The Alpha White Female?

A contradiction in terms? An oxymoron? Is it arbitrary? I know, you must be thinking: "what is this madman advocating now?" But check it, any working theory of such, may cause a revision of "alpha" as we know it if she exists, surely. Here this is my working theory: Any overzealous amount of "alpha" behaviours found in women is primitively a turn off for most men. We can also safely assume, for a man to be attracted to the "Alpha White Female" he must exude "beta type" behaviours; but, as we know it, women demand all men be "alpha"....... or rather as political correct feminist theorist would have you believe their "alpha male."

Better yet, the most prominent question should be recognised: can an alpha "white" female exists in a white male -- all male dominant society? I mean, she MUST show behaviours that are particularity "masculine" if she is indeed an alpha female and society demands we ostracise and patronize this type of women. As men, I know we reward and value highly "feminine" behaviour what have you; but, feminine behaviour couldn't possibly be alpha female behaviour -- or is it?

 

I don't know about that alpha beta thing...

in the wolf world, the top female gets the top male, not a beta male.

in the chimp world, the alpha female mates with the alpha male and has high status in the group.

I'm sure I've seen good examples where 2 alphas get together.

 

Why are you so obsessed with masculinity and femininity? Are you insecure about your own?

It seems to be a positive neurosis.

 

bingo

 

:?: Magic words :?: "Insecure" is often over used and taken out of context, specifiably, it's nonsemantical in this case. Using magic words as a transition to create a Straw Man, then projecting and assigning your moronic feelings to him is your only logic. Trying to present the "Freudian factor and connotations" but not knowing your opponent is just plain stupid. But 7Seven will always display your outright ignorance. What is YOUR meaning behind "insecure" in this case if not for irrationality?

This is what you fail to realise, I am so confident in my masculinity, that I am able to separate it from femininity; have no problem talking about it openly whilst separating the truth and falsity of both and accurately respond to it. I understand YOU better than you understand yourself. I already understand your thought patterns and primitive behaviours. My logic on the subject is impenetrable; this frightens women like you and "flygirl" because I process the fortitude to do such thing openly. Call what you will, you have your vices, this is the way of the word. This isn't atypical of irrationality in female logic either. Instead, of responding to my post in a coherent manner, you have done nothing but sidetrack the original position and now I have to entertain your stupidity. What next MissB?

And arse buddy "flygirl" she is such a coward if I ever seen one in a women, jumping on the bandwagon of irrationality, nor processing the fortitude to concoct insults of her own. Imbecilic "hive mind" complexes at work here indeed. But yes, continue to take shots at the man with magic words like: insecure; real man; misogynist and the like because it's all you have. :roll:

 

Since you are so fond of "the truth", let me take this opportunity to "enlighten" you. What I have (still can understand the fascination you might hold as to what I do or do not have) is contentment. I am happy with the men who I spend my time with. They are happy spending their time with me.

Now why is it you are gripping so much about women again? Lemme think on that one... :wink:

 

"Contentment" on what account? That the "men" you happily spend your time not challenge your ideologues rubbish? Or offend you in any way? Once again, creating the Straw Man, my intent of this original post was not to "gripe" on women as so called, in your ignorance you have done nothing but create it.

 

So now it goes from insulting me to insulting the men I spend time with. I guess us wholly inferior beings can be completely happy with each other. Funny how it works that way.. :lol:

 

But you have done nothing but transferred and latched on to the insult of another projected at another. Do not act like you are above reproach in this situation. Also, who is to state anyone is inferior -- creating another Straw Man, now that I exposed your diagnoses as ignorance?

 

You may say the same for me then - that I am obsessed with masculinity and femininity. It is something I contemplate and study often. What it means to be a woman and femininity.

However, I would disagree with 7's first option that an alpha female is "masculine." Isn't "alpha" to mean that she has power and ways of influence. I may argue that a woman with femininity has greater powers of persuasion, without the need for manipulation and impressions of weakness.

 

So far, no one has even bothered to address the original question of the thread, nor take into account the article posted in the thread...

but, if I may ask 7, is the 'alpha white female' a feminist in her own way, or a product of a 'male-dominated' society that views her 'alpha' status as masculine?

 

Well SardonicGenie and lainarain, an intelligent person wants to continue learning and talk about ideals and genuinely gets excited about those ideals; the genius wants to understand those ideals infinitely. MissB and "flygirl" are the type who wants to censor an intelligent person for what they consider "talking too much", then, give them magic labels. Their positions follow the same patterns of conscious myopia: Ad Hominem. Because "they don't like the big bad mean 7Seven and his ideals." :-D Anyway enough of that.....

Is a feminist a product of a "male-dominated" society?

Oh...but what kind of feminist do you speak of? Women aren't a feminist in their own way you see; the media only portrays the radical type -- their dogma much in line with supremacist; colleges that teach impressionable minds misconstrue the message on baseless facts that contradict each other and women follow it up like sheep. Then again, you may be absolutely right. But on this premise, men are partly responsible for letting this happen.

You see it is hard to define or label a women alpha because it always comes down to our primitive existence -- to be able to attract the most fit. To fit the last equation of 'alpha' a women must exude feminine qualities; consequently, I do not see this happening for the most would be alpha females. There are always exceptions to every rule, but nonetheless it remains the same.

If an alpha female is indeed not "masculine", women are letting 20 percent of women do the talking for the other 80 percent. Obviously, a feminist's understanding to alpha is on line with a male's and would seemly adopt masculine behavioural patterns.

Even within the article, a lot of 'alpha' females report feeling less feminine whilst being around an even more emasculated man. Particularly I looking for that 80 percent to define a "True Alpha Female."

 

I'd definitely draw a distinction between acceptance of femininity and masculinity as social constructs and examination of your role within that stereotype (what you're describing and what I also do frequently), and 7Seven's extension of this to treating the constructs as realities and trying to pin them onto real individuals. I got bored of writing posts saying how little 7Seven's musings on gender related to anythign I'd ever seen before, and decided to change my tack with some amateur psychoanalysis.

 

Aren't you are trying to analyze my behaviour because I choose to talk about these "constructs" openly? "Insecure" and positive neurosis are contradiction used to describe the same person, you should check your facts. But check, masculinity and femininity are realities because they are constructs, and you wouldn't know the difference between them. Isn't your whole life centered around destroying these concepts? Funny thing is, you wouldn't know where to start. It's like you are calling the kettle black with your statements. Really, this is irrationality at it's best, or worst: "Stupid should hurt."

 

Right on, 7Seven, the customarily garbled rubbish. I duck out before your syntax explodes my already tired brain. But, btw, 'it is a positive neurosis' is a figure of speech, meaning, "it seems to be a genuine neurosis of yours", rather than being a psychoanalytical label of "positive neurosis" = the positive is a type of adjective.

 

If reading my post are such a chore; such a disfavour, then why respond to my posts at all? From the start, you simply had to not make ANY frivolous remarks and ignore it all together. But you just couldn't resist could you?

 

I never can resist an easy mockery.

 

Oh and, I saw this and thought of you.

"Patriarchal psychology sees value as differently distributed between men and women: men are rational, women are not. Feminist psychology suggests different conceptions of value: women are entirely rational but society cannot accomodate them because the male standard has defined into oblivion any version of rationality but its own. Paradigmatic male values, like objectivity, are defined as exclusive, identified by their presumed opposites. These values cannot be content with multiplicity; they create 'the other' and then devour it. Objectivity ignores context; reason is the opposite of emotion; rights preclude care".

- Ann Scales.

 

You flatter me so, and should be praised with glee. I seem to always have this negtive magnanimous effect that is appealing to women. You are no different; had I'd been the 'Nice Guy" whom agrees with your every breathe and took your words as the holy grail, you wouldn't give me a second thought. But YOU DO, it's amazing how that works -- isn't it?

So you are in line with radical feminist dogma? You quote a radical -- shame! What makes you any different than the white supremacist?

But lets entertain the argument....Patriarchal psychology works because it produces results, i.e. math and science; linguistic expression; city states and Religion(a.k.a the first world). Feminist psychology doesn't work because it produces a society that is non-productive. You take the "male" out this system and the society crumbles under its own weight. This is where the "feminist movement" failed and it's biggest crutch: you can not destroy the "male" and still expect to live in the first world. If you try, then, there will be nothing else to APPEAL TO BUT VIOLENCE.

I use to think highly of "feminist" because they thought [out side the box], even admired one in particular, now it's just ideologues rubbish that doesn't stand to the test of logic and the critique of reason.

 

I was reading it for work, not for fun! (writing an essay on feminist jurisprudence/ whether or not law is gendered). I don't have a personal opinion as yet. But ah, here you are putting me into a little woman box already - how sweet those little feminists are! If she were to be right, though, it would be because many people are guilty of constructing dualisms of male/female characteristics (rationality/irrationality etc), you amongst them - and then expecting these to correspond perfectly to the real world. I don't think you've engaged with that aspect of the argument at all: not sure precisely which extract you were reading, but it wasn't the one I posted.