Feminization

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stuart, Sep 2, 2014.

  1. Stuart Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    The premise here is that civilization produces an overall feminization among men. Though more can be said, and may be added later, what follows establishes this in a clear and concise manner.

    There always has been alpha males and beta males. Beta males are decisively less masculine in that a natural effect of their position is a decrease of testosterone production.

    It's clear that males are not as valuable as females in terms of quick expansion of a species, because one male can impregnate many females. (Though, it's worth mentioning that males are about as valuable in that they compete amongst each other making it so the males who succeed in procreation and other forms of creativity are the more fit.) What is questionable is to what extent humans through their history have had cultures where beta males were welcome in large numbers, as opposed to being mostly excluded or considered disposable.

    Take the difference between a wolf pack and lion pride. In the wolf pack there may be many beta males, in a lion pride, there is generally one or two males that basically share the role of alpha males, and their male children who are only tolerated up to a certain age. We may also look at groups of chimpanzees. They have one alpha male and many beta males who are able at times to share in the breeding.

    What is certain concerning humans is that through most of their history the ratio of beta male to alpha male was generally no higher than fifity to one. Meaning in tribes or smaller clans within larger tribes, there was rarely more than fifty males who were completely subordinate to one alpha male.

    But, with the onset of civilization that changed. Yes, it's complex in that in civilizations there are many hierarchies, some even overlapping, such as through, family, industry, religion and government. But, a subtle difference must be noted. Civilizations, marked by large groups of people, generally sustained by agriculture, must have a central government which all males are subordinate to. Yet, in a system of clans within a larger tribe, each clan has a great degree of autonomy.

    While the system of rule in a civilization can differ greatly; such as from one uncontested ruler to several thousand statesmen, nobility, and/or leaders of industry, what remains is the proportionally extravagantly high ratio of beta males to alpha males. If a civilization of ten million contains ten thousand men involved in significant positions of power, the ration of beta males to alpha males is one thousand to one. Strikingly high compared to the fifty to one estimate of the maximum ratio for clans.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Interesting premise, regarding the alpha/beta ratio.

    Even though I have elected not to have children, most would consider me an alpha female because I have some small influence with alpha males in the halls of power.

    1) What is your opinion about the ratio of alpha/beta females?

    2) What is the source of your numbers/statistics?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I note that, in spite of the title you have chosen for this thread, there is not a single word in the above on the influence of women in human society.

    What makes you think that a system based on dominance of groups by alpha males is a worthwhile perspective for analysing the way modern human societies operate, and by what mental process do you associate beta status with "feminisation"?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    There are a lot of false dichotomies out there — left brain vs. right brain, nature vs. nurture, etc. But one really persistent myth, that is literally costing human lives, is the distinction between “alpha” and “beta” males.

    One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf.
     
  8. Stuart Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    My only source is direct observation and a years of reading on related topics, unfortunately (I suppose), without taking notes. As to your first question, I had never thought about it before, but it seems that the transition from tribal society to civilization, may possibly have resulted in a decreased ratio of alphas females to betas.

    Women generally are not the overall alpha of a society even if they seem to have a figure head position, because the ideals that societies are based on are usually established my males. This is evident in that men, who have less reproductive value, in the way I explained in the OP, often find they must be innovative if they wish to breed. Innovation being the impetus behind all ideal. And then as to women, by far having the most responsibility, initially at least, in reproduction, must establish their place within an already established society so as to have a safe place for their children, compelling them to conform to whatever ideals are common in the society rather than challenge them as men are more inclined to do. (Though in keeping with the threads subject I'll mention that a symptom of this feminization of men is that fewer and fewer are doing this.)

    So furthermore, the ratio for women may have decreased, as opposed to it having increased as with men, because the size of the group encompassing the hierarchies more or less exclusive to women, have perhaps actually decreased with civilization, rather than increased. This may be because of one of the effects of civilization, where women become more and more autonomous to most men, excepting the few alpha - actual leaders and innovators of ideas - and the institutes/government in themselves, acting as a proxy alpha male, making it so that the hierarchies exclusive to women, which have traditionally paralleled the male hierarchies, unnecessary.
     
  9. Stuart Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    I think I covered your first question in my above response to Scheherazade. As to the second, one may almost think saying emasculation or lessening of masculinity would be more appropriate than feminization. But, emasculation, doesn't automatically imply feminization. But, to say a male is being feminized does automatically imply emasculation.

    To be emasculated is to lose masculine attributes, which is part of the phenomenon I speak of, but men are actually being feminized in that they are more and more adopting feminize character traits, as initially evolved/developed due to difference in breeding function. For example, a beta male, whose only less masculine than the alpha, but hasn't been compelled to feminine in his mannerisms, would not remain a beta male for long, he would either eventually overtake the alpha, be expelled from the group from his constant disruptions, or willing leave.

    So long terms beta males are generally always best considered feminized, because of the way they conform to the group.

    That there are a higher percentage of beta males in civilization than tribal society is only part of the story in feminization. What wasn't mentioned in the OP, mostly for the sake of brevity, is that the institutions in civilization's increasing invulnerability to challenges from up coming males, and lack of frontiers because of the propensity of civilization to grow rapidly, makes is so most males have little chance of either challenging the established order or creating their own, generally reducing them to a feminine attitude towards their society.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I grant previous posters' concerns about false dichotomies and propagation of myths. But for the sake of argument, I'll take your argument at face-value.

    I think you're looking at it upside down.

    Alphas are useful in survival situations. Their strong leadership ensures the pack is not fractured, which would be disastrous. (only one cook in the kitchen and all that)

    But in a more stable pack/tribe/society, the alphas have a disruptive influence. As more of the tribe can make comfortable lives for themselves, those with a drive to force others to their will are going to be less desired. Instead, mates would be chosen partly on stability, loyalty to family. This would work for both genders, though possibly for different criteria.

    What you call feminization sounds, to my ears, like you are saying it is an undesirable trend.

    I, instead, suggest that this more more about socialization and cooperation, which is a good thing for the species as a whole.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    I would argue the opposite. In ancient times, the ratio of alpha males to beta males (socially speaking) was quite low. Let's go with your 50 to 1 ratio. That meant that up to 50 males were the social subordinates to a male leader. They needed approval to pair with a woman/marry, own property, leave the tribe (or alternately would be ejected or killed) etc.

    Nowadays the number of males who are socially subordinate to another male is very, very low. Some examples would be a father running a household with grown children in it or a cult leader controlling his congregation. However, the vast majority of men are now "alpha males" able to make such social decisions like marriage, property ownership, where they live etc. on their own.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Human physiology argues that we have been evolving away from an already much diminished role of physical (testosterone driven) alpha males in our social hierarchy for a million years or more.

    We have no fighting teeth. Males have disproportionately large testicles and genitals, compared with body size (unlike in an alpha male setup, where sperm competition and sexual gratification of the female play only small roles - gorillas etc - and all resources diverted from fighting ability are wasted). Female humans ovulate cryptically - no obvious signal such as a dominant male needs to reserve reproduction to himself. Homosexual bonding plays a large social role in both sexes, and seems to have been larger in our recent evolutionary past (suppressed only by great effort, in agricultural societies mostly). Sexual dimorphism is moderate only, not the 2:1 size and radical armament differences seen in alpha male setups (walrus, whales, bison, deer, lions, gorillas, etc). And male contribution to the costs of offspring nurture are critical with such high cost progeny - past a certain low point, resources diverted to fighting and dominance reduce rather than enhance reproductive success.
     
  14. Stuart Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    I understand your position. I'm not describing a situation that is either desirable or undesirable. It would be near useless to speculate on what could be done about it, nor would there be any reason to want to do something about it. If a man can accept himself as more feminine than his ancestors then he has created a comfortable position for himself, if a man cannot accept this then he will attempt to do something about it. In the latter case he would be foolish to try make other men do this as well - that in itself, the act of trying to raise the quality of a group, mitigating one's personal concerns is a feminine quality. In the former case, a man would not necessarily wish to try to perpetuate the norm, except outside of how the masculization of men around him might compromise his comfort, but that would be focused on immediate groups such a man is associated with not society as a whole.
     
  15. Stuart Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    It would seem that way, but if you observe closely you'll see that men actually have sever limitations in their decisions. Yes, they have the options you mentioned, but only if they live within the ideologies established by the few highly masculine men, the great intellectuals of the past and present, and those truly in charge in the present, not just figure heads. Ideologies which are then directed by proxy through the institutions/governments of the society.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Yeah.
    And now you're going to have to show - conclusively - that those "subordinate men" actually do "live within" those ideologies [sup]1[/sup].
    And, as counter-example, don't most of these "alphas", especially the ones currently running the institutions/ governments, conform to a huge extent to institutions/ practices already in place?

    1 I submit that, for an unknown but large number, these "subordinate men" are not so much "subordinate" as largely uninterested in (many of) the constraints of the existing ideologies. I.e. the lives they are interested in already fit within certain bounds and "subordination" doesn't arise as a question, or that any "transgressions" of those bounds aren't of note because they aren't prescribed as such. If I don't play cricket it doesn't matter what rules you lay down for the game since I'm never, ever, going to break those rules: ergo you could claim that I conform to those rules - because I've not been observed to break them. The reality is that they simply don't apply.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2014
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Aside from the weirdness of positing an institutionalized ideology as an alpha male, you seem to be defining "masculine" and "alpha" circularly - as proof of each other. That destroys your argument.

    Additionally, you seem to be accepting renown and recognition as proof of alpha male status in the past, while reserving that status for "those truly in charge" in the present. This brings up the odd possibility of a childless alpha male nobody but a couple of friends knows about, or will ever know about.

    I'm not sure how else one would arrive at the claim that the "great intellectuals" of the past and present were "highly masculine" and "alpha males" both. Darwin, say, although greatly admired and respected by almost all who knew him or have researched him since his death, is not generally described as an apotheosis of hyper-masculinity in any stereotypical sense. Is Bill Gates a "highly masculine man"?
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    That has always been true from the dawn of time. Everyone has limitations on their decisions.
    Pure nonsense. Simple example - Tony Domenico now operates a skydiving gear store and a very successful skydiving organization. He did not seek approval from any of the "few highly masculine men, the great intellectuals of the past and present, and those truly in charge in the present." He just did it.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I should not have mentioned the desirable/undesirable component. Let me re-state.

    What you describe as a shift toward femininity, I am seeing as a shift toward moderation in temperament at some societally beneficial middle value. (That works from both directions.)

    It seems analogous to this: I am removing a red stain a tile on my floor, and you claim I'm "shifting the tile's colour toward blue". While technically that may be true, it is not the intent. The net useful effect is that I'm bringing it back to the middle value where it belongs.

    Or another (whimsical) analogy: "You're heading for the median of the highway. We'll be killed." "I'm heading left, yes, because I'm coming back from the shoulder to the middle of my lane, where we'll be safe." Same initial direction, big difference in result.

    Were you to entertain a suggestion, mine would be that, where you say 'feminization', you could use something more accurate that means 'moderation of gender extremes'.
     
  20. Stuart Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    Most "running" things aren't alphas, those who are alphas are the very few who have managed to actually implement their own order into society.

    Neither do cows feel subordinate. The few alphas in society didn't get to where they are because they're simplistic, they've created an environment where most betas are unaware of their status. This why I would even bother to mention these things here, because people deny them.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    And, like I said, you'd have to establish that "betas" actually do take that much notice.

    Yeah?
    Evidence please.

    Mention? Yes.
    Support? Not so far.

    All you've done so far is make claims.
     
  22. Stuart Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    Masculinity is defined as the attitude and physical traits natural to men, alpha must be defined in terms of beta.

    I didn't say that.

    Some men prefer creation to procreation.

    Forget the stereotypes, that it what I wish to debunk. For example, a mindless man who spends 12 hours a day in a gym, is showing little traces of a masculine attitude, despite being overly masculine physically.

    Most likely.
     
  23. Stuart Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    That most betas are unaware of their status, or that alphas created such an environment? If the former, just ask them, if the latter, it's axiomatic that proof would be difficult to obtain, but I've gone a long way in this thread of establishing it without completely proving it.
    All I intend on doing is making claims supported by reasoning and what evidence is available.
     

Share This Page