medical scans diseased xrays mris 750

The plague of modern masculinity

Scores of our young men today are stranded at an impasse on the road to realizing manhood. They are bogged down in the confusion of a generation lost to treacherous forces they never saw, for reasons they were never able to comprehend.  They are struggling and starving; unable to feed their souls in a world that finds them increasingly unnecessary and burdensome.

They have come of age in a time of coerced impotence, their nascent masculinity gutted and stripped long before having the opportunity to shape their character and their destiny. In that they are suffering from the loss of things never held, from things missing but never known. They are, quite literally, a lost generation of the walking wounded, wandering blindly from a battlefield on which they never knew they stood.

In that light, the path they are on is not really a road to manhood, but simply a retreat from the effacing malice woven into the very fabric of their developmental lives.  And it takes them not to safe ground, but directly into a dismal culture of shallowness and self-indulgence; a realm of options without obligations; of self-gratification without self-awareness or self-discipline.  It is the death march of the western male, destined for a withering end ensured by intellectual, psychological and moral atrophy.

This aimless, narcissistic existence is a forced escape from lives shrouded in shame; from manhood being reduced to an evolutionary joke in the eyes of a culture that holds it in contempt, even as the elders deny it is happening. With the wholesale whitewashing by society and abandonment by the fathers more or less complete, the newly (de)engineered young man is all but defenseless against this downward spiral into terminal insignificance.

It’s happening all around us. One only need look at current events to see that the world of men is quite literally circling the drain; disappearing from the stable foundations of education and employment. They are targeted with disinformation about crime and domestic violence, and about deviant sexual proclivities with women and children. These are no longer just the ruminations of twisted ideologues. The demagoguery now emanates directly from the government, backed by men with gavels, and men with guns. The judicial apparatus has been reshaped, not to pursue justice, but to incarcerate men at every opportunity, even to enable and encourage false accusations to accomplish that goal. This isn’t just about male bashing any more. It is about male subjugation. And it is not being executed by feminists or women, but by men.

We might proffer that the solution is a redirection to days past, when we imagine that men made masters of sacred codes; when they possessed strength and purpose and would stand against this growing tragedy and defeat it.  We would be wrong. We can only find that Thomas C. Wolfe was right. You can’t go home again.  And what’s more, you really don’t want to.  It was, in a sense, home that got us here. And that is a truth we must face, no matter how natural or compelling the tendency to point to any other “outside” force and satisfy our frustrations with the simplistic convenience of an easily identified enemy.

As always, our true enemy is in the mirror. The only thing that will save us is to face up to that and act accordingly.

In the fitful and often strange world of the men’s movement, we attempt to answer this social malady; to create a haven, if only an intellectual one, for the refugees of this godforsaken gender war.  It is a mission often hobbled by our own hands, yet the work goes on, limping toward solutions. We strive, I think, as men who have awakened, to formulate an appropriate response, and in our own way to push some sanity and balance back into the collective consciousness; to force it past the architects of institutional misandry, both male and female. But even as we exert pressure, we don’t have a firm grasp on what it is we are fighting.

We have not ascertained, nor have we even really thoroughly tried to, what role traditional manhood plays in the problem. Unfortunately, what we have too often done is practice the obstinate politics of wounded children who insist that they have no role in whatever befalls their lives.  We have, at times, angrily and energetically reacted to misandry, but have balked with equal vigor at seriously examining how we fostered and enabled it with allegedly masculine codes of conduct. Consequently, all of our efforts rooted in this approach have failed, and miserably so.  We have made some progress, and will no doubt eventually mature into a more effective movement, but not before we embrace more than the hostility we feel for perceived enemies.

Our most functional response thus far is to check out and go our own way, but I contend that an exit is not a destination, but just a needed removal from the line of fire; a chance to collectively regroup and rethink.  Remember that the young men festering at those crossroads have, in their own way, checked out, too.  It isn’t looking too good on them.

And it forces us, sooner or later, to swallow a pill that some will find bitter. And to face a reality that some will find unconscionable.

The feminists were right.  What we call masculinity has, as it relates to modern realities, corrupt, oppressive and destructive elements that need to change.

And yes, I mean that literally.  And no, I’m not kidding.

In fact, the entire thrust of my argument is that the monstrous social degeneration we are now witnessing, more than anything else, is the result of outmoded and horribly misguided masculinity.

Of course, once we dig more than a nanometer deep into the subject we find that objectivity and reason veer us onto an entirely different philosophical trajectory than the pathologically twisted and apoplectic mindset of feminist ideologues.

To chart our course, we will do two things that feminists never did. First, we will look at the subject without a politically driven agenda for unjustified revenge, or a mandate to dominate the other half of the population. And two, we will proceed with the sincere goal of benefit for everyone, not just an elite group.

The only sensible place to start is with a more grounded understanding of masculinity itself, something that can’t be done in a 3,500 word essay, but can, with even marginally appropriate treatment, arrive at far better conclusions than the last forty years of women’s and gender studies. We can rely on the combined contributions of history, mythology, politics, elements of sociobiology, and most importantly, human compassion.  

In the end we are a species of animals whose very existence depended on the development of reproductive strategies, the primary of which is that the most aggressive and powerful males are selected for mating by the most reproductively viable females. Those strategies arose from an environment of necessity and produced an effective way to produce offspring with the highest probability of survival. As a function of survival, that strategy, and not patriarchal conspiracy, shaped the male hierarchy, as well as what we now call, often erroneously, masculinity.

Some dry facts- The hierarchy of men:

Despite the numerous male archetypal figures of history and legend, for the purpose of this writing I will explore only four basic types of men.  Three of the more commonly known are the alphas, betas and omegas.  The fourth I will address later.

Alpha males are a very small fraction of the male population.  They are highly dominant men who reside at near the top of all populations, from social groups to national governments. These men are generally characterized by the ability to force the deference of other men. In other cases, they simply have the strong leadership qualities on which human civilization as advanced and flourished.

In a sense, alpha males are either Einsteins or Frankensteins, heroes or hooligans, leaders or leeches.

Alphas also tend to be obsessively controlling, abusive and megalomaniacal. If you point to any despot in world history that slaughtered scores of his own people, for the need to maintain control, or for sheer sadistic pleasure, you are pointing at an alpha male.

And yet the same can be said for the men who took us to the moon, cured diseases and who accomplished great humanitarian goals.

With negative alphas, you can throw your imagined codes of honor out the window. Those codes are nothing more than tools used to force betas and omegas into compliance with their agendas.  All romanticism aside, the code of the alpha male is to conquer and control, both the objects of his desire and the men he exploits and expends to acquire them.  Characterologically speaking, they are a minute, worst representation of the male of the species.

They also get things done, and with great efficiency if you don’t factor weigh the loss of freedom and human life.

Incidentally, the characteristics of negative alphas are also the same ones that feminists have erroneously used to define masculinity in one broad stroke, painting all men as domineering and oppressive.  Success at this enabled them to take other microscopic minorities of men and attribute their characteristics to men in general as well, e.g. abusers, pedophiles, rapists, etc…

Historically, the challengers to alphas frequently came from other alphas and often from the ranks of beta males, who form the next tier down in the male power structure. Betas serve as the alphas enforcers, the strong-arms used to maintain control over greater numbers. They also play the role of  “yes men,” affording them their own realm of power and putting them within striking distance (or scavenging proximity) of the alphas position and status, including sexual primacy. Like roadies for a rock band, fortune often filters its way into their hands, and beds.

At the bottom, and most heavily populated part of the hierarchy, are the omega males. These are the pawns on a chessboard, often under the direct control of alpha, or by proxy, beta males.  This is the common man, and the one most vulnerable to the hazards of common life.

A good way to look at this is to take a look at the military chain of command. The general tendency is that the alphas, betas and omegas shed increasing amounts of blood in descending order and claim the spoils of victory in ascending order.

Government runs in the same way. In the simplest of terms, alpha lawmakers use beta law enforcement officers to exercise their will on the generally omega population.

Or rather government used to work that way, but it really doesn’t any more.

The political sell out that changed the world.

Alpha males in government didn’t just collude with feminist ideologues in order to garner a sizable and dependable voting bloc. They had wives, daughters and other familial females to contend with, many of whom were supporting feminism. This effectively reduced everything to the biological imperative. Alpha males are no less, and arguably even more disposed to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure sexual status. Faced with a perceived threat to that, they effectively ceded the alpha position and became beta enforcers for the feminist agenda. You won’t find better examples of that than Barak Obama or Joe Biden, or George Bush for that matter.  These alphas became the beta muscle for a feminist Mafioso, maintaining rank and privilege through enforcing ideological imperatives on the defenseless masses beneath them. They became cops hauling men to jail on the simple accusation of their wives. They became judges bludgeoning men with their gavels in corrupt courtrooms; politicians passing ever more misandric legislation; C.E.O.’s of pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs like Ritalin to sap the vitality and strength out of our boys, to make them more malleable in female hands once the father had been removed from the home.

Isn’t this ironic?  The supposed pinnacle of strength in the male hierarchy was revealed by feminism to actually be the pinnacle of sexual weakness. This series of events is also a lesson in real power, and where it resides, which in the realm of sexual selection has always been in the hands of the women who did the selecting.

But an even greater irony is revealed.  Women, who have bemoaned a lack of power for ages, and in fact still do, found out four decades ago that all they had to do to gain almost complete control was step up and demand it be handed over, playing the sex card as they did so.  And it was handed over, by the most powerful men in the world, who in the presence of these women became like butlers offering cocktails on a serving tray.

I am not fond of that conclusion.  In fact, as a man who continually struggles to break old world ties, I am rather embarrassed by it.

Nothing learned, nothing gained.

Nonetheless, what happened here on the whole was that women, their raw biological power masquerading as feminism, have taken the dominant alpha status in our culture, and the result is quickly becoming an age of oppression and injustice more insidious and intractable than any other. It is in the biological, survival oriented nature of women to enhance their lives through the utilization of male labor and male expendability, without compunction or moral constraint, and that is exactly where our culture has ended up on an Orwellian scale.

Defeating this monstrosity requires the insanely formidable task of battling (figuratively) through beta enforcers masquerading as alpha controllers, not to a command post with someone in charge, but through a pervasive ideology that snakes like countless invisible tentacles through the consciousness of the population at large, and that emanate from the very heart of human evolutionary psychology.

And the first strike in that battle should be, must be, at the elements of alleged masculinity that allowed it all to happen.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

They say there is nothing new under the sun.  History infers wisdom in those words. We can see with proper discernment that the women’s movement was not really a new era for women at all.  It is, on close inspection, just women and men practicing their biological strategies in a highly successful manner. So successfully, in fact, that it is rendering large portions of the male population even more expendable.  So expendable, in fact, that we are now creating reasons to get rid of them.

It was destined to happen once male control of the environment made it safe enough for women to start acquiring power and resources outside the traditional and protected realm of the home.  This is why you see feminism with its strongest foothold in industrialized nations founded on the rule of law.  And it is why you see that law itself is now being manipulated away from the idea of justice (which was its intent in a man’s world) and toward the funneling of added protection and resources to women (which has always been the intent in the world shared by both sexes).

It is not the pursuit of equality or the love of egalitarian values that has led to feminist governance, but pure blind human biology, practiced in the same way it was on the African Savanna three million years ago. And the stunning successes of men making all manner of advances since then has now begun to take us out of the picture.

Quite simply, men have worked themselves out of a job.

As noted earlier, we have already begun to disappear from the ranks of the employed and educated, and the government is adopting policies to accelerate that process. In practical terms, there are not near as many men needed proportionally as there once was. The ones that remain will be of increasingly lower status and will be subject to ever more draconian control.

But of course, there is one factor that will turn the tide before it’s over.  It is the instinct for survival.  It is the only instinct stronger than sex, and it has already shown signs of emerging. We call it the men’s movement; MRA’s, MGTOW, and the like. We are the evidence that men transcending biology is possible; proof that there actually can be something new under the sun.  And we are growing rapidly because more and more men are beginning to see misandry for what it is; a loaded gun pointed directly at their heads, and at the heads of their sons.

Unlike feminism, which is simply a normal, functioning part of the female sex role advanced to destructive levels, the men’s movement is the exact polar opposite. This is the first time in human history that an actual rejection of gender roles has begun to happen, and it is coming not from women, but men.

This is precisely the battle we need to fight. Not with women and not with feminists of either sex, but with the aspects of alleged masculinity that are leading to our destruction because they are now outmoded, archaic and self-defeating. 

As we depart from the old definitions of masculinity, our first step in that direction is away from the institution of romantic chivalry.  It may have once also been a code embraced out of the need for survival, but in the modern world we all know it has but one meaning- female privilege.  

We can now call chivalry by more modern, more appropriate names, e.g. VAWA, primary aggressor laws, Title IX, rape shield laws, Title IV-D, family court, prosecution on false accusation, media bias against men, or, if you prefer the short and simple version, misandry, or the hatred and fear of men and boys.

The fourth type of man- the zeta male.

As previously noted, the men’s movement is a unique and literally unprecedented phenomena. It will bring with it innumerable firsts.  One of them is the socio-sexual warrior, and I refer to him for the purpose of this discourse as the zeta male.  The tag remains faithful to the Greek alphabet classification of other men but there is more purpose to the label.  

I took it from the star Zeta Persei. I liked the navigational metaphor of the star as it is applicable in the context of the lost generation.  But I was also intrigued that Persei is a direct reference to Perseus, the first of the Greek mythological heroes.

Perseus had a remarkable talent for slaying archaic monsters, Medusa the Gorgon among them, who as a mortal woman possessed great beauty, and was self enamored and struck with the power of her sexual allure until she was turned into a hideous monster by Athena, who later used her severed head as a weapon on her shield.

In 1940, an article by Sigmund Freud was posthumously published, entitled Medusa’s Head (Das Medusenhaupt) in which he postulated that Medusa represented castration in a child’s mind related to discovered and denied maternal sexuality.

Even more interesting is that in modern times, feminists (Women: A Journal of Liberation, 1978) adopted and reinterpreted the image of Medusa as representative of women’s rage, and it served as a binding symbol of feminist solidarity.

So Perseus, namesake of Zeta Persei, was the slayer of Oedipal shame (control) and the murderously powerful raging feminist archetype.

The zeta male.

This classification of a male is new because this is a male that until recent times was never needed. He is emergent and unpolished and struggling to find his legs, but is doing so thanks to the fertile, safe ground, provided by, of all things, other emerging zetas on the internet.  

He has no allegiance to tradition or nostalgia for the past, and in fact is charged with plotting a new course.  He cannot be shamed into control or intimidated into silence or seduced into capitulation. He doesn’t fit in the classic hierarchy, and would gladly bring it down in the name of his cause.  When someone says he needs to act like a real man, he smiles and says, “No, thank you.”

He doesn’t seek power, but justice.  And he has one overarching feature largely absent in the world around him. He cares about those lost young men who were ambushed coming out of the womb. And he will strive to make himself an example, living proof that there are other roads to take than the ones that lead to self-hatred and self-destruction.

  • strix2


  • strix (David King)

    test 2

  • electricman

    Obviously there appears to be even other men on this forum who seem to want to go in another direction than myself. Frankly I don’t buy the alpha/beta male bullshit, and it gets quite old hearing it. As a guy I consider myself to be a unique individual, like a snowflake, just like anybody else whether they’re a man or woman. I’m an unique ego that has its own defining characteristics, and I would feel the most free and happy in a world where I could just simply be myself and not have to listen to a bunch of idiotic conservative masculists and self-entitled women telling me what I need to be like, just because I’m a guy.

    I look at it this way, I didn’t ask to be in this world, nor born as a guy, but yet here I am. I treat others with respect, courtesy and I’m a very compassionate HUMAN BEING. I love animals and I frequently help the less forunate. I’ve sacrifice my happiness and convenience many times because I have a tendancy to feel bad for others around me who are clearly suffering or hurting. I’m a very hard worker and have made something of my life, despite growing up in a poor dysfunctional family, and at times I was homeless as a kid. As far as I’m concerned I don’t need to do nothing more, even as a guy. I don’t have problems with common courtesy or helping weaker people, but modern day chivarly in this day and age, that’s a joke to me.

    Our biggest enemies are not necessarily feminists guys, but the old school white knights defending the status quo. It appears the baloney has no partisan divides, but cultural ones at the most fundamental levels. The fact is that it’s really other men (I call them alphabots sometimes) who oppress other men, while empowering feministic hypocrisy. Just look at youtube, wordpress blogs and other sites where it’s quite common to watch videos telling us guys what we all need to do in order to be ‘real’ men, all the while completely coddling women. I’ve blogged a great deal, and the worst types of misandry actually doesn’t come from feminist blogs, but the traditionalist ‘alphabot’ ones. We’re not fighting fair weather feminism here, but an entire paridigm where progressive and conservative men, along with many women, have taken part in enforcing politically correct misandry.

  • electricman

    I feel that I should add something else after reading some of these replies here. I frequently hear men complaining about feminism and oppression, but yet many of them go back to the old biological roots justifying a return to the vicious days of old. I’ve read a great deal about human biology pertaining to the sexes, and there appears to be evidence that males and females have some differences in the way they think, even from an infant. However, I still believe there’s a great deal of truth to what sociologists claim too, and we can’t cherry pick and ignore the literature coming from this source as well. Concerning human behavior based upon sex it appears from a great deal of literature that I’d read dealing with how we behave as an individual is a mixture of biological, psychological and external enviromental factors.

    If biology is so detrimental to how men and women behave alone, or even predominantly, then why do so many traditionalist men and women come down on people when they don’t perform their properly assigned politically correct gender roles? I smell a rat here concerning the gender traditionalists trying to use biology as an excuse to justify imprisoning individuals with rigid gender roles, and their hypocrisy is amazing. So let me guess here, biology is responsible for the way I am and behave, but yet when I don’t conform to my role these same people have to remind me to ‘man’ up. Fuck, if biology is so important here than why do the traditionalists have to work so hard to remind men and women of their proper roles?

    There’s another simple fact concerning nature here, it’s called advanced sentience. If we’re to use the behaviors of lower animals as a pre-requisite for how humans should behave, then you have to consider the the horrible things these same animals do as well here. Males of many animal species killing the young of another male in order to mate with the females, males eating females after mating (some snakes and other animals), and of course vice versa. Bonobos are interesting animals too, in that they had evolved to defy nature and gender roles. The fact is, that despite how we evolved, and still maintain some of our crude biological functions, the fact appears to be that we’re the only animal to have evolved enough to be sentient of our evolution. Evolution can change or be modified by advanced sentient entities who are aware enough to attempt this for the betterment of mankind and Earth.

    I don’t find sociology and psychology to be pseudosciences, and in fact there has been a great deal of promising data concerning these fields. I really do feel that we can change our evolution, and if we are to advance as a peace loving society we’ll likely need to start relying on our ability to be compassionate, courteous and empathetic because we’re sentient enough to attempt such a thing. We are sentient and intelligent enough to rely on logic and empathy rather than relying on what we may had needed to do to evolve at one time. We can choose to have a chimpanzee or a bonobo society, or an even better one than each of the latter primates.

  • electricman

    I vividly disagree with the traditionalists on this thread, and it’s the consevative masculist movement sect of the MRA that I can’t get behind. The people pointing to biological reasons for our behaviors, while I don’t deny there are some, are basically cherry picking. These people probably havn’t read a great deal of literature (if any) from sociologists and psychologists clearly demonstrating that, despite biological data referring to certain behavior patterns in boys and girls, social gender constructs are still a major culprit in why an individual ego of each sex behaves the way they do. Cordelia Fine, Ruth Hartley and others have written brilliant books about this very topic.

    The fact remains that not every guy or girl is going to have the personality traits that his/her so called biological programming supposedly dictates how they’re supposed to behave according to traditionalists. There have been quite a few men who have admitted to me that they wish they didn’t have to act the way society programs them to do, wishing that they could be more open with their emotions, wishing that they didn’t have to put up a masculine front all of the time, etc, etc, etc..

    I don’t feel that many men and women would be complaining about their gender roles so much if biological programming to behave a certain way by instinct was strong enough. Ironically individual personality traits are a function of biological programming as well, regardless of sex factors, but yet the traditionalists of course like to ignore all of this. It appears that the ones who are really responsible for the social engineering are the traditionalists, since they’re the ones who are obsessed with reminding boys and girls to play by the gender rules. Being free and able to be one’s true self, not restricted by their gender or sex is the polar opposite of social engineering. The traditionalists are the ones bullying people to behave a certain way. I feel that my points support what the article has stated. Come on traditionalists, as a guy I’m acting upon instinct, but yet you have to remind me that I’m not acting upon instinct!? LMFAO.

    I guess I’m still feeling this site out before deciding to take it more seriously or not, and maybe do more. I opposed feminism, not because I’m whining that I don’t have the power to be hypermasculine anymore, but because I feel that men are still unfairly being forced to adhere to traditional gender roles while women aren’t. I also feel that feminists in general are not about gender equality but instead are about pushing women ahead at the expense of men. Obviously it appears that some of us have drastically different goals on this site. I’m for progression, not regression, and I want to be able to see boys and men move ahead as easily as girls and women have been.

  • captive

    A true alpha males draws followers – not forces them. The figure of Jesus in the Bible is an example of this – having drawn billions of men throughout history. There’s absolutely nothing about him that is dominating, violent, abusive or otherwise – but he still remained for centuries a primary influence in human culture. Martin Luther King Jr., Victor Hugo, Ghandi, Billy Graham, etc. are additional examples. Though the dominating and abusive masculine alpha is very present in Greek and Roman literature, Christian and Jewish literature has much less of it (other than God as presented by the Torah/Old Testament). It wasn’t until Nazism that the west started attempting to raise entire cultures of men to fit this mold – though that has mostly happened in the United States and still doesn’t sit well with more European western cultures. I don’t mind a man who is largely alpha, but I mind when he tries to force it on me, and that is the primary distinction between feigned or socially engineered masculinity and naturalized masculinity: the need of an enforcement system to ensure compliance to it.

    Pick up modernist books from before the 1940’s, read books from the 19th century, the dark ages – you’ll find vastly different presentations of masculinity than you find rubber stamped in contemporary literature (particularly TV) these days. “Traditional Manhood” was rubber-stamped in the heads of many of the baby-boomers as a John Wayne type and that morphed into the Judge Dredd and Terminator type of alpha male of the more contemporary era.

    But pick up East of Eden and you’ll find multiple complex portraits of masculinity.

    A true alpha is a leader – not a dominator. He has no need to dominate because he is, quite simply, followed. He is controlling without the tendency towards totalitarian control. A pseudo-alpha is a narcissist and a control freak – the kind of person who will collude with feminist agendas when they are wrong only because it increases his social status and not for any other reason – and the kind of person who is the first to resort to force when resisted or contradicted.

  • chewbakka

    I really liked this article and can see a lot of thought went into it. Personally as a man in his 30s I’ve always struggled between what I consider a physical and artistic nature and a Cerebral and academic one. To me these are the duality that all human beings face of self nurturing and the development of confidence through action. As a physically athletic man I considered my ‘natural’ role to be such however while it may sound conceited I am also intelligent enough to know that my own interests are best served in the intellectual sphere even though I understand men’s current reticence to enter it. It is a confusing dichotomy when bravado and heroism have no focus in protecting family and spouse as a form of identity against finding purpose in self-gratification through financial or intellectual success. It seems like a leap to me, to leave that behind(if only in a conceptual way). It is however one I am coming to embrace and in large part thanks to the work being done here and elsewhere. It is a pride in achievement that I seek, not as an own gender preference but as a kind of spiritual strength that I daily garner from the mentors that I see in the current Men’s movement. To take pride in that and in my own endeavours is a tradition of masculinity that stretches back for more than an age and across physical achievement, invention and sacrifice for its own sake. It may seem a lonely road however those that support it, both men and women have little doubt of its value. As a grown man I no longer need the crutch of indentured servitude to women or family as a means of identity but as a choice only, that must support my own chosen path. So thank you Paul et al for supporting such a wonderful exploration of freedom and strength in a new era for men.

  • GCooper7005

    Another good article exploring the source of maleness. But … so what? Paul, Dean, and numerous others continue to spend far too much time on exposing feminist silliness.

    Nothing changes until offensive power exceed defensive power.

    The feminists have perverted America into a male-hating society and all the articles confirming this will not change anything until MRMs understand the nature of feminist power. Simply stated it is made of two elements:
    1) Organizational Power
    This is the “girls club” that all women belong too. It started to develop amongst females about 2 million years ago when the baboons came down from the trees to walk upright, as the females quickly discovered that carrying a baby made them more vulnerable. This is why they go to the washroom together at a bar. It is why they stick together. It is why they shop together. It is why women vote for other women. It the first source of female power.

    2) Sexual Power
    Men desire sexual access to females. It’s in the DNA. Women are ‘the party of least interest’ and as such
    have tremendous power over men.

    3) The Means of Reproduction
    As the female requires 9 months to gestate, they have control of the means of reproduction.

    Paul and other MRAs are focused almost entirely on item #1 above — trying to counteract female organizational power. Unless men focus on all three instruments of female power, little will change or indeed, men’s predicament may worsen once feminists figure out how to increase their organizational power to counteract any successes that men may have.

    I wish I could go to bed every night with the knowledge that MRAs are winning the war that was started by feminists. Men are making minor in-roads in confronting female organizational power, but that is all.

    Sadly, our species is doomed if men do not change tactics.

    • Paul Elam

      And what are you spending your time on? I mean other than reducing us all to biology?

    • Roxene Kimes

      your survival of the fittest mentality is exactly the REASON why the roles given by the Creator are ignored and will continue to be until the very land itself vomits us out. We have a frontal lobe for a reason. Not to decide that distinctions are themselves the problem, but to decide what is the greater good. (America used to be known for freedom OF conscience. Today we are known for freedom from a conscience.)

      • PaulMurrayCbr

        I don’t understand what it means for “the land itself” to “vomit” a people “out”. Do you suppose that geologic formations care about how humans choose to organise their societies? Do you imagine that the bedrock will, out of sheer outraged butthurt, spew up mudslides to sweep all the people in the USA into the sea? Or what? Is there any content at all to your hysterical and silly ramblings, or are you simply borrowing phrases from the toadstool-induced ravings of St John without thinking about what they might mean?

        (PS: when Jesus returns, do you suppose he will be riding in an actual two-wheeled chariot? With horses?)

  • birdofhermes

    Hi this was a nice piece. You made a great argument about the alpha male contribution to today’s climate for males. I only take issue with your characterization of ritalin as 8f it has an overall negative effect on the well being of many young males. ADHD is a real disorder and stimulant use is an effective treatment. Methylphenidate(ritalin) is well tolerated by most people compared to amphetamines. In my personal experience it helps improve functionality. As a person gets older its important to try new ways to help improve working memory and focus. But medication can be an invaluable tool. I agree with most everything you wrote. Sorry to sort of point something like this out.

    • Dash Riprock

      I’m guessing you might be a clinician (no need to answer
      that and apologies if being presumptuous) and as I like to canvass people at
      the coal face as it were, I am wondering if you saw/what you thought of Jeanne
      Stolzer’s article titled:

      ‘The Systemic Correlation Between Psychiatric Medications
      and Unprovoked Mass Murder in America’

      Do you think there could be anything in it? Just interested that’s

      John Lennon was a very unruly/troublesome boy and I sometimes
      think that were he a boy today he would have all his creativity drugged out of
      him. In his case neither better for him or the people around him (e.g. the
      money). I guess with any drug there are a few tragedies and it’s no different
      with psychotropic drugs.

    • jbantifem

      I trust you’re a doctor? You’re the only person I’ve ever heard defend ritalin.

      Ritalin does have some use for some people, but it is highly abused in regard to ‘controlling’ children. Mostly in the fact it’s used as a quick fix. Instead of giving it to me when I was a child perhaps they should have listened to me when I told them my mother was doing horrendous sexual and physical things to me at home. Ritalin was the last thing I needed. I was asking for real help, not dope.

      ADHD is just another term for active, healthy children and is most commonly pinned on boys. They are normal, healthy boys who just need to let off steam. It’s how we male humans are wired.

      Stop doping up our children I say. It’s disgusting.

      • birdofhermes

        It is also popular because its highly effective and Amphetamines aren’t always as well tolerated. Working memory impairment and is a real phenomena and it is one of the most valid diagnosises in psychiatry. Have you ever worked with someone with real severe adhd? Its not much fun for them or the people around them. Dont get me wrong its both over and under prescribed and a large chunk of parents want a quick fix and wont spend time taking their children to cognitive therapy. (so one day they can hopefully not be reliant on a medication to function. As for the poster bellow metananalysises of studies upon studies of individual and groups of disorders show that psychotropic treatment is effective at bettering life outcomes. Across a broad spectrum of illnesses. Because of stigma and disbelief in mental illness people dont seek treatment or take their medication (discontinue it when the feel better ect. )properly that is why it seems sometimes psychology and psychiatry are ineffectual. Also the mentally ill are not violent on the whole and are more likley to be victims of violence than the average person as well. If we include personality disorders. Im guessing it wouldnt work that way. Im going to take a look at that though im no expert, but there are things about the current biopsychiatry paradigm im worried about.Write a script then wash your hands of the person. Drugs are dangerous to people who arent mentally ill. And the wrong type for someone who is mentally ill can be terrible
        Im biased like everyone is about things they care about and im no clinician. Im a mental illness sufferer who is just now becoming functional I can personally attest to multidimensional therapy and psychotropic medications as invaluable my life is so much better with them. Im glad I dont live in a time without them. They allow me to be more myself and not the opposite as many people think

        • jbantifem

          If you choose to poison yourself that’s your prerogative. Keep in mind though, drugs like Ritalin are created by the same people who take more tax money than they need to and consistently lie to us. Just saying….

          • birdofhermes

            Poison myself? Ahah in some cases yes. For example I didnt have adhd so dextromethylephenidate or Focalin (aka lets cut ritalin half and try to extend its patent.) Made me extremely anxious and contributed to a hypomanic episode. I appreciate your opinion. But too much research and too many experiences I have with people with mental illness or ones of my own make me think all psychotropic medication is poison when used correctly. I wouldnt be commentating today without it. I would of killed myself when I was younger. It works just like any other drug, an anticonvulsant does stop convulsions it but also stabilizes mood. Just like a betablocker slows your heart it also makes you relax. Just like how caffeine and nicotine both help you focus both do help people with adhd. (I have a huge problem with those drugs im just trying to bring up points as to why how these drugs are fraudulent poisons. Anyway, I respectfully disagree.

          • jbantifem

            They’re fraudulent poisons no better than nicotine or caffeine and if you believe they’re not I suggest you look deeper into some of the ingredients included in these drugs you’ve ingested.

            They are manufactured by people who don’t give a damn about you as a human being. They simply want your money. Starting from the people who first diagnosed you when you were young. You were brainwashed. We all have been, some more than others.

            Every time your doctor prescribes you medication she/he gets a kickback for it. They get richer from it. G.P.’s where I live seen an average of 50 people per day. With an average of $20 per prescription at 30 people per day that is $600 extra on top of their salaries. That’s an $18 000 bonus per month. They’re not in it for your health, trust me.

            Never in a million years would I ever trust someone who is getting paid to dole out medications with massive lists of side-effects. I’d rather either suffer or look into more natural remedies that won’t give me cancer or cause heart disease after a decade of use.

            You can disagree with me of course, but I’ve done massive amounts of research on the drugs doctors prescribe. Very little screening of these drugs is done before they are released to the public. It’s all poison to me.

          • birdofhermes

            Natural remedies often work via the same prinipal as medications. Saint johns wort is basically a natural ssri and has similiar side effects. Serotonin syndrome etc. The binders are inert the side effects mild the research vast. Brainwashed no. Im bipolar and I know what its like to not be on treatment. Some of this shit works man. Lamotrigine a drug I take is used as an anticonvulsant it was via accident shown to reduce manic episode’s. If this were only profit driven and a giant conspiracy im pretty sure they would only prescribe newer medications. And something like that wouldnt happen. Nothing is so black and white. And my view is nuanced. I know whats in every medication I take. I know the pros and cons and side effects and interactions. Im not brainwashed into say believing an entire branch of medicine is a complete farce. Rarely are things that clear. And if you want to believe that mountains and mountains of research were done on nothing thats fine. That every single researcher and doctor was in on it is hard to believe that they exist in a paradigm in which they dont question whether doling out drugs is the right method for say adhd or other childhood illnesses I buy that entirely. That doctors want to write a script and be done with their session im sure many do. That overcoming major mental illness is a multifaceted difficult journey and not a little pill isnt something a lot of people want to hear. I meditate I take fish oil and other supplements all things proven effective by the same research methods you seem to ignore how would you determine what to use then?. I dont disagree that things are overprescribed in general for certain illnesses. Or that too often people reach for a bottle of pills instead of excersising and taking care of themselves. Anyway thank you for keeping it resepectful. This usually degenerates quickly. Thank you

      • Roxene Kimes

        Ritalin makes you lethargic and unresponsive and for young children it removes ones concept of right and wrong. I worked as a house parent at a boys ranch where the whole ting was a sam to buy up real estate and all the boys were made to take this nasty drug. The kids cannot comprehend right and wrong until they are given interaction and reason and then the ability to chose on their own. The concept of being their to instill a healthy conscience was as taboo there as it is in the DOE, and I had to leave…

  • Roxene Kimes

    There will be no “forging a new path”. What WILL happen is the immorality set in place by women and their movement (DOE) WILL create a severe danger due to the FACT that when their is no moral standard the God given roles will go ignored (are being ignored) meaning the role of men as protector will also be ignored. Thus we will be crushed nationally and instantly America and its constitution will be history. But then, that is the goal and why the morality has to go. No truth, all PC. No morals – no protection. No protection – no more America and the land of the free. (when we quit believing in God we do not then start believing in nothing. We start believing in ANYTHING)

    • PaulMurrayCbr

      How weird for a citizen of the nation that fields the best-equipped military in the world, with bases on almost every continent (and I’m not sure about antarctica), that attacks other nations with almost complete impunity, to be so frightened! The USA is a long, long way from being attacked by anyone.

      • Roxene Kimes

        The attack is an attack on the truth and morality and once that is relatively complete the superior firepower mentality will not matter because the enemy will become anyone who does not believe in the correctness. PC

  • Graham Strouse

    Dean, no offense, but I think you might be indulging just a bit too much in philosophy and poetry here. And I’m speaking as a former philosopher and sometimes poet. Also, speaking froma PR standpoint, can we please do away with the Matrix analogies. I fucking love The Matrix, but building a movement around metaphors developed from a Keanu Reeves flick is not a winner. You know the way people mock Suey park & Rebecca Watson & Big Red? When you base a movement on a clever but disposable metaphor from a 1999 movie that featured a stoner who had lines like “I know Kung-Fu” you’re setting yourself up for failure.

    • Graham Strouse

      Genarally speaking, people trust straight talk. metaphors are okay but cliches and memes die out fast. Look what happened to #CancelColbert & #Banbossy. let’s give up on the red pill stuff, okay. Great movie. Good analogy, but it’s time to move on from metaphor to movement.

  • Mike Fleming

    Excellent article and I pretty much agree completely.

    My entire life I’ve looked at the Alpha/Beta/Omega classification and thought “I don’t fit into any of them”. I don’t want to dominate, I’m not a yes man and I’m not a drone. They seem to be primitive classifications fit for primitive unthinking people.

    For men, it truly is a case of evolve or perish at this point and I am quite happy to label myself as a zeta male.

    What does it mean for females? Will they be forced to evolve also and if so what will be the pressure that forces it?

  • Mike Fleming

    Excellent article and I pretty much agree completely.

    My entire life I’ve looked at the Alpha/Beta/Omega classification and thought “I don’t fit into any of them”. I don’t want to dominate, I’m not a yes man and I’m not a drone. They seem to be primitive classifications fit for primitive unthinking people.

    For men, it truly is a case of evolve or perish at this point and I am quite happy to label myself as a zeta male.

    What does it mean for females? Will they be forced to evolve also and if so what will be the pressure that forces it?

  • jbantifem

    Good article Paul. Thanks.

    I agree with most of it, but I’m still on the fence as to who is holding the reigns when it comes to having full control. Yes, we men have allowed ourselves to be backed into a corner of which we can’t get out of, but I believe there are women at the top who are pulling the strings of their ‘privileged’ male puppets.

    However, there is no doubt that many men are cashing in on the destruction of family and fathers/husbands’ lives as well. As are many women. It may be far more complex for any of us to be able to decipher.

    Just my opinions on it. Thanks again.

  • wakjob

    It’s not as grim as you say. Nature abhors imbalance–this feminist power grab based on the pernicious myth of male dominance, in the greater arc of human events, shall pass. Men and the women who love them are already waking up; the spell is breaking; word is getting around. Women as they are and always have been, and men as they are and always have been, struck a balance for millenia, and will find balance again. It simply cannot be otherwise. Imbalance is unsustainable. We don’t have to force ourselves emergently to evolve, we just have to expose the myths and the lies. We don’t need to lament that it is all we can do. It will be enough.

  • David King

    Take the politics not related to men’s issues elsewhere.

  • W.Gao

    Feminists waste more time complaining about masculinity then they do campaigning for equality for a very simple, fundamental reason: Feminism is the unadmitted fear of men.

    Is it a coincidence they find something wrong with every single male trait? Or that they try to define what a man is, despite not being men? They’re trying to control what they fear as to alleviate that fear. This is why the moral views of the left should never be taken at face value. It’s not innocently well-intended, but a method of forcing their (rather immature) worldview on others.

    • Mr. E

      “Or that they try to define what a man is, despite not being men?”

      And then, in the very next breath, tell men that they don’t have any right to define femininity.

  • Martin

    This is a really old post. :)

    I loved the comments by Shlomo

    “Also, we are told men are “competitive” when, in fact, males are mostly cooperative. Few males raise barns by themselves. And a guy who spends all day raising sheep can’t fashion the wheels his cart needs to bring butchered lamb to market.

    I think the idea that men are innately competitive is something instilled in us so we won’t see/feel our common bond. Because if we DID feel those bonds we might just decide to live differently…and not feel constantly under the gun to “prove” ourselves (often at the expense of other males).”

    This is very much how I see it and also what I see as the way forward. The only times men have been able to, at least partially, break the total rule by alphas is when men have worked together for the good of men. The last time we did this and also laid the foundation of the humanitarian aspects of our current society is the labor unions.

    I know all you americans start foaming at the mouth when you see that word but that is only because you have been taught to do so. Your own history is full of working people striving for for some respect and appreciation from the owners and rulers almost always against powers armed and ready to use every means necessary. A labor union is men working together looking out for each other.

    The labor unions was also an institution where men could grow individually and together. A place where men inspired each other to learn more and see their own value. There was never any outside funding, government grants, special laws or anything like that. It was working class mens collective effort that made them lift themselves. Can’t you all see how threatening this is to all men with vested interests in status quo and that MRA could be that grain of sand around which the pearl can form.

    Remember that labor unions have existed before any of the scarewords used today to keep you all apart in some rugged entrepreneur mythology of happy liberitarianism. Thats just another of those pills we are being fed, that I can never remember what color i supposed to mean what. Labor unions have always been about human rights just like MRA is. So lets try again to join together to make this world a better place by making it a place where we don’t use other men as stepping stones for our personal gain. In no way does it mean that ther shouldn’t be any competition. Of course we can compete and it is good. Look at the way teams in sports leagues are competing. The goal is not destroy the opponent but to match wits and skills in a way that both can play again and have been able to learn from the experience. Corporations act in a similar way. They don’t strive to destroy each other. The only ones that can be destroyd and who are taught that that is how it is supposed to be are the men working for the corporations and the men fighting wars. In both cases men are often pitted against other men and are told that it is all or nothing. Kill or be killed. We have to stop this now and to do that men must find a new way to treat men that is respectful and works regardless of what women think or do.

    • driversuz

      Labor unions are probably not a good example of they cooperative dynamic you are talking about. They are now so completely corrupt that their members are no longer cooperating and sacrificing for each others’ good; they are cooperating and sacrificing for the good of the union bosses. It’s a nice ideal but the reality is very different from the ideal.

      • Martin

        If the ones we have don’t work we start new ones. Ideals are not “nice” and to be viewed condecendingly. Ideals are at the root of everything we do even when you don’t think so.

        Men working together make things happen and changes the world we live in. That is not an ideal but a fact.

        • driversuz

          It’s a great ideal, one that has failed catastrophically in labor unions. Better examples might be organizations like Masons or historically male veterans’ groups.

  • Jhon Shephard

    A bit off topic but this thing reminds me a lot of Kratos when you talk of Persius and a lot of young men have grown up seeing him so they may understand your ideas more than you think they do.

  • Edward

    Feminism is a damaging political movement, driven by misandrists. The moment I realize I am attracted to a women, and I like her more than a friend, I become nervous, and anxious, because all I ever hear is men are perverts and rapists, and we’re always forcing our desires on women when they don’t want them. So I think If I tell her I am attracted to her, she’ll be offended, or think I’m being inappropriate, and dislike me,so I never act on it, and I pretty much just stop talking to her. That’s fucked up. It’s not right. Guys shouldn’t have to be afraid to feel affection for a woman. It’s normal to be attracted to members of the opposit sex.It shouldn’t be something you get chastised for.

  • Christopher Allman

    For the past….several centuries, in European culture, the “ideal” of masculinity has been to be a Gentleman. A Gentle man. Gentle. Not macho and aggressive, not abusive and toxic. In fact, from my readings of history, this has NEVER been the masculine ideal within Western European society. The notion that it has ever been is a feminist fantasy and I’m surprised to see, of all people, Paul Elam having bought into it. (I have a lot of respect for you paul!)

    In the 1800’s, the ideal of masculinity was to be a Dandy. Something we would now see as rather effeminate. Before that, it was guys who pranced around in big white wigs.

    Prior to the 1920’s, men in western cultures regularly held hands in public and slept in the same bed, just like happens now in the Middle East, a very ‘masculine’ society. In fact, look at the Middle East, it focuses intensely on the liberal arts, something we in the west consider ‘feminine’. (one of the best books on the subject is ‘What Went Wrong’ By Bernard Lewis. Where muslims themselves lament on they have lost out to the west because they have focused too much on the liberal arts and not enough on hard science. THink about that, the more ‘effeminate’ cultures of Europeans were the more scientifically minded, while the more ‘masculine’ cultures were more focused on things like poetry and language.

    Even 2000 years ago, the Celts (the culture which dominated most all of europe other than southern Italy) had what was called a ‘Peace Chief’, rulers, (male and female) who ruled through peace and magic. Yes, some chiefs used violence, but not all. There was Boudica, a female leader who led warriors. The celtic society was organized very simarl to the indian society. INstead of the Brahmin on top, the Celts had Druids. These were men and women who had more social power than kings or queens. Their power came through knowledge and magic, not through violence and aggression.
    (in fact, it is no coincidence that Celtic society and Hindu society has the same structure. They both came from the same indo-european cultures of the caucasus area)

    In my opinion, one the biggest problems with our perception of history is that the television became popular in the 1950’s, a time when, for the first and only time in western history, we developed a cult of domesticity, where the father went out and worked and the woman stayed home. As even a feminist historian, Stephanie Coontz describes it, this is ‘the way we never were’. For example, women have ALWAYS worked outside the home.
    Not to mention that we associate the Bible with the ancient past. Again, the myths of a small tribe in the middle east have zero bearing on how our ancestors actually lived. To understand that, we need to understand celtic culture and celtic myths. These men achieved power through courage, bravery and respect to women. Just read Beuwolf.

    I think there are now and have always been a great diversity of ‘alphas’. Some have used violence, sure, but many have used peaceful, social negotiations, intelligence, ‘magic’ and whatever worked. In my opinion, there are many great historical examples of masculinity practiced in positive, healthy ways, but feminism has done such an absurdly good job at obscuring all of this, that even the men’s movement is unaware.

    • Robert Brockway

      Fantastic comment Chris. I’ve been spending a lot of time writing and talking about the historical myths that even a lot of MRAs buy in to.

      As you note, women have always worked outside of the home (alongside men and children). The ability of women to be freed from work started with the wealthy classes a few centuries ago and trickled down society as prosperity grew. It was considered to be desirable until feminism reinvented it as oppression.

  • MaleLib ForLiberation

    Coincidentally I came across an old comment by Suz replying to a comment about “toxic masculinity” where Suz said no such thing exists..I almost replied that, in the sense the posted could have meant, I agree it doesn’t exist, but that something very real exists, Misandry, that too often gets the label of “toxic masculinity” (blame men for men’s problems, that never happens right?)

    So while your points were more numerous and in much greater depth than my phrasing of ” ‘toxic masculinity’ is not completely fake, it is often the (so easily misleading) name given to very real aspects of Misandry”, still I see overlap with that thought I had and very much welcome this exploration.

    I loved your “And this is precisely the battle we need to fight! Not with women and
    not with feminists of either sex, but with the aspects of masculinity” too.

    In comments a AFVM (even before my “4malelib” account AVFM blog post “MHRM Strategy. Being smart is not the same as being weak!”) I made the modest suggestion that it’s far less important whether the person I’m talking to “considers themselves” or calls themselves “feminist” or not, but instead whether their ears are open to MHRM issues, whether they have a level of honesty and integrity to be open minded.

    There are toxic people with minds and hearts closed to MHRM who do not call themselves “feminist” (who are “apolitical” or even “anti feminist” but also anti-MHRM) and there are the “innocent” who think “it means I support equality between the genders” when they call themselves the F word…and for some of them their mind is open to MHRM issues so those are the audience to try to win over.

    One thing I partly agree but partly want to encourage additional ways of looking at it (who me? do that often? *innocent look*) is about men handing on a silver plater to women.

    Now, I TOTALLY agree with you that there are individual women and many organizations totally guilty of demanding these things from the alpha males. But that’s not the full story. I think for more than a few women, it was sold to them too. Like a dishonest company that convinces you that you need a product you don’t need.

    You pointed a one “Complex” when you mentioned the pharmaceutical complex medicating boys.

    We have also not just that and the military industrial complex (which with politicians can manipulate good peace loving Americans into “asking for” a war after lying to the public) but also the media complex including manufactured outrage media complex portion, and manufactured shame and guilt parts…

    In other words, yes, some women (and some “women’s groups”) demanded anti-male discriminatory laws from the alpha males in Congress and the courts…but there were also (and I would love more articles on this Paul..) also women who were tricked into supporting it..Sold a product after being convinced they “needed it” This reinforces that women are not the enemy of the MHRM and while their being victimized by the media complex in this area is not on the same scale as male victims, they were sold a lie.

    And while I have disagreements with tone in lots of parts of MHRM it has done a great job as pointing at some of this – the insecurity that the media complex shoves down women’s throats (insecurity about their power, their body image etc) is then used to sell a false “solution” that means: misandrist laws at one extreme, and “mere” male-shaming at the other extreme.

    The toxic Manufactured Outrage Manufactured Victimhood Manufactured Self-Loathing Cultural Media Complex in other words (while it also sells a ton of self-loathing directed at men and boys of course) created “Problems” (fake ones, and real problems like self loathing that it created selling beauty products and selling cultural outrage and more) that it then (or these alpha males then) sold the toxic misandrist laws as “Solutions” to.

    Yes some women asked for these toxic “solutions” but many women (and this message, this truth, I hope, can help win more female converts to MHRM) were sold these problems or problems of self-hatred (getting women insecure and hating themselves) so that later false misandrist solutions were paraded in front of these women, who were manipulated into “asking for” these toxic misandrist solutions.

    Then these “Feminist” alpha males can be viciously misandrist in their “solutions”, in their Prescriptions and policy, while pointing at the women and saying, “Hey, SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT!” (how’s that for irony Paul??) while these Alpha leaders dole out the malignant “solution” the (along with plenty of guilty women and women’s groups joining these male “alphas” of course) giving out their soltuions after they manipulated a large fraction of women, without truth in advertising, without informed consent, manipulated these women into “asking for it”

  • Ron

    There is something in this article I am skeptical about. It is asserted that as Western society industrialized, the men at the very pinnacle of power (termed “Alphas”), took action to restructure society at the behest of their feminism-supporting wives, who pushed their powerful husbands to do this by in effect threatening to withhold sex. The problem I have with this assertion is that it requires us to believe that these sociopathic, immensely powerful men who would think nothing of throwing other, lower-status men under the bus — through slavery, labor exploitation, war, etc. — would simply knuckle under to the demands of their wives. Even among the common run of men, we can find those who would never submit to sexual blackmail (i.e. “You do what I tell you to do or no nookie.” “Really? In that case, goodbye.”), so would it not be reasonable to assume that such an attitude would be a defining characteristic of the Alpha? He could simply say “Fine, darling, I’ll just get it somewhere else.” (I recall the old Saturday Night Live skit in which Donald Trump — portraying himself — says to Ivana that according to their prenuptual agrrement “I’m allowed to have mistresses provided they are younger than you.”) I realize that bending over backwards to please the woman in your life, sexual blackmail or not, is a big priority for a lot of men (despite feminist assertions of ubiqutious male privilege). It just seems to me that it would be a much lower priority for an Alpha type (as described above) the moment his woman starts trying to dictate terms in what he sees as “his” territory with a presumed sexual bargaining chip. I’m not saying that wives of powerful husbands have never strongly influenced public policy (Marie Antoinette and Eleanor Roosevelt come to mind), but that it’s more complex than just “Do what I want or you don’t get any.” I may be misreading the text, but my takeaway impression is that submitting to the threat of no sex from their wives was what everything supposedly hinged on. Is the Alpha, historically speaking, really so malleable under this threat from his wife? (Disclaimer: In speaking of sexual blackmail, I am NOT asserting that men are somehow “entitled to women’s bodies”, nor am I asserting that men should have constant sexual access to the women in their lives regardless of the women’s feelings. Rather I am saying that calculatedly denying sexual intimacy for the express purpose of coercing someone into doing what you want — done by either men or women, done to either men or women — is a form of emotional blackmail. [This is simply a preemptive anti-troll / anti-strawman measure].)

    • Andrew

      The strategy of coordinated sexual blackmail to control alpha males is
      not new. Look up “Lysistrata” a play that explores many ideas we might
      associate with modern feminism (controlling prideful and violent males
      by withholding sex); yet the play was written by Aristophanes around 400
      BC. Other gender-based control strategies can also found in old
      literature. One of the first novels written in the English language,
      “The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling,” written by Henry Fielding in
      1749, includes a comedic scene (in Book 13, if I recall) in which a
      woman starts screaming rape to to divert attention away from being
      discovered undressed in a room with Jones. Although the complicated plot
      also includes a conspiracy to commit rape, isn’t it interesting that
      false rape allegations were common enough to be mocked 250
      years ago.

      • Ron

        I’m aware of Lysistrata; it just seems to me that empirical evidence is needed for such a contention as noted above, and literary allusions are in my view insufficient (albeit relevant). In any case, the women in Aristophanes’ play were attempting to end the Peloponnesian War, a decidedly ad hoc, short term endeavor. It’s another question whether the stereotypical Alpha could be bullied into submission in such a way over the long term, in or outside of a fictional story. As for the incident in Tom Jones, it’s an example of a gender-based control strategy, but of a decidely different type. If I wanted to give a historical example of a powerful male political figure being strongly influenced by a woman, the first one that comes to mind is Marie Antoinette’s sway over Louis XVI during the French Revolution. But even then I don’t know if it would count as influence over an Alpha Male because while Louis was undoubtedly in an “Alpha job,” he was simply born to it and is generally viewed by historians as indecisive and not overly interested in affairs of state, preferring to hunt and dabble in woodwork. So I’m still skeptical on this point.

    • TM

      There are other ways to influence men other than withholding sex. anyone ever cave in and say “yes, ok, I’ll do it” just to get her to stop naggin you because all you want is to be left alone to do whatever it was that you were doing.
      Another is emotional blackmail where she turns on the water works. This is particularly effective since it’s subconsciously perceived by men as a criticism of his masculinity. After all, a “real man” is supposed to squash/fix everything and anything that upsets her.

    • Mr. E

      “The problem I have with this assertion is that it requires us to believe that these sociopathic, immensely powerful men who would think nothing of throwing other, lower-status men under the bus — through slavery, labor exploitation, war, etc. — would simply knuckle under to the demands of their wives.”

      The thing is that it’s done in drips and drabs. No one thing is so awful or difficult. But one thing builds upon the next and over time, they add up.

      “I am NOT asserting that men are somehow “entitled to women’s bodies”

      Why not? They assert that they’re entitled to ours all the time.

  • TM

    I think Paul is correct in wanting to look at the non-feminism reasons for why men are in the position we’re in. There may be other interconnected reasons. Here are a couple of social scenarios that I think have contributed to what should have been called “the plague effecting men”:

    All the scenarios attempt to answer the question “Where are the Alphas?”. If these men are supposed to be leaders then look to your leaders. You see Clinton (Mr), Bush, Obama in the states, here in the UK we see Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg. We’re about to see Ed Miliband or more of Cameron. These are hardly the best examples of Alphas are they? Would you even consider them Betas? I think not.

    I think my scenarios would start in the 1950s, 60s, 70s high school. Somewhere in this period, the definition of masculinity crystallised into the Alpha male. This was distilled into the form of jocks, athletes, football players, wrestlers. The rise and spread of media (TV mainly) compounded this. You had “perfect” examples of successful “Alpha” males with semi-nude women draped over each arm. This was the beginning of the ever increasing sexual imagery being made available to kids at the time (and even more so, to our kids now). All of this targets our kids at a younger and younger age with each generation. Kids who are barely old enough to understand and form their own principles are being pushed into gender specific roles. Boys started to move away from academic type subjects at school because they thought being a man was to be an Alpha. To be tough, a footballer, a rapper, a gangster. To be interested in Math, Science etc was to be a nerd and therefore not Alpha.
    The Alphas and Betas become the majority and the omegas became the bullied nerds, the minority. The result is the start of the decline in academic performance of boys in schools.
    In an effort to fix this, the bar was lowered and tests got easier to pass. We keep hearing about how exams are not as hard as they used be, how more kids a getting ‘A’ grades, how degrees are not worth the paper they’re printed on. The examinations themselves were made less stressful by using coursework/assignments where the final grade was split between a stressful exam and something easy. It didn’t work because they didn’t realise the root cause was because boys had erroneously come to the conclusion that school wasn’t important.
    The coursework assignments only served to accelerate the decline in boys performance. This was because these assignments usually had a collaborative element. The boys would think it was unmanly to seek help/advise in a study group. After all, to be a man you had to be an Alpha, a tough, strong, “I don’t need any help because I’m the leader” type. And also, if the “nerds” were doing it, then Alphas shouldn’t be.
    What did happen though was girls started doing better. This was a combination of more girls going to higher education, lowering of pass marks, introduction of coursework with collaborative elements. The last one plays on the stereotype of girls wanting to form groups and communities. Somewhere in the 80s, 90s, 2000s Feminist ideals took this to the extreme and changed the entire education system to suit girls more than boys. If the system wasn’t fair for girls then it was right to try to change it. It was wrong to change it to the point where the imbalance has shifted the other way.
    It may have been the wives of Alphas exerting influence on them at the beginning but Alphas themselves didn’t simply hand power over to feminists. This is because feminists haven’t really stepped forward to ask for it (until now). This is why governments are still dominated by men.
    Instead, the original Alphas simply ceded the floor to the nerds. Those that they originally (and wrongly) categorised as omegas.
    These men became our leaders, our CEOs, our bosses and our managers. They moved the western world from a manufacturing based economy (mining, automotive, engineering, building) to a more cerebral economy (Stocks, shares, banking, finance, computers, tech, the .coms the cloud etc). This was a good thing for the western world because it was finding itself unable to compete with cheap labour in the east (China, Japan). It was bad for the majority of men though. This was because they were swayed by the now commercialised definition of masculinity. Even these Omegas were knocked to their feet when .com bubble burst and now everyone’s been screwed by the financial market crash.
    The problem isn’t really that these things happened. Economic competition will always cause these events. The world is averaging itself out and has been doing for a long time. The western world lowers towards the average and the eastern world raises up towards the average. Its simple economics. The problem is why men seem to recovering at a disproportionate rate compared to women. The answer in part is because we’re trying to be Alphas in world were the definition of Alphas ceased to apply 50 odd years ago.
    This definition caused most men to make wrong life choices at key points in their life. These decisions have left us ill equipment with the pace of change in the modern world. The last 2 or 3 generations of men have been living in world that was an illusion. They didn’t take the red pill (that assumes we had a choice). Instead, we had the rug pulled out from under us (either through economics or divorce or both). We hit the floor hard and woke up only to find that we are the batteries powering the illusion.
    I hate to take the matrix analogy further but MGTOW is not really the solution. MGTOW are taking themselves out of the firing line. They’re taking themselves out of the fight. They’re doing what the original Alphas did. They’re ceding the floor, only this time it will be the feminists who take over. MGTOW are actually the agent Smiths. They are what men have been pushed to. They are the result of the system trying to balance out a systemic anomaly. And we can see where a world of Smiths can lead us.
    I think its probably too late for our generation. We can only help by teaching our sons AND DAUGHTERS what it means to be a real productive person. No more of this real man – Alpha, beta, omega, zeta male crap. No more princesses or barbie doll type role models. Teach our daughters to not allow themselves to be seen as victims or weak. This should stop this extreme feminism which seems to thrive on having victims. Teach both sexes about honour, respect responsibility. Commercial products need to be targeted to specific audiences to sell well. What better way to do this than make people conform to set types. Undo their classifications (masculine, feminine). Do this, and maybe in a generation or so we might have better grounded sons and daughters who will go on to lead and make the required changes.

  • Mr. E

    Paul, I think this is a well thought-out essay. I find a lot of resonance with my own thoughts in it. Particularly with the aspect of Men being the enforcers for Feminism– ironic isn’t it? Feminists say they want “equality” and yet they can’t actually obtain it without our own assistance. And everything they do to us, we’re in fact doing to ourselves as their proxies. Talk about being suckers for pussy…

  • Average Man

    A call to men and women – we urgently need to find a new frontier

    Hello Mr. Elam.

    Thank-you for your very succinct article. Such writing, outlining the bare bones of the problem (at least the problem as outlined from our male perspective), really helps focus one’s cognitive and other internal resources on what the solutions might look like. I only came across your article today but I have also been troubled for quite some time now (pretty much my whole life) about the large themes coloring our culture, our species, and perhaps all of life itself, and what this can inform one with respect to what it means to be a man, so as to discover the best (most artful) way for me to continue my life here, as a man.

    In service of such quest, allow me to restate what you have said in the article in more personal terms. I am 56 year old now. Some of the ideas I have developed on my way through life so far are:

    1) As a man I have a kind of violence in my heart. I can feel it and it feels good. Of course this is not nearly all I feel, but I notice that this special violence is very important indeed in the ordering of the resources I have at my disposal within my identity. This special violence is very primal, and I am quite sure is a priori to any social constructions that may also inform my identity as a man. I have learned that it is best to highly value this heart-felt primal violence, to not lose touch with it, to understand that if it starts to wane, that this is a sign that my internal resources are being overly taxed, and it is time to regroup and restore my energy. Also I have learned through trial and error experience that this base of primal energy should be used very judicially (so as to not deplete it needlessly), and usually (for most of my waking life) should be just used in a very calm fashion as an underlying feeling of potential power, always there if ever needed. This allows me to behave deliberately, calmly and judiciously, all of which requires much inner confidence, – confidence in my ability to meet circumstances in a way congruent with my abstract notion of my own personal integrity. The powerful feeling of calm potential violence in my heart is the source of this confidence.

    2) This masculine heartfelt violence, seems to me to be pretty much universal among men, more-or-less, (though so many men try to kill it – to kill their own heart!). Upon close examination, this violent masculine heart is penetrative in nature. It seeks a foil (an enemy to penetrate and vanquish), but can also be used, more abstractly, to penetrate a frontier. So to me the masculine violent heart requires either a foil or a frontier. We are this way innately. It seems to me that it has always been like this as long as there have been men. We cannot help it, we have been shaped this way (I agree that we have probably been shaped this way via sexual selection). This is not to be denigrated. This is one of the traits that has brought so much success to the human species, and to western culture. As this trait was shaped by female sexual selection it has as much to inform about women as it does about men. Men are wrong to denigrate this as are women. There is no higher moral or existential ground for either party with respect to any examination of this trait. This trait is an important trait amongst the others that has gotten us to the privileged point we now enjoy as a species.

    3) There are forces at large (culturally, as you have outlined) that admonish men to inwardly psychically attack their own fountainhead of inner strength – to psychically attack the innate special masculine violence within their own hearts. If a man submits to this he can only weaken himself. It is a twisted ugly thing when this happens because so much of such attack occurs in an unconscious or perhaps subconscious way and so is very difficult to undo. The more modern forms of feminism are but one example of such forces. Organized western religion is yet another example (I do not discount religious thought if interpreted in a very esoteric way, meant for hyper-personal internal exploration only, however it is mostly not taken this way, and instead such religious thought is continuously hijacked by those that use it for whatever agenda of social control that they espouse to).

    4) There are other cultural forces at large that instead hijack the violence in a man’s heart in the service of an unworthy endeavor. You have also well outlined examples of this in your article. Modern day wars, and modern systems of subjugation of others in the service of power hungry alpha males as you have defined the term alpha male in your article. In modern times I find it quite mysterious as to why such people do not realize that their own personal autonomy is dependent on their valuing the personal autonomy of others. It seems to me we all should be learning that lesson by about 5 years old (that if you want to be treated well you must treat others well because they have the same existential value as you). It seems to me that the ghastly psychic alternatives to this usual and normative worldview would be that such a person believes they are more real than everyone else (which would be hell on earth because that would mean that on a very existential level one would believe that one is utterly all alone!), or that they themselves do not believe in “realness” the way most other people do (a psychic condition that I can’t really even conceive of – perhaps this may be akin to less self-awareness, less introspection, and a greater reliance on our more instinctual traits). Nevertheless the evidence supports that such existentially wounded people do somehow exist and use the more pre-social id-like psychic apparatus that we all are subject to as human beings, our innate narcissistic traits, as a hook to subjugate us in support of their own personal agenda. What I mean by this, put more simply, is that we are all at least momentarily subject to “them vs. us” thinking, whereby we psychically dehumanize the “them”. There are all kinds of ways to incite this in people. The one type that is a little harder to see through (so as to be the most successful type) is what I like to call -“contempt for the contemptuous”. The idea here is that in this case the “them” are painted as dehumanizers which justifies our own dehumanization of them. Of course when you think about it this doesn’t make any sense, to commit the same error I am accusing “them” of. The point I would like to make here is that normal people who are the authors of such mistaken thinking do see the error, given a bit if time to process their emotions elicited around the event in question, so as to experience some emotional/cognitive dissonance, and will then later tell others they were wrong. But people who are somehow not existential-phenomenologically normal instead keep authoring further obfuscation to try to keep others in their thrall. When you examine the cognitive apparatus that would be necessary to pull off such further obfuscation, they seem to be aware of and anticipating the upcoming emotional/cognitive-dissonance in others and are ready with the further obfuscation, and as such seem like they must be well aware of what they are doing. As such it may well be that what they are doing is evil (i.e. – purposely hijacking the autonomy of others). Or perhaps they lack a normal level of self-awareness and this ongoing obfuscation occurs within a state that feels existential-phenomenologically more like what a normal person would call a dream state (with a dissociative flavor, existential-phenomenologically-speaking).

    5) There are also large cultural themes that go back and forth between the demand for men to admonish their source of masculine strength (the violent heart), and then alternatively use it in service of an unworthy cause. White knighting is an example of this.

    6) The continuing existence of the warped character of the so-called alpha male (as defined in the article), such characterization as I have outlined in #4 above, obviously has been a factor in history of mankind to this point. It is not clear if this type of person was an outlier pre-civilization, or more the norm. Arguments could be made either way. However I think it is clear that the more normative (at least post-dawn-of-civilization-wise) worldview that most of us share now, that we value the personal autonomy of others, as obvious via sharing the same existential value as us, is necessary for a well organized civilization. So this “respect for the autonomy of others” worldview, that most of us share, which does require a degree of self-awareness, must have significantly contributed to the ongoing and rising success of mankind as a species, since at least the dawn of civilization. One could argue either way with respect to the importance of the currently less common alpha male type (the narcissistic type, rather warped in my view), as to being a hindrance or an aid to mankind’s greater since-the-dawn-of-civilization success. It could have been that the interplay of the less common controlling narcissistic type and the “respect for the autonomy of others” more common type accelerated mankind’s success. Or maybe not – you could argue either way.

    7) But nevertheless, as a species we can’t afford “them vs. us” attitudes anymore. This paired with the masculine heart of violence, clearly, is now a recipe for ongoing disaster. I think this is clear to everyone. We are lucky nothing too crazy has happened yet. But we can’t just expect the innate nature of the masculine in our species just to disappear. We can’t legislate that away. In my view, since it is the source of masculine power, it should not be denigrated. Civilizations of the past that have become more matriarchal have weakened themselves and have failed. For us humans, the only way that brought success has been forward, penetrative. But this masculine trait has required either a foil or a frontier. Since the only foil available now is ourselves, we need to emphasize the frontier aspect. What will it be? As a species we have developed the ability of abstraction. Our next frontier could be very abstract indeed and would still probably satisfy the requirements of the masculine heart, playing to our human strengths as a species. What will the abstract frontier be? The possibilities are almost endless when you think about it. There are those that are of the abstract frontiersman nature among us. When you think about it, in the past it has been these such men that have made the most difference, from an individual contribution perspective. Men like Tesla, Newton, Euclid, Riemann, Von Neumann. What can we do to foster those among us that are to show us the way to the new frontier that we absolutely must find if we are to continue in success?

    8) I have said very little about the nature of women. I have to admit that I am still mystified about the nature of the feminine heart. I have had women that I have been intimate with in my life and I must admit that I am completely fascinated but also mystified. To me a woman’s heart is so strange, it seems to me that it is unknown to women as well, but somehow magical in some way that I can’t find any words for. The critical analysis of the way of women as described in the manosphere has alot of merit but at the same time, I think that women are subject to something that is perhaps the complimentary of the masculine violent heart, that is also a double edged sword, that can do great harm but can also bring success, but that is even more mysterious. So to me this criticism (or critical analysis) doesn’t seem to tell the whole story. There is more but it seems it’s a mystery to everyone, including the women. I have also been fortunate to have close women associates that I can speak to about all of the above. They understand what I am saying above about men, but only with effort. This is not something women just automatically know about men. Women seem to be somewhat mystified by men – they don’t seem to really know why they are attracted, but they are attracted. It seems that on some level they are somewhat more narcissistic than men but that knowledge doesn’t seem to dispel the mystery. We need women to help figure this whole thing out, about where we are going, about how to most artfully change direction. Perhaps at this strange juncture in human affairs, it is women that can show the way to the new abstract frontier we now desperately need, so men can go there and penetrate those mysteries.

    It is my hope that these comments foster some discussion.


    • Average Man

      I have thought about my comments a little more and I have realized I could do a better job of defining the “masculine heart of violence” feeling. I think it would be better to describe it as “exuberant violence” – i.e. – I want to downplay the negativity that the word violence alone might connote for some. Because to me it doesn’t feel negative at all. It feels good, and not in a sadistic way. It feels good because it is my source of emotive energy for penetrating my world. The “masculine heart of exuberant violence” is a better term for what I mean.