Masculine immaturity is placing responsibilities before roles

In alpha beta misunderstandings, I made the case that that “alpha” and “beta” (and delta, gamma, omega, etc) are not on the opposite ends of a spectrum. Rather, masculinity and femininity are on a similar spectrum where being “beta” is more like being feminine in nature.

Having thought about that more, I think that understanding is incorrect although there are plenty similarities between being “beta” or “effeminate man” and femininity most notably their unattractiveness to the opposite sex. It’s not that men who typically fall into the beta (and/or delta, gamma, omega) range are effeminate, although they can be. Rather it’s typically a case of incorrect or absent father-son teaching.

Thus, the reason that they are a lot of effeminate men who are unattractive to women is simply because a large percentage of men are being raised by their mothers. Whether they are single mothers, divorced women, or households run by the mom’s/wives it doesn’t really matter as they all have a feminizing influence on men. Some are worse than others though. It’s the mothers that are typically the drive force behind teaching their sons to act and play nice. It stunts their growth to manhood.

Manhood is taught

If we understand that the feminizing influence on men via society,  women — single mothers, divorced mothers, women run households, and even Churches creates men who are stunted in manhood, then we should be able to identify areas where their teaching fails to create men. If we contrast this to what fathers impart to their sons we can more clearly see the divide between the two.

I think this can be most clearly seen in roles and responsibilities.

  • Feminizing influences tend to stunt boys growth to manhood through heaping on the responsibilities without teaching them their proper roles.

Boys are taught that they need to provide and protect their girlfriends and subsequent wives. Heck, sometimes they are not even taught to provide or protect them as women are independent and they can do it themselves. However, these responsibilities are often heaped on them without emphasizing the nature of the role. Why do are these responsibilities what they are? Because you, as a growing man, are the head of your family. You have the role of the leader, and with it comes responsibilities.

The former heaps on responsibilities like a slave to the woman’s whims whereas teaching the role with responsibility empowers the growing man to make conscious decisions because it’s his family.

Likewise, there are plenty of “lists” floating around like the one discussed on Scott’s blog. In this case, 20 things a mother should tell her son. It’s a mother telling her son a list of his responsibilities in the relationship and life without elucidating to him the importance of his actual role in them.

Even being a “spiritual” leader is a red herring. This is typical of the Churchianity in that it likes to pigeon hole headship as spiritual leadership in order to limit the influence of headship on the entire relationship. The husband in the relationship not just the spiritual leader but also the life leader, emotional leader, physical leader, and all of the other aspects of the relationship.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

What does a man have to do with his family to be in a leadership position in the Church? He has to rule his household well.

How many times have you seen Christian mothers, fathers, or even the Church tell husbands that they need to rule their wives, children, and households well? haven’t really seen any to be honest. Yet, how often do mothers, father, and the Church want more men to be leaders in the Church or at home? I hear this one all of the time.

This can only lead to the conclusion that no one — not Christian parents, not the Church — wants to teach the nitty gritty details of what the role actually entails which means a good rule over his own household. You cannot do that without authority. Without authority, there is only responsibilities. With only responsibilities, you are a slave.

  • Feminism, for men, divorces roles from responsibilities, making men slaves.

Let’s change gears for a second.

The problems of teaching responsibilities without roles

Since we have established that teaching responsibilities without roles lead to “niceness” or “beta” which is equivalent to masculine immaturity, it is important to recognize why this is the case.

Let’s look at the typical case of the “beta orbiter.” It’s a man who hangs around a woman trying to curry her favor and/or get her to go out with him by:

  • Taking her out to places
  • Paying for her meals, clothes, and other things
  • Being emotionally available to her if she is having issues, ironically often when she has issues with her boyfriend, friends, or family
  • Inviting her to events out with him, that are like dates, but not dates. She will deny they are dates.

What does this look like?

It’s a classic case of putting responsibilities ahead of the actual role. A “beta orbiter” is acting like a boyfriend without actually being a boyfriend. Of course, very few women are actually going to turn down free food, free stuff, attention, and support. Thus, the beta orbiter tends to get stuck in his ways trying to curry favor to hope a girl will back into a relationship with him.

If a man was taught the role or at least emphasized a role along with responsibilities he would know that it is unwise to pursue a woman that doesn’t like him back. To have a relationship both of you need to fulfilled your specific roles and responsibilities. In the case of a beta orbiter here is what you have happening:

  • The beta orbiter is fulfilling responsibilities
  • The beta orbiter is not fulfilling his role
  • The woman is not fulfilling her responsibilities
  • The woman is not fulfilling her role

Of course, since there literally is no relationship, the only one in the actual wrong is the beta orbiter who is fulfilling the responsibilities of the relationship when there is none to begin with.

Instead, when you teach men to act as the leader or head of a relationship, then you have the case where a man becomes more attractive by being confident and doing the correct things from the outset. He is not trying to back a woman into a relationship. Rather, he is focused on finding a woman to whom he wants to fulfill his roles and responsibilities, and also looking for a woman who is willing to fulfill her roles and responsibilities back to him.

  • The importance of this cannot be understated as there is a lot of heartbreak if you don’t look for both fulfill your to her and also her fulfilling hers to you. This is the power of standards.

Standards, as long as they are not exorbitant or too sparse, empower you to find a mutually fulfilling relationship.

Conclusions

We know that manhood is taught, typically from fathers to sons. The reason why men are not men anymore is a variety of reasons, and feminizing influences are a large part of the problem. However, they are not the only part.

It is important to teach roles first and then the responsibilities that come with them. The roles teach you the meaning behind the responsibilities in the relationship. Feminism, which divorces the roles from responsibilities, makes men slaves.

  • Without learning the roles, you become a slave because you do not know how to apply the responsibilities in a responsible manner. The role guides the process of applying responsibilities in a correct manner.

This can be clearly seen in the case of immature masculinity of a beta orbiter. He tries to apply specific responsibilities of a relationship to a woman in a irresponsible manner. You cannot do things for a woman to make her like you to be in a relationship with you. Any relationship that forms that way is destined for failure.

Instead, standards should be used to find a woman who wants to apply her roles and responsibilities to a relationship with you. Likewise, you should want to apply your roles and responsibilities to her. This will lead to a mutually satisfying relationship.

End note: The roles and responsibilities are the ones I always talk about such as in Gen 1-3, Prov 31, Eph 5, Col 3, Tit 3, 1 Pet 3, 1 Cor 7,11, and others.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle, Masculinity and women, Mission Framework and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Masculine immaturity is placing responsibilities before roles

  1. Pingback: Masculine immaturity is placing responsibilities before roles | Manosphere.com

  2. Looking Glass says:

    On other contexts, we’d call taking on responsibilities before the role “co-dependency”, or the attempt to establish that type of relationship.

  3. This is very well identified imo:
    Even being a “spiritual” leader is a red herring. This is typical of the Churchianity in that it likes to pigeon hole headship as spiritual leadership in order to limit the influence of headship on the entire relationship. The husband in the relationship not just the spiritual leader but also the life leader, emotional leader, physical leader, and all of the other aspects of the relationship.

  4. jack says:

    Beta has nothing to do with effeminate behavior. A beta might be effeminate, but that is not what defines him as beta. A beta can be very masculine in fact. And an alpha can be effeminate.

    Alpha and beta are definitions of socio-sexual rank. It is a definition that explains relative power and attraction within the group.

    The true alpha males don’t read, or write, about what it means to be alpha or beta. They are too busy enjoying the benefits that their status gives them.

    What happens most of the time is that bloggers redefine the meaning of “alpha” to more closely match what they THINK those terms should mean. This is their right, of course, but the manosphere has many such writers, each with their own individual definition of these terms. This gets us exactly nowhere.

  5. @ jack

    True. However, you could just use the terms how they are used colloquially by most which I did. Meaning:

    Alpha – the guy who *gets* the girl
    Beta – the guy who *panders* to the girl while trying to get the girl.

    No special interpretations needed.

  6. jack says:

    Okay, but most men of the great generation, even those who were heroes in war, were beta males.

    There is no shame in being a beta male. The shame is that so many of our women have been educated to loathe these attributes, instead preferring the excitement of the so called c–k carousel.

  7. @ jack

    Also true. But most of the post isn’t really about that.

    It’s moving from an understanding beyond “alpha” and “beta” to understanding how to mature as a man.

  8. donalgraeme says:

    There is a reason why I don’t use “alpha” and “beta” very often.

  9. Coastal says:

    Good read, definitely gonna be chewing on this one for a while. This makes me think of the way that ‘chivalry’ is often approached. Ideally, chivalry comes from a place of power; a man using his strength to lend aid to those who are otherwise weaker. On the other hand, you have the brand of chivalry where you perform certain actions just because you’re “supposed to”, in which case it comes of as being very supplicating.

    Also,

    The beta orbiter is fulfilled his responsibilities

    little typo there lol

  10. jack says:

    If everyone did not need to have their own private meaning of alpha and beta, then the words would still have conversational utility.

  11. jack says:

    It is with great regret that I realize that only the irreligious men can adequately tell the awful truth:

    http://therationalmale.com/2016/01/14/women-improving-men/

    The Christian men are too often mixing the should-be with the way it really is.

  12. @ jack

    Did you even read this article beyond the first part? There is no should-be versus reality in this post.

    It’s an analysis of misapplying responsibilities in various circumstances combined with a lack of education on roles.

  13. jack says:

    I agree with the general intent and concept of the post. I think it might have been more accurate to use other terms.

    Alpha and beta have little to do with any actual morality, and not even masculinity, godly or otherwise. You can be a godly, very masculine man, and still be blue pill beta and getting friend zoned all over the place. You can be a completely unmasculine man who has natural or learned seduction skills or tons of status/money etc. and be surrounded by interested women.

    Alpha and beta as concepts are not really in play in the model you propose, which is otherwise a valid viewpoint.

  14. @ jack

    I see what you’re getting at and agree with most of it. In terms of the exceptions, sure. However, I’m speaking in generalities in this post.

    Aside from the opening paragraph where I said I was incorrect on some of my assumptions, the only time I refer to alpha/beta after that if I remember correctly is “beta orbiter” which is a clear concept.

    However, I suppose the main point of disagreement is associating ‘masculinity’ with ‘alpha.’ As far as I’m concerned raw masculinity is the P in Donal’s PSALMs/LAMPS termed as personality/power. If you disagree with that then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  15. @ jack

    You can be a godly, very masculine man, and still be blue pill beta and getting friend zoned all over the place. You can be a completely unmasculine man who has natural or learned seduction skills or tons of status/money etc. and be surrounded by interested women.

    Ah, I think I know what you’re talking about.

    For example, a businessman who is ‘alpha’ about work can be a supplicating doormat at home with his wife.

    Yeah, I’m only referring to alpha in this post as attractive to women.

  16. donalgraeme says:

    However, I suppose the main point of disagreement is associating ‘masculinity’ with ‘alpha.’ As far as I’m concerned raw masculinity is the P in Donal’s PSALMs/LAMPS termed as personality/power.

    That is what Power is short for Masculine Power- it represents a man’s raw masculine energy, drive and charisma.

    <blockquote?For example, a businessman who is ‘alpha’ about work can be a supplicating doormat at home with his wife.

    When I do use alpha and whatnot, I try to keep it in that kind of situational context.

  17. Looking Glass says:

    Random thought that came about when thinking about this topic: One of the hardest “traps” that a lot of Men have is that they get invested in the Emotional side of relationships before the relationship is established. It’s the same mechanism as is being described here: Cart before the Horse, in hopes the Horse attaches itself to the Cart.

  18. @ LG

    Yep, with women it’s the opposite. Trying to sex a man into a relationship.

    We generally only see the male side in Christianity, at least in an overt manner.

  19. Pingback: Incentives | Christianity and the manosphere

  20. I don’t think anyone has yet said this regarding the OP so I will.

    Authority without responsibility is tyranny.
    Responsibility without authority is slavery.

    What this means is that in today’s western world women have become tyrants and men have become slaves. So if women want men to “man up” then ladies you had better give us some authority to go along with that responsibility.

  21. Bee says:

    Good example of how the Sioux Indians proactively taught their boys manhood:

    http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/09/30/lessons-from-the-sioux-in-how-to-turn-a-boy-into-a-man/

    Christian tribes need to do something similar.

  22. Pingback: Feminism is the promotion and glorification of rebellion | Christianity and the manosphere

  23. Pingback: Make it happen | Christianity and masculinity

  24. Pingback: Will She Go With You? | More Than Don't Have Sex

  25. Pingback: How do I know if we should get married analysis | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s