David raises a number of interesting points, but I remain dismayed that all over the Internet and everywhere else, it seems, people are accepting this alpha-beta business as their understanding of the relationship between the sexes. Women really want alphas but “settle” for the pathetic betas in order to have families. Now we hear from the evolutionists that these same women are ready to abandon their betas if an alpha should amble by. Why should we accept this limited construct of human nature and of the potentialities of our lives?
I repeat, regarding evolutionary biology, not long ago they were claiming that women were naturally monogamous. As female behavior grew wilder, they changed the evolutionary scenario to conjure up the prehistoric woman with serial partners. If contemporary women begin to curb themselves a bit as the culture keeps changing, and they probably will, the evolutionists will no doubt revise the scenario yet again. This scenario seems just to correspond with what we see of behavior today, and expresses no abiding truth about human nature.
Feminism is largely responsible for the cultivation of “beta males” by making men suppress their natural masculinity. The truth is, even the merest so-called beta has all the masculinity needed to attract women if only he would exercise it. The simplest masculine look or “male gaze” at certain moments can make females melt. Confidence shown in conversation and interest in a subject can attract female admiration. If men would dress to complement their masculine form rather than wearing baggy shorts, baseball caps turned backward, and oversized Hawaiian-type smock-shirts that used to be the reserve of retired overweight men on vacation, they would be very appealing to women.
What about the man who is the star of a cable show called The Ace of Cakes? Is he alpha or beta? I suppose with his successful business, he is an alpha, but he dresses like a beta, or really a delta or epsilon, and thus arouses little feminine interest.