Female Swagger
My laptop is still down, but I can still squeeze in a few short posts here and there when I can. Ordered my Lenovo laptop and it should be here in a few weeks. My laptop repair guy swears that it’s the best PC laptop you can get, although he swears I should give up PC laptops altogether and get a Mac laptop. Maybe later in the year.
Also, don’t forget to check out this post and comment on what kind of essays you’d like to see me tackle in a book, whether it’s new topics or expansions of previous blog post topics. I’m currently in an outlining stage.
Anyway, on to the current topic. Look at the picture below:
Female Swagger
It appeared in New York Magazine’s Look Book Section a while back. As I flipped through the magazine quickly I had to stop and do a double take when I hit that page. It stopped me a cold because at first glance when I saw that shit-eating smirk, confident aura, great fashion sense and sick, dominant swagger I was impressed. It’s rare to see an American bourgeois bohemian white guy with swagger like that these days. (For an idea of what a bourgeois bohemian is, click here, here or here to get a crystal clear idea). Usually such couples featured in mainstream NY mags has a unassuming, wispy, languid and ironically dressed whimpster geek with a more dynamic and attractive female specimen that is outshining him that is clearly wearing the pants in the relationship (aka the Brooklyn Bobo couple). See this Jessica Valenti story for comparison, picture below:
Now that’s the type of unassuming whimpster I’m used to seeing as the male half of these bobo power couples. The kind of guy you’d never see dominating the forefront of the shot with his arm confidently gripping his woman, exuding cockiness and swagger as his woman just fawns and melts all over him, dripping with adulation, reverence and lust. No, he’s meant to be tolerated for being as inoffensive to her feminist views as possible. If you don’t believe me read the accompanying story.
But back to the first picture, when I did the double-take and flipped back to it, I realized that they were a lesbian couple and not a man-woman couple. At that point it all made sense. I have no proof to back up this claim, but I bet that Allison Michael Orenstein, the dapper dan butch in the first photo, is the more hardcore lesbian while her mate, kissing up on her cheek, Simone Saint Laurent, was probably straight for much of her life and got ”turned out” by Orenstein or a butch similar to her. The reason I assume this is because of what a butch lesbian who excelled at “converting” straight women once told me: that metropolitan straight women, living in this world of feminized bobo whimpsters, are getting so starved for traditional masculine swagger to activate their primal lust triggers and make them feel safe to be a submissive woman that they’re even increasingly willing to turn to another woman to get their dose of macho swagger. This butch claimed to me that the sensitive wuss has been the biggest boon to her lesbo recruitment game, and looking at the two pics I believe her. It’s even worse when you read the stories accompanying both pics. I also think the bobo whimpsterization and swagger deprivation of urban white men has also played a major role in white women’s increased openness to the idea of dating minority men, who tend to have a lot more swagger on average as well.
Read the story accompanying the lesbian couple’s picture and the story accompanying Valenti’s story, and ask yourself, who is more likely to be a follower of The Renaissance Man Philosophy, the butch lesbian in the first story or the bobo whimpster guy in the second? The lesson here is that real women who are in touch with their natural feminine side want a man who, while capable of being sensitive if necessary, conveys that he is confident and can protect, dominate and lead them at will. If you can’t convey these things, or worse don’t believe them about yourself, you will end up with women like Valenti. Women who are too insecure to let themselves be led by a man. Whose are more interested in competing and dominating a man than being a complement to him. Women who have deep rooted issues with masculine strength and feel the need to neuter any indication of it in our society and emasculate any man in their immediate vicinity to feel comfortable. Basically, a shrew that defines herself by her radical feminist ideology. She’ll have you walking on pins and needles and constantly double checking the toilet seat and making sure you organized the recycling bin right in fears she’ll chew you out mercilessly. National Corner also did a great piece on her.
Don’t be that guy. And don’t be too proud to take lessons from a lesbian on male swagger if need be. We need all the role models we can get these days.
(8 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading ...
Great post!
It’ll be interesting to see what kind of people we men will be like in the next generation, will they understand stuff like this or will society continue to dampen our “manliness”…
And for the computer, I’d recommend you to go for Linux instead of mac, you’ll save a ton of money and you won’t be limited to only Apple hardware. You could always dual-boot windows and Linux so there shouldn’t be any compatibility issues either. Linux is for the most part extremely easy, and you seem to be a smart guy so there shouldn’t be any problems at all even with eventual “hard” problems, normally a solution for every problem is already on a forum somewhere anyway=)
Hi T! Nice piece, as always, and some real food for thought.
I can’t help agreeing. For years, I’ve resisted this urge and have largely dated nice-but-weak types. Sorry, but what I want is a dude who can defend me in a fight and, not someone who screams and jumps on a table when a mouse in in the kitchen (this actually happened). Is this a result of growing up with tough, strong, yet intelligent and articulate men in the home? (Dad and 2 older brothers) Probably.
I have just finished reading The Rules and it’s partly informed the conclusion I am coming to, now more than ever: falling into traditional gender roles and transactions helps maintain the delicate equilibrium of understanding between the sexes (er, that might be the caffeine talking!). It doesn’t mean we should go back to 1950; rather, we need to reaffirm what we are in the 21st century. We’re all so confused – the fact you’re writing about this is proof of that.
In attempts to fully equalise us – rightly! – trying to feminise men has left them feeling weak and redundant, even if they are able to articulate their feelings better. Masculinising women has made us intimidating to men, and we can’t relate to them any better, even if we’re more in touch with our aggressive instincts.
The goal of gender equality is the good fight that still needs to be fought, but in the process, it’s thrown the balance off in how men and women relate. The trouble is that values are attached to certain behaviours associated with gender, and it starts with the notion of a ‘weaker’ or ‘stronger’ sex. Sure, men possess more brute strength, but as a woman you need to be strong to carry a human around in your body for 9 months. Hell, bleeding for a week and not dying requires a bit of steel!
I guess what I’m trying to articulate is that men and women are like the classic yin/yang. Even within same-sex relationships, you need a masculine force and a feminine force to complement each other (any gay commenters, please feel free to help me out here as I speak from a straight view, albeit with close gay friends and I’m going by their experience). Neither dominates.
Neither should.
China Blues last blog post..11 Things I Learned From Men Who Dumped Me*
BS. What a mind-F. And if I disagree I’m “too proud.” Nice. Definitely food for thought, yes, but don’t choke on the bones T.
“Women who have deep rooted issues with masculine strength and feel the need to neuter any indication of it in our society and emasculate any man in their immediate vicinity to feel comfortable.”
Guess who might be included in that list of women?
I’m sorry, not following you cz. Can you be more specific?
Oh, I think I get you now. The butch above would be included in that list of women I assume you mean? If so, yeah, definitely possible. No disagreement there.
double checking the toilet seat
Damn, I’d have her double checking it after I pissed all over it with the seat down. Anybody who wants to live with me better look before they squat.
The crux of this issue, as always, is that women don’t want you to give a shit. Don’t be solicitous gents. You can’t lead if you are taking cues from somebody else.
alphadominances last blog post..Grandma ain’t no saint: a kick in the crotch for family values abstinence only proponents
“Women who are too insecure to let themselves be led by a man. Whose are more interested in competing and dominating a man than being a complement to him. Women who have deep rooted issues with masculine strength and feel the need to neuter any indication of it in our society and emasculate any man in their immediate vicinity to feel comfortable.”
I don’t think that such women are insecure. I find those types as annoying as you do, but when I think of insecure women I see women who always have a serious relationship because they are afraid to be alone and who want their husbands/boyfriends to take care of them so they won’t have to make any decisions. Most dudes I know have a strong distaste for needy, high-maintainence women. Extremely dominating women, in my experience, are very confident in themselves but have trust issues.
Jessica Valenti’s fiance from that cringe-making photo could have chosen a more feminine woman but he picked her and is presumably ok with carrying her purse for the rest of his life. So you must remember that a lot of whimpsters who abhor taking on a leadership role prefer butch women who relieve them of that responsibility. When men offer nothing to respect and complement it’s hard to embrace a more feminine role. Instead of going with the David Alexander solution most women just make do with the men that are available and that frequently means a less feminine role than they’d like.
Thought-provoking blog on female ‘swagger’ http://therawness.com/female-swagger/
Ladies is pimps too
!. HOw did youy miss the guy looking fem’s boobs at your first glance? THAT is where Most Aphas look first. 2.You are close to stumbbling onto the answer to your own questions. Since you do seem inteelligent and you are seriously studying the issue I will give you a few hints. A. NO MATTER what the whinerwannabes tell you, what you are smelling is the heart of the Alpha male thing, REAL Alphas are still out here BUT, who do you think responds first to an Alpha???gay men. I get it all the time. MOST gay men are gay BECAUSE they need to find someone who has a matching sex drive. Anyway, a Im only starting. LOL…They beg me to let them. I dont. B. Alpha women cant stand Alpha men beecause its like crossing 2 bare wires containing 157 V (which in 3 phase is 480, they make BIG fire. There are way more Alpha women then there are Alpha men which is why the “strong woman” ends up with them (or a submissive Beta woman…BECAUSE she understands thwm better…and sucking on that is WAY too humbling for her. The Alpha man has to find a Beta woman and since there are much fewer of them, they sometimes end up with Beta men, sadly. That is a start. Lastly there is also a clear explanation of ALL this and how far back it goes in what I call “Humanities Owner’s Manual”. More later.
the apocalypse is officially here. This is the result of feminism……men turn beta/hipster, and thus women turn to a macho woman over a weak male. WTF mate?! i honestly should have seen this coming.
Benedict Smiths last blog post..Have Booze, Will Travel
Excellent post.
I have been thinking about the masculinization of women and the feminization of men a lot lately.
The only option soon will be to move to a Latin American paradise and chill and relax with multiple fly latina girlfriends.
Which in fact, is a great option.
- MPM
The G Manifestos last blog post..Commodity Trading: Perception vs. Reality
You’re the best G Manifesto. In a blogosphere full of ppl whining about how unfair life is, it’s good to have a guy consistently celebrating the good life.
I like your comment Dave Mahnke because it makes some good points and has some food for thought, but I have to disagree with one part:
I think the problem here is that it operates under a false but common premise, that all dominating, ballbusting, headstrong and driven women are alpha females. This is not actually the case. There are two types of headstrong and driven women, the alpha female, who is a rare creature, and the ballbusting shrew, who is the more common type of headstrong and driven woman in our postfeminist society. The alpha female busts balls because she is looking for a man she can’t break. One who can rise to the challenge, dominate her and lead a family. Because she is so strong, she has trouble finding a man who is stronger, masculine enough to allow her to feel feminine and softer by comparison, but like many women that is what she wants. The ballbusting shrew on the other hand is the dominant and driven woman who bust balls because she is looking for a man she CAN break, because she is too much of an insecure and inflexible control freak to let herself be dominated in any form by any man. Dominant men and raw testosterone scare her. The alpha female wants a man who can pass her tests. The ballbusting shrew wants a man who will fail them. To the untrained eye they seem very similar but are quite different. Betty Shabazz, wife of Malcolm X, is an example of an alpha female. Very charismatic and ton of presence, very dominant and forceful, exudes leadership quality and determination, I was fortunate enough to meet her before she died. But by all accounts, within her family she let respectfully Malcolm X lead and be the public face and gladly accepted the traditional woman role. Sarah Palin comes off as an alpha female too. She may be high powered but also seems within context of her family to be taking a respectful traditional female role to her husband. Ballbusting shrew examples would be Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, who will be sure to let you know if they don’t wear the pants, they at least share them, and view letting a man be the leader and protector of the household as a sign of failure as a woman.
Disagree. If you include ballbusting shrews in the alpha female category then yes, there would be a lot more alpha females than alpha males. The West is currently flooded with ballbusting shrews. However if you accept my definition of alpha female and exclude the ballbusting shrews, these types of women are exceedingly rare.
For a great examination of alpha females, check out this post by Alias Clio:
http://aliasclio.blogspot.com/.....alpha.html
Hello -
I think it’s a positive reinforcing loop…these women refuse to be more feminine because feminism tells them to associate that with weakness. Men get accustomed to this dynamic and feel less need to be masculine, to the point they start welcoming not having to be decisive and masculine. They embrace the more feminine role. This in turn leads to the women being forced to become even more masculine. It’s the chicken and egg argument, which came first the masculine women or feminine men?
Sure you’re right that these women are forced to become more masculine because their men have become more feminine, but these same men may counter that the whole reason they’ve become more feminine is in response to women embracing more and more of a man’s traditional roles. At this point who started it matters much less than who is going to finally step up and break the cycle.
Amen China.
On a side note, I just want to say The Rules is a book that gets a HORRIBLE rap. It’s good to see someone celebrating it. I think every woman out there should read a copy.
G-Manifesto,
No doubt. I’ve been looking into that alternative for some time now. I can’t think of a better way to enjoy life.
T,
What better way for the fella’s to re-embrace their masculinity than to step up, whatever the issue. It’s called being a man. Doing the dirty work and all that jazz. Solutions, not debate are what we excel at.
alphadominances last blog post..The Hyphen-Nation: A Nightmare
she has trouble finding a man who is stronger, masculine enough to allow her to feel feminine and softer by comparison, but like many women that is what she wants
For some reason, I’ve always found that sentiment to be a proxy for the girl expecting me to do everything, and for her to be the lazy ass tool. Fuck that shit. We have feminism so she can grow up and work like the rest of us too.
David Alexanders last blog post..Did I Do That?
Doing the dirty work and all that jazz.
Maybe they should do the dirty work too.
David Alexanders last blog post..Did I Do That?
You know DA, you get a lot of flack, but I actually think some of your sentiments make a lot of sense.
I agree with you here DA, but my solution is to scale back the expectations of feminism, not just for the man’s benefit but for the woman’s. Because women have a natural tendency toward hypergamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy) which is looking for men of higher socioeconomic or caste status to themselves. So the more they raise their own socioeconomic or caste status, the smaller the available pool of men that exist who satisfy the criteria of higher socioeconomic or caste status. In a polygamous society they could share high status men but in a monogamous society they can’t, making the situation even worse.
On an intellectual and social level, the sentiment that they should give up hypergamy because they now have feminism and can provide for themselves makes perfect sense. But hypergamy is so hardwired into women thanks to evolution that expecting them to give it up is simply not going to happen.
T. AKA Ricky Raw,
Glad you and alphadominance appreciate it.
You would be surprised how many people don’t.
But then again, everyone can’t win, right?
For me there is no other way.
- MPM
The G Manifestos last blog post..SPRAY’N WASH Laundry Stain Remover – Dual Power: 22 OZ
Haters are the mark of a life well lived I’d say
alphadominances last blog post..The Hyphen-Nation: A Nightmare
On an unrelated note there’s a brief and interesting post from Razib over at GNXP about reproductive success and alphas and the rest.
Here.
I mean the meek really have inherited the earth.
The above whimpster-shrew couple photo, along with the picture of the so-called “feminist” Valenti doing a pinup pose next to Bill Clinton, just reconfirms my personal belief that the only “feminists” that society actually gives attention to are the ones that are physically attractive (e.g., Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, Naomi Wolf, Kathleen Hanna).
Of course, this completely undercuts everything these same feminists are saying and standing for–they’re just too caught up in their own egos to realize that no matter how much things change, they continue to stay the same.
I think you’re being a little too harsh on the ballbusting shrews there. I know a few who have meek boyfriends they dominate thoroughly and they don’t really hate or fear high-testosterone men. They like me in all my asshole glory and all that, they just don’t think it’s worth giving up wearing the pants and feel much happier with a softer guy they can push around (but not a total doormat). Hell, one even offered to set me up with her much younger and much hotter sister – that’s not something a woman who fears high-testosterone men would ever do.
Good post, though. More than anything else I think it shows how crappy our media have gotten at showing male role models.
Don’t mating strategies change over time? Yes there are universals, but surely the ways to reproductive success have not been static throughout all of human history. Just because one likes to have swagger and high T, doesn’t mean that having both will always lead to success in the mating market. Being sensitive and caring also doesn’t work in every situation. The market changes and one must adapt. Evolution > ideals. Nature over time, not humanity, is the ultimate judge of success.
Yes, I know that there are certain things that turn most every woman on (like probably confidence), but there’s definitely room for more evidence. It’s not like we’re talking about the law of universal gravitation here. And even that has its problems!
I_Affe,
Species wide evolutionary changes occur over a very long time frame. Our evolutionary reproductive strategies were forged on the Savannah of Africa millenia ago. Arguably the most recent innovation is the adoption of semi/serial monogamy by proto-humans. It is wishful thinking to believe we’ve changed substantively since then. That said, we engage in two basic strategies, monogamy and polygamy, i.e. beta-provider vs. alpha. There is an optimal ratio between these strategies that provide for balance and establish a steady-state, so to speak. This is somewhere in the vicinity of 10% alpha and 90% beta. When a culture diverges from that ratio, the optimal strategy is that which is presently underrepresented in the population. Being that wussy feminized men predominate in American right now, alphas are even more attractive to women than they would be in a balanced society. Nature always seeks a balance.
alphadominances last blog post..How Bad Is It?
Bitching/gossiping about other men is effeminate in its own right, regardless of whether it is about their lost manhood or their choice of shoes.
Why not just focus on the few role models and leave the rest up to girls?
11minutess last blog post..True Romanticism
Agreed. But who’s gossiping?
Part of role modeling is not just learning from observing who you want to be like but also learning from observing who you DON’T want to be like. Didn’t your dad ever point out that bum or criminal or druggie and tell you that’s what was ahead for you if you didn’t do good in school and work hard? Just another form of modeling.
Gossip is just talking about people’s business just to be nosy and engage in some petty schadenfreude with no higher purpose or lessons to learn from it, just to cackle and be a busy body or live vicariously through others or tear them down to your level just to feel better about yourself rather than worrying about elevating yourself instead. That’s what you’ll see in TMZ comments, but it’s not what I’m seeing in these comments. I see intelligent discourse. Then again maybe that’s just me.
And there is a positive role model in this blog post. A counterintuitive and unconventional one, but it’s there if you look again.
["The reason I assume this is because of what a butch lesbian who excelled at “converting” straight women once told me: that metropolitan straight women, living in this world of feminized bobo whimpsters, are getting so starved for traditional masculine swagger to activate their primal lust triggers and make them feel safe to be a submissive woman that they’re even increasingly willing to turn to another woman to get their dose of macho swagger."]
That right there is a good example of nature control all womens clam chowders, because they have no control over their wants and needs and are never satisfied which in turn makes them the ignorant ones in this world to this day.
Man can turn against women or men at any giving time. However it is impossible for women to turn against women and men without questioning ones authority LMAO its the weakness of all women.