Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Rich Lowry: Alpha Girls and Child Men

Rich Lowry's latest post on Kay Hymowitz's "Manning Up" book demonstrates absolutely and completely how most conservatives don't have a clue about what is reshaping our society: the female preference for sexy over reliable men. It really is that simple. But would require Lowry to believe the evidence, instead of his deep-set social conditioning akin to the Catholic Church's belief in a Geocentric universe. Ask Galileo how that went.


Hymowitz, Lowry repeats, laments that today's Alpha female does not have a match for her high achievement. Well, duh. Women find status, power, social dominance, along with physicality, sexy and attractive in men. They are the necessary conditions for any sex, let alone romance, to happen between a man and a woman. The man MUST have higher amounts of status and social dominance than the woman. He must be more aggressive than the woman. He must be more attractive than the woman. This makes female selection very, very choosy. And women are at their most choosy when they are in their teens and twenties. Selecting only the man with the most margin of social status over themselves, the men with the most margin of social dominance over themselves, the men more attractive and aggressive than themselves.

Basically, Brad Pitt, or George Clooney, or NFL Quarterbacks Tom Brady and Mark Sanchez. These are the standards of most young, professional urban White women. Obviously they won't be dating these famous men, but generally compete for the few rock climbing, BASE-jumping, Venture Capitalist types so expertly parodied in "the Wedding Crashers."

Women fundamentally don't get it. Their high achievement is a turn-off to most men, who understand the basis of female selection well. Women find men their own status and social power, well either repulsive or sexually invisible. Women are not now nor have they ever been, interested in a marriage of equals. Or even a romance among equals. The man MUST bring something "more" to the table than the woman: looks, social status, dominance, aggressiveness, and so on.

The pool of such men is vanishingly small. Most men know that they will be going nowhere with their peers in their twenties. At best, a "mistake" soon regretted as the ladies discover the lack of more dominance, or social aggressiveness than themselves. The men who DO possess these qualities have their pick of the most beautiful women. All the credentials, income, and achievement mean nothing to these men, only sheer physical beauty.

By increasing their status to higher levels, all the women Hymowitz and Lowry commiserate with have done, is price themselves out of the market. Ordinary men won't approach them (a lament I've heard often among women I knew in the workplace) because they are essentially, their equal, and know from experience they have no real shot. Those that do approach, tend to be the "Jersey Shore" jerk, the guys who have figured out total obnoxious and total aggressiveness can carry the day, in compensation for being totally average and equal in status, earnings, and social status to their female peers.

In short, by making women equal or superior to most men, those men instantly became unsexy. About as desirable for women as a cold bowl of oatmeal. This is the problem.

The "schleps" that Hymowitz derides, played in movies by Adam Sandler or Seth Rogen (or Matthew McConaughey, "Failure to Launch") know very well that they will not be husbands and fathers. They're not the equivalent of Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Which is exactly what it takes to be a twenty something professional woman of average looks prospective husband/fiancee. So for all those men not devastatingly handsome and with chiseled physiques (against "average" female bodies by the way), or enormous amounts of charisma, or not trustafarians, or felons, or tattooed bicycle messengers, or hip-edgy guitarists in indie bands, or artistic hipster drug addicts (often also trustafarians), well there is no point in maturity.

The "best" that awaits is a sexless, loveless marriage to their age peers in the mid to late thirties, after a parade of said trustafarian hipster drug addicts, felons, hip-edgy guitarists, and so on. Who will always be first and foremost in the hearts and minds of their very "settling" wives. Followed no doubt by a quickie divorce when the revulsion of their wives against their beta male selves becomes too much.

The feminists were in fact correct. Much of Western society DOES rest on controlling, limiting, and coercing the free expression of female sexuality. Limiting it in fairly significant ways. Of course, the few Alpha men (those deemed sexy and desired by nearly every woman) are also limited in significant, though lesser way, in the free expression of their sexuality. Women in the West were forced to marry, and marry relatively early (compared to today), in their early to mid twenties, in order to have children. Though women often worked outside the home, and often side by side with men on farms, cottages, villages, and cities, their status though BETTER than that of contemporary women in other societies, was lesser than their male peers. This had the social function of making their male peers at least minimally sexy.

Lesson: women find loathsome and unsexy men who are their equal. They want men who are superior to them in some way.

Therefore, the rise of the "Child-Man." Why bother with responsibility when all that is available is a shadow of the family life that their grandfathers mostly had and their fathers partially had? What is really all that attractive about a mutually loveless desperation marriage at age 36 between an aging, used up cougar and a Beta Male?

Lowry agrees with Hymowitz that men (basically White men) are not that important. That a family is a single mom and the kids by various bad boys, or "hot" sperm donors. That's a pretty heavy bet. I don't see women being capable of defending the nation, or securing vital resources (like oil, for starters). Much less working drilling rigs, or power lines, or construction projects. Much of the idiocy of so-called conservatives like Lowry and Hymowitz is "magical thinking" -- the infrastructure of the modern world "just happens" and "dirty things" like oil production and refining and transportation, power generation, sewers, just magically happens. With "hopefully" a compliant, serf-class group of non-Whites. If not the "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Ben" image of smiling and subservient Black cooks, then perhaps one equally subservient group of Mexican laborers. [This process is inevitable once writers/thinkers cease having had to work for a living, and become bloodless and removed semi-aristocrats, without the hunting and military experience to bring to mind the bloodiness of life and death.]

Alpha women made their own bed. They like all women, disdain men their equals. And they advanced so that nearly all men are very distinctly, either their equals or worse, gasp their inferiors. In status if nothing else.

There is a solution, but one that deserves another post.

20 comments:

mickeypavic said...

I don't think this is a new phenomenon, spinsters have been around forever. Its simply a case of picky women waiting too long which stuffs up the sex ratio.

Considering that most women are married by 35 it is little wonder these women are left with the dregs as by then most guys are also married off.

Anonymous said...

Lowrey's comments explain why I'm not a "National Review" subscriber any more. I have yet to see that the crop of juveniles that Buckley brought in in the mid-1990's knows anything about anything. Derbyshire and Andy McCarthy are the only guys there who ever has anything useful to say, and they alone are not worth the price. NR in it's current incarnation is a second rate circus, and Lowrey the head clown.

Tschafer

Nullpointer said...

I don't know, I haven't had much trouble finding a woman to marry in the US. I think I lucked out, though and I'm also not entirely white (my fiancee is white though).

I got into a good engineering school and got a full ride through a merit scholarship and now work at one of the world's largest software engineering firms. I'm also in grad school and serving on a non-profit board, while planning a wedding and 1 lb from setting the state power lifting record in squat.

Whenever, I hear this oh poor betas whitey is getting pushed out by the unclean hordes BS, I just shake my head. America has hated "intellectuality" since I was a kid. I remember white guys bragging about how they didn't read. I remember white guys saying why would you ever take calculus you'll never use it and it won't make you rich. I remember white guys focused on being cool and getting drunk. I remember the white guy from my high school who got drunk and high and decided to go shooting people from his dorm room (http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x691265784/Ex-Bucknell-student-charged-in-slaying). Yeah, I know the article is about a black guy committee a crime, but Joshua Carr was a white guy whose rich dad bailed him out after he thought it was a good idea to shoot people with pellet guns.

Even in college it was always the white guys that were biggest d-bags and a-holes. There's only room for so many of those at the top. In fact, the most disagreeable people on campus were Pi Kappa Alpha frat jerks. The only exceptional white guy I met was the track team captain who is currently dating *gasp* a black woman. Of course, he was an idiot and would try to woo women by baking them cookies, but that's beside the point.

Making lumberjacks sexy again will not change America's competitiveness and allow us to retain or quality of life compared to the rest of the world. We need to invest in technologies that will shift everyone's standard of living up. No, I'm not talking about "green" tech non-sense. I'm talking about practical technologies like nuclear recycling, nuclear powerplants, high speed rail, public transportation, etc. We need to stop wasting money on electric cars that depend heavily on rare earth metals and lithium batteries from Japan, which eventually need replacing and solar power / wind power that will never scale. We'll have to use the petrol we have left over to maintain our farm output as we switch over to more sustainable farming practices.

Either we find a way to progress forward together or the dystopian future of whitey fighting a war with the multi-cultural hordes will coming to pass.

Novaseeker said...

There isn't really a way forward together -- we're too divided at this point. It will be interesting to see how this plays itself out, though -- and perhaps even entertaining, from a macabre point of view.

Nuclear power plants won't happen en masse due to the environmental lobby which is powerful and dead-set against them. High Speed Rail is a boondoggle that will never be cost-effective in a country laid out like the United States -- we're not Japan and we're not the size of a European country. Public transportation? It's not how we live. We can try to force everyone into urban arcologies so that they can all use public transportation, but good luck with that -- most people still prefer suburban living in houses with backyards -- a lifestyle that can't really be well served by public transportation, but which is nevertheless the lifestyle most people want to live when they are raising families.

None of this progressive pap is going to happen, really. Decline is going to happen, almost inevitably. Fine with me, really -- I am not heavily invested in this culture at the moment.

Anonymous said...

"akin to the Catholic Church's belief in a Geocentric universe."

Catholic Church and Galileo disputed 3 things:
sea flows as caused by Moon (CC) or by movement of Earth (Gali)
a geocentric universe (CC) or sun-centric universe (Gali)
and comets and stars as physical objects (CC) or optical phantoms (Gali).
Modern science proved that Catholic Church was right twice.
And the 3rd was a tie. The movement is relative so we are at the same time sun- as geo-centric or neither. It depenends on reference point.

Anyway Catholic Church wins over Gali by 3 to 1.


"Ask Galileo how that went."

How it went for Galileo?
He was buried in Basilica di Santa Croce church. Quite big honeur for him from Catholic Church.

sestamibi said...

@Nullpointer

Thanks much for that. I always did want to know what ghetto blacks meant by "acting white". :-)

@Whiskey

Superb post.

bmmg39 said...

I’ve grown tired of these gender stereotypes and hurtful generalizations.

It seems as though Hymowitz et al paint all unmarried males with a broad brush, as if to suggest that any man/guy/male (choose your term) older than 30 who is still unmarried simply MUST be out “playing the field” or “sowing his oats” or whatever other sickening phrase is used. She seems to think we’re all like the character portrayed on television by [sigh] Charlie Sheen, moving from one “hot babe” to another, free of commitment or marriage and family aspirations. It does not seem to occur to any of you that some of us have just been alone (romance-wise) throughout our lives.

Many of us have never found a romantic partner, let alone a spouse. I myself have always wanted a very G-rated, non-sexual romantic relationship with someone, but it just hasn’t happened, though I’m now well into my 30s. (I’m not looking for sex of any kind.)

I hate my birthday and cannot watch films or plays with romantic themes without feeling miserable. I have difficulty sleeping at night. And now, on top of the loneliness and despair, I have people like Hymowitz suggesting, without ever having met me, that I must be some frat-boy lothario or Good-Time Charlie. Such words are hurtful — insult upon injury.

Bruce Lewis said...

Note: There was/is no such thing as "the Catholic Church's belief in a Geocentric universe." The Church is a corporate body; it does not hold beliefs as individuals do. It was established solely to pass on what Jesus Christ and His apostles taught. Since our Lord did not express or imply an opinion regarding the geocentric model of the universe, the Church teaches nothing definitive on that topic.

While it is true that some members of the Church -- including popes and bishops -- have expressed their opinions on geocentricity or other scientific topics from time to time over the past two millennia, it must be noted that these were each and severally the private theological opinions of the men expressing them, not dogmatic teachings of the Church.

It is an error of category to assign to the Church "opinions" on scientific topics. The Church is a spiritual and theological organization, infallible in the areas of faith and morals. It is not a scientific research body. Its purpose is to explain the "why" of the universe, and of man's place in it. The Church wisely leaves the details of how the universe works to those who labor in the field of natural science.

Novaseeker said...

Many of us have never found a romantic partner, let alone a spouse. I myself have always wanted a very G-rated, non-sexual romantic relationship with someone, but it just hasn’t happened, though I’m now well into my 30s. (I’m not looking for sex of any kind.)

That's because you're not on the radar screen for women.

When women complain about there not being enough good men, what they are really saying is that "there are not enough good men that we are attracted to". If you're not in the "attracted to" category, they're not talking about you, and they don't care if you're good or bad, because you're just a blank screen to them.

Women experience attraction very differently to how men do -- we're attracted to many more women than women are to men. Women are just not attracted in a relationship/romantic/sexual way to the vast, vast majority of men they meet. So when they're complaining about a lack of good men, they're not talking about the vast numbers of men they find unattractive (so it doesn't matter if they are "good" or not), but rather the experience they are having that the men to whom they *are* attracted are not behaving the way they want. In other words: they're not talking about you, because you're not on the romantic radar screen, like most men.

It's becoming fashionable on the internet to bash men like you for failing to be the kind of man who is on the radar screen. The theory seems to be that you are not "manned up" or "alpha'd up" enough to attract women, period, which is bad for you and for them. I am skeptical of these theories, however, because the basis of hypergamy is that women will find a way to distinguish among men regardless of whether they are all manned up or not -- it would just mean that another criterion would be used to separate the "better" men from the rest, even if all men were "alpha'd up". Nevertheless, a season is underway in which men who are not "alpha'd up" are to be bashed left and right by men and women alike.

Anonymous said...

Nova:
The vast majority of men by any definition aren't "alpha'd up".
I predict a huge backlash if that happens.

No, I predict society will do what its already doing or what feminism does: pretend the average man is "alpha", or ignore the average man altogether. They might even drop the "stupid male" commercials because they are starting to get backlash about that in large numbers.

Don't get me wrong: in a way I HOPE you are right. If this happens it will bring things out in the open in a major way and help hasten the collapse of this rotten society.

Clarence

P.S. I'm interested in Whiskey's solution, though I've always thought he makes TOO MUCH of women's hypergamous impulses.

JacksonvillePat said...

Whiskey

I have for many years wondered as you state "most conservatives don't have a clue about what is reshaping our society"

Particularly disturbing for me is the constant admiration for Ronald Regan. Yet it seems that many very destructive trends that have effected our culture came from legislation passed by Ronald Regan as the Governor of California.

I find that no fault divorce has had a profound and negative effect upon our culture. I'm sure we have all witnessed great harm done to innocent spouses and children by marital betrayal; with the betraying partner being rewarded. The effect of no fault divorce has been destructive nationally as well.

Likewise how could Ronald Regan write a book such as the "Conscious of a Nation" after passing legislation as a governor that became the model for Roe vs Wade. Then after writing this book nominate a supreme court justice (Sandra Day-O'Connor) who was an abortion advocate. I am also amazed by the number of very liberal Supreme court justices who were nominated by conservative presidents and later pursued liberal causes.

Elusive Wapiti said...

From Lowry's article:

"But is it good for him, or for us? If nothing else, the alpha girl has to date the child-man, and should she still aspire to become a mother in a nuclear family, marry him."

Such rational slackerhood is good for him, at least in the short term, so why wouldn't he do it? Society has yet to incentivize him acting any differently; indeed, it punishes him acting in the very way Hymowtiz suggests.

Second, Lowry "doesn't get it" because he suffers from far too litttle imagination. Or isn't sufficiently read. Take your pick.

The alpha girl doesn't have to date the child man. She won't date the child man. The child man isn't even on her radar. She'll chase the man who is more than she is.

And as for being a mother in a nuclear family, how many alpha girls honestly aspire to be June Cleaver? Choice mommy, sure. But a marriage to a man less than her is very likely to fail.

It's not her fault, really. She hasn't been trained any differently and, like Lowry, lacks imagination too.

Elusive Wapiti said...

J'Ville Pat:

Precisely correct. That Ronnie Ray-Gun is the idol of the conservative movement these days tells me all I need to know about said movement.

The libtards are correct about one thing: a conservative is someone who was a flaming liberal 30 years ago. That is why conservatives are so feckless--they are defensive-minded, standing athwart history yelling "stop!". They need to be offensive and take the cultural initiative, for once.

Instead we get Reagan worship.

map said...

http://www.hulu.com/watch/218968/30-rock-tgs-hates-women

The above is actually pretty timely.

Whiskey said...

Reagan passed the IRCA bill, which basically gave Amnesty and opened the floodgates to illegal aliens from Mexico. Though he talked tough he failed to punish Iran or Hezbollah.

He was better than Carter. But that's a low hurdle.

Bush did the absolute minimum against AQ and did nothing to secure the border, instead pushing his own Amnesty. He was minimally better than Al Gore would have been, but that's also a low barrier.

Both Reagan and Bush were nice men, who could not fathom that the US does not have unlimited margins or unlimited social, political, and cultural capital.

Anonymous said...

Novaseeker said...
"None of this progressive pap is going to happen, really. Decline is going to happen, almost inevitably. Fine with me, really -- I am not heavily invested in this culture at the moment."

Decline is happening RIGHT NOW.
However like with most things in life it's not evenly distributed. Some people are getting hit harder than others and there's even some people not decling at all but instead moving up!

Not to sound like a jerk but, It's my job to make sure I'm moving up even though society in general is going down. Remaining single is a very important part of my financial stratgey.

Anonymous said...

"Likewise how could Ronald Regan write a book such as the "Conscious of a Nation" after passing legislation as a governor that became the model for Roe vs Wade. Then after writing this book nominate a supreme court justice (Sandra Day-O'Connor) who was an abortion advocate. I am also amazed by the number of very liberal Supreme court justices who were nominated by conservative presidents and later pursued liberal causes."

Most 'conservatives' these days are either libertarians, capitalists, neoconservatives or right-liberals. Enough said.

Anonymous said...

"how most conservatives don't have a clue about what is reshaping our society: the female preference for sexy over reliable men. It really is that simple. But would require Lowry to believe the evidence, instead of his deep-set social conditioning akin to the Catholic Church's belief in a Geocentric universe. Ask Galileo how that went."

Whiskey not only do you give a liberal interpretation of liberalism's perceived scientific credentials but you also stupidly believe that conservatives don't know what is shaping society. They DO know. They are just I don't know STARTING on the PLAN on how to TURN THINGS AROUND and STOP this.

You can't really expect for traditional conservatives and reactionaries to have a magic wand and stop things? Especially when they have liberals infiltrating or having infiltrated conservatism? What about fighting their own right-liberal infection huh?

YR said...

@novaseeker

Public transportation? It's not how we live. We can try to force everyone into urban arcologies so that they can all use public transportation, but good luck with that -- most people still prefer suburban living in houses with backyards -- a lifestyle that can't really be well served by public transportation, but which is nevertheless the lifestyle most people want to live when they are raising families.

You are missing the point here. Lawns and picket fences have very little (if anything) to do with it. The lifestyle people want to live when they are raising families is around people like themselves, read: few to no NAMs.

(Toxic, somewhat evil) SWPL culture has infected mainstram culture to the point where most people could be relatively easily persuaded to live in much denser communities as long as they could be assured of good schools and very low crime.

Höllenhund said...

"I am skeptical of these theories, however, because the basis of hypergamy is that women will find a way to distinguish among men regardless of whether they are all manned up or not -- it would just mean that another criterion would be used to separate the "better" men from the rest, even if all men were "alpha'd up"."

Well, Novaseeker, once at HUS I argued that there will always be a "cap" on the % of men that women find attractive even if men start to learn Game en masse. You disagreed, but now you're saying the same thing.