Post: #1

Someone has been reading the manosphere:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-...a-man.html

A review of the book 'The Alpha Woman Meets Her Match’ by Sonya Rhodes.

In short, the book advises "Alpha-women" to marry Betas and stop trying to marry Alphas, because those relationships seldom work.

Ha!

A few morsels of the article:

"Like men have done for decades, 21st-century women are finally embracing the “Alpha” within – knowing exactly what they want and stopping at nothing to get it. There’s only one problem. The Alpha female struggles to find a perfect partner. With her reputation for ambition, determination and success, she can be seen by men as intriguing but intimidating; attractive yet aloof."

Alpha men are indeed intimidated and intrigued by their success and aloof state.

" As the singer Alanis Morissette puts it: “Alpha men are very turned on by the Alpha woman..."

No - they are not, Alanis Morissette was somewhat hot in her days and getting fucked by Alpha guys who wanted to plant their flag in a famous singer is no sign of her overall relationship-attractiveness to Alpha males.

"The pairing of two Alphas, Dr Rhodes suggests, can result in a power struggle."

No kidding - all men love to fight in the professional world and then come home to continue the good fight with a bitchy wife who shit-tests his balls off every minute of the day.

"The “Beta” personality type describes a more laid-back, communicative mindset – or, as Dr Rhodes puts it, “a man who is just as comfortable changing nappies as making a presentation at work”

Indeed - and we all know how wet women's panties get when they see him changing nappies and doing household chores.

" In the US, women between 30 and 45 are getting married at a higher rate than women in any other age group."

She even sells this as a big success.

What is funny is that the author even mentions Omegas, who women should absolutely avoid - no worry - they already do.

Then she tries to list examples of Alpha-women-Beta-men marriages and tries to sell the women the Marry-the-Beta strategy. Of course women should marry in the ages of 30-45 anyway (after having fucked plenty of exciting Alphas in their teens and 20s).

She twists the Beta definitions of men by defining sometimes a Beta as a man who is less successful as Meryl Street or Julia Roberts. As if a millionaire Alpha man is automatically a Beta because his wife makes more than him.

Needless to say her Beta-sale-enticement-strategy will work about as well on the female psyche as selling men the idea that a 300 pound financially independent 40-year-old businsswoman is as sexy as a slim 20-year-old college student.

It seems to me her research was completed by reading Rollo Tomassi, ROK and Chateau Heartiste and then twisting the topics for her female readership.

Post: #2

Quote:But why should we take her advice? “I’ve been married for 50 years this summer,” reveals Dr Rhodes, “and I have a great Beta husband; an architect called Robert. He’s supportive, he makes me laugh, he’s not threatened by me and he pushes back when I get bossy.

Post: #3

I've noticed this a lot lately. Usually in the form of women saying they want an Alpha male

Post: #4

The mainstream media is horribly confused about this. There's no such thing as an Alpha and Beta woman, just a pretty and ugly woman.

Post: #5

(04-19-2014 04:02 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  The mainstream media is horribly confused about this. There's no such thing as an Alpha and Beta woman, just a pretty and ugly woman.

When they alpha woman, they mean a bossy woman.

Post: #6

"In short, the book advises "Alpha-women" to marry Betas and stop trying to marry Alphas, because those relationships seldom work."

In other words, the book tells women to disregard their instincts, men's desires, basic biology, and all of human history because of late 20th century feminism decided women needed to be shoehorned into the world men built.

What a great plan!

Post: #7

(04-19-2014 04:06 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-19-2014 04:02 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  The mainstream media is horribly confused about this. There's no such thing as an Alpha and Beta woman, just a pretty and ugly woman.

When they alpha woman, they mean a bossy woman.

I think the technical term is "ball-buster".

Post: #8

Post: #9

You guys may be upset, but I believe that catastrophic misunderstandings like this are good for feeding the whore market. It is comforting validation that they still don't comprehend the strategies employed here

Post: #10

The manosphere terms are creeping in, but they will likely remain misunderstood or twisted because they go against the feminine imperative.

They view Alpha, Beta and Omega practically based on financial terms with a smudge of testosterone. It is telling that they defined a successful millionaire artist or cameraman automatically as a Beta because he was no billionaire, CEO or rock-star. Omega to them means a guy with no high level income or probably sometimes a biker who does the occasional odd-job. Of course we know that some of those guys might be getting laid like gang-busters if they were manosphere-Alpha-guys.

Interesing also that they try to copy the male Alpha-Beta terms for women. The successful, independent, self-confident and testosterone-driven female must be an Alpha and is absolutely irresistable to men! Such utter Bullshit! I really wonder how they can even write that shit. Is the coupling of supermodels with A-level actors, rock-stars and billionaires not a tell-tale sign? Has reality no place in the feminist media mind?

The idiotic feminazis even condone the fact that women marry at ages 30 to fucking 45!!!! Yes - men can do that baby after having built a career or matured as men, but women!!!???? Sure - if men would be getting hard-ons from diplomas and complicated job titles.

Jon Laioje: "I can't fuck your diploma and I can't shove my dick in your college degree!"

Post: #11

I bet you the mainstream media clasifies Omega as an electrcian, construction worker, or other blue collar trade. Disgusting, let the soft eugenics continue.

Post: #12

Books like this just reinforce existing female hypergamous behavior in the anglosphere. The Alpha-Omega status to them is described in monetary/class terms only while they remain blind to their own psychological tendencies. It's just status quo feminist tripe.

It's actually a good thing that women such as this completely misunderstand what a real alpha, beta, or omega is. It shows a complete lack of enlightenment or real comprehension behind their own base desires.

Post: #13

The author of this article really has no idea what she is talking about.

Firstly, you cannot apply the phrases "alpha", "beta" or "omega" to women. It just doesn't work. Apples and oranges.

Secondly, she has no idea how unattractive a ball-busting, "high-powered" career woman is to men. Like all of the other brainwashed women out there, she actually thinks that beta men will find this kind of woman attractive, and will be happy to get into a relationship with one.

Thirdly, she assumes that these highly educated, high earning, ball busting career women will actually be happy to settle down with a beta. I know that she admits that her own husband is a beta, but the vast majority of women would never accept one because they simply cannot go against their hypergamous instincts.

Post: #14

Quote:Alpha men are indeed intimidated and intrigued by their success and aloof state.

More like intrigued at how he can avoid her in the future without losing half his shit.

Post: #15

My god normal people will be using our terms on a day to day basis. I'm done man so done. I refuse to join in on their cultural mores, and will only use those terms here. We must stand in solidarity men. Do not let society corrupt the meanings we have come up with.

Post: #16

The manosphere doesn't own these terms. I think there's a bit of parallel usage going here, in that the people using them haven't necessarily been reading Heartiste and Roosh, but the terms have kind of been in the air for a couple of decades in science and pop science.

Still doesn't make this kind of usage meaningful. At least around here we try to define and debate our terms, not just throw them around.