Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

Should “gamma” males really be beaten?

July 17th, 2013 - 7:57 am

Over at Alpha Game blog, Vox Day has a post on Emma Roberts beating up her boyfriend:

What are the chances that Emma Roberts will be as roundly condemned for physically attacking her boyfriend as Chris Brown was for physically attacking his girlfriend?

Emma Roberts was arrested for domestic violence in Canada for allegedly hitting her actor boyfriend Evan Peters. The 22-year-old niece of actress Julia Roberts was taken into custody on July 7 in Montreal after getting into a fight with her beau that left 26-year-old Peters bloody, according to TMZ. Police were called after someone reported a fight in the couple’s hotel room and found Peters with a bloody nose.

As I have frequently observed, there is no such thing as equality in any material sense, least of all sexual equality. And any man who somehow manages to get physically beaten up by a woman renders himself a gamma; no alpha would ever accept such treatment regardless of the subsequent legal consequences. The very fact that a man is physically attacked in the first place is indicative of the woman’s belief in his low socio-sexual status.

Women don’t dare to attack alphas, not even with the full force of an anti-male legal regime behind them. They understand that an alpha would much rather spend the rest of his life in prison than live it knowing he submitted to a physical assault by a woman. It is silly to say that a man who won’t defend himself against women isn’t a man, but it is a strong evidence that he is a man of average or lower socio-sexual status.

Vox asks a good question, will Emma Roberts be condemned like Chris Brown? Probably not, but even he seems to believe that a man who does not defend himself is low status. Bull. Women hit men all the time and that doesn’t mean they are low status. I get that Vox thinks the woman thinks the guy is low status but that tells more about what she thinks she can get away with, not the man’s actual value as a person. We need to focus on abusive women and how to deal with them, not try to determine if a man is low status for being hit. I frankly don’t care for ranking men or women in this way–gamma, beta, alpha. Good grief. But maybe I just say that as a beta female myself.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
That is not what your point was, but regardless it still isn't true that all honorable conflict is between equals. By that logic, most dojos are disreputable in that they frequently pair up demonstrably non-equal combatants in order to give the inferior combatants exposure to superior fighters. Heck, by your standards, the US military is one of the most dishonorable institutions in the world today as it is filled with men who are more than willing to go to war with foreigners who are demonstrably inferior on all counts to our warriors. They even take pride in how badly they kick the asses of said foreigners.

Now it is correct to say that a warrior who picks fights with those who he can easily defeat or those who are either so mentally or physically handicapped that they are pretty much inherently worthy of some mercy. However, the average woman fits none of those criteria when she chooses of her own volition to assault a man on grounds that would justifiably invoke retaliatory violence from a man.

A woman who slaps a man is not worthy of a violent response, but a woman who pulls a "Mike Tyson" on her boyfriend over a normal quarrel is herself truly beneath contempt. A woman who assaults a man in the genitalia in such a situation is certainly well beyond that point.

White knights like you would do well to understand that chivalry was a contract between men and women. At no point in the days of old did it extend to crass and unladylike women like Emma Roberts. It was a contract between ladies and gentlemen, not women as a whole.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I am not thrilled with many aspects of the manosphere either, and I don't appreciate calls to violence either. But the declaration that men should "take it like a man" is a huge reason why we got to this point in the first place.

Men have been groomed to sacrifice for others (especially women) for centuries. That may have made some sense in a different society, when the social contract expected things from women too.

Those days are over. Any man who continues to do this is basically a sap. Men like that are getting bent over and taken advantage of by the ruling class, including feminists.

Men need to stand for worthy accomplishment and virtue, and those are in short supply in our present society. Therefore, we need to support the green shoots of a new society, not prop up the present corruption that is suffocating us.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (46)
All Comments   (46)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Maybe it's because of my age (56) but I was brought up to NEVER hit a woman. Block the incoming blows, move away, or restrain her if possible, but a man never hits a woman. Maybe things are different now, but if I found myself in a situation where it seemed necessary, I still think I would have a very hard time bringing myself to hit a woman. And even if she deserved it I would feel awful afterwards.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Never hit a woman" isn't quite right. The proper phrase is "Never hit a LADY."

Civilized behavior is predicated on reciprocity. If someone acts like a civilized person, you should treat them like a civilized person. If they act like a savage, you should treat them like a savage.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I frankly don’t care for ranking men or women in this way–gamma, beta, alpha."

I agree. There's something unmanly about an entire theory of the world based on "status ranking based on social dominance". It's the kind of thing one might expect from a high school girl (or the more disagreeable sort of gay man). Perhaps it's ability to replicate the way a good many women think accounts for its value in the entire "pick-up artist" crowd.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is a simple solution to being physically assaulted by a woman: put her over your knee and treat her like the out-of-control child she is: spank her. This is not brutality, rather, it is the correction of discipline. The purpose is not revenge, but rather education and correction.

Applying one's open palm to the woman's backside is not injurious, although it can and should be quite painful. The purpose is to teach the woman there are consequences for irrational and emotional actions. A side benefit is the woman is dominated and feels dominated, which she appreciates. I have seen many instances in which a woman striking a man was nothing more than a sh*t test. Punching her in the face is totally gamma and is a DLV. Calmly putting her over his knee and spanking her into submission is exactly what a loving father would do, it's a DHV. There is a difference.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Cool idea, bro. You can do the same thing with your cellmate Bubba after he tries to have his way with you.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yeah, that will work. Right up to the point that she is going to fire back at you.

Then you can put all of the policemen who show up over your knee and spank them too. Even unwanted touching is an assault, and you've got to get up to date with that "domestic violence" thing.

I realize you could just be a troll, smirking about the reactions that are coming from something so nonsensical, but maybe not.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Nope, BTDT. Didn't get prosecuted. No cops called. It isn't nonsensical either. From a legal standpoint, a wife physically assaulting her husband and then being treated as if they were a child and being subjected to corporal punishment is a far different thing from the husband simply striking her back.

Courts realize that the man is typically far stronger than the wife. Courts realize that when a marital relationship reaches the point of physical violence between the spouses, there is a problem. The question is how the problem is solved. The husband who restrains himself and applies corporal punishment to the wife for assaulting him... I don't know of any cases in which such behavior resulted in the husband suffering, as opposed to the husband who returned blow for blow.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's not self-evident to me that the man in this anecdote is low-status. Vox thinks so because his exemplar of maleness would never be attacked (his definition alpha-ness is pre-emptive), and his theoretical alpha exists outside of the current social context.

The two failures in his thought here are a) some women are sociopathic and don't subscribe to Vox's biological hierarchy; and b) when a woman starts hitting a man, a smart man knows he is being attacked not by a woman but by a woman with backup -- the police response she will bring down on the man if he responds in kind.

My ex-'s thing was to drink a lot in the middle of the night and wake me up with her piddling blows. I was a strong safety in college; I could have thrown her out a window. Had I so much as slapped her in response I would have gone to jail and become of very little utility to my business and children. If this makes me a pussy I'm fine with it. I think Vox is correct that in the abstract the only correct response would have been to put her in her place, but again, she already had figured out that in the card game of the current sexual politics, the state deals twice as many cards to her as to me.

A man needs to decide what his objective function is, and what objectives he is going to accomplish despite his error in agreeing to a state-sponsored marriage. Maybe a man who gets suckered into a VAWA arrest will write a good jeremiad or made-for-tv movie about the experience of being delivered to Rikers, but to that I say "so what?" because I'm of greater value to my children and employees if I don't take the bait and self-immolate in the grandiose fashion he suggests. Or, egotism, rather than some romantic demonstration of what 'true men' do, often argues for suicide missions.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
IOW, you're going with the advice of a man far more alpha than alpha-wannabee Vox.

"A man's got to know his limitations." Clint Eastwood (as 'Dirty Harry' Callahan)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
For what it is worth, neither Rossiy nor Vox suggest that "pure alpha" is a good thing. Rossiy and Roosh both understand that women burn out of pure alpha pretty fast, and that long term relationships require a blend of alpha and beta. Meanwhile, Vox recognises that civilization is neither created nor maintained by alpha males, but rather by the lower status males who have the most to gain from this arrangement.

Alpha =/= optimal, best, or ideal. It is simply a measure of dominance or sexual assertiveness (depending on who's version you are using). "More alpha" is no more always a positive development than "taller" is always a positive development.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
These "alpha male" proponents like Vox Day never really answer my question:

What happens when an "alpha male" finally, thoroughly gets his butt kicked in front of his wife and relatives and girlfriend because he shot his big mouth off one too many times? Does he become an alpha male in hiding? A retired alpha male?

And if the answer is that he is invincible (cue comic books) and no one, ever, could kick his butt, then very few people on this planet are alpha males.

As for the rest, Vox Day can be a moron in my opinion, not only with his alpha male stuff, but also with his pushing of his personal interpretation of religion onto everyone else.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That you need to ask this question indicates that you are either female or a low status male. The resentment implicit in your choice of words suggests the latter, rather than the former.

In answer to your question, however, high status males lose all the time. That's the risk of taking on challenges rather than avoiding them. However, while losing a challenge might result in some RELATIVE loss of status (as compared to the winner), it does not make the loser any less alpha, assuming the loss was handled appropriately (no status lowering whining or excuses, for example).

In the example you use, the girlfriend would almost certainly berate the alpha's attacker rather than view the alpha with contempt. You only have to read the newspapers to see this happen all the time when white knights try to intervene in domestic disputes, only to be assaulted by the woman they were trying to help.

In a slightly different context, some of my best friends as a child were boys I started off fighting with - we came to respect each other for our willingness to step up and not hide from conflict. In fact, that's so common it's a cliche, isn't it?

Alpha (and Sigma) has nothing to do with winning (although they often win) but with taking the risk in the first place.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'd like to get a very specific definition of "alpha male" someday. If you take a cue from the animal world, it would be a heavily tattooed guy in prison with very thick muscles who would viciously attack you by biting etc. if you even look at him wrong. I don't think that's what is meant, and humans are not dogs because there is a much higher level of cognitive complexity.

Pickup artists seem to define it as "how a guy behaves that attracts women in a vag-tingle way". It is NOT necessarily a high-earning man or even high-status (good job) guy, because there is plenty of talk about beta-male providers (she's only with him because of the money).

There also seems to be a conflation with tough guys, but a cocky funny guy (alpha male in pickup sense) is not the same as a hard ass, for example.

Being confident or a leader is also VERY context/situation-dependent.

What I do think is funny, though, is the plethora of keyboard warriors on the Internet who smugly explain the details of alpha-male-ness. Ya know, because they kind of want to get across in a sideways manner that they too are "alpha", that's why they know all about it. Huh.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The difficulty is that "alpha male" has genuinely different meanings to different communities. As you rightly point out, PUA types look at the alpha-beta duality, whereas Vox prefers a more nuances hierarchy because he is considering at a wider range of interactions than attempts at sex.

And yes, value is very context dependent. There are ugly women, for example, that most men wouldn't give a second look, but who hang out with sufficiently low status males that they receive a great deal of male attention.

And yes, regardless of your passive-aggressive resistance to the idea, high status males are far better able to tell you about the behavior of high status males, and the consequences of that behavior, than low status males will be.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I hate to tell you this, but when the cop shows up with the gun, he's not going to give a damn about your alpha male status. He has his quota, his department has it's VAWA funds to spend, and he's looking to 'save the damsel from the bad man', which fits the narrative that he and his prosecutor are both comfortable with, pads their resume, and gets them federal matching funds.

Then you'll get to re-establish your alpha male status in the cell block, and you'll get to re-establish your alpha male status with the judge, who, for various reasons, detests alpha males and loves knocking their feet out from under them.

And after the criminal judge is done with you, or sometimes, during that time, you'll get a family court judge, and the rules of evidence, due process and the presumption of innocence have zero bearing on your case. Not only that, your 'dominance' will actively work in the plaintiffs favor when they demand the entire marital estate, restrict your rights to your kids, and demand monthly 'beta' payments for the next two decades of your life.

Good luck with that. I'm sure you're of the opinion that an assault by a woman never happens to "real" alpha males, so carry on with that perception of invulnerability. Sounds too much like Scientology, but you can take that up with your criminal defense and family law attorneys when it comes up.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I think that being "alpha" is particularly important, or even wise in some or all circumstances. I do not. Results matter, labels do not. A question was asked, and I answered it.

That said, while I am not advocating responding to physical violence by a woman with defensive force in all circumstances, I have to recognize that my own instinct is to do just that.

I have been attacked by a woman only once in my life - I was very socially awkward in my youth and she must have taken that as weakness. She wanted me to let her cut ahead of me in the queue at the school cafeteria, and I did not care to. I am still struck by what an odd thing that is to assault someone over.

I hit her once, and then she stopped. The police did not arrive, I did not go to prison, and I did not suffer injury as a result of tolerating an assault by another human being. That seems like a net win for me, frankly.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sounds like you're backtracking from your initial insinuation that you're a "high status male". You're probably a little pisser in real life, hence the Internet bragging.

I work as an independent attorney, and I have simply rejected taking work from self-annointed "alpha males". I can't really tell the difference between that and a narcissistic hothead. Maybe you could explain it if you weren't backtracking.

Anyway, I'll let you get back to gazing at your own awesomeness in the mirror.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm backtracking on nothing - I made no claim about my status. Your insecurities regarding your own socio-sexual status are causing you to see a claim where none existed.

Of course, relative dominance levels come across very clearly on forums, just as they do in other areas of life. I need not make any claims of "high status" (whatever one considers that to mean) to confidently assert that I am more socially dominant than Aero, for example. His lack of familiarity with very basic elements of social dominance would be conclusive on it's own, but if any more proof were required we need only consider the way he feels threatened by Vox's strongly held opinions (characterising Vox's posts on Vox's own blog as "pushing" his views on others).

Contrast that with Gretz, for example, who disagrees with me by making a series of declarative statements about the world as he sees it. Note in particular that his confidence in the correctness of his views means that he never feels the need to try and make personal attacks on me in lieu of undermining my argument.

Incidentally, personal attacks are the hallmark of women and lower status males. Such remarks tell you a great deal about the people who make them.

You, for example, make baseless assumptions about my "real life" character instead of addressing my arguments. While sufficiently aggressive to address me directly, you lack of confidence to actually present a cogent argument, instead resorting to the verbal equivalent of rattling your cage and flinging poo.

You also demonstrate bitterness towards "alpha males" (whatever you may mean by that), and confess to being unable to distinguish between dominant behaviour and mental illness. This puts you firmly in the "Gamma" category of Vox's taxonomy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't know where the line is between a "dominant personality" and a know-it-all dickwad. As I mentioned above, I just won't work with dickwads / self-asserted "alpha males".

You appear to me to be a wanna-be hard guy, and I am just making a "declarative statement" as to my findings. People like that irritate me, especially when they try to get in my face with their hard guy pretense, and unfortunately I also feel pity for them when the mask is yanked down.

I'm not going to spend more time on this, though, so spin your crap with other people.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Results matter, not labels" is a fair enough answer.

However, in your example, you're a minor, and not in a relationship with her, and you're in public.

The effective situation that adult men in relationships are in is that a call to the police will not go well for them.

I called the police, from the front yard, while putting up with an assault from my (drunk) spouse, which continued until the police arrived. Even after witnessing the assault, the officers took my spouse into the house, asked "what did the bad man do to you", then came out of the house and manacled me. Had I not been bleeding from bite marks, (on this occasion), I would have been arrested and charged, something that happened on subsequent events.

Protesting the unfair treatment on a later incident led to: "Oh, ok, I'll arrest you both and the kids can go to foster care. Either way, *you* are still going to jail." Calling his bluff led to a baton in the teeth.

I outmassed my 95 pound ex by nearly twice, and I'm a combat veteran. You can guess how a prosecutor is going to pounce on that.

Yes, in the absence of a legal system with a political and funding agenda, a reminder of the size disparity and demonstrating a willingness to respond to physical abuse with the same would go a long way. We don't have that option, and the police don't care. If you have a Y chromosome, it's your fault, regardless of who instigated it, who did the damage, or weather or not you actually responded, even with a defensive move to disarm, block, or pin.

Politics, funding and a mental block against treating women as deserving of the consequences of their actions allows this, and it's not limited to IPV or DV, or even just family law.

Until the concept of women as privileged uber-citizens changes in the eyes of the law, or the recognition that gender politics has created this disparity leads to reforms, it's the reality that we live in.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1) Absolute agreement with rayc2

"'Surely the really dreadful thing here is that the lady was arrested.'

Surely the wonderful thing here is that the 'lady' was arrested. Because of the feminists influence on the law, just the simple act by her boyfriend to defend himself by forcefully restraining her would have him arrested instead. The law will never be reasonable unless the people who are behind the law also suffer the consequences."

I am hoping that she will get at least a taste of the same legal regime that a man would get. Just to watch the hysterical screams from feminists. However, there is no chance it will happen. She has both the woman immunity and the celebrity immunity. But one can dream.

Now as far as defining Evan Peters as a Gamma; letting her be charged and functionally walking away does not revoke his man card. That is just legitimate behavior modification.

If he comes back to her, supports her, pleads her case in court or in the court of public opinion .... THAT revokes his man card, and makes him at best a Gamma if not a neutered Omega.

Subotai Bahadur



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think the most likely response to this incident is that she will claim the contradictory defenses of a) he provoked her; and b) she really needs to go to rehab. In this way she and her defenders will note that the guy with the broken nose is responsible and if he wants to 'man up' he will help her 'get well', which will also entail admitting his culpability. I guess we'll find out (if we too care about celebrity culture) how much of a celebrity wh*** he wishes to be.

I have no idea who this celebrity female is, but it's too late for her to be re-wired, and a man who finds himself yoked to such a personality (let's hope for his sake she's not pregnant) should firewall her. If he had responded in kind his involvement with her, thanks to the state, would have deepened. It's too easy to sneer at him, but I will note that I doubt this was the first instance of her taunting him into a reaction; it was merely the latest escalation. He needs to ask himself why he stuck around as long as he did. Women like this are armed, but their weapons are carried by the men in blue, the CPS caseworkers, and the rest of it we always mention.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I frankly don’t care for ranking men or women in this way–gamma, beta, alpha. Good grief. But maybe I just say that as a beta female myself."

I don't think it makes sense to rank men or women this way either. For one thing, a persons behavior patterns are not static, as they can adapt and adjust as they decide is more is more preferable or necessary, at any particular time. We've all heard of people "rising to the occasion" or the phrase " when the going gets tough, the tough get going." Higher brain function = greater adaptability.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Where I think the rankings are useful is in understanding that here the broken nose was just an escalated version of what the PUA community calls 'sh** testing.' (Fitness testing by the woman to verify the male's alpha value.) IOW, I doubt seriously this tabloid event was a non sequitor in their relationship. She probably started insulting and testing him the first day they met. The guy just made the mistake of hanging around long enough for the testing to get physical. This makes him a supplicant, in PUA terminology, and there is a lot to that.

Helen, by all appearances, inhabits a healthy relationship in which both parties offer emotional and moral support to the partner. So it's irrelevant to her as she need not overlay Game to understand how to maintain the healthy relationship. I think that the personality hierarchy can be very useful in understanding how unstable relationships come unglued or become violent. It will be very useful to Mr. Broken Nose if he decides to reflect on how he arrived at this point, or what he should do next.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A close female friend of mine once said that, as far as she's concerned, any woman who slaps a man in the face should be prepared for him to respond in kind. And she's not the only one who feels that way.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I would advise any man who hears such talk from a woman to ignore it. It's right up there with believing a woman when she says "I would never divorce you and take your home, money and children." Once she changes her mind (once a man responds to physical violence with same) the state, the culture, the divorce litigation industry, and her social set will urge her to crush him. And it will be straightforward for her to do so.

I would call the comment ludicrous, except that that would be hypocritical, because I once believed a woman who said such things, until it became expedient (and trivial, from a level of effort perspective) for her to disavow them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Whenever a woman hits me, I get the giggles and head for the door. I can't think of an unarmed woman who would make me feel like my safety is at risk.

I did divorce a woman who hit me and haven't remarried in the 15 years since. I agree that men should avoid marriage and children. I want my daughters to get married but not my son.

I regard women like small men. I would beat neither when I can safely retreat.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Men (or women) should be able to safely retreat without having to give up all control of their property, future earnings, and relationships and influence in the upbringing of their children behind. Civil marriage laws and the politically driven family court system prevents this. Adults in a 'committed' voluntary relationship should make the legal financial arrangements that they both agree to, enforceable under normal contract law...spelling out their own terms as to what happens in the event of break-up.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
While men are not often physically vulnerable to women, we are very legally vulnerable. That's why I have avoided marriage and more children all theses years. I even had a doctor mutilate my genitals by way of vasectomy to avoid subjecting myself to family court. We are experiencing our society's first steps toward Idiocracy (a reference to a movie).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What are the chances that Emma Roberts will be as roundly condemned for physically attacking her boyfriend as Chris Brown was for physically attacking his girlfriend?

Somewhat lower than the chances that the Houston Astros (33 - 61 right now) will win the 2013 World Series.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All