You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Manosphere’ tag.
The RPOJ comes for thee RPF.
Wow. Do any of you remember the first Indiana Jones film? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Remember the beginning the tense action sequence when Indy switches the statue for a holy satchel of sand and then all hell breaks loose, Indy has to run for his life, avoiding darts, boulders, and irate local inhabitants. It was a tense and glorious romp.
What we are about to partake in, isn’t like that at all.
Imagine if you will, that very Indy-esque moment happening here in the blogosphere, but instead of a golden statue, a freshly polished intellectual turd, a veritable extruded husk of bullshit argumentation. And the satchel, instead, a thread bare mouldy hassock filled with a funky-spunky hash of whingy-cringy manspination. The switch is made, the anticipation rises… then falls limp in its sublimely uninteresting putrescence. There is no heroic dash to safety, no hairsbreadth escape, only the grim realization that there is no where to go, but down.
This article is from a genuine RED PILL FATHER (see also Reactionary Pile of Fuckery). He has taken the path of seeing feminism, as only a man can see it, and since it is how a man sees it, it MUST BE true. What is fascinating is the asymptotic nature (he comes close to having a clue on at least one occasion) of his knowledge of feminism being put on display – this RPF, has read things… things on the internet no less, that describe what feminism is, but evidently information written by people who know sweet fuck all about what feminism is.
Let us begin.
“As a Red Pill Father, one of my main goals in life, beyond making my life, and as a consequence of that, my marriage better, is ensuring that I prevent, to the best of my ability, the tainting of my young daughter’s minds with modern day Feminism.”
Because a base level of narcissism is required to be a douche, thus I will make it a requirement, perhaps even to the level of necessary ‘background douche-radiation’ (see male socialization), for ‘being successful at life’. And apparently allowing your daughter access to the philosophy/praxis that seeks to ground her humanity into the fabric of society is a compete and utter non-starter. Sorry hunny, no human being status for you.
“This is part one of a three part series of posts I’ll do depicting how Feminism is lying to both men and women”
It’s kinda creepy, yet edifying to see RPF mistakenly categorize feminism as monolithic singular totality. One might surmise that RPF is a fan of morally simplistic binary thinking and all of the sound and fury that emanates from such etymologically denuded intellectual black holes. Because fuck nuance and attention to detail; it makes wrapping the tinfoil around one’s head so much more difficult.
” and how fathers today can combat it so their sons and daughters don’t end up buying into the modern Feminist lie at their own expense.”
Ah, RPF is a tinfoil wrapped holy crusader of man-justice, ready to dispense wisdom and shield his property children from the great evil feminist satan.
“Classical vs Modern Feminism
Not everyone will agree with me on this but Feminism, in it’s earliest iterations (I’m talking late 1800s suffragists), started out as a movement with honorable intentions, back when actual inequality of opportunity between the sexes existed.”
Oh thanks RPF dude. I’m glad you approve of women striving to be recognized as human in society. You’re not going to qualify your approval of women’s struggle are you? That would be a dick move…
*
*
“However, […]”
*
*
**facepalm**
*
*
“However, even with that goal, the feminist narrative of equal rights and suffrage was tainted as it didn’t come with “equal responsibility” for women. For example, women were not subject to the military draft, even to this day, but were granted the right to vote. It wasn’t until the promise was made that women wouldn’t be drafted that more women got on board with the suffrage movement.”
Ah, the vernerable draft chestnut. If you can’t serve the military-machine then its completely obvious and follows that you should have no say in how the county is run. All aboard the shit-boat of stupidity. RPF is also no longer subject to the draft circa 2019 thus he also qualifies as lacking in ‘responsibility’ and therefore by his criteria, have no voting rights.
*
*
“So from the start, even though the intentions were good, the stated intention of true “equality” is a lie.”
I suspect that RPF would not know equality if bit him firmly on the ass, but we should let his assertions demonstrate, rather than me, your humble host tell you particular fact.
*
*
“They wanted all of the authority given to men with none of the responsibilities, and they got it.”
Ah yes, I can recall that golden age, where women could work where they pleased, in any profession, open a bank account, hell… even marry and divorce whomever they saw fit back during the days of first wave feminism.
Actually, no. Women could do none of the above and the fact the RPF glosses over these inconvenient truths is proof positive he is filled to the brim with his own bullshit. Feminism is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy, and in the case of First Wave, struggle for base acknowledgement as human beings. This talk of ‘authority’ and ‘responsibilities’ is but mere projection of your twisted view of society through your (a)historic lens.
*
*
“And it’s this quite unequal dynamic that persists into today and is causing the feminists to want more and more authority for less responsibility. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
One of the key features of the MRA/Redpill dynamic is the reversal of the dominant/subordinate roles. You see, we still live in a patriarchy, where men’s hands hold the levers of power and circumscribe how society functions. There has been no historical reversal of the power roles. No, what makes the MRA cabal’s fevered minds twist and spin is the mere notion that they cannot be the sole arbiters of power in society anymore. The gall of women to assert that they should have *any* say in society is a evil for them that does not sleep.
*
*
“I believe that women’s suffrage can coexist with women who vote in the best interests of our culture and society, but those interests have to be informed and framed by the masculine and with the requisite amount of actual authority given to those who carry the lion’s share of responsibility.”
You can vote Sweety, but only how I see fit. RPF is stupid as he is condescending. Nothing *needs* to be framed by the masculine. Most of the bat shit crazy that exists in the world today is precisely because we continue to frame issues in terms of the masculine. So no, you don’t get to dispense with the basic female rights to human being status, because of your misguided notion of responsibility (which so far is the right to be drafted into male initiated slaughter – I’m still trying to square how ‘responsible behaviour’ jives with participating in mass slaughter).
*
*
“Just as you will be the best father for your children by fulfilling your role as a masculine role model and wielding your authority for the good of your family.”
Have you missed out on the last 30 years so of sociological research that points to negative outcomes for children of parents that adapt stereotypical gender roles? Apparently so. Families thrive when there is trust, compassion, and empathy. Your notions of masculine authority are shit.
*
*
“It wasn’t the female vote that got us here today, it was the continued onslaught of overzealous Feminism in its false crusade for the elusive, and already achieved, “equality” sans the commensurate responsibility for women that got us here.”
Its good to know that men are responsible for the violent culture we live in, responsible for the desecration of the earth and responsible for the wars and senseless bloodletting that continue on, even as this article is penned.
*
*
“Classical vs Modern Feminism:
*
- Equal pay for the “same” work.
-
- Right to vote,
- Pursuit of happiness and liberty.
VS Modern
-
- [1] Women are to be celebrated and advantaged above all else, at the expense of men.
- [2] These expectations reign even over the right of an unborn child to live.
- [3] Believe all women all the time without verifying. What happened to Trust but Verify?”
Wow. So much bullshit condensed down into handy bullet points.
- Examples? Because women now dominate every facet of society. Women in key political office, captains of industry, they are everywhere. In fact they are the defacto status quo – all of literature is about women and their achievements. Pop culture is chock full of positive female role models that demonstrate talent and ability and determined effort are all societal sanctioned keys to female success (nay dominance, to believe RPF’s hokum).
- What? You mean women have a right to say what goes on in their own bodies and determine their productive futures as they see fit – like real human beings with rights and everything? You have no idea what pregnancy does to the female body, if you did, you’d stop saying fatuous bullshit like this.
- The fuck? What does this even mean? Women’s inferior status in society comes with a bevy of problems when accessing the political and legal systems within our society. Women are still fighting to be heard and working toward reducing the bias against them for reporting the sexual violence against them, because shockingly in a patriarchy, women are not encouraged to hold men accountable for their shitty behaviour.
“Feminism originally started out to correct actual injustices in society but has gone so far that it is now making both men and women miserable.”
Feminism has always been antagonistic toward male power and privilege, this fact makes you sad.
“Feminism today is not about equality, it’s about disempowering and emasculating men.”
As stated earlier, (effective) Feminism is about the liberation of women from the structures of society that oppress them. So, if by correcting male excess in society is ’emasculating’; so be it.
“Children are very sensitive to what is “fair.” Whether it’s the size of the piece of cake they get compared to their friends, how much time they or their siblings get to play with Daddy. They know and they keep score. One day this past year my young daughter became aware of “International Girls Day.” She asked what it’s about and her very next question was, “Is there a Boy’s Day?” Young minds, untainted by the Feminist supremacy agenda, can detect inequality.”
Probably the same reason there isn’t a white history month you slack-jawed oxygen thief.
“Take advantage of that now. Reinforce this. Feminists of today would say, “Who cares about Boys Day… they’ve had their turn.””
Well that and every other day happens to be ‘boys day’. Funny how that works when you happen to be in the class that is accorded personhood by default.
“Which is the other side is the “It’s HER turn” coin. It’s just reverse sexism or “Also Sexism.” Not a child. A child knows better and so do Red Pill aware men.”
Reverse sexism. Wow, those slaves sure could oppress their masters couldn’t they. Just like the people of colour regularly practice reverse racism against white people. *sigh*. Trying to make the playing field even when it intrinsically isn’t is the second play in the (‘oppressed’) white dude play book. Minorities can most certainly discriminate, but their prejudices are not reinforced and normalized by the rest of society. Apples and oranges my dear whingy faux-oppressed RPF.
“I’ll take Tolpin’s point a step farther and assert that Feminism, in it’s modern form, not only tells women they don’t need men but continues to assure that men are made into ATM-Betas through the family court system.”
The court system remains in favour of men. I know the notion that being responsible for children is tough (kinda funny that you state earlier your anti-abortion ‘ethic’, and yet here are decidedly anti-family-responsibility) and quite unpalatable for RPF like yourself.
“Our femcentric culture ensures that women still have full access to the resources and money that men possess, even if men choose not to play by their rules. So of course women don’t need men nowadays, the State has ensured, through the establishment of Feminist legislation, they get that support either way.”
I’d like to know when it because femcentric culture, because I think that it doesn’t exist outside RPF’s fevered dreams. Do note his keen yearings for the golden age where women had no rights and their survival depended upon the largess of men.
The notion that women share the same status as men must be truly horrifying to RPF. You mean women are not merely objects to be possessed and collected – the hatred of women must be intense to conjure up this opposite world fantasy the RPF spouts. I don’t see any other reason for it.
“I truly believe, and the social evidence supports this*, that Feminism is not only detrimental to men, it’s disparaging to family, marriage and is even doing women a disservice.”
*Citation needed
Also, how would full human being status for females damage society? The only artifact that looks threatened with female liberation is patriarchy.
“The lie has hurt many women who prioritized “moving up the corporate ladder,” while putting off having a family until they’re 40 only to find that at that age, attracting a quality man is difficult and their prospects for conceiving a baby naturally are severely diminished. “
Because baby making is the ultimate expression of female achievement. Fuck off with your misogynistic, antediluvian attitudes dude.
“This is not the future I want for my daughters.”
The mindfuck you are subjecting them to is darkening their future as you speak.
Thanks folks, and thanks(?) to the manosphere for providing such a bountiful harvest of stupidity.
Greetings nature lovers, today we get to observe in the wild an all to common animal – the delusional oppressed male. Deep in the basement man-cave, writing furious man-words about how terrible men have it, and why women bitches have it so darn good. I think dissertations like the one about to follow are reason enough to be wary of the hermetic bubbles that can form in internet land, where critical thought is extinguished and replaced by the toxic group-think that masquerades as reasonable thought.
Our featured whinger extraordinaire is Red Shambhala and his very… umm… nuanced view of feminism and the female role in society.
““I’m a feminist who loves rough sex“, “I’m a queer little“, “How I reconciled feminism with my first step into the dark side of BDSM”, “Why I’m Both Sexually Submissive AND A Feminist” – put feminism and BDSM into a search engine and you will quickly be greeted by numerous articles about stronk feminist womyn who have stopped worrying and loved to learn the whip.”
Fascinating premise. BDSM, or the replication of male violence and female submission for fun?!? isn’t a particularly feminist act, nor like much of the rest of liberal feminism, worth examining past the idea that any ideological stance that centres men and their feelings can not rightly be called feminist. So Red Shitolya is already off to a bad start.
“Meanwhile, Return of Kings et al. are more than eager to similarly praise BDSM as something women “secretly” want (but just do not want to admit) and men should therefore do
towithfor them.”
Unsurprising, as BDSM reinforces patriarchal ideals, why wouldn’t misogynists be all over such propositions?
“What these seemingly disparate groups have in common is that they are primarily concerned about what women want.”
Doubtful. RoK and liberal feminists may both support the current status quo, but exhibit markedly different levels of clueless foolishness that detract from the work of feminism proper (e.g. the emancipation of females from the strictures of patriarchy).
“Obviously, liberals and conservatives, left-wingers and right-wingers cannot exactly agree on what precisely it is the fair sex allegedly wants, but they do share the same gynocentric framework, namely in posing the question, “What do women want?”, and then attempting to answer said question.”
To be treated as fully human in society is a great place to start. And what exactly the fuck is a gynocentric framework. Referring to a topic isn’t “centric” anything. Biologists talking about their work are not being bio-centric. Of the many tells Male Rights Activists give, this is one of the most obvious – the inversion of the power structure in society. Somehow females, the class that holds less power, is taken less seriously, and is abused more in society has all the power and is always up to “no good” and wants to enslave all men to their dastardly agenda. By “no good” I mean opposing the current patriarchal status quo of course. But the very notion that dudes exist in a society that they made and directly benefits them in a myriad of ways is quite past the event horizon of most MRA’s; as appreciating tangible facts is quite outside their wheelhouse.
“Antifeminism, however, should not be about giving a different answer to the frustrated query “What do women want?” but, rather, about asking alternative questions: “What do men actually want? And why the hell do we only care about what women want?”“
What we have today in society is what men want, you feckless douche nozzle. Losing your place privileged place in society and actually have to treat everyone with respect is not the shit-your-pants apocalyptic nightmare you envision. Not even close.
“The current omnipresence of gynocentric thought, however, should not leave one with the impression that focusing exclusively on the desires of females has always been unchallenged.”
The level of unhinged quickly goes past 11. Back here in reality, the world is still dominated by male thought, male writers, captains of industry, academia, art, and literature. We are drowning in the dudeish perspective and it fucking sucks. The half of the world that isn’t represented by said male view needs to see itself portrayed in literature, culture, and business. The few inroads into male dominated fields represent a clear and present danger to MRA’s like the Red Shitola, and as always their fears are based on the dark nightmare fuel that is regurgitated through the manosphere.
“There are both secular as well as religious alternatives to subordinating everything to the vapid whims and wills of women. Christianity, for instance, teaches that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7). “
This book that says its a sin to wear clothing of mixed fibres is now an authority on how a modern society should work. *shaking head*
“Likewise, the book of Genesis tells us that Satan, the great deceiver who attempts to leads humanity astray, tempted Eve by talking her into believing that she could be like God. Meanwhile, Adam was similarly tempted and convinced that he should follow the proud female’s advice.”
And the burning bush is full of wisdom of the ages. Citing the bible to back your claims is a risible practice at best, and to be honest boring as heck.
“Even from a non-Christian perspective one has to admit that both men and women are indeed often tempted to put women in the place that is traditionally reserved for the only God in Abrahamic religions.”
Our heroic dude-bro, cites two examples the exact opposite of what he states in the following paragraph. Consistency, what the fuck is it?
“Consider, for instance, how many pagan religions worship motherhood goddesses and how the evil US Empire is able to justify its imperialist wars by claiming that they only murder in order to “liberate” women.”
What are you talking about, you’re not making any sense. Does anyone else here think that our beloved Red Shitola is a avid follower of Alex Jones? He’s making about that level of sense …
“Be that as it may, according to the holy texts of Christianity, the punishment for sin was not only death but also that the women’s desire is now “contrary to her husband.” Before the fall, the female gladly fulfilled her roles as the submissive helper she was created for by the Christian’s God – after the fall, she is now boisterous and unsubmissive, her desire is now “contrary” to her husband. Hence, a female refusing to submit is both sin and the result of sin.”
When people ask about how religion reinforces patriarchal notions and the patriarchal status quo I should just reference this Joker and his man-boner for the good ole days where you could just straight up kill disobedient women. The notion that we need to combat this fierce imbalance the world over rather than propagate it, must seem like some fanciful feminist dream conspiracy. Of course, the nearer one comes to reality, the more out of touch it seems to delusional dudes such as Red Shitola.
“This is not to say that I support Christianity or believe the teachings of Jesus to have the power to repair Western society, but there might be an occasional diamond to pluck from the dunghill of Abrahamic religions. “
Oh hey, all that stuff I said about religion and stuff, I don’t actually believe it anything. But if a credulous source happens to fit my world-veiw, I’ll endorse it with aplomb. Because fuck critical thinking and analysis, they too must be part of gynocentric thought frameworks…
“If memory serves, it was Fyodor Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942), the great Russian Indologist largely responsible for laying the foundations in the Western world for the scholarly study of Buddhism, who once replied that he did not approve of his contemporaries’ literal attack on the Christian churches, but, rather, considered Torah, Bible, Talmud and Qur’an to be “cultural treasure chambers.” So, maybe the saints and sages of the past do have a thing or two to teach us about women.”
You know how I just said that religion was crap? Just after saying it wasn’t crap to begin with? Yes, well religion once again isn’t crap. I think the feminist overlords broke into this guys computer and changed the dictionary meanings of ‘convoluted’ and ‘nuanced’ because you can feel the all the (erroneous) mental work that has gone into this tepid series of contradictory paragraphs. It’s like he’s occasionally seen good writing but then somehow mistook his rubegoldberg-esque pap for that good writing and declared it a masterpiece. Another solid victory for Dunning-Kruger.
“To return to the main point, BDSM is essentially a faux-surrogate for actual dominance and actual submission. Instead of a sweet, warm and submissive helper whose cheeks blush upon receiving a playful slap on her bum, men now have to deal with ugly, boisterous feminists who want their boyfriends to spit in their faces, whip and abuse them, and simulate rape like conditions.“
Wait, what? You are blaming women for the pornified violent BDSM culture? Of course you are, as women are always to blame for the shitty things men do and say.
“For whatever reason, internet virgins sometimes seem to believe that women being into BDSM is a sign of femininity, but the opposite is true.”
How do you even get here from what you’ve said? This is masterclass in pulling random shit of ones ass and calmly stating it as ‘fact’.
“The more feminist a female is, the more pain and humiliation she needs in order to still feel like a woman in the bedroom. Likewise, the more feminine a woman is, the less she wants you to hurt and to humiliate her.”
What? Feminism takes a dim view of the abusive nature of BDSM and realizes the replication of the patriarchal status quo. This is the notion on display that there is ‘one true nature’ for the women-folk and that those haughty outliers (who dare speak against patriarchy) somehow need to be broken down to enjoy the true awesomeness of being part of the oppressed, submissive, servile class. Fucking disgusting this pornified dudes fantasies on display for the world to read.
“To sum up, the faux “dominance” of consensual sadomasochism is outright pathetic. “
Because we need the real life version because that somehow is ‘better’ for all involved.
So. Much. Misogyny.
“This is not to say that BDSM and fetishes are generally sick, “degenerate”, sinful, wrong and yada yada yada. Men should be aware, though, that women want to reduce men to the status of dogs; dogs that look dark and dangerous and threatening when they bark, and are yet on the leash of the female, who only has to snap her fingers once to make him roleplay as a “master” in the bedroom, and then snap her fingers twice in order to transform him back into her little beta boi. Men deserve better than that. “
Taking a position must be a hard thing to do in the manosphere, because the level of contradiction is off the scale.
You tepid underwear stain of a human being; men are not oppressed in society. Understand that men design, maintain, and propagate this system we live in for their benefit, why would they want to maintain the status-quo if it wasn’t good for them.
Your connection with reality is tenuous at best. Please stop writing and wasting precious electrons your self-abrogating tortured prose. The delusional MRA funhouse framework you exist in is an affront to rationality and clear thinking. In short, you are making the world a worse place to be in and you don’t even realize it.
And that friends is the truly scary part.
“Perpetrators of SA [Sexual Assault] tend to adhere to traditional gender-role stereotypes, especially with respect to the acceptance of male dominance, acceptance of rape-supportive myths, acceptance of interpersonal violence as a means of conflict resolution, and hostility toward women. These beliefs develop at an early age and come from many sources, usually other men. The extent to which men adhere to such beliefs is sometimes termed the hyper-masculinity factor.”
—Edited by Paula K. Lunderberg-Love & Shelly L. Marmion, “Intimate Violence Against Women: When Spouses, Partners or Lovers Attack.” Praeger Publishers, 2008. (p. 62)
Hmm, Male dominance, rape supportive myths, violent conflict resolution and hostility toward women – it is like the authors just defined the Man-o-sphere.
*Bonus update*
Oh hey, another shining example of “MRA activism”. Keep in mind, it makes perfect sense to them.
Our noble human rights warriors recently decided that they would spam Occidental College with false rape reports.
Indeed, a host of Men’s Rights Redditors were so convinced of the innate evil of the online form they all had the same bright idea: let’s flood the school with false reports of rape and break the form.
Wait, aren’t these the same dudes who are outraged by false rape accusations?
Oh right, they only think it’s an issue when hypothetical women make false rape accusations.
When it’s a hate group full of straight white men actually making the false rape accusations, that’s men’s rights activism.
MRAs do not care about helping men. They only care about hurting women.
Behold dear readers the dark swirling maw of MRA stupidity. :Let it be known that the only constant you can count on is misogyny.
The MRA ideological axis seems to twirl around the idea that because MRA’s act like anti-social butt-pustules with severe Neural Fecal Disability, they never get laid, and this sad state of affairs is women’s fault! If women were just less picky and more submissive things would be great(?).
In cautiously interacting (read derisively poking holes in their fatuous bullcookery) with MRA’s one rotten plank in their prolapsed rectum of a platform seems to be based on an erroneous study of wolf psychology(See what actually happens in wolf families here).
Using flawed wolf psychology as a ideological basis for your movement is just one among the myriad of ways that MRA’s fail.
But let’s focus on this small polished facet of their earth shattering stupidity: the reliance on the idea that there are classes of men, known as Alpha’s and Beta’s. Woe be it unto you if you are Beta, as because you are weak and show emotion and do not act like a complete bag of dicks toward women. The Gold Standard or the alpha is the converse of the Beta, and thus realizes his full potential by embracing full sack-of-dicks status. It’s okay though because both Alpha’s and Beta’s blame women for their lack of proper socialization and inability to use key social lubricants such as empathy, respect, and altruistic behaviour.
But we should leave the other unsavoury trappings of MRA ideology at the wayside and delve deeply into the magical basis of the Alpha and Beta Male phenomena. As mentioned earlier, the alpha/beta classification hierarchy is based on studies of wolves that were desperately flawed. The wolves being studied were in captivity and being in captivity deforms the traditional family structure of the wolf pack into the perverted form(alpha/beta dominance based structure) recorded by the biologists studying them at the time(1948 to be exact).
Read how flawed this alpha BS male is:
“The alpha myth is everywhere. Google “alpha dog” on the Internet and you get more than 85 million hits. Really. While not all the sites are about dominating your dog, there are literally millions of resources out there – websites, books, blogs, television shows, veterinarians, trainers and behavior professionals – instructing you to use force and intimidation to overpower your dog into submission. They say that you, the human, must be the alpha. They’re all wrong. Every single one of them.
The erroneous approach to canine social behavior known as dominance theory (two million-plus Google hits) is based on a study of captive zoo wolves conducted in the 1930s and 1940s by Swiss animal behaviorist Rudolph Schenkel, in which the scientist concluded that wolves in a pack fight to gain dominance, and the winner is the alpha wolf.
Bad Extrapolation
Schenkel’s observations of captive wolf behavior were erroneously extrapolated to wild wolf behavior, and then to domestic dogs. It was postulated that wolves were in constant competition for higher rank in the hierarchy, and only the aggressive actions of the alpha male and female held the contenders in check. Other behaviorists following Schenkel’s lead also studied captive wolves and confirmed his findings: groups of unrelated wolves brought together in artificial captive environments do, indeed, engage in often-violent and bloody social struggles.
The problem is, that’s not normal wolf behavior. As David Mech stated in the introduction to his study of wild wolves (Mech, 2000), “Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps. The concept of the alpha wolf as a ‘top dog’ ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots (Schenkel 1947; Rabb et al. 1967; Fox 1971a; Zimen 1975, 1982; Lockwood 1979; van Hooff et al. 1987) is particularly misleading.”
What we know now, thanks to Mech and others, is that in the wild, a wolf pack is a family, consisting of a mated pair and their offspring of the past one to three years. Occasionally two or three families may group together. As the offspring mature they disperse from the pack; the only long-term members of the group are the breeding pair. By contrast, in captivity unrelated wolves are forced to live together for many years, creating tension between mature adults that doesn’t happen in a natural, wild pack.”
So this bit about Alpha Males and Beta Males has roots in bad science and thus the argument has a faulty premise which leads, of course to a faulty conclusion. This untidy little fact won’t faze the Red Pill types though, they’ve left reason far behind, now only a distant memory (like leaving your child at the last rest stop *whoops!*). Thus we are left with the baseless lack-wit MRA dogma that is swimming in confirmation bias with nebulous goal of trying to justify treating women poorly because MRA’s fail at being good human beings and thus their willies are sad.
Who knew that the Manosphere was so entertaining?
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…