I feel a bit down about this, after being so pleased with getting into TRP mindset as of late.

I recently got banned from /r/AskWomen due to (another) run-in with one of the mods (poesie) who is a constant word-twister, that always resulted in my constant defense of point and re-iteration.

The reason I used to go there, was to challenge the women on the ideas that we have here, to see if I can find any light anywhere. (I never did). Anyway, on a thread not related to my getting banned I came across: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/1aqa9q/attracted_to_alpha_males/ and thought I'd take a look in there to see if women could identify what an Alpha was/is.

Not far down into the replies of the top-post we have a man who basically states that Alphas "...are more visceral and have an attractive quality to women that other guys just do not possess. They are charming and magnetic without hardly trying. They are social and the people around them genuinely like being in their circle of influence. A real alpha is a man you would consider leaving your current guy for."

I thought he was bang on the money, especially after he mentioned that if every other animal in the animal kingdom has a system, then, as we are animals, it would be logical to assume that we do too.

The post directly following it (I don't know why I'm typing this if you guys can see it, but I can't anymore so it's keeping me on-point) was a retort (from someone I assumed to be a woman) claiming that because we are so smart, we must be able to out-think ourselves out of biological impulses, quoting the various feats of civilization.

I responded, asking leading questions about what the actual role of biology was (since they had claimed, but not qualified it) and that millions of years of evolution wouldn't take a back-seat as soon as civilization popped up. I went on to assume he was a woman, and explained that Alphas are the ones that women are attracted to, and agree upon, whether they can consciously say why or not.

He responds with some ludicrous statements:

If we don't have a strong enough grasp of the human mind to determine why people need sleep, then there's no way anyone has a solid enough understanding to explain, via evolution, something as supremely nuanced as interpersonal social behavior.

And:

We've observed evolutionary adaptations in birds who live around highways in the span of just thirty years. You'll never get me to believe that the human mind - probably the most adaptable thing in the known universe - hasn't adapted to massive social trends over millions of years.

I don't know what the ethics of quoting PMs is, but I was forced to continue a discussion with this guy because of the banning. My response to this is below:

I've been banned from /r/AskWomen so am forced to your response from here.

To begin with, your fallacious point:

If we don't have a strong enough grasp of the human mind to determine why people need sleep, then there's no way anyone has a solid enough understanding to explain, via evolution, something as supremely nuanced as interpersonal social behavior.

This is ridiculous. You mean to say, because we cannot answer A, that B through Z are also unanswerable by definition? That, my friend, is an argument of ignorance, and complete bollocks.

Now, regarding the so-called evolution of birds:

We've observed evolutionary adaptations in birds who live around highways in the span of just thirty years.

You're talking about birds learning new behaviors over the course of 30 years. In the context of that thread, we are talking about Alphas; ideal mates. The ones that are chosen above the rest. Ask yourself, if those same birds, over the course of 30 years, are still looking for the same traits in ideal mates (loudest, largest, etc). The answer is a resounding yes. They're still attracted to, well, whatever it is a bird is attracted to in a mate; nothing will have changed. The pecking order (pun intended) remains the same, so your point is moot.

Regarding the human mind, that you state...

hasn't adapted to massive social trends over millions of years.

Homo Sapiens... "reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago". [S]

Prior to Homo Sapiens, there are no records, we know little, and can assume there was very little socializing as we would recognise it now. The process that brought us to this point is millions of years old (we could say at least a billion, if we go back to the start of life, but that would be pedantic). It's biological conditioning, not social conditioning that has brought us here.

Society has been around, let's say, 10,000 years just to be safe. Now, you're trying to tell me that during this 10,000 years of social bonding, that we have suddenly snapped out of nature's blueprint and instruction manual, because we're smart? Quite ironically, we are ignorant of our biological urges and motives, because we think we're so smart, that we have transcended them.

Let's take the reward circuits in the brain for example. It feels good to eat, sleep and fuck, right? That's biology. Can the mind, and social conditioning overcome these urges, and switch them off? Are they a result of millions of years of evolution to make sure we continue to pass our genes on? (I apologise for these obvious questions, but you really must ask these of yourself).

Pop on over to /r/TheRedPill, and at least read the links on the right of the page. Humor me, stick around, and ask a few questions if you're in disbelief. It's a hard pill to swallow, no doubt about it. I want to help you, you're a man, but are you being a man, because we don't know what that is anymore. I promise you, that the Alpha principle will make more sense if you do the correct type of reading. If you like what you see, give me a nod, and I'll give you a wave. I'm not hating on you, just sharing.

I was way too intense (probably) for him to listen rationally, and he responded with such hate and confusion, which is the reason I've made this post (I realise has already become a novella). His first statement basically says he hasn't and wont read my retort, and that he'd been to /r/TheRedPill and that he's "...read what that sub has to say. I've been to the blogs. The titular irony of the rational male blog is at such a level that I think it's one or two entries away from being the epicenter of some type of internet supernova."

So, I'll just quote the truly horrifying part:

I've never identified with masculinity or femininity. If anything, I'm a misandrist.

I'm not going to respond to him, and this is nothing more than a soap-box and/or a venting station, so there's little in here for you to take away, but if you've got this far... does anyone have any experience with someone who is a) lacking in gender identification, and b) a misandrist with relation to TRP? I'm, just, baffled.