Zeta masculinity for dummies

A Guide: For the general public.

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] number of people have written about zeta masculinity on this site, as well as elsewhere on the web. For the uninitiated, this is a term referring to men rejecting the traditional roles allowed for men, and defining their male identity outside that self destructive and exploitive framework. I won’t attempt to duplicate or summarize those excellent articles here. I refer interested readers to that writing, linked in this article’s footer.

This is not an exploration of what zeta masculinity means for men adopting and defining it. Rather, this short guide’s intent is to help individuals outside the men’s rights movement to understand and react appropriately to specimens of this newly emerging genus; The Zeta Male.


Traditionally, men have been willing to defend women from violence. Not just female family members and romantic interests, but complete strangers. In fact, any woman in a public space who signals distress will draw protection from passing men. Some men will even lend themselves to immediate retributive violence against whoever or whatever caused the originally signalled distress. This should be understood by readers of this guide, but is provided for context.

A Zeta male will exhibit none of this culturally programmed behaviour. A Zeta male has no interest in self sacrifice, exposure to violence, or playing the role of enforcer for the benefit of women. In fact, if a woman signals public distress and a man inquires of the difficulty, then turns his attention to other matters, you might be dealing with a zeta male.

Within western culture, women enjoy a exemption from direct consequence to their own violence, particularly when a man is the target. This was famously demonstrated in early 2011 in an episode of MTV’s “Teen Mom,” in which Amber Portwood repeatedly punched, slapped and kicked a man named Gary Shirley, who, despite his much greater size and strength, did no more than raise his arm to shield his face as Portwood angrily lectured him, punctuating her taunting with full-force punches to his face and neck.

The video depicting this prolonged assault is still available on youtube, where a substantial fraction of comments indicate the continued cultural psychosis which equates passive receipt of violence as /correct/ masculine behavior.

“I respect this guy for putting up with this crazy-ass bitch and her antics. “

“This guy is one HELL of a real man for standing there and taking it like he did.”

Whatever kind of man Gary Shirley is now, allowing that he may have unlearned some of his cultural programming since that show’s filming, he was not a Zeta male.

The cultural programming that women can assaulted men with impunity runs deep, which is why cases such as the male McDonalds employee’s self defence against two female assailants created such confusion in worldwide media. His use of an improvised weapon characterized by confused or simply lying broadcasters as an act of aggression. The cries of “Stop! Stop!” by the attackers as their assault on the man was reversed betrayed a deep confusion and a failure to realize they were the aggressors, but that they’d targeted the wrong victim.

If you assault another person who happens to be bigger or stronger than yourself – its likely that it will go badly for you. With zeta males comprising a growing fraction of the population, this rule of thumb applies to women now too.


What’s yours is yours, and what’s his is also yours. This is the established cultural norm on western societies. This is reflected in statistics collected by marketers who cynically prey on a cultivated narrative of women’s victimhood in their marketing guide “Women want more.” Women control 65% of disposable income world wide, and by 2028, this is predicted to rise to 70%. The wage gap citing a traditional lifetime earnings imbalance which favours men is now, and always has been, a ruse. No matter who earns money, it’s women who spend it.

50 years of feminist activism have retooled employment and academic life to increasingly exclude men, and this shows in an emerging and accelerating real wage gap favouring women.

Men’s value as human beings, and in romantic selection has always been closely tied to financial and social status. Another way of saying most women see men based on their utility, and only secondarily as human beings. Displays of financial solvency are accepted as a normal prerequisite for a man’s visibility to most women.

Zeta masculinity puts the torch to this mode of thinking as well. When dealing with a zeta male a woman is not only expected to pay her own way, including in a romantic context – she’s going to have to do it without a fuss, or fanfare. You’ve got a job, right? Why do you imagine you’re owed financial tribute for the dubious privilege of your company?

This is an obvious deal-breaker for many women, and men putting fiscally detached zeta masculinity into practice are accustomed to the counter argument. “A real man pays,” or “a gentleman doesn’t make a lady pay.” Or any other traditionally euphemistic phrasing which makes romance a financial transaction.

The argument from force against fiscal detachment is that men rejecting their role as romantic underwriter will find themselves frozen out. This is a mistaken interpretation. Zeta men are not “missing-out” on the supposed benefits of traditional sexual relationships, they’ve evaluated a crooked game and are voting with their feet. In fact, it might help women to understand this by thinking of zeta men as unusually butch lesbians with no patience for the usual hetero-sex game playing and bullshit. The analogy is obviously incomplete, but it seems obvious that breaking out of the “men must pay for my crap” model is difficult when you’ve always been a member of the benefitting demographic.

“Men are Pigs”

This is what now passes for humour. Sometimes men aren’t pigs, rather – they’re dogs. The list doesn’t end with dogs and pigs, men are also stupid, controlling, afraid of commitment, aggressive, macho, afraid of intimacy, violent, sexist, and power hungry. Whether individuals buy into this mountain of hate, this is the tone of acceptable public discourse on men in our culture.

For a long time, men wounded by this culturally embedded invective argued or reasoned that not all men were like that. A pretty mild rebuttal considering that nearly no men fit such awful description. However, after enduring years of such narrative, a nearly complete indifference to either censure or praise becomes the only viable position when routinely hosed down with hatred. The effectiveness of disparagement of vilifying male identity trades on the need in human beings for social acceptance.

Humans are, after all social animals. For men, female acceptance has always tapped into reptile brain programming and fear of death. Sexual rejection for men means reproductive extinction. This is not the case for women, because the reproductive economy of human mating almost guarantees for a viable female that other males will seek them out.

Like so much other behavioural wiring, Zeta masculinity breaks this programming, too. Praise and condemnation are tools of control, and although a practicing zeta man can feel the pain of these tool’s application, he recognizes them, and ignores them. Alternately, a zeta male – targeted with these old, old manipulative tactics recognizes their attempted use, and this informs his treatment of the erstwhile manipulator. Being washed for a lifetime in unjustified accusation as a biological demographic builds a thick skin, and deep reserves of ire.

Underlying Assumptions.

In almost all relations between men and women there exists what can be called the “Harry met Sally” rule. This is the assumption in personal relationships that men are driven by sexual desire. While strictly true, it’s no more significant than saying all animals including humans are driven by hunger. Women are driven by sexual desire as well, but the dynamics of human sexuality are such that women are the selectors, while men are the competitors for selection. Translated to a modern context of urban career and social life, men traditionally seek women’s approval. This affords women varying degrees of power, as well as a free pass for minor betrayal, misbehaviour, and unaccountability.

Assumptions, meet chainsaw. The path to Zeta masculinity traverses a great deal of revelation not covered in this short guide. However, this model for masculine identity encompasses a deep indifference to approval or rejection, as well as measured self awareness of sexual attraction. Men’s sexual attraction towards women is an element of men’s biological wiring. Through changes to law and a histrionic climate of moral panic over any expression of male sexual agency, male sexuality has been weaponized against men.

The practical consequence of this is adoption among men of survival strategies. Overt expressions of female sexuality, through attire or come-get-me nonverbal communication are increasingly regarded with a deep suspicion which is not excessive to call antipathy. The overused phrase “as a woman” is commonly preface to an emotional statement, opinion or demand, and that preface serving to lend the demand weight or illusory legitimacy. To a practitioner of zeta masculinity, “as a woman” a person is of no value, attraction, or innate importance. More than this, “as a woman” a person is suspect, and deemed a serious potential hazard.

What’s interesting in this recognized hazard is this isn’t expressed by the self defeating pronouncement of “no girls allowed” on a pre-adolescent boy’s clubhouse. This is not even as overt as a polite “no thanks.” It is silent, survival driven antipathy behind a smooth, affable front.

You’re bitter!

A well polished chestnut, likely to be trotted out in this piece’s rebuttal. A condensed version of You-are-just-bitter-because-you-can’t-get-laid, which is item 6 in a catalog 16 common of ad hominem arguments. In this case, the sour grapes accusation is technically true, because the grapes have been studied, evaluated, and are, in actual fact sour. Actually, they’re poisonous.

Addressing those still trying to use the whip of non-access to sex in rhetorical rebuttal, (a puerile argument)- Please be aware that sex is not in short supply. It is more freely available now than at any time in 100 years.

The claim of bitterness however, is an irrelevant distraction. Zeta masculinity is a model for male identity and existence largely apart from bitterness. Rather, zeta males are men who’ve seized the only real power any humans can have – and that’s self determination. The taste of it, by the way, is sweet.






Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: