Friday, November 23, 2012

Rapey groks no Game

John Scalzi proves he doesn't care what people think about him by writing yet another post explaining his opinion concerning what people think about his position on the socio-sexual hierarchy and why he is not insulted by being identified as a "beta male":
 I would note as a matter of clarification that I think they are less concerned about insulting me than they are reassuring themselves that there is no possible way they could ever be beta males, whatever their definition of ‘beta male’ is. By all indications their definition is something along the lines of “a man who sees women as something other than a mute dispensary of sandwiches and boobies” and/or “a man who does not live in fear of everyone else not continually affirming his internal assessment of personal status,” gussied up in language that allows them not to have to deal with these essential facts of their own nature. But inasmuch as insulting me is part of the mechanism of reassuring themselves, I am offered the insult.

I’m not insulted because, a) I consider the source, b) I don’t mind being seen as someone who does not view women through a tangled bramble of fear, ignorance and desire, c) when I step into a room, I don’t neurotically spend my time tallying up who in the room has higher status than I do, and who doesn’t. I am a grown-up, for God’s sake. Paranoid status anxiety is tiring. Also, you know. I’m pretty happy with my life and who I am, which makes me rather less vulnerable to the presumed snipings of others, particularly those who don’t have any notable participation in my life. Yes, yes, I’m a beta male, the worst of all possible males. Fine. Moving along.
While John is a BETA by Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy, he is a delta with strong gamma tendencies in the socio-sexual hierarchy.  But Rapey McRaperson shouldn't be insulted by being identified as a low delta for the obvious reason that it isn't an insult.  It is merely an observation of his behavioral tendencies and an identification of his place on the normal human hierarchy.  And since John isn't merely comfortable with, but proud of, his passive-aggressive snarkiness, his suppliant behavior towards women, his white knighting, his discomfort with traditional masculinity and his lack of confidence in his own right to define himself, it would be all but impossible for him to consider such an accurate identification as an insult.

John is, by his own admission, happy with his life.  I think he's done very well for someone with his various handicaps.  It is not at all a bad thing for anyone that the low deltas and gammas of the world can find mates, find satisfaction in their lives, and procreate.  Civilization depends upon it.  However, it is deeply unfortunate that John is using his success to tear down civilization and support the very forces that will render future men of his rank miserable.  By constantly pushing for feminism and "equality", John is promoting a future where more men are raised in fatherless poverty like he was, only they will not get the support from the more stable elements of society to lift them out of it that he did because people like John and his readership are actively attacking those traditional elements and attempting to eliminate them, or at the very least, reduce their societal influence.  Like an ungrateful dog, John is biting the hand that fed him.

Like most men with no Game, natural or otherwise, John doesn't understand any of it.  The idea that any ALPHA fears and doesn't understand women is risible on its face.  We don't fear women in the slightest and we understand them so well that we have to overcome the instinctive habit of making use of them whenever and wherever it pleases us.  John doesn't understand that in the world he is promoting, the alphas and sigmas will maintain actual harems instead of the virtual ones we now possess, and the low deltas and gammas will be forced to go without entirely, as only omegas now do, because the elimination of the traditional strictures on female desire permits women to pursue their natural inclinations, which has never, in the entire history of Man, been to have sex with short, chubby, feminized men of low social rank.

But his biggest failure of understanding concerns the purpose of men like me and others in the androsphere.  John is again projecting his own status anxiety and other-focused mindset in asserting that anyone is attempting to bolster their own Alpha credentials by insulting him.  It is social and sexual dominance that makes a man ALPHA, not the metaphorical dunking of John's head in the Internet toilet.  Given that John is himself, contextually speaking, a lesser alpha in the SFWA community, and considering that he could no doubt exert an amount of sexual dominance over the women of that, shall we say, differently-attractive, group if he wished, he really shouldn't have too much trouble grasping the basic group dynamics involved.  Alphas need no more reassurance of their rank than to walk into a room containing women, just as John doesn't need any more reminder of his position in the SFWA than to simply show up at a science fiction convention.

Men and women alike are better off when they have an understanding of the male socio-sexual hierarchy and their current place within it, or in relation to it.  John's rank, my rank, and any other individual's rank, for that matter, is wholly irrelevant except in that they happen to provide concrete and observable examples which may help people better understand the concepts involved.

30 comments:

Koanic said...

"Gussied": not gayer than squee.

"view women as a tangled bramble of fear, ignorance and desire"

Fixed.

"when I step into a room, I don’t neurotically spend my time tallying up who in the room has higher status than I do"

He thinks alphas process reality through the rational monologue.

"Paranoid status anxiety is tiring."

Experience talking.

It took only two verbose paragraphs to move along. Lotta work to do every time he gets casually tooled. Lotta pent emotions to smooth down.

taterearl said...

"I don’t mind being seen as someone who does not view women through a tangled bramble of fear, ignorance and desire"

And I'm sure he doesn't mind women looking at him as a eunuch either.

The manosphere has taught me more about the true nature of women than the media, society, and church ever did. Once you know...there is nothing to fear.

sykes.1 said...

I am confused by your use of gamma and delta.

The Greek alphabet begins alpha, beta, gamma delta. This would imply that gammas, pathetic as they are, are better (relatively more game) than deltas. But your usage seems to reverse their relative (absolutely low) status.

Could you clarify?

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Here's a link to Vox's post on the sexual hierarchy.

A Wiser Man Than I said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
happycrow said...

I like Scalzi's fiction, but his proper response, were he to not care about status hierarchies, would be the following:


"Okay."

Frankly, in the Roissy hierarchy, being a beta, but one who "gets" women and can avoid being impressed with shit-tests and other such strikes me as not only perfectly respectable, but generally desirable. I married an old-school girl from another continent because I think providing-in-exchange-for-providing (I kill your bugs, you make me coffee) is a human life that nobody should be ashamed of.

Matthew said...

Gammas care more about the status hierarchy than any other type, because they resent it, and anyone they perceive to have higher status. Alphas care about status, but don't magnify that care into an obsession by virtue of envy and resentment.

A Gamma who leveled up with ALPHA qualities would become an Alpha, whereas a Delta would become a Beta. Status-consciousness and narcissism are traits of both Alphas and Gammas.

Matthew said...

"status-seeking" would be a better term than "status-consciousness". Betas and Deltas are also aware of status, but seem not to link it with their self-worth.

physphilmusic said...

This just makes me a bit more confused about the purpose of Game in general: is it to recognize one's place in the hierarchy and try to make the best of it, or is it to instead show a path to improve one's behavior and traits in order to climb up the hierarchy? Is it possible to "level up"?

Anonymous said...

Isn't an entire blog dedicated to down-talking everyone else's masculinity a tacit admission you have little to none of your own?

-Galt-in-Da-Box

jlw said...

"Yes, yes, I’m a beta male, the worst of all possible males. Fine. Moving along."
Does he seriously think being a beta male is the worst? I think he is a hack, sure, but others do not and he has a house, cars, a wife and kids and a job he digs, the whole package. I'm sure it's not all peaches n' cream, but whose life is?
What he's got is as far apart and better than being an irrecoverable omega male as the heavens allow. Try being short, poor, ugly, awkward and of less-than-average intelligence. Then try being addicted, fat, disabled or mentally ill. Toss on to those being past one's youth and instead in the long twilight of middle age. And frost the whole thing with being completely invisible.
Try having nothing and nobody and no hope of getting either. Then come back and tell us how bad being a beta is over an omega. I think you'll change your tune.

Desert Cat said...

physphilmusic said...

This just makes me a bit more confused about the purpose of Game in general


"Game" is reality. Purpose is what you yourself make of it.

VD said...

is it to recognize one's place in the hierarchy and try to make the best of it, or is it to instead show a path to improve one's behavior and traits in order to climb up the hierarchy? Is it possible to "level up"?

Yes. And yes. Game is observation of human socio-sexual behavior. What you do with it the observations is completely up to you. If you're content with your life, it may have no application. If you're discontent with your life, it is likely to be of use.

And you can deny it, but that's about as wise as denying the existence of gravity when a rock is falling towards your head. Denial seems the correct perspective right up until the moment that the rock lands.

Isn't an entire blog dedicated to down-talking everyone else's masculinity a tacit admission you have little to none of your own?

This is an interesting variant of the "if you dare to assert that you are tall, you must be short, regardless of your height."

Besides, how could I possibly be "down-talking" Scalzi's masculinity? You can't talk down nothing, after all.

VD said...

Also, Galt-in-the-Box, it may be worth mentioning that rhetorical passive-aggressive questioning is not exactly the hallmark of masculine behavior.

As a general rule, if a man is going be aggressive, he should be aggressive. Being aggressive under a thin veil of plausible deniability is a fundamentally female trait.

It's fine to play a female game, especially with women. But it's not wise to do so with men.

Salt said...

I take my hat off to Scalzi. It's something to admit enjoying being the doorman.

The CronoLink said...

Do passive aggressive gamma-deltas like Scalzi ever shut up?

Scintan said...

Do passive aggressive gamma-deltas like Scalzi ever shut up?

Don't think of him as a passive aggressive gamma-delta. Think of him as a whiny old spinster woman who never got over being dumped by her only love. Given his politics and his non-novel writings, that'll probably give you a more accurate take on him.

Anonymous said...

OT, imagine this: A man refuses to work because he's too busy studying theology. His wife expresses the desire to be primarily responsible
for keeping the home, and that he would be primarily responsible for earning a living. The pastor (!) tells the wife she's inflexible and
simply looking for a meal ticket.

I wasn't alive 50 years ago, but I believe this would have been unthinkable until then. Thanks a lot, feminists!

Kiwi the Geek

facepalm said...

How is what he said passive aggressive? And what else do expect him to do, hack you?

Meanwhile, you're a grown, middle aged man calling another man (well, "man") "rapey mcraperson" on your own internet blog and you've sketched out a heirarchy of failure which you use to label critics. Why don't you guys just make up already and get to more important things. Like painting each other's nails.

Power said...

facepalm uses that palm for more than palming his face. Its obvious this guy dreams of getting his nails done by other guys.

facepalm is just another pathetic idiot who sneers at that which he obviously has no understanding

Survival Gardener, AKA David the Good said...

Oh, come on facepalm. The Rapey MacRaperson moniker is quite entertaining.

Jack Amok said...

Do passive aggressive gamma-deltas like Scalzi ever shut up?

Don't think of him as a passive aggressive gamma-delta. Think of him as a whiny old spinster woman....


Excellent. Gamma-deltas are basically men who think like women.

Vox

What you do with it the observations is completely up to you. If you're content with your life, it may have no application.

Slight disagreement here. If you are content with your life, and wish to keep it that way, you may want to learn something about game. I think it's very common - especially in less civilized times which we are heading for - that between the ages of 25 and 40 a lot of guys begin to slip in the hierarchy. Contenders duke it out for the next rung on the ladder and some inevitably lose out. Enough setbacks can sap a guy of his competitive drive, especially if he already has a comfortable life. Why keep busting your butt to get the next brass ring, you've already got enough?

Well, as far as society goes and your guy friends, you may be just fine. But women will start reacting to you differently, and you will go from on-the-cusp alpha to beta (or worse). That's were a lot of mid-life divorces come from, a woman who married an exciting, ambitious guy with potential chucks him under the bus when the potential doesn't pan out.

Understanding Game is a way to keep your professional setbacks from destroying your domestic happiness.

facepalm said...

Good one "Power", white knighting for a dude.

The CronoLink said...

facepalm, Vox expects that if Gammy McDeltburg has an argument against his comments to come out and say so, not to make a cheap "disguised" shot so he can weasel out of a confrontation.

OlioOx said...

Newcomer to this blog, I'm just trying to spread the word on this amazing research that concretely demonstrates something many men have observed: that what women say is often in flabbergasting contrast with what they do.

Briefly: men and women subjects with arousal detectors fastened to their genitals were shown various video clips of sex scenes. They also had a little keypad to record their conscious response. Result: the men's keypad data matched their physical response. The women showed almost no connection between what they were consciously keying in and what their bodies were actually responding or failing to respond to. They literally had no idea what turned them on, or off -- but they thought they did.

Read it for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

taterearl said...

"Excellent. Gamma-deltas are basically men who think like women. "

Well they think like women and that comes out in how they act...passive-aggressive.

Alphas think like women too...but still act like men.

Badger said...

"Alphas think like women too...but still act like men. "

Very interesting, tater - I've long noticed that one of the hallmarks of a man with good game is not just understanding the female way of thinking, but putting some of it into practice yourself as well. Things like holding frame, irrational self-confidence and spinning plates are/were female inventions. When a man adopts a garnish of those things he can become deadly in the dating game. Roissy put it as "he drinks from her bottomless well of vanity."

Anonymous said...

As a Beta, it is not so much the Alphas I mind as the would-be and mock Alphas.

As a Beta (really a delta/gamma) I have a lot to offer an Alpha. I am an asset and a resource. I like being useful, and am content with what I have. I am not competition.

Julius Caesar liked Betas/Gammas/Deltas, although he referred to them as "fat men"

Likewise, Alphas are useful to me. They provide structure, confirmation, protection. I don't want to deal with the hassle of maintaining my place, and a good Alpha guards against that.

There is mutual respect between true Alphas and Betas/Deltas/Gammas -- even Omegas.

But Mock Alphas are unpleasant to work with. They feel a need to constantly affirm their status. They often do this by belittling Betas/Deltas/Gammas. Worse, mock alphas are unable to provide -- long term -- the structure and protection I need to comfortably live my life.

As a Delta, I have to invest significantly in my leaders. Investing in a fake Alpha never ends well, and can be downright dangerous.

So Game is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it provides me with insights and useful information. On the other hand, I have to up my game at detecting fake Alphas, as there is an increased number of Alpha wannabes that are time consuming and just irritating.

So I think Scalzi is really not so much railing against Alphas (who are few, far between, and tend to be supportive of Beta/Delta/Gammas rather than snotty towards them) as much as the huge crop of Alpha wannabes.

Anonymous said...

Additionally, as I get older, I tend to be more discriminating in which Alpha I will invest my time and effort in.

That is an interesting difference between Beta/Delta/Gamma males and women. As a woman gets older, her sociosexual rank decreases. She has to settle for less.

But betas become more selective. Our social, if not sexual, status increases as we gain valuable skills that make us greater assets. We can trade up in which Alphas we submit to, even though we ourselves want to stay Beta.

Similarly, experience teaches us the folly of hitching our wagons to the wrong star. So we learn how to weed out weak Alphas. We demand more.

Finally, we will have gone through several episodes where we had to behave Alpha-like. We still hate to do it, happy in our Beta life, but we become capable of inflicting damage if cornered.

Would-be Alphas, beware and be covetous of the experienced Beta! Safe in your fold, he is a valuable treasure. Carelessly managed he will slip away. Cornered, he may cause you great damage.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure where you're getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic info I was looking for this information for my mission.

my webpage; uncircumcised

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.