« Ricky Manning and NY Times double standard | Main | Robert Frank on the relative nature of wealth »

January 18, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6ae53ef00d8350ebcfa69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Review of At Least It's Pink:

Comments

Through Bridget's songs, I learned that everything beta males fear about women is actually true. For example, beta males constantly complain about how women only like "jerks" and not "nice guys." Bridget has a whole song about this, "I Like You," about her first love whom she met at a kegger. Despite the fact that her boyfriend treats her like shit--he calls her "stupid," cheats on her with her best friend, gets her pregnant and refuses to pay for the abortion--she likes him because he's popular.

I believe one can interpret that not so much that she hates beta males, but that she has a low self-esteem and poor self-image and allows herself to be abused by some retard alpha in exchange for some popularity. No beta man would want that hassle, and even I would turn her down.

BTW, despite being fat, yes, I do find Mademoiselle Everett attractive. Yes, I'm one of the few people who thinks there are some attractive overweight women. There aren't as many as thin women, but they do exist.

Bridget sings about how much she likes black men. Especially big black men. Because they have bigger penises than white men.

Nature screwed me out of that one. It's a fair trade off given that I don't act like a ghetto thug.

Bridget likes big men because she says that what every woman really wants is for a man to make her feel small. Which is as I suspected. My own research with the National Health Interview Survey revealed that the ideal weight for earning money is 205 lbs, a weight considered "overweight" or even "obese" for most men, but society actually rewards big men.

I'm 5'7 and 135lbs. I guess short black wimpy beta males are screwed out of women, right? Maybe short males who can't meet women should find female dwarves and midgets and protect them?

My own research with the National Health Interview Survey revealed that the ideal weight for earning money is 205 lbs, a weight considered "overweight" or even "obese" for most men, but society actually rewards big men.

Or society rewards tall, middle-aged men, who tend to be heavier than young, short men.

"My own research with the National Health Interview Survey revealed that the ideal weight for earning money is 205 lbs, a weight considered "overweight" or even "obese" for most men, but society actually rewards big men."

I read this post with less than rapturous attention until I hit upon this detail, and immediately sat up straight in my chair. I see from the other comments that this has riveted the attention of several other participants as well.

I couldn't care less about Briggette Everette or her show; our society long ago demonstrated beyond human doubt that people can become rich and/or famous by not only appealing to, but actually EXCEEDING, the lowest common denominator (see Gerry Springer et al).

I know it doesn't seem mathematically possible to exceed a lowest common denominator, but VH1 Celebrity Whatever reveals that it can be done.

Anyway, I'm losing track of my main point, which regards the ideal male weight to earn money. This is so ultimately Half Sigma! It's statistically validated, it involves money, it involves class, it points out, or ostensibly points out, some contradiction between what society claims to reward and what it actually does reward. It's the whole Half Sigma experience wrapped up in a single sentence. Brilliant!

Even if Brandon Berg's comment calls into question some of the implications, it has made my afternoon, which says a lot about the kind of afternoon I'm having.

So anyway, thanks HS for digging up this little nugget of information. I'm not sure why, but I found it both intriguing and amusing.

And as a 210 pounder myself, you've renewed my hope for the future.

"I learned that everything beta males fear about women is actually true."

That is a complete misconception of yours Half Sigma. The truth is, most (if not all) women have been involved at least once with a jerk and that does not mean that is what they like or want. Usually, women move on from those relationships knowing exactly what they don't want and never get involved with jerks again, and, if they do, the relationship doesn't last and they are miserable. I agree with David A., all this proves is that she has low self esteem. Only someone with very low self esteem would put themselves through something like that. This says nothing about what women like or that what beta males fear is true.

Maybe she's saying these things, for example about liking jerks and large schwantzstuckers, as a way of getting a rise out of the audience. In other words, she may not actually believe it.

I'm 5'7 and 135lbs. I guess short black wimpy beta males are screwed out of women, right? Maybe short males who can't meet women should find female dwarves and midgets and protect them?

I'm 5'6 and used to weigh about what you do (though now up to 150lbs). I can't say I tore up the dating scene, but in the end it didn't stop me from marrying someone I loved and having three kids. So I wouldn't get too down about it. Fear, bitterness and doubt are bigger enemies than your height, and you can do more about them. FWIW I dated a woman who was 6' tall and 260 lbs for a while, though it didn't work out. My wife is also taller than I am by a fraction of an inch...


I clicked over to the myspace page to listen to the song. I didn't get the impression that this guy did all these jerk-like things to her and she was really excited by all of that and it made her love him more.

Then again, she didn't actually *say* what it was she liked. And I think that's usually the case with women who fall for jerks. They don't consciously know why they do; otherwise they wouldn't.

Then again, she didn't actually *say* what it was she liked.

She said she liked him because he was more "more popular than me." She liked him because he was an alpha male, and for no other reason. She didn't necessarily like the way he treated her, but that was overlooked because it had nothing to do with sexual attraction.

"She didn't necessarily like the way he treated her, but that was overlooked because it had nothing to do with sexual attraction."

Basically, she doesn't like herself. This sounds like a depressing show to me.

>>And as a 210 pounder myself, you've renewed my hope for the future.

6'2, 205. Hit the bell.

bbart,

You dated a 6' tall woman who weighed 260!? Yikes! Was she your dungeon master or something?

That song made me cry, although it was a little funny, too. Clearly, it's about her low self-esteem as a heavy woman. Probably created by mean talk like this:

flaunting obesity is a prole sign, as if the object were to offer maximum aesthetic offense to the higher classes and thus exact a form or revenge." I think this is the point of At Least It's Pink, which is primarily about Bridget Everett prancing about the stage in her underwear, with her fat stomach hanging out over her panties, singing about how she's a "big girl" and proud of it.

You seem to have missed the point of this show, Half Sigma, and it seems to have dredged up some unpleasant issues of yours. And since when are you a chubby basher? You're always going on about how thin is unhealthy and women should have some meat on their bones.

I'm with Brandon, the heaviness goes with height and middle age.

Thre are many upsides to not being large. I always liked "compact" men, unless they were bitter, insecure and cruel. Which, unfortunately, many are.

I don't see where I was "bashing" Ms. Everett for being chubby. It's impossible to write about the show honestly and not mention her weight. After all, the very first song starts out with her singing that she's a "big woman". And the outfit she wore was her choice, not mine.

Of course I have the unfair advantage of having seen the show, but it doesn't seem to me that the show is about her low self esteem. Just the opposite, it takes high self esteem for her to proudly display her heft. It's about the fat acceptance movement.

Besides the fat, it's about her being honest about liking sex and being honest about what she's attracted to. The captain of the tennis team, big men, and black men. She's not interested in omega men who will treat her nicely.

When men behave the same way (most men would take the hot bitchy babe over the ugly overweight nice girl), they are simply criticized for thinking with their penises. Their self esteem is never impugned.

My wife is also taller than I am by a fraction of an inch...

But is she hot? Hotness can compensate for any "bad factor". :-D

I'd say that shortness has a different role when you're black. If I was white, being 5'7 wouldn't be that bad since there are plenty of 5'7 white guys. In contrast, when you're black and 5'7, you're more of an outlier, and even if you did prefer non-black women, like I do, your competition is the taller better endowed black men.

Basically, she doesn't like herself. This sounds like a depressing show to me.

She's an overweight girl who lets an alpha abuse her in exchange for some popularity against the skinnier alphas. The show may not be depressing, but the fact she allowed herself to be suckered such a relationship is sad.

You're always going on about how thin is unhealthy and women should have some meat on their bones.

What some men consider meat varies. What HS and I would consider meat would be two different things. For all you know HS probably means "size 4" and athletic instead of "size 2", while I may think "Size 10 or 12" and curvy.

I always liked "compact" men, unless they were bitter, insecure and cruel. Which, unfortunately, many are.

Compact men are bitter, insecure, and cruel because they've seen other taller, bigger men sponge up the majority of the females, and they've allowed themselves to be affected by it.

Besides the fat, it's about her being honest about liking sex and being honest about what she's attracted to. The captain of the tennis team, big men, and black men. She's not interested in omega men who will treat her nicely.

But who's going to attend a show where the female character says "I like waterboys, small nerdy men, and short white guys"? Remember, women don't need omega men because women are now independent and no longer need a man to provide their basic needs. As long as a woman doesn't need to bribe some boring loser with a stable job into a long-term relationship, she can hold out and put up with the alpha.

Mind you, one should not label me as some sexist pig because I'm the one who bitches about the stay-at-home wives that some of the regular posters have.

When men behave the same way (most men would take the hot bitchy babe over the ugly overweight nice girl), they are simply criticized for thinking with their penises. Their self esteem is never impugned.

Interesting assertion, but I wonder what's more common, a man staying in a long-term relationship with a bitchy hot girl, or a woman staying in a long-term relationship with an abusive alpha?

Remember, David Alexander is the kind of man that wants hot girls he can't have because hotness gives off sexual energy than non-hotness doesn't give. It's why ugly girls don't go far in porn.

I don't understand why it would matter what she likes. It's not like she's attractive. It's what attractive women want that matters!

At 5'9 or so, I walk around and see lots of 6 foot guys and I'm a little jealous. Then I realize that I'm lucky enough to be in the middle of the height curve and it must be tough for those even a couple inches shorter. However, some of the guys I knew in college that got the most tail were 5'6 or 5'8. So personality can go a long way.

It's what attractive women want that matters!

From pictures that I've seen, she has rather large breasts, and there's the possibility of her having a larger ass, so to me, yes, she's attractive.

So personality can go a long way.

Hence why being 6'2 and a nerd doesn't automatically guarantee a steady supply of women. In my case, my lack of a personality just makes my 5'7 height a much bigger problem.

Half Sigma, I think I might of missed something... Is this show based on her real life or is it fiction?

I think the show is autobiographical fiction.

Bridget uses her real name in the show. But Jerry Seinfeld used his real name in his TV show, and that was clearly fictional.

"You dated a 6' tall woman who weighed 260!? Yikes! Was she your dungeon master or something?"

I can interpret this in one of two ways: did you play D&D together? did you do S/M together?

Given what I know about these populations overlapping, he may have meant both!

"When men behave the same way (most men would take the hot bitchy babe over the ugly overweight nice girl), they are simply criticized for thinking with their penises. Their self esteem is never impugned."

In fact its just the opposite. Generally when you see a seemingly together guy who's dating someone who's ugly and overweight, you wonder why he's selling himself short, that he could really do better. So yeah, a guy dating under his league is viewed (erroneously I think) as a sign of low self-esteem. In fact, a truly self-confident man probably judges what constitutes "his league" in a more mature way than the rest of us shallow Hals.

Also, a single guy "dating someone" is different that if they're married. With a married couple, you assume the wife used to be a looker but having a couple of kids beat the hotness out of her.

you assume the wife used to be a looker but having a couple of kids beat the hotness out of her.

If the kids beat the hotness out of her, then she probably really wasn't hot to begin with then.

She's not interested in omega men who will treat her nicely.

Half Sigma, I would be grateful if, some time, you would define "alpha," "beta," "omega," and any other Greek-letter-labels with which you classify a man's romantic desirability. (I think Agnostic used "delta" once or twice.) That way, the women who allegedly have this biologically imposed preference for "alphas" at least have a tool with which they can identify those choices and remedy their behavior if they choose. (My request is directed at anyone else who feels inclined.)

Wikipedia has only skimpy information on the subject. Although these terms are bandied about frequently, the only person who has taken a stab at definition is Peter, with "alpha." And his definition is specific to a few annoying men who commute with him on the LIRR.

You might also explain what, if any, difference there is between "alpha" and "jerk." The two labels sometimes seem to be used interchangeably.

It also seems the application is often outcome-based, ie, if we want a guy he must be an "alpha," if we don't want him he's not. That's not very useful.

You beat me to it Spungen, I was just about to ask someone to define what an "alpha", "beta", "omega", etc. male is.

Im gonna make a total guess here and say that "alpha" guys get the hottest women, and they are either rich, really handsome, and/or famous. Or maybe just very competitive jerks. "Beta" guys have some dates but they aren't in the hot group. "Omega" guys have given up. But I could be totally wrong.

If there are "Delta" guys, I propose they be rebellious guys who are willing to put a hot girl in her place instead of sucking up to her. In honor of Animal House.

Alpha: The top ranking male members of a particular social class. They have the money, power, and influence within their classes, and in turn use it to attract women. These men dominate and effectively order around the beta males.

Betas: The bottom ranking male members of a particular social class. These men tend to be boring and not as attractive to women as their alpha counterparts. These men fight for the scraps and unwanted women that the alphas discard. Some beta males are envious of the alphas while others have accepted their fates as lowly beta males who are subservient to alphas.

Omegas: The males who for some reason can not compete for women in some form or another. The bulk are mostly nerds, but ex-cons can fall under this grouping if they're unable to gain female accompaniment. These men effectively exist outside of the social structure.

No better example of an alpha male than Henry Kissinger. The guy was/is short, fat, and ugly, yet in his day was dating, and doubtless sleeping with, lots of babes. Kissinger's example shows that alpha isn't about looks, though money helps.

So why don't women fall into these categories, too? Or do we?

I find it interesting that you guys seem so obsessed about Alpha males and how it would be great to be one. As a woman, I'm not sure an Alpha male is what I'm looking for, especially if Henry Kissinger is an example of one. I definitely would not like to have him as a husband.

Very interesting. I thought the Alpha vs. Beta distinction was much more about aggressive and confident versus passive and insecure. I thought the success of alphas was caused by their alpha nature rather than vice-versa.

Omegas: The males who for some reason can not compete for women in some form or another. The bulk are mostly nerds, but ex-cons can fall under this grouping if they're unable to gain female accompaniment. These men effectively exist outside of the social structure.


Thanks for the defintion; I had heard of Alpha and Beta, but not Omega (except for the movie "Omega Man," which is completely unrelated. ;)

Why are there no letters for the different types of women? I find it telling, that we don't seem to label them that way. (Maybe we just don't care about their personalities!)

Anyway, I find it a bit repulsive, that I'm supposed to "compete" for chicks. I always thought that you're just supposed to meet someone and click with her. Now I feel like I'm fighting Spock, during that Pon Farr episode.

Kirk, out

A search of Wikipedia revealed the term "Alpha-plus," from Brave New World. They are the ones tasked with running industries and such.

I'm starting to wonder if that's where the term(s) come from.

So why don't women fall into these categories, too? Or do we?

I don't think anybody has tried to classify females. Usually, women are lumped together into a large catch-all category, or they're separated into "hot & popular" and "not-hot and unpopular".

I find it interesting that you guys seem so obsessed about Alpha males and how it would be great to be one.

Alpha males can do anything at anytime they want with few consequences. Alpha males have multiple female sex partners, more money, more influence within their respective social classes, and much more interesting lives. Beta males have none of that power or influence.

Very interesting. I thought the Alpha vs. Beta distinction was much more about aggressive and confident versus passive and insecure. I thought the success of alphas was caused by their alpha nature rather than vice-versa.

IMHO, there's both a nature and nurture component to being an alpha. If you're raised from birth to be aggressive, fight for what you want, and not care about the feelings of others, then certainly, you have a higher chance of being an alpha. When combined with the right kind of success, it's an instant ticket to adult alphahood. A beta male with success, but a warm caring personality just makes for a successful beta.

Alpha males can do anything at anytime they want with few consequences. Alpha males have multiple female sex partners, more money, more influence within their respective social classes, and much more interesting lives. Beta males have none of that power or influence.

Hey, did anyone here ever see that Simpsons episode about the "Stonecutters" society? Remember when Homer is rhapsodizing about them, and Lisa asks, "What do they do?" And he says, "Oh, well... what don't they do? They do ... everything!" And it's obvious he doesn't know.

That's what David A. sounds like here.

I want an answer from HS himself re the classification of females. It would be uncharacteristically sloppy for him to have not worked out a theory. I mean, we're slightly more than half the world's population, you can't just leave us out of the model.

I always thought that you're just supposed to meet someone and click with her.

One of the functions of the theory is that women only want alphas, and that they'll settle for non-alphas either if they're desperate for a male, or they've discovered that alphas no longer want them. At that point, the competition is between beta males, and she chooses the beta male who best meets her needs. Your job as a beta male is to fight for the unwanted or used up women and hope that maybe you'll luck out with a female and some sex every couple of months. Of course, the alphas don't have to worry as there's always more women, and if they're bored, they have no trouble taking your girlfriend away from you.

If you chose not to compete, then you'll join the ranks of the Omega class.

"Omega" guys have given up.

This doesn't seem to jive with HS's definition of them as men who will treat women well.

I'm curious as to what percentage of men are supposed to fall into each category. There aren't many Kissingers to go around, so it wouldn't seem they'd be much of a threat.

I listened to the song carefully, and I don't hear any mention of the word "alpha." So, is any guy more popular than a fat chick an alpha? What makes he jerk in the song an alpha, exactly?

That's what David A. sounds like here.

All I know is that alphas are having sex with hotter girls that I can never have sex with, traveling to places that I can never afford, having adventures that I'm too timid to have, paid for by trust funds I don't have, jobs I'm unqualified and too weak and timid to take, and they attend schools I'm too poor and socially too gauche to attend.

I guess I want the benefits of the alpha, but with a nicer and gentler personality. You know, without the evil.

So, then, it is an outcome-based definition: Any man who is successful and/or privileged is an alpha. And also evil, a/t David A. at least.

HS, as the alpha dog of this blog, your take on this is eagerly anticipated.

"Alpha males can do anything at anytime they want with few consequences."

It may seem that way from a distance, or for a while. But if you happen to know one of these so-called "alpha males" well, and if you will know them for years to come, my advice is that you sit back and watch.

Life has a way of knocking most people down a peg or two, and sometimes a lot more, before it's through with them. You know, the following sayings, or cliches, didn't emerge out of a vacuum:

1. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

2. Pride goeth before a fall.

3. It's a long worm that never turns.

Trite, maybe, but often true.

"Alpha: The top ranking male members of a particular social class. They have the money, power, and influence within their classes, and in turn use it to attract women. These men dominate and effectively order around the beta males."

I know guys who play in small-time rock bands, and they get plenty of chicks, despite not making much money.

Money helps when attracting chicks, but it is not the only thing (except with gold diggers). Being in shape, being good looking (or at least semi-good looking) and having a personality also matter.

For instance, I also know guys making $250,000+ where I work who have a hard time getting dates. Their problem? They are f**king dorks. They would never be able to go home with the type of chicks that the rocker dudes I know go home with.

I think this is all very interesting in theory, but I am not convinced men really do fit into these categories. I know a lot of so-called Alpha males but I don't see them going home with "hot chicks" necessarily. There must be a flaw somewhere. I am also curious as to HS's take on this and also, as Spungen pointed out, if women are classified in a similar way (not "hot" and "not hot").

Let's put it in terms you people will understand. An alpha male rolled a lot of 17s and 18s when making up his character. A beta male rolled a bunch of 11-13s. An omega male rolled high in one category but under 9 in everything else, and consequently views everyone more successful than him with bitter contempt (my int is higher than yours!), and never gets the pick of magic items after a dungeon crawl.

I know guys who play in small-time rock bands, and they get plenty of chicks, despite not making much money.

Men who are in artistic fields, which would include musicians, often have more success with women than their money and influence would seem to suggest. Certain women are drawn to creative-type men rather than focusing so much on money and power like some other women.
In addition, being involved in artistic fields, at least the performing arts such as music and acting, requires some degree of sociability. A pathologically introverted nerd who lives in Mom's basement and spends all his waking hours playing WoW is not about to join a band.

The alpha/beta thing comes from research into wolfpacks and their social hierarchy, not from Brave New World (though I suppose now it's all mashed together in the public mind). The alpha pair were the two boss wolves (yes, male and female alphas), and typically only the female alpha would have pups. The wolves were labeled with greek letters in descending order, so the beta wolf (far from being really lowly) was second in line, ready to take over from the alpha. In Brave New World as I recall the lowest order was the Epsilons...

I think this is all very interesting in theory, but I am not convinced men really do fit into these categories

It's an overextended analogy. People and wolves both come from something like a tribal setting, so there are some similarities in the evolved social behavior. People make too much of it though.

What a shrill "review"

I'd like to have heard more about the show and less self inflated piffle

Oh and statistically people from the Mid West are very likely to be overweight.

The comments to this entry are closed.