The Three Alphas

Over the holidays the Red Pill came up more than once, in a lot of different contexts.  One intriguing discussion revolved around my definition of a “Wolf Alpha”.

For those of you just joining us, my own variation on Vox Day’s brilliant Socio-Sexual Hierarchy involves dividing clear masculine “Alphas” into different sub-categories, based upon their focus.  Each one is clearly an “Alpha Male”, but they present differently, have different values and concerns, and they express their Alpha nature very differently.

The one commonly known in the PUA community is the “Bull Alpha”.  This is the traditional playboy, the over-sexed harem-developing dude who can commit to a hairstyle more easily than committing to a woman.  Often driven professionally, successful, and extremely self-confident, the Bull Alpha might love women, plural, but settling on one woman is against his nature.

The Bull Alpha is the natural PUA.  He's got Game as an innate talent.  Pussy is a sport for him, perhaps a passion, but he's into variety, not consistency.

Then there are the Bear Alphas.  I won’t get into them much here, considering the discussion I make of them in the book (still waiting on word).  Basically, Bear Alphas are the kind of men who other men admire and who are often so committed to an ideal that their family, wife, and personal lives are secondary to that ideal or passion.  Sometimes Bear Alphas are, indeed, openly gay, but more often they are studiously non-sexual, seeing any devotion of energy to such things as detracting from their commitment.   But Bear Alphas are their own unique kind of Alpha Male.

But then there are the Wolf Alphas.  Wolf Alphas, unlike Bull Alphas, are more interested in finding an excellent wife and devoting themselves utterly to their family.  Wolves are highly social creatures, just like humans, and the social hierarchy of the pack is an important survival function for the species.  A Wolf Alpha is a man who has essentially made the survival and prosperity of his family, and the members thereof, his personal responsibility. 

Bull Alphas make their personal vision or ego their personal responsibility, and see the fulfillment of that vision as proof of their success.  That success is validated by the mad poon they can pull as their confidence and success makes them irresistible to a lot of women.

Bear Alphas have made the ideals and vision of the non-familial group their personal responsibility, and see the continued prosperity and success of that group as a reflection of their personal success.  Their success is validated through social respect and the praise and acknowledgement of their professional peers. 

Wolf Alphas have made their family their focus.  Their dedication and devotion is to their personal social and genetic clan, in which they assume a leadership role.  This often means gently dominating the family to ensure proper security, health, and guidance for everyone, as well as undertaking to provide as many resources as possible for the family.  A Wolf Alpha’s dedication to his family (including his wife) is not a betrayal of his Alpha status – it’s an expression of it. 

Bull Alphas make great lovers and poor husbands.  Bear Alphas make (often) mediocre and awkward lovers and distant if competent husbands.  Wolf Alphas make good lovers and great husbands, if they have done a proper job of wife selection (and most Wolf Alphas make a point of that).

Why is this important?  Because in chasing down Alpha, women often catch a whiff and don’t recognize the specific aroma.  A woman can find a Bull Alpha ridiculously sexy and entertaining, but trying to build a life with him is going to be a full-time job, as you fight off both predatory women and his own urge to stray.  A woman can invest great hope in a relationship with a Bear Alpha, because of his great passion for a cause or an ideal – particularly if she shares that ideal or holds that cause dear. 

But a woman who marries a Bear Alpha is in for a long and frustrating relationship . . . and more than one Bear Alpha has been secretly bisexual, as his charisma and passion attract same-sex attention.  Marrying a Bear Alpha might give a woman great social prestige, but its unlikely for her to find the relationship deeply fulfilling unless she, too, places the common ideal above the needs of her relationship and family.

Wolf Alphas are different – they are actively seeking to breed with a long-term, committed partner.  And they frequently masquerade as high Betas or even Gammas, as they seek out that perfect Mrs. Wolf to build a family with.  They may even masquerade as a Bull Alpha or (more rarely) a Bear Alpha in their quest, in order to ferret out a prospective wife’s character and values.

Wolf Alphas have very high standards, but they are also ridiculously loyal and protective once they have committed.  Their success is based almost entirely on their functioning family, and they will make nearly any sacrifice to that end – including forgoing promotions and employment opportunities a Bull Alpha would find irresistible, and a Bear Alpha would feel duty-bound to accept.  A Wolf Alpha’s success is proven in raising his children to maturity and preparing them for adult life, with the active participation of an equally-passionate mate. 

How do you spot young Wolf Alphas on the hunt?  They’ll often hang back and observe before plunging into a social situation.  They work well in groups, and will sometimes have 2-3 other dudes around them for cover, protection, and support.  They will frequently feign goofiness or make outrageous statements on early acquaintance in order to gauge a woman’s reaction.  When discussing the future, they almost always have a plan, even if they are willing to change it to suit their circumstances.  They often know what they want to do when they grow up, and they have no qualms about stating their desire for children and a wife – ONE wife.

That doesn’t mean that it’s easy to get them to commit – indeed, one of the telling differences between a hard Beta and a stealthy Wolf Alpha is how easy it is to get the former to commit, and how difficult it is to win that prize from the latter.  A Wolf might screw you rotten and make you make the pig noise, but he isn’t going to introduce you to Mom or agree to go to your sister’s wedding until you prove yourself worthy.

Wolf Alphas have very little tolerance for infidelity.  Or any kind of disloyalty, but infidelity is particularly insidious to the Wolf Alpha.  It’s not just a crime against the relationship, it’s a crime against the mutual dedication to the family that a Wolf Alpha expects – and demands – in his life.  If a male Wolf Alpha does have an affair, he is often deeply wracked with guilt about it and considers it a catastrophic mistake. 

When folks in the Manosphere are throwing around the Alpha term, sometimes it’s helpful to stop and give some thought to the variations.  Just as there are different kinds of “Beta” (High Beta, Low Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc.) dudes, the different kinds of Alpha men who have mastered the art of manliness enough to impose their will upon the world are variations on the same robust theme.  

Read more »

Of Gynocentrism and Genocide

Some people wonder why I do this – and formulate all sorts of wrong-headed, misinformed opinions about the subject.  My motivations are actually fairly simple: I’m a father in the 21^st century, trying to protect and prosper for his family.  Because I’m a word nerd, I try to influence the culture around me in a way I find beneficial to that end.  That’s it.  That’s my whole secret plan: to make the world a better place for my children.  According to what I see as “better”.

Now some might see this as temerity, the arrogance of yet-another Straight White Male ™ railing against his declining social and financial importance and trying to turn back the inevitable march of Progress.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In many ways, I remain a Progressive, politically: that is, I think like a Progressive when it comes to doing the most good for the most people, when it comes to the environment and global climate change, when it comes to basic human rights for all – including the right to marry and control one’s own reproductive freedom.  I'm pro-Civil Rights.  I'm pro-Gay Rights.  I’m pro-Choice. 

But I’m also pro-Second Amendment.  And pro-First Amendment.  Pretty big fan of most of the others, to the point where I once was an active Libertarian, until I got sick of the whiny anti-tax stance of many of the other Libertarians.  Those things alone get me branded as “conservative” by some of my Progressive friends.  My “liberal” social attitudes get me dismissed by my conservative friends.  I’ve listened extensively to both Rush Limbaugh and NPR.  I’m comfortable with neither the liberal or the conservative label, and usually take shelter as an “independent” and vote on the basis of the candidate.  My politics follow my own consistent internal logic, and I rarely see fit to explain them to others.

But when it comes to this blog, and some of my other efforts, I can pinpoint precisely where my strong counter-feminism stance comes from. 

You see, I have two young, vibrant, highly intelligent boys, and a similarly brilliant and robust daughter.  I’m not worried about my daughter.  She’ll do fine in the coming century, the way that things have shaken out for girls of her generation.  But my boys . . . I’m preparing them for the struggle ahead to the best of my ability, like any good father, but it’s hard to prepare them for something like this:

“…What I do have is an ongoing intolerable experience that this life I and other women live is blighted by male oppression, and that this blight diseases the trunk of our species’ existence, not just the branches, not just the leaves. Every moment of our existence, this blight injures us. It kills our spirits, ruins our bodies, destroys our happiness, twists our children.”

Of course, half of those children are MALE, but she doesn’t dwell on that unpleasant truth.  Later on, she continues:

“As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with men. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth taking up all the space in the living room, and make it stop distracting itself with sexy cosmologies and particle accelerators. I don’t quite have a name for this pathology. Let’s give it a real name together.”

The “pathology” that the author Vilet Tiptree speaks of is pretty much anything with an XY chromosome: Men, in other words.  Not Straight White Men ™, not the Patriarchy, but the “System” run by . . . men.  ALLmen.  

This one little radfem paragraph is calling for no less than the soft genocide of half of the human race.  That includes my boys.

That’s a problem for me.

Take a look at the same paragraph, slightly altered, and see how it strikes you:

As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with Jews. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth taking up all the space in the living room, and make it stop distracting itself with sexy cosmologies and particle accelerators. I don’t quite have a name for this pathology. Let’s give it a real name together.

Let me be clear, the author didn’t say “Jews”, she said “Men” . . . so it’s okay.  In fact, substitute any other group in place of “Men” and what you are looking at is something more apt for a sinister eugenics program than the “ideology of equality” known as feminism – but there it is. 


Now, “mainstream” feminists argue that the radfems are extremists, theoreticians providing valuable perspective from the margins of the movement.  That they are moved by great political passion, and their outrageous positions are born of necessity, the inevitable result of centuries of institutional male oppression and female suffering.  Radfems of the 1970s and 1980s like Dworkin and McKinnon, who famously condemned all heterosexual sex as “rape”, were among the first to use their influence within the Feminist Female Social Matrix to heat up the war on masculinity. 


The attacks against male sexuality were transformed, over the years, into attacks on men in general, and eventually evolved into genocidal screeds like the above.  When you start calling into question the necessity of the existance of half of the human race and start agitating for its eventual extinction, regardless of whether you are leading your movement or are on the fringes you have tainted any other possible argument you could make.  And any movement that does not do its best to separate itself from such vileness and reproach the authors has to be called into question as well.


Sure, the radfems are a bunch of crackpots – who takes them seriously?  Well, a lot of feminists do.  This is misandry at the most fundamental level, a hatred for men that stretches the term “pathological” as inadequate.  Yet this radfem and her spiritual sisters are a respected voice within the greater feminist community, and are eagerly looking forward to participating in the upcoming gathering of feminists that has sprungas an outgrowth of the Occupy movement.  The “fringe” of feminism is going to do its best to push for an even harsher war against masculinity and men – I can’t see them softening their tone – and as we have learned, in the Female Social Matrix, controlling the conversation is tantamount to controlling the Matrix.


The only good thing about this level of pure hatred is that it keeps shooting itself in the foot over and over again, tripped up by the rules of the very Matrix it tacitly tries to control.  Radical feminism’s own ideology is also it’s biggest hobble towards effective action.  Why?  Because feminism (especially after it’s adoption of key Marxist principals – you remember Marxism, don’t you?  Founded on the latest bleeding edge scientific principals . . . of the 19^th century?)  is committed to non-heirarchical organizational structures.  Consider this strong push in the movement, the adoption of the “progressive stack” method of organization:

"We urge that the Assembly recognize the concept of stepping back: that dominant voices and identities recognize privilege and power in the room and in themselves, and 'step back' from monopolizing a conversation in the interest of hearing a diversity of voices and experiences on the topic. We are not here to reproduce the same monopolization of voice and power as the '1%', we are here to diversify spaces for radical inclusion, and to name centuries of privilege and exploitation of particular demographics of the population, including but not limited to: women, people of colour, members of the LGBTQ populations, non-status individuals, differently-abled persons, the very young and the very old...all these voices are regularly marginalised in our societies. In devising alternate modes of being and redistribution of power in the world, it is our duty and responsibility to listen and learn from prioritising these voices that are traditionally and systemically silenced in our dominant culture. Let us be accountable to our own declarations of values – let us put these principles into practice in order to devise alternate ways of being in the world."

In other words, all of those who show any shred of leadership are forced to abandon it –officially – in favor of a chorus of diverse voices.  This is the oft-observed press for “consensus” that is so valuable to the FSM -- and don't forget that consensus is the absence of leadership. Those who have naturally taken leadership positions in their movement and have gotten it to where it is are pulled down from power in favor of the participation of those on the margins.  This is the system which is being pushed on to the coming feminist confab.  Of course, the “unofficial” leaders who emerge in place of the original leaders will have the benefit of an even murkier and less-defined consensus behind them to lend to their credibility . . . within the Feminist Female Social Matrix.  Everywhere else?  Not so much.


Which is why I’m not terribly concerned about the vitriol from the Radfems doing more than moderately influencing the opinions of other feminists, an increasingly divided group, about as much as Andrew "Dice" Clay influenced the development of masculinity.  You see, in abandoning “hierarchical power structures” the radfems are essentially abandoning “power”.  By including everyone’s voice, the possibility for a truly effective consensus on a particular topic is lost in favor of a bland list of petty issues that will stand as a testament to their commitment to their ideals . . . but probably not much else.


Because ten thousand years have proven to my satisfaction that “non-hierarchical power structures” don’t accomplish anything more complicated than a quilting bee.  Oh, there have been plenty of examples of de-centralized hierarchies accomplishing things such as literacy programs, health education, and missionary conversions . . . but “non-hierarchical power structures” are almost an oxymoron.  And they damn sure don’t get anything done.  They just make more people feel better.  They’re an organized bitchfest, a cathartic therapy session that raises self-esteem and encourages empowerment . . . and erodes any real potential for powerful action.  What the feminists and the radfems don’t understand is that the “power” comes fromthe hierarchy – when individuals cede a portion of their personal power in the form of submission and obedience (“submitting to authority” implies imbuing that authority with the power of your willingness to obey it) they enrich that authority’s ability to Get Shit Done.  Whether the shit they’re doing is worthy or not is immaterial: the way to establish an effective organization is through hierarchy, not chaos.


Hierarchies work.  And over the centuries, they've been refined to be more and more efficient.  From construction crews to military unitys, hierarchical power structures accomplish things.  Non-hierarchical structures write a lot of poetry.


In fact, when you look at the great feminist-inspired movements of the past, from Abolition to Temperance to Suffrage to Woman’s Rights, it was only when large groups of women organized into male-style hierarchical structures that they accomplished any meaningful change.  That is, they could not effectively fight against the power of the hierarchy without building a corresponding hierarchy.  This modern tendancy towards inclusion and consensus and away from hierarchy and actual power to accomplish anything is doing far, far more to keep the radfems harmless genocidal, gynocentric nuts on the fringe instead of leaders of castrating legions of angry women.


So when I see bullshit like this, and the recent inclusion of certain Manosphere sites as “hate groups” by theincreasingly-irrelevent Southern Poverty Law Center, I feel like I can relax – a little – about my boys’ future.  After all, self-imposed dissarray among the self-declared enemies of your gender is a good thing.  But the fact that they have any influence at all within the greater feminist movement more than justifies my vigilence on behalf of my boys.  It also more than justifies my unwillingness to see feminism, in general, as anything less than a gynocentric, misandrous attempt to grab power (but with little conception of what power is – and what to do with it), a culture-wide Shit-Test for our collective masculinity. 


Radical Feminists freely admit that their views are not shared by the majority of feminists, much to their dismay.  But they do enjoy influence within the movement far out of proportion to their numbers, thanks to the FSM’s willingness to reward outrageous, attention-getting behavior from its members with higher Matrix position and influence.  But their presence within the movement is all the justification any male needs (or any female who has a male in their life they don't want to see sent to the castration-and-re-education camps) to quit calling himself a feminist, no matter how White Knighty he is.   Radical Feminism is proud to be an existential threat to all Men and all masculinity. 


Mainstream feminism proports to be about fairness and equality – those are the first words out of a feminist’s mouth when they explain the ideology – but if it includes bile like the above, then counter-feminism and the Manosphere have all the justification it needs to exist in defense of our gender’s right to exist.  When they start threatening my boys, I’m going to defend my family just as ardantly as I would if someone threatened my daughter.  It might be all "patriarchy-y" of me, but I can live with that.

Read more »

Alpha Move: Iron Chef "The Kitchen is MY Domain"

I originally posted this as a comment on the venerable Badger's site, but I thought it bore re-posting here:

A commenter basically said that cooking was women's work.  I passionately disagree.  Here's why.

While cooking has traditionally been done by women in agricultural and tribal cultures due to the division of labor, there is nothing unmasculine or inherently and irredeemably beta about cooking.  Indeed, it can be an intensely profound exercise of male power.

Mrs. Ironwood can't cook.  At all.  Her brother and her male cousin were both adept professional chefs.  She and her mother . . . well, they couldn't cook their way out of a refugee camp with Paula Deen helping them.  My wife once washed pasta with soap.  Two weeks after moving in with her, I excused her from all future attempts and assumed the duties exclusively.  Indeed, I wrote into our marriage vows that I will "Feed her when she is hungry".  She's utterly abysmal, due in part to her training in science, which requires exact measurements and such. ("It's says 'brown the beef' . . . how brown?  What shade of brown?  AGHH!" -- actual quote).

I, on the other hand, have cooking as a part of my family culture, with a legacy cookbook and everything.  I've cooked professionally for years, and pursued it as a passionate hobby since my teens.  The skill certainly got me laid in college -- there is great Game in cooking, if you do it right.  The first time I cooked a full mean for Mrs. Ironwood, she dropped the fork, swallowed, and said "I want to have your babies."  I'm good.

So when we cohabitated, I cooked.  She didn't.  When we got married, I cooked, she didn't.  I do every meal, and I don't phone it in.  I have demanded that she learn how to respect the food even if she doesn't know how to prepare it, and I've introduced her to all sorts of cuisines she likely never would have tried.  My subtextual message was pretty loud: FOOD COMES THROUGH ME!  IF YOU WANT TO EAT WELL, KEEP ME HAPPY.

Even in my worst Beta years, I was always Alpha in the kitchen.  I could have a girlfriend in my kitchen and even assist, but if she started trying to take control, I'd throw a bitch out. MY DOMAIN.  And if she didn't like the food . . . well, sure sign of poor relationship material.

Mrs. Ironwood loves everything I put in front of her.  While her single girlfriends were eating Ramen noodles or "dating for dinner" or hitting McD's AGAIN, she was getting incredible meals every night.  Serious DHV.

So, now that I have kids, and I'm running a family in addition to a relationship, the kitchen and meal prep is an even more important extension of power and order in my household.  There's nothing beta in mandating when and what shall be consumed by the family, what is purchased at the grocery store and how much is spent.  In a post-industrial world where cleaning and supplying has been largely outsourced or simplified, cooking (and laundry) remain the key components of housework left.  Athol has spoken at length about the Game value of doing laundry, and I defer to his expertise on the matter.  But the Married Game value of cooking is at least as high, and can be much, much higher.

And now that I have kids, I use cooking to make sure they have the Ironwood gene for culinary arts intact, and teach them my rules and my perspective on food.  One child at a time is designated "kitchen elf" and acts as an apprentice and assistant.  Each meal they cook comes with a lecture on where the food came from, nutrient value, portions, preservation, native culture, method of cultivation, and important historical and cultural points related to the food.  All very nerdy, yes.

But my 7 year old can turn a pretty deft omelet.  My 10 year old makes her own pie crust.  My 12 year old can tell you far, far more than you wanted to know about all sorts of kitchen and food-related lore.  We have enshrined "rules of the kitchen", from Rule No. 1: Sharp things cut, hot things burn to The Ironwood Rule: In this house, we garnish!  My kids go to the grocery store and farmer's market with me, help with cleanup (with a little coercion) and are generally part of the cooking tradition.  Mrs. Ironwood has learned enough to be competent with very simple dishes, but I still like having one of the kids around to watch her, just in case.

Cooking is not exclusively a feminine province.  Consider the scene from <i>Goodfellas</i>, when the mobsters are conspiring to cook pasta in prison and pay loving attention  to each detail of the meal.  In the rugged Pyrenees the Euskandulak gentlemen's "supper clubs" are all-male social opportunities wherein the local leading men of the community take turns producing fabulous meals for each other (and then go on to discuss smuggling operations or furthering the goals of the Basque Separatist movement with guns and bombs).  In my own beloved South, there are teams of male barbecue enthusiasts who compete relentlessly for title and reputation.  Last weekend I had the fortune to be on a Scout backpacking trip during which I ate expertly prepared venison and squirrel by a man who knew how to use seasoning and preparation to bring out the full, rich flavor of the meat.

There is nothing at all unmanly about food prep.  Nor is it a demeaning or unhonorable task.  Indeed, the idea that "men don't cook" for years gave women power over the domestic homefront.  Now that division of labor is a lot less pronounced, there's no reason at all why a man can't be responsible for the food that goes in the mouths of his family.

It's a subtle Art, make no mistake.  The comfortable dependability of food provides plenty of positive Beta, and your craft -- and eventual mastery -- of turning ingredients into delicious food provides a powerful statement about your dedication and skill, knowledge and creativity, all of which are Alpha.

But then it comes to presentation, and that's where the real Alpha kicks in.  Anyone can cook, eventually.  But if you really want to get the most out of the experience then I suggest you cultivate a bit of showmanship and cunning about how you present your food to the people who eat it.  That doesn't necessarily mean that every meal has to be 5 star fare, but it does mean that you use attractive and appropriate settings to support your meals.

One advantage of living in a traditionally-oriented culture like the South is that there is a culture of appreciation around manners, etiquette, and the proper enjoyment of food.  My table is My Table, and I set the rules.  It's as much my arena as my bed or my desk, and I enforce those rules rigorously (though not always successfully) when we are eating.  The rules are not decided by mutual consensus, or a vote, or anything other than the fact that it is My Table, the Captain's Table, and I alone am the arbiter of the rules there.

If they don't like it, there's peanut butter and jelly in the pantry.

So don't dismiss this very valuable avenue of alpha/beta power as inherently feminine or demeaning.  That would be letting go of a potential masculine asset.

Besides, don't forget that far more women poison their husbands than vice versa.  No need to tempt her.  Just sayin'.

Read more »