The dual hierarchies of men

Yesterday, MarkyMark posted an essay by FSchmidt criticizing the use of the terms “alpha,” “beta,” and “omega”:

All of you here and in the PUA community have been grossly misusing the terms “alpha”, “beta”, and “omega”. These terms have real scientific meaning that refers to the status of males in relation to other males. It has nothing to do with the opinion of females, but male status usually does imply certain mating rights and mating strategies. This is best understood by reading Jane Goodall’s books on chimpanzee behavior. Human behavior is very similar to chimps, but it is easier to view these issues objectively by looking at another species.

Among chimps, the alpha male is dominant and has mating rights with any female he chooses, whether she approves or not. Betas have similar rights as long the alpha and other betas don’t object. Omegas have no mating rights at all. So how do they reproduce? They are forced to use the miserable procedure of having to seduce females to get sex. Unlike alphas and betas, omegas must be skilled at the art of seduction. Females will only mate with them when they prove their seductive skills.

So all these PUAs are pure omega. Why do they call themselves “alpha”? Because lying is what they do best. Being a successful omega is all about falsely puffing up one’s chest. But in reality they are the very lowest of men.

FSchmidt also cites a passage from the Book of Bonecrker (a great read, by the way) on this issue:

“Badboys” are pussies, not alpha males. The easiest way to tell if a man is alpha is to observe if he has the respect and cooperation of other men, especially other men in general (i.e. he has power and respect in society, not just socially). You very rarely see a “badboy” meet these criteria. When you do, it’s usually an alpha fooling around to get laid.

Alpha males don’t usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around.

The multiple sex partner thing is the omega male’s gig. You usually see all sorts of deviant behavior going on, in addition to this. Although he is getting laid, he is powerless in relationships as well as every other aspect of his life. No one respects him, not even the psycho chicks who screw him.

While I agree with a lot of what FSchmidt has to say, he commits a major blunder in basing his argument solely on the hierarchy used by chimpanzees. The problem with this is that human beings aren’t chimps – we’re humans. Additionally, as Steve Sailer says, we didn’t evolve from chimps either:

Fourth, we didn’t evolve from either chimps, bonobos, or gorillas, but from some mysterious extinct common ancestor.

What many people don’t realize is that there is not one but two separate alpha/beta/omega hierarchies that men belong to – one determined by the opinions of other men, and one determined by the opinions of women. Whiskey admirably defines how men perceive the alpha male:

For men, Alpha Male is pretty much leadership. The man who dominates a social setting by virtue of his social network, which includes hefty doses of patronage, mentoring, decision making, and most of all, success. Not just for the Alpha Male himself, but more importantly, those in his social network. Thus, Generals Grant and Sherman, would both be considered Alpha Males, even though their sexual pairings were few, and both remained loyal and faithful to their wives. The late Coach Bill Walsh, who successfully mentored an astonishing number of NFL Head Coaches, and took over temporarily as Head Coach of Stanford, so that protege Dennis Green could become Head Coach of the Minnesota Vikings, at that time, the second Black Head Coach in the NFL would be considered by most men, as an Alpha Male. Even though Walsh was not imposing physically, or someone of stature so dominant that he controlled any room he stepped into. Nevertheless, his players and assistant coaches all felt Walsh, his system and his unique analysis, gave them the best chance to win every game. Walsh, like all successful head coaches, made it a point to expand his power and influence, by pushing for his proteges to be hired at head coaching jobs of their own.

Men determine “alphaness” through a man’s ability to lead and cooperate with other men. By this standard, FSchmidt is correct – badboys and many PUAs are omegas. However, this doesn’t account for the female hierarchy of men. I’ll defer to Whiskey again:

For most men (well, straight ones anyway), Byron would be considered a failure. While dubbed, “mad, bad, and dangerous to know,” Byron was by the standards of modern men an absolute failure. He had affairs with distant cousins, a married woman (whom he treated cruelly), and was likely, bisexual, having affairs with men at College, and afterwards. He was reputed to have had an incestuous relationship with his half-sister. He sent his illegitimate daughter away to an orphanage, to the disgust of the Shelleys, who eventually broke with him over that issue (Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s daughter was born prematurely and died as an infant.) None of Byron’s works are much remembered today, and are only rarely read, in contrast to the Shelleys. While “Frankenstein” remains a classic, Byron’s works like “Childe Harold” are forgotten.

Nevertheless, he had many affairs, was famous, and was likely the first “celebrity” in the Western World. Famous for being famous, as opposed to actually achieving anything. It’s significant that he had few real friends, no real political or cultural influence, and was not an “Alpha Male” in the way that most men would understand it.

Women determine a man “alphaness” by his social dominance, or how good he makes her feel in her special place.

While “male alphaness” and “female alphaness” are not mutually exclusive, the essential conflict in our society springs from the increasing bifurcation of these roles. As FSchmidt writes:

So what is happening now in the femisphere? Simple, the alphas and betas have lost control, and omegas and women are running things. The usual mating rights assigned to higher males has been thrown out. All that is left is seduction, and here omegas rule. Alphas and betas have no seduction talent because their ancestors never had a need for it. By impressing other men, alphas and betas of the past simply won mating rights. Women were pressured to marry these men, and the enforcement of marriage meant that women had to consider more than seduction skills when judging a partner. In strong societies, omegas were the sexual losers because alphas and betas enforced rules against seduction, rendering it useless as a sexual tool. We are in the opposite situation today.

Feminism and the economic independence of women has allowed them to spurn men who would normally be considered “male alphas” but who happen to be “female betas,” in favor of men who are exclusively “female alphas.” This is a boon for naturals, pick-up artists, cads, and men with game, and a loss for everyone else. The fact that a not insignificant number of these men are “male omegas” is irrelevant to the only thing these ladies care about – their tingling pussies, and if you can’t make her pussy tingle, you might as well fuhgeddaboudit. Fortunately, as FSchmidt states, the current system is unsustainable:

These PUA omegas should just enjoy their brief time of dominance until their pathetic culture collapses.

Oh, I agree, the current culture is headed for collapse. And when it does, I will be there to whip out my dick, piss on the ruins, and laugh.

(Speaking of Lord Byron, my essay on him is delayed due to an upheaval at Chateau Bardamu. Expect it next week.)