped by to try to reassure betas that things don’t have to be as bad as they think. Learn to talk, boys, get fit, work on the general knowledge and not just geekery, and you could land a pretty girl or two. I’ve seen it done.

    Like


  22. on July 31, 2007 at 7:02 pm nullp0inter

    I believe that translates into… turn into an alpha and all shall be good.

    Like


  23. on July 31, 2007 at 2:09 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    Sorry I came to this post late. I don’t know how old you are, but one of the biggest Alpha men on the plant is Mick Jagger and he’s generally considered the pioneer when it comes to woman-hating music (check their “Aftermath” CD from 1966).

    When asked, he claimed this POV came about because he had to deal with so many women — and the quality never seemed to improve despite his status.

    How do you explain this?

    Like


  24. How do you explain this?

    dba, this doesn’t surprise me. a lot of rock stars are physically unappealing specimens who probably had difficulty with women before they started packing bars and clubs. they carry that baggage with them throughout life. in fact, it’s likely that’s what spurred them to greatness in the first place.

    now mick jagger may never have had trouble getting laid, but it’s true that overexposure to libidinous women, their seedy undersides and all, can make a man cynical. i wouldn’t call it bitterness. super alphas might hold women in low regard but i doubt they exhibit the sort of resentful frustration towards them that beta males often do.

    and mick isn’t the only cynic in rock:

    “soul of a woman was created below.”

    i’d also separate super alphas (like mick) from regular alphas. super alphas live in such a rareified atmosphere of easy instant sex that their views and attitudes toward women cannot reliably be extrapolated to the general views of all alphas.

    Like


  25. sestamibi is right. the sexual revolution has been a boon for alpha males and a bane for beta males.

    alias clio:
    No, K. really was a beta.

    if he was able to score quality pussy regularly then he was not a beta. like i said, talking women out of their panties is an alpha characteristic, perhaps one of the most important ones since it gets right to the heart of the matter.
    your confusion seems to be in defining an alpha male through the lens of social sanction. a man who is wealthy and ambitious and looked up to by other men but does not cash it in for the ultimate prize of love and sex with a beautiful woman is akin to the walking dead. there is nothing about him i would envy or admire.

    if the guy you dated, D., had trouble scoring then he was not an alpha despite his financial success. i’d even argue he was beta, since his impressive positive attributes were apparently not enough to counteract his negative traits that were impeding his interactions with women in the bars and clubs.

    Like


  26. tizzy:
    Why do you think that would make them nicer?

    haven’t you ever been grumpy from hunger? it goes away fast once you’ve eaten.

    And given all the nasty comments y’all have made about women who have a lot of sex

    i, for one, adore sluts. what’s not to love?

    why do you think anyone would volunteer for the job

    they wouldn’t. the request was facetious. they are as beholden to their core natures as are the beta males.

    Do you want to have awful sex with someone who is trying to use you to fulfill some high school fantasy?

    why do women have this habit of transmogrifying male sexual desire into some weird pseudo-psychosexual absolution?
    my bet is that it is your way of avoiding the uncomfortable realities of male lust.
    betas aren’t looking to fulfill a high school fantasy.
    they just want to stick their dicks in warm pussy because it feels good.

    alias clio:
    Otherwise, D, did very nicely as far as attracting beautiful women is concerned.

    ah, so D. really was an alpha. which is not surprising since guys who are ambitious in career and money matters and are good-looking usually do pretty well with the ladies.
    your backpedal duly noted.

    I’d say that your tendency to count alpha points only or mainly for scoring girls may be a tiny bit self-serving too.

    an alpha who who is incapable of capitalizing on his assets to get women is no alpha.
    the scoring girls part of the equation isn’t a means… it’s an end.

    Anyway, have you really never seen a man who had lots of female action but nothing else you’d envy about him?

    depends on the quality of women he was banging.

    Like


  27. Wasn’t a back-pedal, dear boy. I said from the first that D. did well when K. wasn’t around.

    Lucky I’m suffering from insomnia or I wouldn’t have come back to correct you.

    Like


  28. so D. was less alpha than K. when they went out together.
    which, of course, is not the same as D. being a beta.
    my point stands, dear girl.

    Like


  29. quote:

    It is a common human compulsion to want to believe that the tortures of the sexually damned are self-inflicted — unlike poverty or gender discrimination, the first instinct of the moralizers in matters of unequal distribution of sex and love is to blame the victim.

    Right, but there is a way that poverty and gender discrimination differ from the involuntary celibacy of “beta” males. The poor, and women (who are presumed, incorrectly, to be the only targets of gender discrimination), are considered to be oppressed classes. Men, on the other hand, are not considered to be an oppressed class. Consequently, anything bad that happens to a man must be an isolated incident, an accident, or just his own damned fault.

    I too have noticed the attitude where men who are unsuccessful with women and bitter about women are told that their lack of success is due to not respecting women enough. Yeah, right. Respect for women is only a minor factor in sexual success with them (though success in relationships is another matter).

    The people who make such accusations tend to be ignorant of the differences in what men and women are attracted to, and don’t realize how just a bit of shyness, effeminacy, under-confidence, lack of social skills, and confusion with women can make a guy virtually invisible to women, even if he is good looking, and how common it is for a perfectly normal man, lacking nothing except a bit of charisma, charm, or assertiveness, to be generally unsuccessful with women.

    Since these people don’t understand how and why such men would fail with women, the “beta-ness leads to bitterness” explanation won’t be imagined, and the bitterness will be assumed to cause the rejection. If these people are influenced by feminism, leading them to inquisitorially see misogyny hiding everywhere, they might assume that women in general do to, and are consequently turned off by misogynistic men. In reality, the majority of women don’t think that way. Moreover, some of the heterosexual scripts that feminists find sexist, average heterosexual women find sexy.

    Women are less likely to reject men over misogyny than feminists think, because of some combination of (a) typical women don’t detect it as well as feminists do, because they aren’t obsessed with ferreting it out, (b) typical women have a narrower view of what constitutes unacceptable misogyny than feminists, leading them to exclude less male behavior than feminists would think.

    Those who understand how male-female interaction works in the real world will know that there are many reasons that men can be unsuccessful with women, and a negative attitude towards women isn’t very high on that list of reasons.

    Oh, and something that I should point out is that not all of the bitterness of beta males is the same thing as misogyny. There is a difference between being extremely frustrated and confused by women, and actually holding bigoted attitudes towards women. You can have either alone, or both at the same time.

    But I don’t believe bitterbetas started out that way. They got that way through repeated failings in the dating scene. Here’s an illustration of how that happens.

    I buy this explanation, and I should know, because I lived it. I became resentful of women through being constantly rejected in favor of guys I perceived to be jerks. Yet I changed (I’m sure you can guess how), and as I became more and more attractive and successful with women, I stopped resenting them and started feeling a more positive attitude towards them. Yay.

    Liked by 1 person


  30. hugh:
    and the bitterness will be assumed to cause the rejection.

    bitterness exacerbates the problem and creates a self-fulfilling negative feedback loop. but men don’t start out bitter; it’s a learned response.
    like you mentioned, some men do start out bigoted against women but their misogyny, if leavened with charm, does not turn women off the same way that resentful bitterness does.
    there is a good reason for this.
    women correctly assume a bitter man has had little experience with love, while a bigoted man could very well be the world’s biggest player.

    Like


  31. the mighty perish in their might
    the slain survive the slayer

    Like


  32. Irina-

    “my niche is super tall nerdy men. There seems to be a mutual attraction. I would pass off an Abercrombie model (if he wanted me) to date a philosopher. I would pass a self-centered philisopher for an optimistic, kind-hearted not-so-smart guy. You really never know.”

    I believe you completely re: the first dichotomy (I’ve now read a lot in the archives and have some fairly strong impressions of some people, incl. you.)

    I don’t so much believe the second. I think that’s mainly a wishing the second dichotomy guy wold be more kind hearted and smart and an indication that you’d “pay” for it some way, cause your smart enough to know that otherwise such a wish is all but meaningless.

    I’d guess in actual fact that while you might well really and truly want more optimism, the more kind heartedness thing is decidedly more questionable, in terms of what would both attract and KEEP you attracted and interested.

    Probably best would be some change up. I.e. Lots of warm and deeply embracing kindness when you really need it, but the definite ability to pull the rug out from under you too when he / the relationship / you’re remaining at bottom femininely submissive at some soul level – requires that.

    Like


  33. From the comments I have read, I have not seen one beta male willing to settle for dating a beta female. You only seem to notice the rejections you get from trying to date the skinny, hard-bodied “10’s.” But not one word is mentioned about beta males even so much as NOTICING a woman who is a “6” or “7”, you know…the plain Jane who is slightly overweight, who might have tried everything humanly possible to get a fit body to no avail because she simply lost out in the gene pool crap shoot. How do you beta men think the beta women feel? Or is your ego more important than thinking of someone else’s feelings and not being as shallow as the prom queens who’ve rejected you?

    Like


  34. Hi Jackie,

    You’re 2 years late to this post like I am.

    The short answer to your question is that different men have different concepts of who is a 10 and who is a 6…within reason…men often know if a woman really cannot help being overweight or if she has just let herself go…and I use alpha behavior to make sure my full-figured girlfriends work hard to reverse things when they get overweight…something that a given overweight woman may not have done if she were safely ensconced in a marriage with a beta male.

    It is not ego that rules men on this issue. It is DNA.

    Like


  35. “It is not ego that rules men on this issue. It is DNA.”

    Sorry but I don’t buy it. That’s just an excuse for men to be shallow selfish pricks. Lots of women absolutely CANNOT help being overweight. DNA and hormonal imbalances and glandular disorders have alot to do with it as does body frame. To justify male selfish superficiality by blaming it on “the jerk gene” doesn’t fly.

    Like


  36. on October 31, 2009 at 9:00 pm gunslingergregi

    Fuck off bitch. 🙂

    Go carve a pumkin.

    Like


  37. Hi again Jackie,

    It isn’t even a jerk gene because, for instance, I am not embarrassed about it.

    Here is an example. My girlfriend is 26 years younger than I am. She is in college for Heaven’s sake. She shouldn’t have to be in a constant battle with her weight, looking like a big busted Marilyn Monroe one week and looking like Roseanne the next. But, because I am sexually attracted to big busted women, all I can do is hope that I can convince her not to let herself go. Her mother is doing OK because, I assume, her alpha male father keeps the mother on a diet as well. Both mother and daughter are in a battle of the glands, but having alpha male partners is keeping them from letting themselves go.

    If they had beta male partners, they would just let go.

    Best to read this entire blog. This might not be the place to write about how things should be as opposed to how they are.

    Like


  38. “But not one word is mentioned about beta males even so much as NOTICING a woman who is a “6″ or “7″”

    This is a big and common misconception about beta males, one I feel the need to address being one myself.

    Most betas are not only examining 10’s. There aren’t a lot of 9’s and 10’s and many betas understand their low chances of getting one. We look and we try, and of course often fail.

    My own failure in the dating market is not due at all to high standards. If I showed you all of the pictures of girls I have pursued, you’d see a 9(or 8 depending on who you talk to), a 6, around 5 sevens and a 5(this particular girl was called downright ugly by my teammates…what can i say, I thought she was cute at the time).

    A few of these girls were not skinny types. 3 in particular were perhaps 5’7″ in height, 140 pounds or so…not hardbodies. A couple of others were really small. The 9 had only a decent body-she was half asian and her legs were quite short, something she oftentimes complained about.

    The point here is this: beta failure is due to much deeper issues than their supposed high standards. Most betas, like all males, are more apt to settle than their female counterparts and “date at their level”. The problem is that even when doing this, they can’t get a date.

    Like


  39. There’s an ass for every seat. All women get laid.

    Like


  40. QUOTE: If a dude has a shitty or “I’m a victim” attitude when it comes to women, odds are they have it in other areas of their life too, or in general, which would make them unattractive to women. Likewise a guy with a good, can-do attitude will change his situation if it isn’t to his liking. Again, a chicken-egg argument, but people with shitty attitudes generally have shitty attitudes and the opposite sex can see it. END QUOTE

    I agree with this. Alpha males are out doing and Beta males are in the background complaining. Getting good with women requires practice. Talk to all kinds of women and you will get comfortable enough with them to feel at ease with them. The most attractive men are the ones that feel most at ease with women.

    Like


  41. My take is this: The entire problem is that the atmosphere shifted from male worthiness vs female worthiness (pre-feminist) to male worthiness vs female choice. This entire attitude of telling beta to “man up”, or whatever advice Alias Clio has to offer, is entirely counterproductive as it fails to address the deep asymmetry in the dating game. Ideally, it would be a world of male choice vs female choice, where both partners could choose to express themselves as they’d like without fear of humiliation by the other gender.

    I suppose, what I should say, is that it’s not unreasonable at all to expect a girl to not want to get with a beta, as it’s unreasonable to demand that people connect with those they don’t find attractive. The problem arises in that male interests are varied to the point of not even mattering, whereas female interests are much more harshly defined – the groups of women who find themselves attracted to a beta personality are very few in number, compared to the groups of men who are fine with relatively unattractive women, especially those men who actually PREFER looks that aren’t considered attractive by society.

    No matter what, the problem that he addresses will never go away until this attitude of men having to prove themselves to women dissipates. I advise everyone, particularly women, to read the book “Self-Made Man”, by Dorah Vincent, as it exposes the gaps between male and female psychology in a very interesting way.

    Like


  42. This article is right for the most part I suppose. I’m a beta or possibly even an omega. I don’t hate women though, it’s not their fault I am this way. I’m so bad that my friends abandoned me, one texted me saying, “you are a worthless piece of shit and a leach of life.” After that he asked not to kill myself with the text version of a smiley face. I suppose it’s true, I’m going to be 20 on February, 18th and I’m still piratically worthless. I’m in college at the moment at I am training to be a welder, while everyone else is smart enough to go into engineering, business or science, which is 50/50 shot at being well off or being at the bottom working in shops with illegal.

    Most organisms act similar in sex, more commonly mammals, males prove to the women that they are worthy mates, and the ones who can’t will get shaft pretty much. It’s there fault that they can not benefit the species and spread their seed. They technically failed at life. That’s what I believe I am I guess, I am not complaining because I have no right to complain. Frankly, I think I should remove myself out of the equation, however I’m still trying to work up the courage.

    Like