Feminization

[Stuartp523]

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. Here's a good place to start for those who doubt this simple fact: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3541278/ [Edit: I just recently found that link.]

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.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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.

Pseudoscience.

[Stuartp523]

Pseudoscience.

Vegetariantaxidermy, pseudoscience, like vegetarian taxidermy?

[uwot]

Yeah! Too much whingeing at keyboards. Not enough hitting each other with clubs.

[HexHammer]

OP seems purely spekulative and guessing.

Men are more willing to take risks than women, they often work longer hours and are more willing to be leaders and thereby sacrifice the home going to children.

So more men are the "lone wolf" willing to take risk in starting up a buisness, sit there long hours to make it work. You don't see many women who does that.

[Stuartp523]

Yeah! Too much whingeing at keyboards. Not enough hitting each other with clubs.

Yes, exactly!

[Stuartp523]

Though on second thought, men might consider putting reality, themselves as they actually are, and their kin, before their idealized hopes and dreams, and resisting the established norms even at the cost of material wealth. Being men, rising through the ranks their own way or no way at all, but instead attempting to create their own order.

Men will always be more masculine than women, on average, and both men and women suffer in their own may. But, the modern man has began to suffer as the modern woman, not exactly as either did in their primal state, but more like a woman than anything. Making insinuations, being indirect, like even a primal women would do as she strives to better integrate herself into her community to better protect her children. But without such noble concerns, only working towards the ability to better perpetuate fantasies used to replace a reality that they can't deal with.

[HexHammer]

You are making up your own spekulative conclusions based on pure fantasy, please study the scientific studies before making mroe unqualifyed statements.

[henry quirk]

Stuart,

Domestication is the goal and method of what passes for civilization (the civilizers), yes.

So what?

Since before man fell out of the trees, the strong have corralled the weak, used the weak.

This is obvious to any one with one open eye and three workin' brain cells.

A body directs, is directed, or self-directs.

Most folks (the directed) are unwilling to acknowledge they are domesticated stock, so they generate or adopt all manner of 'feel good' hooey (actual and esoteric anesthesia) to avoid thinking about the abattoir they're driven toward.

The directors either promote the domestication or take advantage of the bent toward domestication. They promote stability and status quo and make sure the directed eat shit advertised as steak.

The self-directed watch and learn and avoid (to the extent possible) both the directors and directed.

This is the way of things...nuthin' to be done about it 'cept figure out what you are and get on with bein' 'that'.

[Stuartp523]

The best way to know if your living in fantasy is to see if your ideals are flattering. Not a perfect system, but it would work for most of us.

[Stuartp523]

Stuart,
Domestication is the goal and method of what passes for civilization (the civilizers), yes.

So what?

Ok, I like the idea of a return to cave man times, so I indulge such talk, but really, so nothing.

Since before man fell out of the trees, the strong have corralled the weak, used the weak.

This is obvious to any one with one open eye and three workin' brain cells.

It's funny how one can have millions of brains cells, but every last one stuck on the side of the road with its hood open.

A body directs, is directed, or self-directs.

Most folks (the directed) are unwilling to acknowledge they are domesticated stock, so they generate or adopt all manner of 'feel good' hooey (actual and esoteric anesthesia) to avoid thinking about the abattoir they're driven toward.

The directors either promote the domestication or take advantage of the bent toward domestication. They promote stability and status quo and make sure the directed eat shit advertised as steak.

The self-directed watch and learn and avoid (to the extent possible) both the directors and directed.

This is the way of things...nuthin' to be done about it 'cept figure out what you are and get on with bein' 'that'.

Nothing to be done, for the self-directed, so it seems. But, for the directed, the one's who've gotten not one, nor two, but three of their brain cells up and running, sometimes they like to discuss with other directeds, the one's who still keep nothing but junk heaps, the state of their direction, as directed by the directors, and the implications of following those directions, such as feminization. Maybe for no other reason but explicit honesty as a last refuge.

[HexHammer]

The best way to know if your living in fantasy is to see if your ideals are flattering. Not a perfect system, but it would work for most of us.

The only thing it's good for is self entertainment.

[henry quirk]

"The best way to know if your living in fantasy is to see if your ideals are flattering."

Agreed. The whole of what passed for civilization is designed to make the directed 'feel', and to feel special, or unique, or different.

Pampered and catered to, they rarely note the leash around the neck.

#

"Not a perfect system, but it works for most of us."

It's not a system...it's the way things 'are'.

The natural hierarchy can be systemized (mostly, the application of labels to events and phenomena) but the sequence and clusters of events and phenomena flow well enough without oversight, without labels.

Directed, Directors, Self-directed: As the expression goes, 'know thyself'...

[henry quirk]

Stuart,

I'm not tryin' to be adversarial...in my own way: I'm just addin' to the conversation.

[The Voice of Time]

Alpha and beta male distinctions are not very good understandings of the complexity of human society and very sexist way of looking at power.

Whereas the animal world's use of dominant figures are absolutistic, like absolute monarchies, modern society are divided into "roles" for the most part, and human relations very complicated and narrowly exploitable, meaning that people typically don't have the power to do whatever they want but only what they are mandated, else they are replaced and discarded by masses of people and not by simple trials.

Some are closer to this alpha and beta idea of yours than others, though.