The importance of this singular post by Ranger is overlooked.These things are impossible. Arguing with biological and solipsistic thought processes are impossible. Would a warrior caveman argue with his woman? Smirk and do what you have to do. At least she will respect that.
Man, this is definitely ingrained in the modern man's mind, I mean like concrete. Some guys will fight to the death to defend it too. Every man in power totes this party line too, preachers, bosses, coaches...."oh my wife does soooo much she holds it all together, etc." I understand that it's true to an extent, but those are high achieving males by nature, and while the wife does help them out a lot because they are out achieving, it's misleading advice for men who are struggling. They sound as if the wife is the REASON for their achievement, rather than support. That breeds all the betas out there trying to help out around the house, etc., in an attempt to be a better husband because their wives are the ones achieving.Part of this stems from the way we coddle our children, and part of it stems from feminism. It started when NOW changed their stance from "let's do what's best for the kids" to "mom knows what's best for the kids." Our society as a whole has bought into this idea; it is also likely a byproduct of traditional values blending with current gender roles.
I would not agree with that general statement. While I get your overall point, it's very naive to think those traits aren't greatly admired and useful, in many different areas.My point is that being big, strong and tough is not very relevant for humans. Our evolution and our advantages over other species come precisely from tools, abstract calculations, and pro-social behaviors that lessen the importance of those traits compared to other species. The fact that women are attracted to those traits is a remnant of our long gone ancestors from which we also got our older brain parts, not a result of our recent evolution as homo sapiens, and that's why it's a mistake to think back to 50 000 years ago or whatever and imagine it as being some big brutes dominating the weak males like a pack of apes. That's not what the human species's trajectory is, it's not how we work.
And that leads into what my original point was, which is that the men Ranger claims sazc gets to here reflect the kind of man that men mostly are. "Betas" and "beta traits" are not the exception, it's this kind of site that is, but we all feel the pull to revert back and so when women enter the midst those tendencies can start to tug at men again.
I did not say they weren't admired, and useful because they are admired. I even said women are attracted to them because they are a remnant of our earlier ancestors before we became homo sapiens.I would not agree with that general statement. While I get your overall point, it's very naive to think those traits aren't greatly admired and useful, in many different areas.
I don't think we're far off here, but sort of approach it different ways. Make no mistake though, alphas still dominate betas, not necessarily with brute force, but they certainly manipulate situations. Stronger is always better.I did not say they weren't admired, and useful because they are admired. I even said women are attracted to them because they are a remnant of our earlier ancestors before we became homo sapiens.
But that's not the same as the facts of how useful they are in hunter-gatherer societies when men have disputes, fight each other, or determine social structures. Our evolution into homo sapiens is because size, strength and toughness diminished in importance compared to our relatives such as chimpanzees, in favor of more advanced tool use, calculation, and pro-social behavior which formed our species. Hunter-gatherers don't have "alpha" males that go around beating up the physically weaker "beta" males and have their way with women, because that's not how our species evolved either in inclination or capacity, and that stupid pop-anthropological idea that circulates in parts of the manosphere needs to go.
Two notes:I don't think we're far off here, but sort of approach it different ways. Make no mistake though, alphas still dominate betas, not necessarily with brute force, but they certainly manipulate situations. Stronger is always better.
Chimpanzees are based on hunting. Gorillas are based on size. The human female is highly adaptable to the environment. The most sophisticated neuron brain structure known. The most successful breeding adaptation known.Two notes:
1) We have to be careful not to define clinical psychopaths, narcissists and sadists - those who are able to exploit others because they lack a conscience - as "alpha". I regard them as abominations.
2) Yes, this is pretty much the point I wanted to make: human hierarchies and confrontations are based on tools, intellect and connections, not on brute strength like a pack of crocodiles or chimpanzees (especially not if either person has any clue or instinct of what to do in a fight, because then they'll go for things like eye gouges, knee stomps and headbutts). That's why the idea that 50 000 years ago it was the biggest guy around who dominated the other guys into cowed submission because of his big biceps, is a stupid pop-anthropological falsehood. I'm glad we agree.
True. But easier said than done. The lawswe need to take matters into our own hands. A wife that doesnt put out is no longer your wife.
Hes gonna need a part time job. Splitting bills with a well paid gf is smart too. Yeah we get hit. We can educate our sons.True. But easier said than done. The laws
Are structured against us males. Alimony and child support can kill the bank acct.
Friend of mine is going through it now. He’s gonna be broke. Mostly cause of his **** spending habits over the years.