This weekend was a little hectic and I didn’t get a chance to do part 4 of the Middle Class Alpha series. Which means I won’t be able to do it until next Monday, although I may do some smaller unrelated posts in the meantime. But rather than leave you with nothing, I thought I’d take this chance to respond to some feedback to the series so far.
Over at Roissy’s blog someone left this comment:
Tbone at the Rawness wrote a piece on the Myth of The Middle Class Alpha Male that pretty much tore your whole frame up. Roissy as an office worker you can never be anything BUT a Beta Male. At this point the amount of pussy you get by exploiting psychology, or the amount you don’t get because of bad genetics, poor conditioning and role models, etc, is irrelevant to the equation.
If you are a middle class, salary earning chump, you’re a Beta. Period.
This guy misses it. My point in this series wasn’t to say that everyone in the middle class is doomed to be nothing but beta. That buys into the idea that it’s a totally binary scale where everyone either must be a total alpha or a total beta, and that everyone who doesn’t squarely fall into the former category must automatically fall into the latter, a notion I disagree with. Just because I say a middle class person can’t survive and prosper in the long run trying to behave like a pure alpha, that doesn’t mean I think middle class men are therefore doomed to betadom as a result. I think of each individual person’s character as a recipe, with a mix of alpha ingredients and beta ingredients. Very few people are purely made up of alpha ingredients or purely made up of beta ingredients. A middle class man’s best option is to become as alpha as he can without becoming so alpha that he starts receiving the negative consequences that come in our society from being too alpha. On the flip side, if a man is super alpha and trying to work his way up the social ladder and navigate the politics of working for a living in the middle class or is trying to maintain a conventional long-term middle class marriage, he needs to learn to become more beta, but not so beta that he starts receiving the negative consequences that come with that state.
RooshV’s forum discussed the series, and poster Quasi said the following:
I think the article is mediocre..
I agree its context related and the word is really overly used to the degree of nonsense hip word, that is doesnt even constitute a meaning anymore. Its obvious that the original meaning of the word in the animal kingdom refers to the packleader and since human society is way more context related only gods like Brad Pitt etc, would be able to pull of alpha status everywhere. Alpha isnt about being in prison, thats wrong in my book, that just being stupid.
Its a hype word more than its really usefull for anything… alpha, beta, gamma, delta and epsilon all depends on our contexts
its that kinda shit that hapends when you let happy, go lucky ignorant americans with alot of bullshit words and peacock bluff misuse words for personal gains. Evolution is also widely misunderstood and often seen in totally wrong context trying to validate BS humanistic crap teorries.
So get a pack of schoolkids and rule..be the alpha, shouldnt be too hard to get a few boosterboxes of pokemon cards and rule their world or even better get some dogs, your their alpha pretty easy.
This is where Quasi also misses the point. Yes on a micro level in any small group there will always be an alpha or a leader within that small group. But acknowledging that in no way debunks my theories about uberalphas, the men who are alphas on a macro level. These are the men who are major movers and shakers on a larger scale and on a more prominent stage. These men are humankinds closest equivalent to some of the animal kingdom’s usual definitions of alpha. Quasi inadvertently makes my point at the exact time he’s trying to claim it’s mediocre. The point about context-based alphadom is what I was getting at when discussing middle-class men. Context-based alphadom in their groups is the best they can and should aspire to if they want to survive and prosper in the long run, at least while still in middle class status. Hence this point I made in part 2 of the series:
most middle class men that are successful with women aren’t true alphas in the historical evolutionary sense. They’re alphas in a relative sense, when compared to other middle-class men in their social circles.
This is the same point he’s making in his example of the kids in the school yard with Pokemon cards, where on a micro level within that small group one kid is the most alpha. I already made that point.
When he says “human society is way more context related” he is making the mistake of taking what the norm is in industrialized, modern Western society and calling it the norm for society worldwide or throughout history. In more despotic places with a weak or nonexistent middle class, definitions of alpha are not really that nuanced at all.
My point in the series is the same point that the exact point that he claims I miss. That the comforts allowed by our modern, industrialized human societies with their strong middle-class and property rights and high standard of living allow us the comfort of being satisfied and content with being alpha in much more nuanced, subtle, context-based ways. And for these reasons, we no longer need to believe we only have worth if we achieve uberalpha status on a macrolevel, or that any failure to achieve uberalpha status on a macrolevel necessarily means we must be sniveling, worthless betas by default.
Later in the forum College Game says the following:
He had me with the first two, well written, and part of the conclusion, be in part three the guy just sounds like a fascist.
And in the comments to one of the original posts, Gil says the following:
What a lame article! Advocating monogamy here really means one thing: pussy socialism. “I can’t get a hawt women because I don’t have the qualifications therefore every guy should be restricted to one woman so the pussy can be evenly spread around.” Yeah right! There’s plenty of fuglies who are not part of any Alpha’s harem who’ll quite happily settle down with a Beta loser however he wants the beautiful Alpha women during their prime years.
Both these guys assume I’m prescribing things, saying how society should be, when I’m actually just describing things, saying how I think things have been and currently are. I don’t beleive I advocated either monogamy and democracy or on the opposite end advocated fascism and polygamy. I just described how we moved from one state of affairs to another while describing the pros and cons of both systems.
What I find especially amusing is Gil’s comment, and his assumption that because he presumably cleans up in the women department in this modern, industrialized era, he’d be one of the polygamous uberalpha overlords if he existed in the older eras I described. The social mobility we have today was virtually nonexistent then, especially for men, no matter how much personal ambition you may have personally had. You usually needed an accident of birth just to get your foot in the door, and then and only then did your personal attributes, self-discipline and determination matter. And the bigshots back then had way more power and control than bigshots do today. People in charge didn’t have term limits, an IRS taxing them or checks and balances keeping them honest, government agencies penalizing them for accumulating too much power and forming monopolies, nothing like that. Knocking off the top dog in that environment and getting a shot at reproduction with a quality woman was a much bigger challenge in that environment than in today’s. According to Matt Ridley’s book Red Queen, even men who have the qualities to be very successful with women in our modern society would likely die childless or be forced to mate with uglies and fatties in the older despotic environments.