In my last post on this topic some weeks ago, I explained that many gamma males who feel unable to rise sufficiently within the establishment masculine hierarchy innately fear emasculation as a consequence.  At an unconscious level, they believe that their inability to compete calls their manhood into question.   Because they identify as male, their very identity is challenged.    

For most of them, fortunately, this is just a stage.  Either the circumstances will change so as to eventually validate their sense of masculine identity, or else (like Jack in Fight Club) they will eventually make peace with feminine aspects of their identity, their anima, and settle into society that way.   So, they either eventually rise within the pack, or else they simply assume their place at the “bottom” and, from there, contribute in meaningful and important ways to the overall social organism.  

Regardless, as these once-troubled gammas settle into place somewhere within the hierarchy, they receive repeated doses of serotonin which contributes to both their and the pack’s sense of safety and belonging.   Serotonin’s role in preserving the social hierarchical order of pack animals is very well established:  https://www.google.com.pr/search?dcr=0&ei=cmaRWpqxKpLyzgKC26zIBg&q=serotonin’s+role+in+hierarchy&oq=serotonin’s+role+in+hierarchy&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12...30579.31991..33216...0....118.863.1j7..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-serp.......0i71j30i10.J9BW%2BJ6wpUU%3D.  

But some small (growing?) portion of gammas, who are less self-aware and who can’t bring themselves to embrace their anima, will turn their backs on the pack to protect their fragile masculine egos.   Refusing to accept an “emasculating” position at the bottom of the hierarchy, they turn anti-establishment, sometimes in extreme ways.  They tell themselves that  the establishment system is “rigged” by the alphas who are in turn empowered by the “sheeple”—the duped, corrupted and/or unprincipled betas.  (Well, they’re not completely wrong, but that’s beside the point).  

“Real men”, they tell themselves, aren’t beholden to the establishment system, or any system, for safety  and security.  Instead they are self-sustaining “lone wolves” who operate at the edges of the pack, taking what they want rather than playing kiss-ass to the unworthy alphas in hopes of handouts and protection.   “Real men”, they tell themselves, make their own security. Hence many gamma’s usual obsession with violent video games, survival training, military gear, guns, knives, etc.   

But all this bravado is but a poor coping mechanism for the daily terror that these gammas experience living outside of the pack.  Though they attempt to delude themselves that they are safe and okay as lone wolves, their very biology—their DNA and neurotransmitter systems—scream otherwise.  Biologically humans are pack animals.  Removed from the pack hierarchy, they run massive deficits of serotonin and oxytocin and consequently experience severe bouts of depression, anxiety, paranoia and similar symptoms, all common traits of most gamma male mass shooters.       

What these poor souls need most is compassion and belonging—reassurance of their masculinity and/or assistance in accepting their feminine qualities, and repeated, loving invitations to rejoin the pack, even if only at the “bottom”.   Like “Jack” in Fight Club, it’s ultimately making peace with their anima that will save these guys, not false bravado hyper-masculinity.  But, they need help recognizing this.  

I theorize that in times past these gamma’s often received the needed help and outreach, usually from sufficiently self-aware women within the pack who were not overly triggered by the gamma male’s false bravado.  Seeing through the false bravado to the deep sense of shame behind it, these women compassionately and adeptly reassured the gammas that the pack had a place and role for them.  Thus, with sufficient outreach from these women, the gammas either eventually rejoined the pack or at least never worked up sufficient hate to actively attack it.   

But today seems different.  Today, especially in the US (and Anglo-Saxon parts of Western Europe), it’s increasingly difficult to find anyone, especially females, who are not triggered by masculinity in general and hyper-masculinity in particular.   Fear of the masculine is actively cultivated by the intelligentsia.  Masculine traits (like competition, ambition, hierarchies, risk taking, etc.) are systematically vilified or portrayed as pathological in our schools and in the media.   The men of history, or at least their masculinity, are openly blamed for most of society’s perceived ills—competitive capitalism, consumerism, naked ambition, colonialism, slavery, wars, inequality, environmental disasters, etc.  Today’s women are socially conditioned to fear so-called “rape culture” (despite that the incidence of rape is near all-time lows and has been for quite a while). 

The fear of the masculine is now so deep that our schools and our media often fail to differentiate between “toxic” masculinity and masculinity in general.  This begs the question:  What would a non-toxic version of masculinity even look like?  Everyone that I’ve ever asked has struggled to answer that question in a way that didn’t describe...well... femininity.  

Said another way, non-toxic masculinity apparently now looks a lot like femininity, which is to say that it’s not very masculine at all.   The feminine qualities of cooperation, inclusion, equality, community, nurturing, etc. are almost universally esteemed as virtuous and selfless while the traditional masculine qualities of competition, hierarchy, ambition, and individuality are consistently portrayed as egoic, shallow and even pathological.  For example:  https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/patriarchal-race-colonize-mars-just-another-example-male-entitlement-ncna849681.  Instead of a healthy yin/yang balance between the masculine and feminine, society know defines femininity as virtuous and masculinity as pathological, “toxic” or even malevolent.  

In short, “toxic masculinity”, by which is all-too-often meant simply masculinity, has become the scape goat upon which all of the West’s sins, or perceived sins, are psychologically projected.   And yet, because the alpha and beta males are in control and mostly untouchable, they are unharmed by these attacks.  Instead it’s the gamma males that bear the psychological brunt of this shunning and hatred by women.  Alphas and Betas can dismiss the feminine criticisms of their masculinity as jealousy or “sour grapes” and remain psychologically undisturbed.  Their “privilege” is unaffected by the resentment.  Alas, the gammas don’t have that luxury.

Consequently, unlike in ages past, today’s gammas are ostracized by both the masculine hierarchy and the feminine community.   Consequently they live in denied terror completely outside the pack.  Having first had their masculinity challenged by unsuccessfully competing among the pack’s males, they are now also shunned by the pack’s females.  And not just shunned, but actively attacked by these females.  And...for what?  For the sins of the alphas and betas nonetheless—that is, just for being male and therefore “privileged”!  

In short, society no longer sees these gammas as a hurt, troubled and ostracized minority in need of outreach and rehabilitation.   Instead it (and especially women) insist that they are actually members of a privileged class (!!), unworthy or unneeded of any special assistance or outreach due to their “male privilege” or “white privilege” or, God forbid, both.  If anything, these guys deserve LESS from society, not more!        

Just as Jack’s (Fight Club) complete rejection and vilification of his feminine anima in favor of hyper-masculine coping mechanisms had all sorts of undesirable adverse consequences, so too does society’s present rejection and vilification of the ordinarily masculine.  By ostracizing and actively attacking masculinity in most any form, modern feminists have ironically abandoned the feminine approach to problem solving that they say they value (compassion and inclusiveness, for instance) in favor of stereotypically masculine ones.   And more disturbingly, because they can’t reach the alphas and betas, they’ve taken their frustrations out on the comparatively innocent gammas.  Is the gamma incel’s hatred for women any wonder then?

So, what’s different today than in times past?   A paranoid fear of and disdain for most anything masculine.  As a consequence, rather than the gamma’s false masculine bravado being compensated for and healed by by a secure, loving and receptive femininity, it’s instead met with more masculinity hostility, this time from women.   And battle, not surprisingly, ensues.   This dynamic simply reinforces the gamma’s belief that the pack can’t be trusted, and it further cements the lone wolf status with which they increasingly identify.   

Unfortunately, until society can once again define non-toxic masculinity in truly masculine terms, the situation is unlikely to improve.    As long as women are conditioned to be irrationally terrified of stereotypically masculine qualities and traits— viewing them not as part of nature’s compensating balance to the feminine (that is, yin/yang) but instead as pathological at best or malevolent at worse—these troubled boys will find it increasingly difficult to find a settled place within the pack.  Thus starved of serotonin, oxytocin, etc., gammas will become increasingly erratic and potentially hostile.  

Lone wolves are dangerous.  We can’t fix their wolf-like qualities, but we can fix their loneliness.  All that’s needed is sufficient love, connection and outreach, all beautifully and stereotypically feminine traits.   

(Final thought:  I don’t intent to place the full burden of responsibility for the plight of gammas on modern women.  I have focused on women here only because I think they stand the best and easiest chance of making the biggest difference most quickly.  This is because a female solution to this problem involves women who are so inclined simply embracing their core femininity and acting accordeingly.  By contrast a male solution would involve convincing men to be less masculine, which is both more difficult and part of the very problem).