There are No Alpha Females or Beta Females

(This post is not related to the Guide, but might be of interest to some in the androsphere.)

An interesting ScienceDaily article “The Maternal Effect: How Mother Deer Protect Their Future Kings” nicely presents the concept of  ”alpha” male > female > “beta” male. (Here I define an alpha male as a male with high chances to reproduce and a beta male a male with low chances to reproduce.)

This also suggests that the concept of alpha female or beta female is somewhat flawed. If an “Alpha Female” did exist, she would have got the similar preferential treatment the “Alpha Male” got. While females do have status differences, their chances to reproduce are limited by their biology and supported by their access to sex. Hence, female variance in reproductive success is much smaller than males, and the difference between “alpha female” and “beta female” is much smaller than the difference between the “alpha male” and the “beta male”.

While we always need to be careful applying animal research to humans, the researcher notes in the article that “For those unconcerned about deer or elk, this research can be a reminder that similar research exists for humans.”

In conclusion, men’s value can soar high or crash down, according to their status, while women are safely in the middle.

The Marriage Strike is Real

(This post is not related to the Guide, but might be of interest to some in the androsphere.)

A recent article from Pew Research Center (link) includes the following data:

“among never-married adults ages 30 to 50, men (27%) are more likely than women (8%) to say they do not want to marry.”

Think about it for a second, men of the age range 30-50 are more than three times, compared with women, likely to say they do not want to marry. This is a very significant difference which can be interpreted as a “marriage strike”. (The Pew Research paper seems to just glance over this huge discrepancy without any further comment.)

Policy makers increasingly protect and empower women in both marriage and divorce, which unavoidably requires, in many cases, taking power from men. A married man today, in VAWA land and most western countries, is a man who is one phone call away from being removed from his home and losing power over a large portion of his money and income for a very long period of time.

The “marriage strike” is very probably not really a group action by men, but single men acting according to their best interests. I really doubt even 1% of men are aware of the androsphere, however, men do seem to know marriage is becoming more and more a bad deal and are aware of the plight of the divorced fathers.

On Men and Women (basics)

(This is a part from the new draft of the ‘guide for the young patriarch.’ I deleted the older version of the guide and will publish here parts of the new version of the guide as I progress. The new version of the guide is written in a form based on informal logic.)

Premise 1: All genes seek reproduction.

Premise 2: The reproductive systems of men and women are not identical.

Contention 1, based on premise 1 and premise 2: Differences in biology would yield differences in the set of behaviors between men and women to optimize reproductive success.

Premise 3: Men do not have certainty of paternity, women have.

Contention 2, based on premise 3 and premise 1: Men will be less devoted to their children compared with women.

Corollary 1 to Contention 2: Paternity testing for multiple generations, enough to influence evolution, will make men more devoted parents.

Premise 4: Sex is biologically cheap for men, compared with women (pregnancy and childbirth vs. sperm).

Contention 3, based on premise 4 and premise 1: Sex is a better biological deal for men compared with women.

Corollary 1 to Contention 3: Men will prioritize quantity of lovers (more good deals, sperm is cheap) while women will prioritize the quality of their lovers (get best deal for the high price paid for sex).

Corollary 2 to Contention 3: Since sex is a better deal for men, women can demand resources (provider to assist in raising the children), or demand the men to be more attractive (hypergamy) to compensate the gap in biological price paid for sex.

On Widespread Biological Insanity in the Modern World

(This is a part from the new draft of the ‘guide for the young patriarch.’ I deleted the older version of the guide and will publish here parts of the new version of the guide as I progress. The new version of the guide is written in a form based on informal logic.)

Premise 1: Our genes seek to reproduce themselves.

Premise 2: Our biology, which is a manifestation of our genes, significantly influences our emotions and desires.

Lemma 1, based on premise 1 and premise 2: Our emotions and desires are a tool of our genes to control human behavior in order to facilitate reproduction of genetic data.

Premise 3: The time scale for significant genetic changes is, at least, several human generations, while our world changed rapidly and radically (contraceptives, culture, etc.) in less than one human life.

Contention 1, from lemma 1 and premise 3: Our genes, and thus our emotions, are not adapted to the modern world which yields behaviors which are counterproductive to the original reason for the emotion yielding the behavior.

Corollary 1 to contention 1: Humans do things which are insane from a biological perspective.

Discussion: This insanity is manifested in numerous actions made by modern humans. A simple example to this insanity is paying a prostitute to have sex with you and using a condom. The reason you want to have sex with the prostitute emanates from your genes which entice you to have sex with the prostitute by injecting chemicals to your brain. Your genes are designed to a world without contraceptives and ‘think’ that you will impregnate the prostitute and thus ensure the propagation of your genes. However, in reality the chances of impregnating the prostitute are zero, since you live in a world with contraceptives. You are futility wasting resources and making a biologically insane action. You can say that you don’t care about your genes and pay to have sex with the prostitute… but basically you are still following genetic instructions given to you in the form of pleasure by your out-of-date genes. You say you don’t care about your genes, but you are very much controlled by them. If you go against your genes, and consciously act to make rational biological decisions, your genes will have better chance of propagating, but you might be less ‘happy’ since your out-of-date genes will punish you by taking away pleasure.

Review of Jack Donovan’s “The Way of Men”

Jack Donovan is currently the most respectable face of the androsphere. Donovan’s book “The way of Men” presents a model of masculinity based on analysis of the conditions humans faced during the vast majority of time in which humanity and men evolved. Thus, a large part of this book utilizes the basic assumption (widely used in the androsphere) that our genes significantly influence our behaviour and that there is an increasing disconnect between our genetic nature and how modern equality-morality nurture expects us to behave. I don’t agree with everything Donovan says, specifically the suggested solutions to start the world, but Donovan’s ideas and views are always very intelligent and interesting to read. “The Way of Men” is both a well needed summary of a significant part of the androsphere and extension into Donovan’s concepts and definitions of the gang and manly virtues. The greatness of this book is in clear simplifying definitions of ideas such as good man vs being good at being a man and the bonobo masturbation society.

This book is not perfect, it has flaws, but it is the best book written on masculinity and a must read book for a man aspiring to be good at being a man.

The Problem of Emptiness

 (This is a part from the new draft of the ‘guide for the young patriarch.’ I deleted the older version of the guide and will publish here parts of the new version of the guide as I progress. The new version of the guide is written in a form based on informal logic.)

Premise 1: Our genes seek to reproduce themselves.

Premise 2: Our emotions and desires are part of our biology, which is a manifestation of our genes.

Contention 1, based on premise 1 and premise 2: Our emotions and desires are a tool of our genes to facilitate reproduction of genetic data.

Corollary 1 to Contention 1: People who feel happiness and pleasure follow the instructions of their genes.

Corollary 2 to Contention 1: There is no great goal or meaning to our emotions. There is just emptiness.

Corollary 3 to Contention 1: Everything humans do and feel begin and end in reproduction.

Corollary 4 to contention 1: Love is just a tool of reproduction.

Corollary 5 to contention 1: There is no higher meaning (or any meaning for life).

Corollary 6 to contention 1: We exist due to reproduction and reproduction makes us exist.

Corollary 7 to contention 1: We and our ‘souls’ are just biological machines.

Corollary 8 to contention 1: The question, ‘how can I get laid?’ is the essential question of an organism.

Corollary 9 to contention 1: There is nothing true to be comforted by, only lies can comfort.

Corollary 10 to contention 1: Things like viewing death of an innocent person cause us much distress since they represent loss of genes.

Corollary 11 to contention 1: Not only there is no god, there is also no proof of innate value to human life.

Discussion: There is no higher goal to life and even the modern hedonism (i.e. do what makes you happy) is servitude, since our emotions are just a tool used by our genes to manipulate our behavior. Not only god is dead; love is dead too. Understanding of our world and ourselves comes at a great price which only lies can truly comfort.

Remember Your Death

We were given only ~30000 days to live. A time too short for sloth and avoiding pain.