For some reason, lord knows why, some folk in the manosphere have felt the need to construct a hierarchy of men according to their proverbial 'notch count' and then extrapolate that hierarchy on to the rest of society. It's a hierarchy that's based on how lucky men get in the bedroom department, with the top scoring men labelled as Alphas at the top of the ladder and the not so lucky lads branded Omegas on the bottom rungs. Alas it's just plain wrong and un-helpful to men, and these are the two points that will be briefly discussed in this short blog post: it's erroneousnous and it's un-helpfulness.
Proponents of the socio-sexual hierarchy, like proponents of any theory no matter how sane or doolally, utilise any and every means at their disposal to try and 'prove' or legitimise their theory. Some of these proofs of the Socio-sexual hierarchy crowd can be summarised (and subsequently disproved) by the following:
- Applying it to historical contexts (e.g. Ghengis Khan was an alpha. Regardless of the fact that slavery, polygamy, violence were all methods he used to 'get lucky with teh ladies'. Ergo his sexual success has nothing to do with chat up lines, negs or other PUA terminology.)
- By using sociology (Vox is keen on this. He simultaneously rubbishes science when it's of no use to him and uses it when it is useful to him).
- By using personal anecdotes. (Lots of anecdotes are fine so long as they are collated and then tested according to the hypothesis, after which they are used to either confirm or reject the hypothesis. See HERE for basics on inductive and deductive hypotheses.)
- By using animal sociology e.g. the 'animal pack' and 'lone wolves' (Even though, as Bob Wallace has pointed out a gazillion and one times, the Alpha Wolf theory was only applicable to domesticated wolves, and has since been debunked by the man who originally proposed it.)
- By using evolutionary psychology lots and lots and lots. (Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' page explores the pitfalls of evo-psych and why it's bad science)
- By using film stars as proof of the veracity of the hierarchy (I kid you not! How someone can use fiction to verify reality makes my head hurt. Like HERE, why James Bond is SO alpha!)
- By twisting/interpreting news reports in terms of the hierarchy. (e.g. Andreas Lubzitz killed people because he was a homosexual omega (according to Vox), the Virginia Tech massacre also happened because of sexual frustration, as was Elliot Rogers killing spree. This is no different to anyone else using a topical event as 'evidence' of their own beliefs. Feminists use it to support their theory, mental health care experts use it to support their theory, economists use to to support their theory and so on).
Bad science and gullible folk aside, the truth of the matter is that successful men don't have to get laid a lot. Just take a look at anyone of the Men of Yore posts from this blog and you'll see all kinds of men with all kinds of sex lives:
- Multiple marriages with kids from each marriage (Abel Tasman).
- Married to one wife with kids (Adrian Carton de Wiart).
- Married with no kids (Henry Nestle).
- Un-married with no kids (Isaac Newton).
- Celibate monk (Gregor Mendel).
The truth is that how frequently you get your end away is no measure of your manhood. And quite often men who spend their lives chasing tail are less than admirable, and certainly not the type of people that you want to elevate to the level of paragon of the tribe. Is Russell Brand someone that you want to elevate to the position of paragon? How about Charlie Sheen? Or Peter Stringfellow perhaps? Maybe Hugh Heffner's more to your liking? What about the suave, but frequently broke, Casanova? None of them? Nah, me neither. That's why the position of paragon of the tribe (or any figure held up as one to emulate or inspire positive example) should be reserved for men who are a cut above, not for men whose heads are buried deep in the down belows (ahem!).
That's why the SS hierarchy should be scuppered: because it's not reality and it's not useful. As for the people who I've seen say that they need a replacement for it, well all I can say is: Do you need a replacement for astrological star signs? Or how about MBTI? Or 'What's my Star Wars character?!' Do you need substitutes for any of those or any other classification system? No of course you don't. You've gotten on perfectly well without them. Just like other people have gotten along without other bad science (like orgone theory). They are superfluous and spurious: MBTI can be debunked at a cursory glance by noting that Carl Jung said that archetypes, upon which the MBTI 16 are based, couldn't be reduced down to a mere handful. And debunked further by reading around. It's the same with the SS hierarchy. If it ain't good then, gosh darn it, you don't need it!
If truth be told, sex/coitus is as much as measure of manhood as bicep size is, or brainpower, or how much gold you have, that is to say that it isn't a measure at all. Take Audie Murphy for instance. The war hero and movie star. Did you know that he was rejected by the military when he first applied for the infantry because he was too scrawny. They looked him up and down and said "Sorry son, you just don't cut the mustard" (I'm paraphrasing of course). And look what that scrawny little man ended up doing: not only joining the army a short while later, but while on active duty in the Ardenne during Winter 1944 he defended his own company from an attack by an enemy company, single handedly killing 50 enemy soldiers, while getting wounded in the process. He finished the war one of the most decorated men in the army. That takes courage, real manliness, more manliness than I will ever have, and he was alot skinnier and shorter than I am. It shows you that physical size has little to do with real manhood. And it's just the same with nookie. More nookie does not make you more of a man. Doing whatever it is that you do makes you a man, i.e. doing your Will, regardless of what others think. That seems to me to be a true mark of manhood, like the Rudyard Kipling poem says (which is coincidentally a positive note to end this blog post on):
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son.
by Rudyard Kipling