Alpha and Beta....Females?

[hannahbanana]

In the last few days, I've been meeting tons of new people in the back-to-school frenzy, and it's given me the chance to make some interesting connections between men and women. I'm interested in hearing what people think. This may have no connection at all, but I was wondering if there were "alpha and beta" women as there are men.

1. Alpha females are the attractive ones. Like alpha males, they rely on sexual appeal to attract men. They often care more about "shallow" traits such as clothes, hair, or makeup, rather than their ability to have a long-lasting relationship or provide value to a relationship.

2. Beta females are less attractive/don't place as much value in appearance, instead focusing on being a good friend etc. like a beta male, they might be the friend that people "love like a sister" eg. provide emotional comfort/support but never viewed in a sexual way

3. Beta females feel intimidated by alpha females, since many men will pay attention to the physically attractive women first. (I don't know if every man does this, but I've met a good few who always complain about the hot girls never want a good guy, while also ignoring the girls who may not care as much about looking sexually alluring)

 

Following questions: If there are such things as alpha and beta females, do they approach finding a partner differently? There is the given explanation of how girls will want to have sex with alphas but have betas provide; could this be a mainly "alpha" behavior? It could explain why NAWALT.

 

This could be completely wrong, but I've just been feeling too many of these comparisons in the last few days for me to ignore it. Any opinions, additions, criticisms, etc. would be very appreciated!

[NameName]

I think many will disagree with me, and this is just my opinion with no evidence, but I find the whole alpha/beta thing for humans of any gender, to be a load of bullshit. People aren't categorized into two types of personality

[Ace]

For girls it's far more just delineated by physical attractiveness. Pretty well all men pay attention to the beautiful woman first instinctively. Women see that and even less pretty ones still feel pressured to devote a lot of effort to try to be as physically attractive as possible. It's not a sharp line between attractive and not attractive women, it's a scale of course. There is kind of a fixed point though, the prettiest girls that men just fawn over. There are girls who are still very attractive, but not to the point where they get the same massive amount of attention all their life. It's at the highest level where that really manipulative nature develops. Less attractive girls can still use sex appeal to manipulate in certain situations but not at such a widespread level. They never get that experience of being able to use their looks as a currency so universally.

 

Myself, I feel like you kind of learn where your level is for realistically attracting someone. I still find the 9 or 10 most physically attractive the same as anyone else, but realized it's not going to happen lol, so you lower your sights. But, it's still instinctively based on attractiveness - I would, in the past anyways, choose the bitchy 7 over the nice 5 or 6 and suffer the consequences. I can't speak for women, but I think that less pretty girls are still most attracted to the alpha males the same as the most attractive ones are. In kind of the same way, they "settle" at least in the sense of what we're biologically drawn towards. I don't think that less attractive people automatically look towards substance, personality, and so on when choosing a partner - you're still acting on those instinctive drives.

 

And as we know it changes a lot depending on what stage of life a person is in. This is more a description of youth, prior to having children. After that, for women, the priority changes obviously.

[PGP]

A very interesting question to pose. I will add my speculation.

In scoring a woman in a bar for example, there is an inherent risk/reward scenario. To cut a long story short, a 7 in the bag is worth any number of perfect tens that will be demanding and hard work. They're all the same when the light goes out anyway (hooking-up only).

In terms of long-term, most adult men I know will look for solid looks, self-sufficient, good cook, likely good with kids and so on. IMO(and I agree), men want a simple, non-complicated and extremely importantly non-dramatic partnership with a woman.

In the mating game, I can't really see the alpha/beta paradigm transferring to women. Men are the hunters, women the hunted. Alphas score big consistently, betas score medium consistently. 

Women can espouse alpha/beta etc, but that's all it is, espousal. Sooner or later (and it is a narrow biological window) they have to open the gate fully and propagate. If they don't, alpha, beta espousal, it doesn't matter, it's a long, slow barren 50 years to closing time. 

If they do open the gate to an alpha, they get all the risk/reward inherent in that. But they get it permanently, unlike an alpha male. 

In short, IMO women have one shot and only one shot at having a child (the first child) with a good man. After that the odds of them bagging a good man with a chiseller in tow is IMO non-existent. 

Some haphazard brainstorming patriarchal misogyny on a plate. But that's the way it is. 

[Kevin Beal]

It's all about status, isn't it?

 

I think that by definition the alphas have the most status. Some people differentiate between betas and omegas and even zetas. The betas being the group that gains status by propping up the statuses of the alphas, and maintaining the status hierarchy so that they come out on top of the omegas. The omegas are on the bottom of the totem pole as they still operate within the social mythology around how people get status. Zetas reject that social mythology entirely.

 

Warren Farrell is keen on saying "men's weakness is their facade of strength; women's strength is their facade of weakness." I take that to mean that women gain status by appearing weak, and men by appearing strong and competent.

 

That's why the archetypal high status woman has long fingernails, hair like a house of cards, high heels, that is, markers that indicate she doesn't even know how to use a hammer. And the archetype high status man could build a house if he wanted to, but he's probably got other men he could pay to do it for him.

 

I think that generally, people with a lot of status are people we are tempted to overlook for them the subtle irrationality in their comments, and the lack of compassion they feel for us normies. Pretty people are one example. Celebrities and rich people, also.

 

I have known both types of the female types you mentioned, for sure. And definitely it would be frustrating to hear a guy complain about an alpha female not being into nice guys while not even acknowledging the romantic eligibility of a beta female. Especially considering how many men complain about being overlooked as betas. I kind of want to shake people like that by the collar.

 

I won't pretend to know how women think about finding a partner. But I do know that I considered myself an omega growing up and there were plenty of girls who were interested in me, some of whom I could have sworn were "out of my league", and thus threatening the delicate balance of the social order!

 

Maybe it is alpha females who are the most hypergamous and disinterested in beta males. I wouldn't be too surprised, myself.

[surfingthoughts]

I think many will disagree with me, and this is just my opinion with no evidence, but I find the whole alpha/beta thing for humans of any gender, to be a load of bullshit. People aren't categorized into two types of personality

 

I can understand why your skeptical but I view it as a spectrum with alpha aka dominant at one end and beta aka submissive at the other end. With these spectrum's it's usually a bell curve with the majority being around the middle, would be interesting to see a study to show if the alpha beta / dominant submissive spectrum. I know there was this one study (that I can't remember the name of) where a group of men were put into 2 groups and 1 had the role of prisoners (submissive) and the other prison guards (dominant). They weren't given any rules and long story short they had to stop the experiment as the prison guards got too hard handed with prisoners which indicates when someone has the impression they are alpha or beta they assume the extreme end of the spectrum.

 

I must admit when talking about beta and alpha I always thought of males but I can see how it can be applied to both genders it's logical really, just something that I hadn't considered. 

[Brentb]

I think that an alpha is someone who makes themselves highly valuable to the people around them, and they are confident in that they know that they are highly valued.

 

Women tend to be valued based on appearance. This is especially true for young women since they typically haven't yet developed a lot of skills in anything beyond looking good and being fertile. It's value that counts though, appearance is just the predominant value that women provide.

 

I wouldn't refer to women like Ayn Rand, Julia Child, or Oprah as betas simply because they aren't/weren't that pretty. They're women who command attention, make things happen and get what they want. That's not beta.

[hannahbanana]

 

I wouldn't refer to women like Ayn Rand, Julia Child, or Oprah as betas simply because they aren't/weren't that pretty. They're women who command attention, make things happen and get what they want. That's not beta.

That makes sense if value is the determining factor of alphas and betas. But then I've got to ask, why doesn't it seem like that's the way alpha and beta men are viewed? What I've gathered about the alpha/beta discussion, it sounds like both alpha and beta men have value, just in different ways. The alpha man's value is his attractiveness and physique, while a beta's value is his ability to provide stability, both financially and emotionally. However the attractive alpha is generally still the one in demand. In cases like Oprah, A) you could make the same case for men, for example taking a look at gold diggers who value exorbitant wealth over looks, and B) at least in Oprah's case, while she is rich and powerful, she spends a LOT of time looking good. Chances are you will hardly ever see her publicized without perfect makeup, hair, nails and clothes. So it seems like even she values looks a lot, and she has the money to make herself look a lot better than if she didn't have money to pay for her posse of makeup professionals.

 

 

 

2. Beta females are less attractive/don't place as much value in appearance, instead focusing on being a good friend etc. like a beta male, they might be the friend that people "love like a sister" eg. provide emotional comfort/support but never viewed in a sexual way

 

Maybe it would be better to modify this. It was initially the most difficult for me to define of those on my list anyway. Thinking about it, I don't think it's true that beta females wouldn't put stock into physical attractiveness. I suppose I was trying to think of where someone who doesn't buy into the paradigm fits in, but it sounds like that would be a zeta, as Kevin said. They'd probably still try to make themselves look as attractive as possible, it just doesn't work as well as the girls who are naturally gorgeous (and I think this is a large amount of girls out there).

 

I've also just thought of another thing: even girls who are VERY pretty often don't see themselves as such. Yes, there are the self-assured ones who know how good they look, but there are also girls who get a lot of attention and think they are unattractive. I'm not sure if it is manipulation to receive complements, true lack of self-esteem, or both. Probably both. But I think that is definitely different from the typical alpha male, who sounds to me like he is very sure of himself. However, this could be because of the value of weakness in attractive girls. If they were too sure of themselves, it would be more of a masculine trait, opposite of the desired female passivity of the good 'ole days.

[Kevin Beal]

I've also just thought of another thing: even girls who are VERY pretty often don't see themselves as such. Yes, there are the self-assured ones who know how good they look, but there are also girls who get a lot of attention and think they are unattractive. I'm not sure if it is manipulation to receive complements, true lack of self-esteem, or both. Probably both. But I think that is definitely different from the typical alpha male, who sounds to me like he is very sure of himself.

I wonder if it's actually true that alpha males are very sure of themselves. I think of a Don Draper (from Mad Men) type character who has no problem convincing women to sleep with him. And how this type of guy's self esteem is so fleeting. That he needs to have another lay as soon as he gets too overwhelmed or insecure so he can feel worthwhile again.

 

I think it's true that guys don't obsess as much as women (generally speaking) about their looks, but I think it may just be the case that this insecurity manifests itself differently.

 

In some circles I think I had some status because I am quick witted and can make people laugh a while. In high school I remember a period where (for whatever reason) I couldn't come up with jokes that were very good, and I felt an identity crisis as I imagined myself slipping from beta to omega, or something like that. (I didn't think about it in those terms at the time.) And for a long time when I would tell a joke that bombed I felt terribly insecure.

 

I don't think it necessarily has to be good looks that determines status. I would consider many moderately attractive celebrities to have much higher status than gorgeous non-celebrities (for example). I think it's got a lot to do with the groups you hang around.

 

The image that comes to mind is the dungeon master among Dungeons and Dragons groups, or the guy who spends hours and hours painting in beautiful detail his WarHammer figurines and has the coolest set that brings into battle, or the Star Trek nerd who actually knows a friend of William Shatner's. REAL nerds, but they have have that cool factor within that environment.

 

I think of it being like fashion. It's pretty arbitrary, but it can matter a lot, simply because of the way people will perceive you. And I think, for the most part, status is arbitrary in that same way, in how people determine that within their circle.

 

I wonder if among a group of all zetas, or a philosophical group (assuming perfect virtue and self knowledge) there would be any status. Status has the negative connotation of "status seeker", like the person who acts simply to gain status, but I don't know if that's necessarily always the case. Like, is it fair to say that Stef has a lot of status among the listeners to the show?

 

What do you think?

[zippert]

 

I know there was this one study (that I can't remember the name of) where a group of men were put into 2 groups and 1 had the role of prisoners (submissive) and the other prison guards (dominant). They weren't given any rules and long story short they had to stop the experiment as the prison guards got too hard handed with prisoners which indicates when someone has the impression they are alpha or beta they assume the extreme end of the spectrum.

 

It is the "Stanford Prison Experiment".

 

 

To the topic:

I don't think you can translate the alpha/beta scheme to the females, because it is constructed by violence. Who is beta or alpha is determined in puberty, mostly in schools. The hirachy is formed. The person who perpetrates the most violence and receiving the least is on top of the hirachy while the biggest victim is on the bottom. But "good looking" is determined by genes not by violence, so the female "order" is natural while the male is "Cultural"(while still the first impulse to form such a hirachy comes from the genes too).

[surfingthoughts]

It is the "Stanford Prison Experiment".

 

 

To the topic:

I don't think you can translate the alpha/beta scheme to the females, because it is constructed by violence. Who is beta or alpha is determined in puberty, mostly in schools. The hirachy is formed. The person who perpetrates the most violence and receiving the least is on top of the hirachy while the biggest victim is on the bottom. But "good looking" is determined by genes not by violence, so the female "order" is natural while the male is "Cultural"(while still the first impulse to form such a hirachy comes from the genes too).

 

Yes it was that experiment. 

 

I think your perspective is perhaps right when looking at it from a male point of view looking at females. I was thinking of females being beta or alpha within their friend groups of the same sex they may not use physical violence but they sure can use verbal aggression. Within female groups there almost a herd mentality if you go against the group they go against you, the dynamic is perhaps not as clear cut as alpha and beta. As for beauty if enough females feel threatened by another girls beauty the herd will turn on them.

 

This might come across as patronizing to women but I am talking more about school yard mentality that one would hope would be shaken off by the time a young lady become an adult.

[MagnumPI]

At least where I've been, women, both attractive and not, are tending toward unemployed, fat stupid guys or other women. The 'alpha' male just goes for the easiest and/or drunkest skank in nearest proximity. If ever there was credibility to the alpha/beta thing, it seems, again, in my experience, to have been replaced by desperation and dependency.

 

Also, don't come to Bakersfield. But really, I saw the same thing in Northern Nevada, and San Diego quite a bit, as well. Of course, every so often there's a couple to buck the trend. But that's very few and far between. The only common link I see with any regularity in most couples is tattoo density.

 

And then when it comes to the women I approach? They all seem every bit as indecisive, insecure, aggressive and screwed up regardless of how good they look. Makeup, miniskirts, books, booze... None of this matters.

 

Online I've gotten 'you're really attractive. My pictures make me look better than I really do' as much as sometime after the 1st date 'oh I just have to be honest with myself I don't have time for you'... Which usually comes out of the blue, 180 degrees from what they were saying the day before! I'll even get phone numbers, use them, and never hear back. I don't understand what's going on and inquiries for feedback are met with silence.

 

The women I know who are honest and open don't get it either. Their looks vary from average to above average and professional status as varied from unemployed to professional with a degree. So, while not scientific, there's no real pattern other than pretty much everyone is a mess.

[hannahbanana]

 

I wonder if among a group of all zetas, or a philosophical group (assuming perfect virtue and self knowledge) there would be any status. Status has the negative connotation of "status seeker", like the person who acts simply to gain status, but I don't know if that's necessarily always the case. Like, is it fair to say that Stef has a lot of status among the listeners to the show?

 

What do you think?

I think that it's true that people value different traits in others, those traits giving someone status. That's just the nature of preferences. So in an intellectual or philosophical group, logic, knowledge and integrity may be highly valued and denote respect. But I think that one of the differences that separates the alpha/beta establishment over basic preferences is the amount of hostility, threat, and hierarchy that goes into it.

So let's use the example of a group that values intelligence. In the situation you mentioned above, where there is virtue and self-knowledge, if I knew someone who wasn't as intelligent as another person, I wouldn't belittle that person because to a certain point there isn't a lot you can do about your base intelligence. But in a situation like that in normal society today, that person might get a lot of mean-spirited remarks, talking behind their back, belittlement and bullying because of others who feel that they need to assert their dominance in order to maintain it. Since it is assumed that the first community has virtue and self-knowledge, to be aggressive in that way would be unacceptable, and would probably be called out by others in the community. That's not to say that others might have more prestige based on their intelligence or virtue, but I don't think it would be so hostile to those with less rank.

In terms of insecurities, I think that many of those are self-imposed only after a person has received negative comments from others. It's kind of like the "inner authority;" you hear responses from authority so long that you eventually start imposing those responses for the authority on your own. In an enlightened community, I don't think many people would unnecessarily hurtful comments towards others in that way, so there would be no chance for your mind to create that voice of insecurity.

[MMX2010]

 

I've also just thought of another thing: even girls who are VERY pretty often don't see themselves as such. Yes, there are the self-assured ones who know how good they look, but there are also girls who get a lot of attention and think they are unattractive. I'm not sure if it is manipulation to receive complements, true lack of self-esteem, or both. Probably both.

 

Roissy, one of the three Manosphere writers I admire most, argues that it's neither.  Instead, it's a "shit test" designed to see whether the man receiving it is alpha or beta. 

 

Consider a woman complaining that her butt is too big and that she wishes her butt looked like that girl's.  A beta man attempts to assure her that she's pretty, or talks down the other woman she's negatively comparing herself to.  Wheras an alpha male either "Agrees and Amplifies" (by saying, "Oh hell yeah.  Are you a beach ball?  Do you walk or roll?), or "Dismisses and Provokes" (by saying, "Try to be more subtle next time you're looking for compliments.") 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roissy released this article today, which contains a salient point that I will highlight out-of-context.

 

Full article link: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-difference-between-promiscuous-men-and-promiscuous-women/

 

Relevant paragraph: "If you heed not lies and accept the truth of biological and psychological sex differences, you won’t be surprised to learn that men, the sex with a trillion sperms to please their lovers, are hardwired to spread the seminal wealth without incurring psychotraumatic blowback. Men are geared from the get-go for poosy variety (though not all men will fulfill their directive and not all are geared in fifth) and therefore have the cortical capacity to easily tolerate the comings and goings of numerous lovers without having a breakdown or fretting constantly about how well new lovers match up to old lovers. Men occasionally reminisce about a teenage fling, but they don’t endlessly bemoan that one “alpha female” who got away like women are prone to do with their long-gone alpha male lovers."

 

Edited to add: The paragraph above is meant to indicate why I, like PGP, don't believe that alpha/beat females exist. 

[kalmia]

There will always be alphas in any society. I think frewdomain radio and other freedom movement projects are just efforts to restructure the status game. The church is a status game. Businesses are a status game. Sports are a status game. The state is a status game. It is the declaration of high status to those most efficient at violence and theft. Everything we do is built around reproduction. That is what motivates us. Those with the highest status are those at the top of the game that life is built around. It is why they will NEVER give up that status willingly. Only those ignorant of the true game that is being played are foolish enough to think they can beg the alpha into giving up his alpha position. That begging is reinforcing that alpha.

 

In a virtuous philosophical society those who add the most value to others will be the highest status. You can think of status as a social value. The order is something like this:

Person of no social value.

Servile person who plays a supporting role to someone of value.

Person who receives value by tearing down a person of value and stealing their value. (Many people in the government are in this position. It can be argued that the government is in this position.)

Person who creates value for others. (Entrepreneurs are at or above this level.)

Person who creates value for people who create value. (An entrepreneur who connects value creating entrepreneurs with each other.)

 

If you look at the content of Stef's shows you can see a constant theme of encouraging entrepreneurship and connecting entrepreneurs with each other.

If you look at society and place everyone at the levels I described above, you can see why so many support the state and other destructive institutions. Few people are above the level where the state is.

[zippert]

We should be clear what alpha is, this video clarifies it (It is not social status in general):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zEs_1o8ZI

[Psychophant]

There will always be alphas in any society. 

 

 

There will allways be concepts in any concept. Since people ain't hairy monkeys any more, refering to people as alpha is obsolete. 

In a virtuous philosophical society those who add the most value to others will be the highest status.

 

 

You can be virtous without adding value to others and who says that productivity has the highest value? The most important thing, you don't have to play the status game.

[RandR10]

I think many will disagree with me, and this is just my opinion with no evidence, but I find the whole alpha/beta thing for humans of any gender, to be a load of bullshit. People aren't categorized into two types of personality

The alpha/beta designation is just taxonomy, the same as a biologist would use to categorize living creatures or different parts of the brain.  I find these types of taxonomic designations to be boring and limited in their usefulness in any real world application.  For example, when genomes began to be decoded, biologists found that there were many errors in formerly agreed upon classifications of the interrelationships of organisms.  Or when they began to decode how the brain worked, cutting it up into so many neatly compartmentalized sections wasn't actually as useful as they had thought in describing its functionality (not to say that there aren't anatomical differences between different parts of the brain, just that infinitely slicing it into smaller descriptive pieces was sort of silly).  In short, I agree.  Alpha/Beta/Zeta designations are just quick descriptive shortcuts to describe one aspect of the human personality; dominance/submissiveness.  There are some rare individuals who exist almost completely outside of this paradigm because of their rejection of dominant hierarchy as a way of life.  I would venture a guess that there are quite a few of those in the FreedomainRadio community.

[adamNJ]

 

 I don't understand what's going on and inquiries for feedback are met with silence.

 

 

I hate this, most people would rather be nice than helpful. Somebody help me figure this out.  Why is feedback in dating so hard to obtain?

[J. D. Stembal]

The problem with using the Greek alphabet to categorize people is no one can decide exactly what the letters mean, so two people in a discussion will be talking past each other and never about the same topic. It's similar to using the generational archetypes of X, Y, and Z to talk about disparate age groups of people. No one has standardized the years that belong to the generations, and even if they had, how useful is it to use definitions that are this broad and frequently overlap?

[RandR10]

 

 

 

I hate this, most people would rather be nice than helpful. Somebody help me figure this out.  Why is feedback in dating so hard to obtain?

 

Is that a cross post from another thread?  Maybe you should start a new one if you have an unrelated question.

[kalmia]

 

 

 

I hate this, most people would rather be nice than helpful. Somebody help me figure this out.  Why is feedback in dating so hard to obtain?

 

 

It can be frustrating. I think it is because we are making sexual selection decisions on a level we are not aware of. Younger people have even less ability to be aware of why they chose one person over another. Don't ever expect a woman, especially a young woman, to give you accurate feedback about what she is after. They don't know themselves. Learn from the guys who have figured it out. 

[MMX2010]

 

 

 

I hate this, most people would rather be nice than helpful. Somebody help me figure this out.  Why is feedback in dating so hard to obtain?

 

 

Feedback in dating is hard to obtain, because women have a duplicitous sexual nature in a society that devotedly conceals that duplicity. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/

[hannahbanana]

 Don't ever expect a woman, especially a young woman, to give you accurate feedback about what she is after. They don't know themselves. Learn from the guys who have figured it out. 

 

 

women have a duplicitous sexual nature in a society that devotedly conceals that duplicity. 

I know you guys are probably making generalizations about most women in society, but these comments make me feel a little uncomfortable, since I am a woman and I have NEVER fit within any of those categories. And I'm not just saying that. It's not like I am constantly fighting the instinctual urge lie and double-cross men (or people in general). Self-knowledge did not 'save' me from that fate, I just never felt that way. I seriously question the assumption that women act in a bad way just because of their nature. If you look at it on the flip side, you could say that men are biologically more aggressive, but I would not say that men are violent in nature.

 

I can agree, however, that society encourages passive aggressiveness and just overall dysfunctional behaviors in relationships. It's not good for anyone involved.

 

I don't know, maybe I shouldn't be taking this too personally; you've probably met a lot of dysfunctional women to base your opinion on, and who can blame you? Especially with the way men are treated in a society where feminism has so much power. But I can't help feeling uncomfortable about it, and I feel like that's important.

[MMX2010]

But I can't help feeling uncomfortable about it, and I feel like that's important.

 

 

It is; they're you're most honest and intense feelings about the topic. 

 

 

I know you guys are probably making generalizations about most women in society, but these comments make me feel a little uncomfortable, since I am a woman and I have NEVER fit within any of those categories. And I'm not just saying that. It's not like I am constantly fighting the instinctual urge lie and double-cross men (or people in general). Self-knowledge did not 'save' me from that fate, I just never felt that way. I seriously question the assumption that women act in a bad way just because of their nature. If you look at it on the flip side, you could say that men are biologically more aggressive, but I would not say that men are violent in nature.

 

I would say that men are, indeed, violent in nature.  But society puts so much emphasis on controlling male aggression that the majority of men don't seriously struggle to suppress murderous / violent impulses.  The artificial, society-generated message against male violence is so persistent - starting from birth! - that males feel that non-violence is natural.  Once this happens, men don't really struggle to suppress their violent / murderous nature. 

 

Would you say that you had a strong parental figure that taught you loyalty to men?  I'm not denying your experience, just wondering where you think it comes from. 

[hannahbanana]

 

 

I would say that men are, indeed, violent in nature.  But society puts so much emphasis on controlling male aggression that the majority of men don't seriously struggle to suppress murderous / violent impulses.  The artificial, society-generated message against male violence is so persistent - starting from birth! - that males feel that non-violence is natural.  Once this happens, men don't really struggle to suppress their violent / murderous nature. 

 

Would you say that you had a strong parental figure that taught you loyalty to men?  I'm not denying your experience, just wondering where you think it comes from. 

Interesting that you'd say men are violent in nature...I guess I just didn't expect it

 

I'm not sure...my parents never really had problems with each other, so my dad was around, but he almost always deferred final authority to my mother. He also worked a lot, but when he was home he tried to be very involved with me and my siblings. Seeing as the relationship with the father is the first relationship with a man, it probably plays a role. I also formed a very strong relationship with my brother in my mid-teens, even though we fought constantly before that.

But I think a lot of it was school, I always connected better with boys and formed more friendships with them. My mother was a very non-feminine role-model and I never really liked the girlie games, fake boy-talk and superficiality that elementary school girls would always be doing. It felt like everyone was doing it just because they thought they were supposed to be doing it, in order to fit the stereotype of little kids who are grossed out by the opposite sex. A lot of my girl friends also tried using me for my possessions and intelligence, so I was pretty mistrusting afterwards.

TL;DR: I think it was less of a strong positive male role model and more of disillusionment with other girls my age, which led me to turn to forming friendships with boys instead.

[MMX2010]

Interesting that you'd say men are violent in nature...I guess I just didn't expect it

 

 

Hah. 

 

People constantly mistake hard-won, constantly enforced social conditions for natural tendencies.  (Example: the sanctity and desirability of marriage.) 

 

 

 

TL;DR: I think it was less of a strong positive male role model and more of disillusionment with other girls my age, which led me to turn to forming friendships with boys instead.

 

That makes sense to me.  You did have a strong cultural influence towards loyalty-to-men, but it was your peer culture instead of your parental culture.  (*makes note of that for my own future dating prospects*)

 

I was going to ask you a long, detailed question.  But I decided to ask the entire forum instead.

 

Thanks for inspiring me to ask it, though.