Booyah. I hear variations on this a lot: "Women talk a game, but at the end of the day, you all just want guys who are assholes." Uh...no. What's up with this compulsion to generalize about all women?

I know a guy who:

a) is sexist and doesn't apologize for it;
b) intends to make a lot of money while he's young, and is currently doing just that, as far as I know;
c) also intends to sleep with a hell of a lot of women, although I have seen no proof of this; and
d) hates feminists.

Would I do him? HELLS NO. I don't need his money, his penis, or his attitude. I'm outta here.

God, I hate the idea that feminism emasculates men. First off, because if you look at real feminists (IE not media ones), most are actually sympathetic towards men and the way society treats them. Second, fuck you if my rights get in the way of your entitlement. If you feel like less of a man because I can call you (or the police!) on harassment, or make the same amount of money, or vote, the problem is with you. We all want a pony, you don't get to be a pig.

Oh, and even if I'm kinky and want an alpha male in the bedroom? Be a gentleman in public or you're never getting laid.

"But what about when a man "efeminates" his female partner? Look at that, a term doesn't even exist to describe it. "

I have never thought of this before. Great observation; this is really so, so telling. you could write a book about this.

For some reason every time I have known a young person who describes themselves as a feminist in real life they have been going through a slew of boyfriends, trying desperately to find Mr. Right while ignoring all the nice guys who maybe aren't as attractive. Some are lucky and find a guy who is attractive AND wealthy AND a good guy, but because they've been encouraged to believe that they deserve a perfect guy they are constantly disappointed, because they're still putting too much emphasis on what society teaches them makes a perfect guy-- wealthy, successful and attractive, and well-liked by his peers. And then on top of that they want him to be sweet and kind and a feminist, and while those guys exist they are rare.

I found myself a lot happier when I set my standards at "sweet, kind, a good person, attractive enough, and self-sufficient."

Of course, that's just anecdotal, but I have seen that trend over and over again.

"Oh, and even if I'm kinky and want an alpha male in the bedroom? Be a gentleman in public or you're never getting laid."

hahahahaha - awesome. Yeah, let's emphasize a little bedroom domination is super duper acceptable. :)

And Brianna G, that's an interesting point. But: "then on top of that they want him to be sweet and kind and a feminist, and while those guys exist they are rare." You've noted that this is anecdotal, so maybe your experiences have been different from mine. But I don't think nice, sweet, attractive, financially stable men are that few and far between. I mean, I don't see a lot of girls running around looking for a super-rich guy, just someone who can support himself. I really don't.

Like most "angry males" the author gets it wrong.
*sigh*

"Alpha" is the term used to describe a man in relation to how he competes with other MEN.

Yet the truth is that most individual men today do not really compete with other individual men for women, as was common in our past. And furthermore, it's fairer this way for everybody. It's kinda like sexual communism vs sexual capitalism.

For example, many cultures have arranged or semi-arranged marriages. Each person is pretty much guaranteed 1 partner (+/- a little love on the side). We in the west have a dating system which is pretty much every man/women for themselves, but the results are more or less similar.

And in both set-ups people generally tend to partner with people from similar social class and attractiveness (whew! for us gals.)

Real alpha men (and hence real mating competition) are a thing of the past. I'll give a 900 year old example to make the point:

0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today is descendant from 1 man.

1 man, folks.

This shit is not even possible today. But stretch your mind and think about the consequences for a second.

For this 1 man to have contributed to roughly 8% of the Y chromosomes in Central Asia, would have meant that many men didn't get a chance to have a wife/lover, let alone kids.

THIS is alpha, folks. The piddly differences in income related in that article are inconsequential in comparison to the wealth gaps of the past.

It is also worth noting that alpha males are way worse cock-blockers than women have ever been in any time in history. They give themselves harems, take multiple wives, proclaim themselves to be supernatural and keep compounds loaded with teenage brides...

So why the blame women now? Simple. The 10 letter "P" word and a sense of male sexual entitlement.
Most men on a psychological level can handle losing to another man. But what they equate to failure in the dating world is that they are losing "the game" to women.

And this is really what folks mean by calling it emasculation.

er I was talking about the uk times article author getting it wrong, not the blog post author :)

I love how the author (of the article) thinks there are only two kinds of men. He's either a sexist alpha male or a timid down-trodden beta. That's it, there are no other men in the world besides these two types. Please. As with gender, the binary distinction breaks down upon closer inspection, and you'll discover that they're really all on a continuum.
And assigning "alpha" or "beta" to every male assumes that they're all engaging in some kind of competition. I know a lot of men who don't realize that they're supposed to be competing, or just aren't interested in the game. What category do they fit into (other than "pothead," of course)?

Nightingale and Nicole are absolutely right that looking for a top for sexual purposes does not equal looking for a sexist asshole for a relationship.

I'm pretty vocal about being a BDSMer, and though I talk about bottoming a lot more, I also top some. (Some folks may have seen me get detailed in other threads about things I do as a bottom; I don't comment in detail about things I do as a top because my spouse has asked me not to.)
There is absolutely no inconsistency in my view between being a feminist and acting as an equal partner with my spouse, and doing scenes where I top. I can even be a mean, scary top, and because she knows I respect her needs and limits and she knows she can trust me, we can push it.

And when the scene's over, our relationship remains one between equals. Adults with good communication skills establish limits. Topping my spouse occasionally is not the same as talking over her when we are out with our friends; "suck my cock" in a scene is not the same thing as "fix me a sandwich," and changing diapers and folding laundry does not immasculate me or make my penis shrivel. It just doesn't.

"And Brianna G, that's an interesting point. But: "then on top of that they want him to be sweet and kind and a feminist, and while those guys exist they are rare." You've noted that this is anecdotal, so maybe your experiences have been different from mine. But I don't think nice, sweet, attractive, financially stable men are that few and far between. I mean, I don't see a lot of girls running around looking for a super-rich guy, just someone who can support himself. I really don't."

I'm sure it is just anecdotal, and I KNOW a large part of it is that I am in college at a state school, so the pool is a little different. GUys tend to get better when they're older, more understanding and stable. The ones who are wealthy among my peers also tend to be upper-class and spoiled rotten; there aren't many middle-level income men among college studnets.

"GUys tend to get better when they're older, more understanding and stable."

Yeah that's true, and for women too. I think we can be in agreement that as people mature, regardless of gender, they often wise up about dating. Another reason why this article was ridiculous.

And Spike the Cat: "It's kinda like sexual communism vs sexual capitalism."

Craziness! About four years ago, I wrote a paper for a sociology class that likened the dichotomy of sexual relationships in the 1950's (at least, the way the typical 50's marriage was perceived in the media) to a Marxist analysis of a capitalist economic system. Ie, the husband was the bourgeoisie and the wife the proletariat. (Generalization, I know, but hey. That's what Sociology students do.) I was so proud of it, it was the most interesting paper I've ever written. What you've described is interesting.

And you are perfectly correct in asserting that she didn't even define "alpha male" correctly.

Brianna,

You may also be describing a lot of college women, period. Also, calling a man 'nice' is damning him by faint praise. But those are the men people claim are left out. Not good men. Or virtuous men. Or strong and silent men. 'Nice' men. What does 'nice' mean, anyways? Self-effacing? Unassertive? Wallflowery? That is what it says to me. And it is not attractive, in either men or women. My first relationship was doomed by my lack of assertiveness, so much so that when guys complain about how 'nice' they were to their girlfriends and how they got screwed over I can really relate. But unlike them, I don't blame mankind for the mistreatment I suffered, I blame my first boyfriend for being in the wrong, and myself, for not drawing lines that would have either ended the relationship or prevented him from behaving badly.

I also think it is funny that sometimes, when people wanted me to date this or that "nice" guy, I would have very real objections to him (or duh, I would have dated him) that their lack of knowledge about me made pretty much invisible. Like the woman who tried to set me up with her ex-boyfriend (ick, I had initially been interested in him and she knew it, but learned before I knew that they were dating that he had a temper, which I saw as a sign of immaturity and incompatability), or the other woman I was friends with who tried to set me up with a guy who just bored me to tears, or the guy at school who kept asking me out but who wanted me to call all the shots and be the boss. (I have nothing against that sort of relationship, it would just be unsatisfying and unhealthy for me. I happen to prefer/need a partner who will tell me I am full of it.)

I've had relationships with two shy men, two assertive charmers, and the man I married isn't easily summed up as one or the other. The three best relationships I had involved a feminist man (one of the shy ones), a very feminist-friendly man (one of the charmers), and another feminist man (my husband).

Well, I do agree with some of what you say.
#1 - That is up to you. I know some women who do not like the arty type, other women who like men to be pigs, and other women...who prefer, well, women. so vent away! :)

#2- Sure. any man who has an "old school" view of female/male place in society WILL butt heads with the mordern feminist. So, no shock there.

#3 - TOALLY with you. Period cramps are NOT the problem. A Womens right to choose what to do with her body, looking down on a career choice (and equal pay) are the problem, but many women forget that these are the things that one should be "fighting" for....

#4 - here is something interesting that you bring up, and i hope you can understand what i mean. Most men feel, they are not allowed to be "men" in the presence of a modern feminist. If i look at an attractive woman in a short skirt, i have been accused of "helpin the sterotype".
Some of us feel that we are not allowed to be who "WE" are while you are being who "YOU" are....did i explain that well? or was i just babbling?

#5 - no, if my wife made enough money for ME to stay home, I would swap places with her in a second. Dirty diapers? Moping the floor? cooking? all these things are not a "womans job", although some see it that way.

#6 - see #4

You bring up some interesting stuff, j316, which for the most part makes sense to me. But I think you've fallen victim to some negative misconceptions about feminism and "what women want" (gag). I don't really think that the "arty type" is the antithesis to the alpha male; like other women have said on this thread, why must men be lumped into two categories? My boyfriend doesn't refer to himself personally as a feminist, but he sympathizes with the feminist struggle. He is strong and confident and in many ways could be called a "manly" guy, but he's also kind and compassionate. He's respectful of me, of his female friends, of women everywhere. But he's also athletic, loves his action flicks, likes to go to sports bars and drink hard with the guys. So he fits distinctly into neither category. He definitely wouldn't be called either "arty" or "sexist." I don't like the assumption that "men can't be men" around feminists; there's a difference between

I also apologize on behalf of feminists everywhere for the times that you've been chewed out for checking out a hot girl. I don't mind it if a guy checks me out. In fact, it's flattering to be checked out by anyone, guy or girl. I don't even care if my boyfriend checks out girls he finds attractive. Just like he knows that I like to nibble me some nice male eye candy from time to time too. When it becomes "ogling," it gets creepy and turns into harassment. But I'm sure that's not what you meant, and if you're just glancing at a pretty woman, you shouldn't be made to feel guilty. But remember, a lot of feminists and other women, I think it's fair to say most, wouldn't have accused you of doing anything wrong. Again, it isn't feminism's goal to keep men from reacting to their natural sexuality. It's just our goal to keep them from behaving in a way that objectifies women.

*sorry, I cut myself off again - I've done that twice lately, really shouldn't be posting at work :) - and at the end of my first paragraph I meant to say there's a difference between "men being men," and "men being "sexist."

Wow, You are a woderfull breath of fresh feminist air.
Thank you for responding without venom, although sometimes it is fun :P
As I have always said, i am all for the feminist struggle, but.....but.
I do not support (what i consider silly) silly arguments that a beer commercial, or a barbie dolls measuments, or the design of a shoe, impeads a womans right to ...anything.
The bottom line is, and you all know it. Sex sells. is this wrong? NO! stop fighting that! IF there was a commercial, that stated flat out "all women are stupid, get your husband to do manual labor or drive a car" then sure. Attack away. But a woman scrubing a floor in a lysol commercial is NOT sexist. she is cleaning. never did it say all women should clean, never did it say men should go to work and a womans place is at home. It is "jennifer" cleaning her floor. period. There have been some that will argue tooth and nail that a commecial like that undoes years of feminist campaining. no, jens floor is dirty. Does it say if jennifer is even married? to a man? Maybe she is gay? or what if jennifer was once a man, and decided to go through a sex change and is now a "woman". Sure, some of you are about to accuse me of being silly, but is it not just as silly to assume that she is a housewife opressed by her overbearing husband...

...i went off again, didn;t I? Sorry, but back to you Nicole. You rock that skirt on your way to work and smile at the guys checking you out. But when you get there, you DESERVE equal pay, for equal work, and in NO WAY are your descisions in the boardroom based on what time of the month it is, or how pretty your shoes are!

Wow, You are a woderfull breath of fresh feminist air.
Thank you for responding without venom, although sometimes it is fun :P
As I have always said, i am all for the feminist struggle, but.....but.
I do not support (what i consider silly) silly arguments that a beer commercial, or a barbie dolls measuments, or the design of a shoe, impeads a womans right to ...anything.
The bottom line is, and you all know it. Sex sells. is this wrong? NO! stop fighting that! IF there was a commercial, that stated flat out "all women are stupid, get your husband to do manual labor or drive a car" then sure. Attack away. But a woman scrubing a floor in a lysol commercial is NOT sexist. she is cleaning. never did it say all women should clean, never did it say men should go to work and a womans place is at home. It is "jennifer" cleaning her floor. period. There have been some that will argue tooth and nail that a commecial like that undoes years of feminist campaining. no, jens floor is dirty. Does it say if jennifer is even married? to a man? what if jennifer was once a man, and decided to go through a sex change and is now a "woman". Sure, some of you are about to accuse me of being silly, but is it not just as silly to assume that she is a housewife opressy by her overbearing husband...

...i went off again, didn;t i? Sorry, but back to you Nicole. You, you rock that skirt on your way to work and smile at the guys checking you out. But when you get there, you DESERVE equal pay, for equal work, and in NO WAY is your descisions in the boardroom based on what time of the month it is.

But what does "men being men" even mean? In reality there are lots of ways to "be a man," just as there are lots of different ways to "be a woman." I always feel like these phrases imply that there's some sort of essentialist, biologically-based default position. Please. Everyone is socialized from birth to take on appropriate gender roles and attributes. As such, these characteristics are contingent and changeable. So I'd rather question the roles and characteristics that are associated with gender in our culture instead of assuming that people are going to naturally fit neatly into some category or other.

j316, the problem with the sexism in those cleaning commercials is not that in each particular commercial, the subject matter is distinctly sexist. (Well sometimes it is, but not always.) The problem is that the men doing work in this commercials are virtually invisible. Commercials for cleaning products overwhelming feature wives and mothers cleaning up after their families. And considering that women in real life perform most of the household duties despite being full-time workers in the paid workforce, reinforcing this stereotype is damaging to the structure of our economy. Women report being overtired all the time. So these commercials wouldn't necessarily be sexist if there were as many commercials with men who clean to counter the stereotype and deconstruct gender roles, but there aren't. The invisibility of men as housecleaners is what makes them sexist.

But back to the issue at hand, when you tell a woman to "rock that skirt on the way to work," that is more along the lines of objectification than simply admiring someone you think is attractive. I'm telling you this not because I think you meant to objectify me, because I don't think you did, but because that kind of language gives the impression women are meant to be looked at, or that women set out to be looked at. There exists a sense of entitlement among some men that women who wear a skirt or something revealing are asking for male attention, and that simply isn't true.