[ace cis-females] Thoughts on "Alpha male" type guys?

[Ceebs]

Yeah I tend not to be surrounded by too many conservative-minded folks. I grew up in small-town Ontario, which is somewhat conservative, but it's rarely the American style of conservative. Although we do have those here, people who idolise our neighbour to the south; Ontario elected a new premier this past spring, Doug Ford, and he's basically Donald Trump lite and he scares the shit out of me and what he's doing to our province. Obnoxious, boorish man. Brother of the infamous former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, star of the 2013 crack cocaine scandal that made international headlines. He's an ass, but obviously he draws support. But my own family is all left of centre, Liberal and New Democratic Party voters, been a member of the NDP myself since I was 19, and politics aside, in a more general sense, are all fairly progressive-minded folks. Same for voluntary associations I've made. We gravitate towards our own, I suppose. I'm aware that a more conservative element exists here, I think it's been bolstered a bit by Trump just as his election has managed to influence the political/cultural scene even further away (U.K. and Europe, for example), but I have little experience with such people. Online seems to be a place that they congregate though, likely because they're often laughed at and dismissed in the real world. Of course I can't speak much to vastly differing cultures, though.

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

They're an old slightly random concept going back to the 60s - kind of a very traditional, quite American, version of 'manliness'. Very popular at one time but not much evidence to back up a lot of claims that were made at the time. However the Red Pill twats have adopted them as an idealised version of what they think women want.

The 50s.  

[Ceebs]

Man, I already watched three of his videos. Is this one really going to profoundly alter my views?

[ryn2]

Yeah, @CBC, I count none (that I know of!) among my actual friends, but I work for an employer that picked up many conservative, very religious employees as part of a merger and the more-working-class suburbs tend to be conservative as well.

 

I have a good friend in Toronto, and another in Gatineau (working in  Ottawa), so I’m all too familiar with the Ford debacle.  

[Ceebs]

It's horrifying, I yelled at my television on election night back in June hahaha. It took place right in the midst of my city's Pride Week festivities and my local polling station where I went to vote was at the YMCA down the street, and they were flying a rainbow flag outside. Amidst all the talk of LGBTQ+ rights and visibility that come hand in hand with the month of June now, we voted in a premier who completely scrapped the progressive sex-ed curriculum brought in in 2015 and reverted to the 1998 version. Utterly ridiculous. He's in the process of doing more damage. I had no patience that evening -- or now -- for fellow Canadians who claim that Canada is that much better than the US at times. I do think our political landscape is somewhat different here, I know it is, but a majority of Ontarians voted Ford in, just as Americans voted Trump in. It's scary shit. I really do not associate much at all with the type of people who think -- and vote -- that way, so it's baffling to me.

[ryn2]

Yeah, several of my coworkers made election choices - locally, nationally - I can’t get behind... but we all have to work together so we carefully don’t talk politics or religion.  Consequently I don’t know what they were thinking.

[Telecaster68]

41 minutes ago, Sally said:

The 50s.  

I stand corrected. 

[Feynman]

Man, 6 pages? Could someone please try and summarise this thread?

[ryn2]

1 minute ago, Feynman said:

Man, 6 pages? Could someone please try and summarise this thread?

“Those posting could not reach consensus”?  

[Ceebs]

Just a discussion on whether women like macho asshole types.

[LeChat]

Some people are aromantic, so, of course they're not attracted to them.

[Tunes]

12 hours ago, mreid said:

In my case it's a variation of that, it's a confident type who will "make me feel special"  for apparently being all alpha and yet treating me like a princess or something. It's a common female fantasy it seems.

 

 

I think the amount of anger and attempts at pushing arguments down my throat that this thread got gives me a few of the answers I was looking for.

1) Yeah, it irks me when people do that, no matter who they would be suggesting. I mean, as an asexual, I’m clearly not interested in having sex with anyone, regardless of stereotypical “type”, and I can’t imagine having someone decide what your “type” is for you is very convincing for anyone else either. Which begs the question, why bother?

 

2) Yeah, I guess the fact that you should actually listen to the people that you are presumably gathering data from is a good takeaway to get you started. 

 

11 hours ago, mreid said:

I was just pointing it out. I could have replied to it but I already replied to that kind of rhetoric a million times before, so I didn't feel like it.

True. There isn’t much worth responding to when all the other person is doing is throwing around snark anyway. Of course, I’m not the one who is supposed to be acting professional and gathering data here, so I do have a bit of leeway to be snarky. And with all the unprofessional nonsense you’ve been spouting, I can’t say I’m too inspired to bother being accurate myself. I gave you the honest answers that you asked for (but probably don’t want) and the attention that you didn’t ask for (and probably want), and otherwise there’s no talking sense into fake researchers like you, so I’m just having fun with the discussion at this point. 

[Tunes]

6 minutes ago, mreid said:

@Tunes Stereotypes, by their very nature, apply to a certain group of people in general. If you and/or a few women you know don't fit into it it still doesn't invalidate it.

Stereotypes are also often started by people who are not the ones being stereotyped and are often extremely innacurate and insulting. African Americans are criminals. Jews are greedy. It’s all the same bullshit.

 

The concept of an “alpha male”, if I recall correctly, began from a guy studying a wolf pack. He determined that the alpha male was the one with these traits and became the leader of the pack. Human male dickheads used this argument as an excuse to be assholes, while the guy who first popularized the idea realized that what he was observing was actually a father and his “pack” was his nearly grown children. The guy tried to take his claim back, but men (not all men, but enough of them apparently) had already flown off the handle with the idea and kept the stereotype alive despite the guy trying to clear up the misunderstanding and fix his mistake. Fun bit of history. 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, mreid said:

I am having a deja vu. If you go back a few pages, you will find an exchange between me and ryn2 that is heading the same way as this one.

Yes because everyone is understandably tired of giving you their honest answers and having you argue against them.. even though you were the one asking in the first place. Almost none of the answers given coincide with your theories, but maybe that means it's time to expand your theories instead of shutting down and/or being snarky to everyone who responds with answers that don't match your theories!!

[Guest]

On 9/25/2018 at 4:15 AM, mreid said:

Why is everyone trying to act naive like the things I have described are not common things of human nature?

Because the experience (both educational and lived) of most people here proves that the things you describe are not common in human nature.

[Ceebs]

27 minutes ago, mreid said:

Let's no go there, please.

Why ever not?

 

 

Quote

Which is not what I am doing.

See above. 

[LeChat]

46 minutes ago, mreid said:

Alpha male types have always existed since the beginning of humanity. They probably just didn't go by that name.

Okay. Sure, they existed. But, I believe the point everyone is trying to make is that not all males are alpha types, hence, not all people are attracted to them.

 

Quote

 

It's calling debating. Arguing is when you try to shove your opinion down a person's throat.

 

Which is not what I am doing.

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:15 PM, mreid said:

Why is everyone trying to act naive like the things I have described are not common things of human nature? Culture can't completely change human nature. If anything it can only restrain it to a degree. Anyone who's willing to be honest can see clearly that what I am saying is not that unbelievable and is far from being exclusive to some semi-obscure little european country. 

I don't know. This sounded as though you were calling everyone else who gave a different opinion from yours "naïve," even though others here have lived in or traveled to different countries, different parts of their country, and/or have relatives from different countries, where they experienced different cultures and types of people and noticed that not all peoples' personalities, gender expressions, etc. were the same.

 

I'm confused by what you mean by "human nature," as though everyone has a cookie-cutter personality, when they don't. Trans and non-binary people exist; gender-nonconforming people exist. So, not all people are "alpha" or are attracted to that.

[Lucinda]

What I noted in Alexander Grace's videos is that he gives the interviewees two options.  He defines alphas as jerks, dominating, cocky, and maybe sexist.  Some changed cocky to confidant.  One said the most likely to approach her would be the confident or cocky type.

 

I tend to agree with ironhamster that there is a difference between confident and cocky.  Therefore, from my perspective, I disagree with Grace's definition of the traits of an alpha male.  He is describing an alpha-wannabe at best.

 

I would describe an alpha male similar to your second definition:

 

Quote

I gave those extreme examples here because I thought it would be less confusing if I used stereotypes, an "alpha male" doesn't have to be a jerk, he can be simply a confident guy with leadership skills, he can be nice and sensitive and still be a masculine alpha male, he can be an artsy type, he can treat women with some respect (depending on how you define respect) etc...



 

Alphas are charismatic and are admired by men and women.  At the same time, they are hated by those who can't be them or with them.  The latter group may deem them jerks.

 

The second option was betas who were defined as gentle, caring, and feminine.  How about those that don't fit either definition?  Are they all mgtow, who are off the market?

 

According to the manosphere, a large percent of women go for a small percentage of men made up mostly of alphas and bad boys.  That would leave a large percentage of men consisting of mgtow, incels, PUAs as well as a group that wishes things would go back to the way it was in the 50s.  Therefore, it would be a non-alpha who would most likely want a passive wife to follow the husband's lead, sexist's roles, etc.

 

Has this thread helped you figure out what you wanted to figure out .... especially about yourself?

 

Since you fantasize about gay male relationship because it is more emotional and doesn't have that dominating element, would you choose a beta male as defined in the video?

 

Lucinda

[TRexPhilbo]

14 minutes ago, mreid said:

Reading back this thread I noticed that the people who took an issue with this thread were  for the most part either sexual or gray sexual women, and the asexual ones who posted did for the most part agree with me. Probably relevant.

Maybe relevant, but unlikely to be statistically useful. Out of thousands of regular users (and a vastly bigger number of aces who don’t use the forums), your post attracted just under 200 replies (some of which are the same people replying several times. Therefore, I doubt the sample here is in any way representative of the population. 

[Sally]

On 9/27/2018 at 6:51 AM, mreid said:

It's calling debating. Arguing is when you try to shove your opinion down a person's throat.

 

No, when you ask people what they think of something, and they answer, and then you argue with them, it's arguing.  A debate is when both participants agree that they will debate a point.  

[Alejandrogynous]

5 hours ago, mreid said:

Reading back this thread I noticed that the people who took an issue with this thread were  for the most part either sexual or gray sexual women, and the asexual ones who posted did for the most part agree with me. Probably relevant.

I don't have much desire to contribute any further to this thread, but for the record, I'm asexual and I disagree with you on pretty much all accounts.

[LeChat]

You've said you live in Portugal, which isn't considered a native, English-speaking country (but a foreign language). Perhaps, there's a language barrier, as, most here are from native, English-speaking countries (where English is their first language) like the U.S., the U.K., Canada and Australia.

 

Some asexuals have mentioned on a thread in the Site Comments, about not wanting to post in the Hot-Box because they're not interested in debating or arguing with others; they want to get along and be polite to others. So, just because others are trying to be polite and civil with others, doesn't mean they necessarily agree with what the other person is saying. Some mentioned in the Site Comments thread, that, for them, it's futile to continue responding to threads where another person is refusing to listen to others' point of view. So, choosing to not respond, anymore, in a thread doesn't automatically mean they endorse that person's point of view.

 

 

 

[Telecaster68]

6 minutes ago, mreid said:

How do I know my generalization is true? Basic biology, experience from looking at a majority of people, not a few exceptions, common sense, and reading between the lines of the opinions I am accused of not listening to.

No generalisations are true, including this one.

 

If your grasp of Freud is anything to go by, your grasp of biology isn't infallible, you haven't seen the majority of people (you might be talking about the majority of people you've seen, but that's different), everybody's common sense is just a set of prejudices and heuristics, and reading between the lines of what other people are saying is making assumptions and not listening to them.

[ryn2]

46 minutes ago, mreid said:

 What happens in all my threads and usually with the same persons is I post a generalization, they say "Your generalization is false because I know a few people who are not like that!",

 

One point of confusion/disagreement here:  some posters are actually saying “essentially no one I know is like that.”  For many people “everyone I know” is a lot more than “a few people.”

[ryn2]

50 minutes ago, mreid said:

experience from looking at a majority of people, not a few exceptions,

I meant to also quote this in my previous post but hit the wrong button.

 

This is tied to my earlier point.  You seem to be assuming you know what the majority think and do, whereas other posters’ knowledge only extends to a few people.  We’re not questioning the applicability of your theories to the majority you know... just saying they don’t fit the majorities we know.

 

Upon what are you basing the belief that you know the opinions of more people than do other posters?

[ryn2]

2 minutes ago, mreid said:

Then what is the point of saying those things? Isn't it to refute my arguments?

You asked people what they thought about your theory.  They told you what they thought.  Some may be attempting to refute your arguments; others likely thought you genuinely wanted input and went on to give it.

[ryn2]

6 minutes ago, mreid said:

The people in question said "You are wrong because [my anecdotal experience]".

If you already have the support of sufficient peer-reviewed studies, and/or are only soliciting comparably-backed input from others, why ask the question here to start with?

[ryn2]

Some people find it offensive to be treated as research subjects under the guise of just asking general questions.

 

I understand that informing people they’re being studied can invalidate the results, but...

[Ceebs]

26 minutes ago, mreid said:

So far all I have seen on this thread are people who either agree with it (mostly asexuals, at whom the theory is targeted) and people, mostly sexuals, who think their anecdotal experience alone, not even being asexuals themselves, somehow refutes this thread.

Are asexuals not just giving anecdotes as well then?

[Ceebs]

2 minutes ago, mreid said:

I think that people post on my threads because they find them interesting and because they might help them understand themselves better, which is how I personally feel as well.

That's a little bit of arrogance, I'd say. I very much doubt anyone reading any of these threads about alpha males and alpha females and Freudian dream theories has thought, "Well shit, that's me all sorted then, no more confusion!"

 

I'm not negating the value of discussing such concepts, btw.