• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

What exactly is an Alpha male? And who gets to decide?

alpha sex economy

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 TheFountain

  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:10 PM


So, a lot of this "Alpha" bullshit is repeated here over and over and over again.

 

But who died and made you an expert on what an Alpha male is? What if you who think you are an Alpha are not just some Beta with delusions of Grandeur? 

 

Are Alpha's bullies? According to MMA fighter Rampage Jackson, no, they are not. Bullies are Beta men pretending to be Alpha men he says. And it makes a lot of sense. 

 

Or could it be all bullshit terminology? Is every man alive part Alpha, Part Beta and part scared, hairless ape? 

 

And most importantly, who the FUCK are you to tell me what kind of man I am? 

 

And hypothetically, if the 'Alpha' male does exist, what determines who is one? Is there some sort of specialized test with scientific accuracy points?

 

If I can beat the shit out of some guy with a bigger build and muscles than me am I the Alpha or is he the Alpha? 

 

Is being able to beat the shit out of someone enough to determine Alpha maledom? 

 

Questions! 

 

Now, Answers!


Edited by TheFountain, 30 May 2014 - 11:12 PM.

  • dislike x 4
  • unsure x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#2 maxbroke

  • Registered User
  • 4 posts
  • 3
  • Location:US
  • NO

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:44 PM

That you Elliot Rodger?


  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#3 prophets

  • Registered User, Advisor
  • 2,137 posts
  • 335
  • Location:US

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:45 PM

nice tags.  i'm sure they will filter well with all the other content on this site.

 

most alpha = person who bans TheFountain

 

/thread

 

 


  • like x 4
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Strangelove

  • Registered User
  • 714 posts
  • 83
  • Location:EU

Posted 31 May 2014 - 11:17 AM

Yea really, what's up with these tags??

 

From my experience people that are closer to Alpha are usually the (not so scientific but quite practical for me) Myer briggs ENTJ personality.

 

http://www.16persona...ntj-personality

 

 


  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#5 YOLF

  • Member
  • 7,625 posts
  • 2,461
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 31 May 2014 - 07:22 PM

Alpha males are determined by nurture. They are people who others want to lead them b/c they will (as a monkey does) reciprocate the nurture they have to others. If you aren't nurtured properly by the events of your life and need to ask this question, it's difficult to acquire and live these skills such that others will want to follow you and recognize you. What is being recognized in "Alpha's" is the effect and proof of the nurture that created them.

 

Bullies are largely sanctioned by society. We say differently in popular media, sure... 

 

Adults, education, and faithgroups make sure everyone is bullied once to reinforce the standard that bullying isn't so bad in the long term. But that's different from long term bullying or even a single bully event whose effects persist b/c it isn't being moderated by the aforementioned group. Bullying is particularly damaging to those who lack sufficient support from their organic relationships.

 

"He who has, shall be given more" is a biblical term for this phenomena. If you have good organic relationships (an important form of wealth and what largely determines inherited wealth), you'll have more to build on or "invest with." People who have better relationships with people are more valuable to more people in a sense. If you lack good organic relationships, or your organic relationships are disrupted, you will eventually realize that they lack value to you as they widened the socioeconomic gap and will continue to do so until you discard your assumptions at which point you will still have a relationship based disability. Or in biblical terms "What little he has, will be taken away" leaving someone isolated from relationships and the groundwork necessary to attain the most advanced relationships that even children with good relationships are inherently masters of. It is this fear of separation and continued growth and nurture from such "Alpha's" that makes people want to follow them for continued self improvement and an improvement of their relationship wealth and other forms of wealth that are inherent to this lifestyle.

 

 

Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.…

 

 

For the record, I'm something along the lines of an agnostic, atheist, or non practicing gnostic? I haven't cared enough to figure out what label I belong to. But given the realities of present day and the large proportion of people living according to the bible, it has truth and is necessary to understand the world they create.

 

I see a leader in TheFountain. I'm not going to ban him, it wouldn't make me an alpha if I did, at least not an alpha that I would be happy with being. Because he lacks the relationships, he can know more than any other about the failures of the present system and that it isn't ideally suited for universal equality and perpetuates either the suffering or blissful ignorance of the relationship poor.


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Informative x 1

#6 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 31 May 2014 - 07:39 PM

I can easily beat the tar out of guys twice my size. 

 

Why am I saying this? To impress you?

 

To intimidate people? 

 

To show that I am Alpha?

 

More like, to ask a question.

 

Does the other mans size determine his attributes, or does my powerful aggression determine the attribute? 

 

I don't think there is any determinable factor you can underline as inherently 'Alpha'. 

 

If I want to be an Alpha man I will be an Alpha man. If that is the man I wake up as today, that is who I choose to be and who I will be and nobody will take that away from me. 

 

So, could it be that the label 'Alpha man' is none other than an individual choice? 



#7 YOLF

  • Member
  • 7,625 posts
  • 2,461
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 31 May 2014 - 08:19 PM

I suppose a component of it is the desire to be an Alpha. There is of course the matter of who's alpha you are... The inherent alpha that I mentioned here didn't chose to be an alpha, they were chosen by those who nurtured them to be an alpha. The one who is an alpha by decision must therefor be a rebel with a cause and following or someone choosing to be a follower of a greater inherent alpha. Generally, the later type of alpha is a would be parent who will lead his children to the ways of the inherent alpha.



#8 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 01 June 2014 - 12:13 AM

There is of course the matter of who's alpha you are... 

 

I am my OWN fuckin Alpha. And no man will take it from me. 


  • dislike x 1
  • Needs references x 1
  • like x 1

#9 YOLF

  • Member
  • 7,625 posts
  • 2,461
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 01 June 2014 - 12:58 AM

 

There is of course the matter of who's alpha you are... 

 

I am my OWN fuckin Alpha. And no man will take it from me. 

 

That's called a lone wolf. No one depends on you and no one follows you, yet you lead by example for any who are watching?

 

It takes relationships and respect from people if you want more than a lone wolve's minimalistic lifestyle. Respect comes from who you follow or who you lead. Relationships come from your socioemotional capacity which relates to who you are involved with in a role. 

 

No one will take it from you, but the novelty wears off when you realize it isn't useful to be a lone wolf. It is just another symptom of deathism...


  • Needs references x 1
  • like x 1

#10 A941

  • Registered User
  • 1,004 posts
  • 42
  • Location:Austria

Posted 01 June 2014 - 01:26 AM

Could we use concepts like "Alpha" or "Alpha Male" which describe Animal Behaviour,  to describe behaviour we see in human society?

Alphas, Betas, finaly Omegas are the names given to Animals with certain functions in a pack or herd, these are structures of organized living which are, compared to the structures we live in, almost negligibly small, and a comparsion of those two will not only fail because of this, but also because many of the ways employed by so called alphas to control a pack, or become a leader are not accepted by human society.

 


  • Good Point x 1

#11 MajinBrian

  • Registered User
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 01 June 2014 - 01:38 AM

I feel like being "Alpha" is like being "cool"... just a subjective title. Something that is developed through nurture. We could probably come up with a list of certain characteristics/attributes that are present in 99% of Alphas. 

 

I don't think you could simply decide to be Alpha. Rather, I think being an Alpha is something others title you as being based on characteristics/attributes you posses.

 

I agree with Rampage Jackson's assertion that "they are not (bullies). Bullies are Beta men pretending to be Alpha men".

 


  • like x 1
  • Needs references x 1

#12 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 01 June 2014 - 03:12 PM

I think Steve Jobs was an Alpha male. 

 

 


  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#13 Jeoshua

  • Registered User
  • 662 posts
  • 183
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 01 June 2014 - 03:25 PM

I can easily beat the tar out of guys twice my size. 

 

Why am I saying this? To impress you?

 

To intimidate people? 

 

To show that I am Alpha?

 

More like, to ask a question.

 

Does the other mans size determine his attributes, or does my powerful aggression determine the attribute? 

 

I don't think there is any determinable factor you can underline as inherently 'Alpha'. 

 

If I want to be an Alpha man I will be an Alpha man. If that is the man I wake up as today, that is who I choose to be and who I will be and nobody will take that away from me. 

 

So, could it be that the label 'Alpha man' is none other than an individual choice? 

 

 

This sounds curiously like you're trying to cover up an insecurity. Why would you be talking to these nice, intelligent people about how you can beat people up and are just so impressive? There are people on this forum twice your size that you couldn't beat up, as they are basically superhuman jugernauts who have pumped themselves so full of various chemicals and increased their muscle volume so much that they're basically Bane.

 

Alpha isn't a term given to the most violent animal in a pack, or the most dangerous. It's given to the one who leads. Alphas aren't cruel or malevolent. They don't beat people up to prove a point. They lead.

 

I think Steve Jobs was an Alpha male. 

 

 

Steve Jobs was a marketing genius. He did a good job of convincing people that the products he sold were better than the ones that were just like it he took the idea from and then painted them white. On his technical merits, he was a user interface designer. He never invented anything, just took ideas that were already around and then gave them that "Apple Experience"... which mostly means painting them shiny-future-white, taking off all the buttons, and giving the user no choice but to experience it in a positive light.

 

But that's all so off topic it's not even funny.


  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#14 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 01 June 2014 - 03:26 PM

That's called a lone wolf. 

 

It's called "I'm not taking crap from anybody". 

 

Not sure where you're getting the rest of that from....



#15 YOLF

  • Member
  • 7,625 posts
  • 2,461
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 01 June 2014 - 05:23 PM

 

I can easily beat the tar out of guys twice my size. 

 

Why am I saying this? To impress you?

 

To intimidate people? 

 

To show that I am Alpha?

 

More like, to ask a question.

 

Does the other mans size determine his attributes, or does my powerful aggression determine the attribute? 

 

I don't think there is any determinable factor you can underline as inherently 'Alpha'. 

 

If I want to be an Alpha man I will be an Alpha man. If that is the man I wake up as today, that is who I choose to be and who I will be and nobody will take that away from me. 

 

So, could it be that the label 'Alpha man' is none other than an individual choice? 

 

 

This sounds curiously like you're trying to cover up an insecurity. Why would you be talking to these nice, intelligent people about how you can beat people up and are just so impressive? There are people on this forum twice your size that you couldn't beat up, as they are basically superhuman jugernauts who have pumped themselves so full of various chemicals and increased their muscle volume so much that they're basically Bane.

 

Alpha isn't a term given to the most violent animal in a pack, or the most dangerous. It's given to the one who leads. Alphas aren't cruel or malevolent. They don't beat people up to prove a point. They lead.

 

I think Steve Jobs was an Alpha male. 

 

 

Steve Jobs was a marketing genius. He did a good job of convincing people that the products he sold were better than the ones that were just like it he took the idea from and then painted them white. On his technical merits, he was a user interface designer. He never invented anything, just took ideas that were already around and then gave them that "Apple Experience"... which mostly means painting them shiny-future-white, taking off all the buttons, and giving the user no choice but to experience it in a positive light.

 

But that's all so off topic it's not even funny.

 

Actually, it's very on topic. In exactly the way you described, Steve Jobs is a leader. He lead half a billion people to buy iPhones, iPads, and iPods, not to mention the computers, user interface, the user experience, and most of all, the value of the users! He built a cult following on this. No longer was the user to feel insecure about using a computer, it was simplified and a smart user knows that he doesn't have to figure out a confusing computer to be smart. He's smart enough to get one that's easy to work with so he gets more of what ever it is that he does done with it. That's leadership. SJ gave people a better computer meme by caring about what was most important to them. He was a successful alpha male b/c he knew enough to lead with a shiny "iCarrot."


  • like x 1

#16 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 01 June 2014 - 07:16 PM

 

 

 There are people on this forum twice your size that you couldn't beat up, as they are basically superhuman jugernauts who have pumped themselves so full of various chemicals and increased their muscle volume so much that they're basically Bane.

 

Yea? And I am doing MMA. I have tapped guys 3 times my size and with more muscle than me. MMA trains you to not fear size, dude. 


 

Steve Jobs was a marketing genius. He did a good job of convincing people that the products he sold were better than the ones that were just like it he took the idea from and then painted them white. On his technical merits, he was a user interface designer. He never invented anything, just took ideas that were already around and then gave them that "Apple Experience"... which mostly means painting them shiny-future-white, taking off all the buttons, and giving the user no choice but to experience it in a positive light.

 

But that's all so off topic it's not even funny.

 

I think Apple should be renamed Alpha. 


  • dislike x 2
  • Cheerful x 1

#17 Brafarality

  • Registered User
  • 684 posts
  • 43
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 01 June 2014 - 07:17 PM

 

 

 

 There are people on this forum twice your size that you couldn't beat up, as they are basically superhuman jugernauts who have pumped themselves so full of various chemicals and increased their muscle volume so much that they're basically Bane.

 

Yea? And I am doing MMA. I have tapped guys 3 times my size and with more muscle than me. MMA trains you to not fear size, dude. 

 

 

Agree. In fighting, speed kills...usually. Powerlifters and strongmen have little to no chance to successfully transition to MMA, Western Style Boxing or any of the other fighting forms. In addition to lack of training, lack of speed and narrow range of motion are also limiting factors for them.
 


Edited by Brafarality, 01 June 2014 - 07:18 PM.


#18 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 01 June 2014 - 07:19 PM

 

 

 

 

 There are people on this forum twice your size that you couldn't beat up, as they are basically superhuman jugernauts who have pumped themselves so full of various chemicals and increased their muscle volume so much that they're basically Bane.

 

Yea? And I am doing MMA. I have tapped guys 3 times my size and with more muscle than me. MMA trains you to not fear size, dude. 

 

 

Agree. In fighting, speed kills...usually. Powerlifters and strongmen have little to no chance to successfully transition to MMA, Western Style Boxing or any of the other fighting forms. In addition to lack of training, lack of speed and range of motion are also limiting factors for them.
 

 

 

It's not that they cannot transition, it's just that their muscle won't do dick for them when they are up against technical masters. 



#19 Brafarality

  • Registered User
  • 684 posts
  • 43
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 01 June 2014 - 07:32 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 There are people on this forum twice your size that you couldn't beat up, as they are basically superhuman jugernauts who have pumped themselves so full of various chemicals and increased their muscle volume so much that they're basically Bane.

 

Yea? And I am doing MMA. I have tapped guys 3 times my size and with more muscle than me. MMA trains you to not fear size, dude. 

 

 

Agree. In fighting, speed kills...usually. Powerlifters and strongmen have little to no chance to successfully transition to MMA, Western Style Boxing or any of the other fighting forms. In addition to lack of training, lack of speed and range of motion are also limiting factors for them.
 

 

 

It's not that they cannot transition, it's just that their muscle won't do dick for them when they are up against technical masters. 

 

 

Definitely agree. Not long ago, there was this big (big, I guess in the sense of online blog/forum for a few days big) blow up about why strongmen and powerlifters don't become NFL offensive linemen and fullbacks...the reason for the attention was that a team owner considered signing an Icelandic powerlifter to the NFL. But, here is the catch - he had previously been a college basketball player and so it was thought that he may have the combo of strength and athleticism to succeed. I don't think it ever happened. And, most agreed that he would be flattened on every play and it would be more of a publicity stunt than an attempt to obtain a contributing player.

 

And, NFL linemen often are usually very powerful themselves. They don't train for powerlifting, but for NFL skills, but are usually incidentally able to bench 450 on average, which, combined with their skill set, speed and athleticism, makes them more than able to manhandle any strongman any time any place. No chance for a strong man in the NFL.
 



#20 OpaqueMind

  • Registered User
  • 471 posts
  • 145
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 04 June 2014 - 04:39 PM

Alphaness is a social-perceptual construct, constructed and reinforced through the feedback loops of self-perception and how other people perceive you. I believe it is an intersubjective phenomenon which has objective consequences. By intersubjective I mean that it arises and often unifies within a group, so that small changes in how people relate to each other are seen by others, magnified, mirrored and reinforced, so that naturally there tends to emerge in groups beyond a certain size an alpha and an omega. I only noticed this in my childhood, when our prefrontal cortexes were underdeveloped, so our brain morphology was closer to that of other animals. It may still occur as you get older, but not in the circles I am with. I think once you reach a certain critical mass of intelligence those games just naturally atrophy and you realize how pathetic the whole thing is. By having objective consequences I mean, for instance, increases in dopamine are correlated with an individuals sense of power. Power comes from a sense of control and/or freedom. No doubt there will be other changes involved in both how you are constituted and how other people react physiologically (and therefore psychologically) in your presence.

 

Perhaps we can get a better sense of what it means to be alpha by looking at its opposite. The reactive person is the opposite of alpha; he tries to please others because he feels himself worthless and requires validation. Because of this he constructs his personality from the outside in, doing and being what he believes others want him to be. He is synthetic, and this pattern of false-behaviour gets ingrained in his mind so that he literally cannot be organic and always looks outside for guidance for what he should do and be. In contrast the alpha is receptive, not reactive, and self-driven. He moves with his environment, he flows through life, he is secure in himself, and so others can feel secure around him. As someone said above, he reflects the nurturing state he was given or that he has crafted for himself. I say crafted because this balance seems highly related to someone's level of stressability, which is malleable by way of meditation. The enlightened master, who has taken control of his mind, is the ultimate alpha in the eyes of others. He is imperturbable, beyond the petty squabbles and deep tragedies of existence. Nonetheless, he would not see himself as alpha. I associate that word with people who try to be alpha, who want to boost to their egos, who play the social role in order to 'advance through the ranks'. If you have to strive for alphaness, you have already failed, as you are again in the synthetic mode of being-for-others and seeking validation. A real man strives for greatness regardless of social perception.


Edited by OpaqueMind, 04 June 2014 - 04:46 PM.

  • Needs references x 1

#21 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:12 AM

Make no mistake, individuality is very 'Alpha'. And as Alpha as it gets!

 

Why do you think there are so few women who step outside the box to do something truly different?

 

The term "Alpha woman" does not make much phonetic sense. Does it?

 

Matter of fact, when I think "Alpha woman" I think man in drag. 


Edited by TheFountain, 05 June 2014 - 05:14 AM.

  • like x 1

#22 OpaqueMind

  • Registered User
  • 471 posts
  • 145
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 05 June 2014 - 07:26 AM

What I was trying to get at is that by interpreting social relations through the lens of hierarchy you display an implicit concern for this hierarchy and where you stand within it. This is reactive, not originary, behaviour. Alpha only makes sense as a term that relates us to one another in a social setting, so by using it you affirm your relationship as 'above others', not as good in yourself. Thus you implicitly compare yourself to others, meaning you feel the need for validation on some level. As long as you're playing the game, you've lost. You're speaking the language of the herd. The word alpha implies a discourse about worth being relative to social standing, not a self-determined feature. Yet to be self-determined could be called alpha (if we're playing that game), and to be in thrall to the valuations of others is non-alpha. Being awesome requires no validation, for why would you even try to validate yourself to someone if you were secure in yourself, and thus why would you even adopt the term alpha? Do you see what I mean?


  • Needs references x 1

#23 MajinBrian

  • Registered User
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:58 PM

Make no mistake, individuality is very 'Alpha'. And as Alpha as it gets!

 

Why do you think there are so few women who step outside the box to do something truly different?

 

The term "Alpha woman" does not make much phonetic sense. Does it?

 

Matter of fact, when I think "Alpha woman" I think man in drag. 

 

 

Interesting post.

 

In regards to your first statement, I partially agree. I think that Alpha is always a sign of individuality, but individuality is not always a sign of Alpha.


  • Agree x 1

#24 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 05 June 2014 - 09:32 PM

 

Make no mistake, individuality is very 'Alpha'. And as Alpha as it gets!

 

Why do you think there are so few women who step outside the box to do something truly different?

 

The term "Alpha woman" does not make much phonetic sense. Does it?

 

Matter of fact, when I think "Alpha woman" I think man in drag. 

 

 

Interesting post.

 

In regards to your first statement, I partially agree. I think that Alpha is always a sign of individuality, but individuality is not always a sign of Alpha.

 

 

I think individuality is the first most important aspect of being Alpha. 

 

And most women are prone to following rather than leading. I meet way more malleable women than malleable men. 

 

Why? Women want to fit in, not the burden of the fight of invention or exploration. They wanna be the tag alongs. 



#25 MajinBrian

  • Registered User
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:55 PM

 

 

 

 

I think individuality is the first most important aspect of being Alpha. 

 

And most women are prone to following rather than leading. I meet way more malleable women than malleable men. 

 

Why? Women want to fit in, not the burden of the fight of invention or exploration. They wanna be the tag alongs. 

 

I agree, it seems that individuality is found in all Alphas. Individuality, leader-esque and confidence (all three which closely correlate) are the three big aspects, I believe, that are found in all Alphas.

 

Ah, I don't want to get into this women talk and get called out for being "anti-women"... But, yes, I agree. In my very limited experience, I've encountered a far fewer amount of women whom I'm intimidated by and/or view as Alphas whom possess the three qualities I listed (than in comparison to men). However, there are definitely Alpha-women out there.


  • Agree x 1

#26 Brafarality

  • Registered User
  • 684 posts
  • 43
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 06 June 2014 - 02:36 PM

Make no mistake, individuality is very 'Alpha'. And as Alpha as it gets!

 

Why do you think there are so few women who step outside the box to do something truly different?

 

The term "Alpha woman" does not make much phonetic sense. Does it?

 

Matter of fact, when I think "Alpha woman" I think man in drag. 

If there is any truth to this speculation, then Alpha women would provide interesting insight into gender differences and human nature, in general. If we are referring purely to traiblazing and individuality here, then some names come to mind:

  1. Mary Shelley - Essentially sparked the sci-fi genre of literature within the eerie halls of gothic - though there were some antecedents
  2. Suffragettes - Of all sorts
  3. Emily Bronte - Took romance to a brutal savage level, imbuing primitivism into a work that otherwise reads like most other Victorian Era romance novels - but, if one reads between the lines, the savagery is there. Many approach Wuthering Heights thinking it will be written like a Bukowski novel or something blunt and raw in the post-modern sense. But, not at all. It reads more like Austen or Thackeray, but the intensity is there, in the language).
  4. Ada Lovelace - Considered the first computer programmer since she wrote an algorithm intended to be carried out by Babbage's analytical engine.
  5. Maya Angelou - Huge lover of poetics here, so Ms. Angelou would typically be at the top of my list for her fusion of styles and impassioned, influential writings.

That was just off the top of my head. Looks like 2 key cultural and scientific forces were kickstarted by women- science fiction and computer programming. So, this isn't a list of light weights.

 

So, what sets them apart from others of the gender? Is it the same as it is for original-minded males, or are different shaping forces of nature/nurture at work?


  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1
  • Needs references x 1

#27 Strangelove

  • Registered User
  • 714 posts
  • 83
  • Location:EU

Posted 06 June 2014 - 03:44 PM

What I was trying to get at is that by interpreting social relations through the lens of hierarchy you display an implicit concern for this hierarchy and where you stand within it. This is reactive, not originary, behaviour. Alpha only makes sense as a term that relates us to one another in a social setting, so by using it you affirm your relationship as 'above others', not as good in yourself. Thus you implicitly compare yourself to others, meaning you feel the need for validation on some level. As long as you're playing the game, you've lost. You're speaking the language of the herd. The word alpha implies a discourse about worth being relative to social standing, not a self-determined feature. Yet to be self-determined could be called alpha (if we're playing that game), and to be in thrall to the valuations of others is non-alpha. Being awesome requires no validation, for why would you even try to validate yourself to someone if you were secure in yourself, and thus why would you even adopt the term alpha? Do you see what I mean?

 

I am getting from this a Nitzschean influence and something beyond maybe? What else? The subject matter is interesting and I like where this is going... 



#28 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 4,804 posts
  • 222

Posted 06 June 2014 - 09:47 PM

 

Make no mistake, individuality is very 'Alpha'. And as Alpha as it gets!

 

Why do you think there are so few women who step outside the box to do something truly different?

 

The term "Alpha woman" does not make much phonetic sense. Does it?

 

Matter of fact, when I think "Alpha woman" I think man in drag. 

If there is any truth to this speculation, then Alpha women would provide interesting insight into gender differences and human nature, in general. If we are referring purely to traiblazing and individuality here, then some names come to mind:

  1. Mary Shelley - Essentially sparked the sci-fi genre of literature within the eerie halls of gothic - though there were some antecedents
  2. Suffragettes - Of all sorts
  3. Emily Bronte - Took romance to a brutal savage level, imbuing primitivism into a work that otherwise reads like most other Victorian Era romance novels - but, if one reads between the lines, the savagery is there. Many approach Wuthering Heights thinking it will be written like a Bukowski novel or something blunt and raw in the post-modern sense. But, not at all. It reads more like Austen or Thackeray, but the intensity is there, in the language).
  4. Ada Lovelace - Considered the first computer programmer since she wrote an algorithm intended to be carried out by Babbage's analytical engine.
  5. Maya Angelou - Huge lover of poetics here, so Ms. Angelou would typically be at the top of my list for her fusion of styles and impassioned, influential writings.

That was just off the top of my head. Looks like 2 key cultural and scientific forces were kickstarted by women- science fiction and computer programming. So, this isn't a list of light weights.

 

So, what sets them apart from others of the gender? Is it the same as it is for original-minded males, or are different shaping forces of nature/nurture at work?

 

 

I think there should be a different terminology to describe women who excel at social leadership as the agency of determination has a different biological root. And this is simply because men and women are biologically different. 

 

So what would be the accurate female counterpoint to Alpha maledom? 



#29 ADVANCESSSS

  • Registered User
  • 353 posts
  • 18
  • Location:space

Posted 08 June 2014 - 06:45 AM

I get to decide....lol..-to the threads question....no really here people...acting cool and taking leadership with things as long as what's right to do (correct) is good and ok....but also I personally am and enjoy having long hair plus a straight fringe and looking attractive like a girl and acting cutesy and no muscle and normal stomach and arms and with "your", very/most attractive opposite gender partner would be very great ([where the body gets its own attraction]-your body once done creating you took your most attractive look from you, and diffienterated it to the opposite gender [hence they look alike] and you are left seeing your look as the most attractive same gender look that's really attractive as long as has da hair, and is indeed "just" acceptable as the same gender, at least to straight people, but is very attractive while just acceptable, and from what I can tell also you look like a girl to yourself and well that's why your ok with girls and yourself~ Or vice versa boys and yourself~]

 

Basically then I want every man to call themself a boy for now on and like japanese peoplesss have long hair and fringe and act just like a girl and nice too and have no muscle like explained above, but were straight here ok, this is straight...and then when with opposite gender its fun too...simply boy orrr girl can be taking charge or cute and girly...you have to warp your mind to being fully capable of anything, you are A consciousness! ...*restrictions about body still apply* for ex. still must still be straight with 2 opposite gender bodies. And ya boys and girls are the same they should both have both of eachothers traits and acts and to be neutral to either doing at any moment both or both at once, I do-am.

 

Other than that I'm mental, well wrong...but I'm def sure I'm right ya.....Or maybe I am almost like a hybrid transient and a girl look but a boy consciousness and or brain and maybe even a genius brain even more than average boys, but probably just got other skills and think different and am very helpful figuring out everything as in my threads...also unless girls haven't been brought up right to be acting alike with everything to boys with the average brain capabilities and have same capabilities and then I'd be only having a girl looking body, besides if a more powerful brain with it's consciousness attached is even possible which could indeed be...although one day we will be able to be such a cool thing OR can be a actual girl and still attracted to girls but at this point want the other girl to be the same and it's straight then cause both are attracted to girl face... or if normal girls brain and or consciousness is not as high, then any boy anddd girl can one day have a boys brain and or consciousness also then, and be a boy or girl attracted to opposite gender which is your gender that you are and it'd be straight, and then everybody could be a big 50 billion family ay, ay?......but it doesn't matter because I'm on to something about living forever, I'm on to stuff

 

K I gotta get back to living forever now...


Edited by ADVANCE, 08 June 2014 - 06:50 AM.

  • dislike x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#30 ADVANCESSSS

  • Registered User
  • 353 posts
  • 18
  • Location:space

Posted 08 June 2014 - 03:55 PM

*Oh and I meant all 50 billion being in the same most attractive body lol.


  • dislike x 2





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: alpha, sex, economy

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users