“The (Almost) Perfect Guide to Imperfect Boys” and Indoctrination to the Culture of Categorization for Middle School Girls

When I wrote my very first blog post on the “unequal nature of equality,” I highlighted the significantly different ways in which men and women view each other stemming from how the message of equality is quite differently taught to boys and girls.

Men are biologically wired to treat women with kindness, and while there are exceptions, it certainly wasn’t difficult to indoctrinate men into a culture where they understood women as true-to-the-word equals: potentially friends, intellectual peers, worthy of their own opinions and voice with a valid world view based on their individual life experiences.

And men are taught, by every facet of modern life- government, academia, and the media- that both sexes possess the same equitable understanding of inter-gender dynamics; in fact, a man thinking any other way would be accused of misogyny.

The underlying narrative that governs the teaching of equality is anything but equal; boys are taught that they are somewhat responsible for a girl’s success and comfort, even when it is to their detriment, and girls are taught that their success and comfort should always be primary even when it is to the detriment of a boy (or, really, anyone else).

From an evolutionary perspective this is business as usual as men are disposable and women are valuable; a man’s value is derived from what he is able to contribute. This would be fine, as this is in line with Human Nature, but that is not what we teach boys and young men.

Boys are taught that men and women are quite literally the same in every way except for a minor difference in genitalia. And, historically, when all the naughty men were off building our civilization they were also systematically oppressing all of the victimized women; according to Feminist theory, this historic oppression has trickled down to a modern landscape where boys hold an invisible backpack of privilege and girl’s fight against a perpetual tide of oppression at every turn.

This creates a climate where boys understand the concept of being a Good Man as putting women first in all regards, and girls who feel entitled to the success of the most successful man. At maturation, this foundation breeds a generation of polite men, able see the humanity in women, who end up baffled by the disgust they engender by showing weakness, and women who openly reduce and objectify men.

From a biological perspective, it is necessary for a woman to be able to efficiently categorize potential mates and suitors.  For the sake of simplicity in mate selection, women are able to sort all men into one of three categories (although, they can admittedly be somewhat nuanced: 1) The Alpha Male, 2) The Beta Male, and 3) The Omega male.  

Women adore the hyper-Masculine Alpha male; Masculinity is power and since “women feel entitled to the possession of power their response to male power is typically an attempt to annihilate it, and if annihilation fails, to cast ownership over it; if all else fails, to get fucked by it.”

So, if a woman encounters what she believes to be an Alpha male, she will test his Alpha fitness by challenging his ease of authority to some degree- men who have a traditional, attractive Alpha aesthetic will receive less testing- and if he is able to prove his worth as an Alpha male, she will attempt to manipulate him into a relationship, and failing that, most likely settle for sex.

Women tolerate the beta-male in a utilitarian manner; the extent of their tolerance relates directly to the usefulness of the particular beta-male. This usefulness comes with a rigid set of unspoken rules; the beta-male is expected exist in the primary interest of the woman. If the beta-male is desired for his wealth and financial status, this status must stay constant. If the beta-male’s purpose is to emotionally supplicate, he must do so in-order to remain useful and relevant.

If the beta-male is under the foolish assumption that he has an egalitarian friendship with a female and proceeds to spout an unauthorized opinion, he may just end up with a drunk girl in his face shouting “ALL VAGINAS ARE THE SAME SIZE” to his shock and confusion…

Trust me.

Women are disgusted by the Omega male. These men are seen as worthless; there is no ego-reward to had for a woman with a fat geek drooling over her, and even if the Omega male has a good income and reliable resources, he is too icky to be considered a beta-male. The Omega male is considered dog food; not for human consumption.

The sorting mechanics and categories are somewhat innate for women; a woman can sense through attraction who is an Alpha male, and distinguishing a beta-male from an Omega male is something of a checklist combined with referencing if she’s able to tolerate the man sexually or if he’s just too icky.

Even if this ability is innate, in a world where the reduction and categorization of males is encouraged and acceptable, why not overtly indoctrinate young girls into the process- just in case she accidentally gets mixed up and really believes the silly egalitarian stuff they tell the boys. For these charming young ladies we have:

The (Almost) Perfect Guide to Imperfect Boys

Sold by Scholastic, who has contracts with practically every public school in America, “The (Almost) Perfect Guide to Imperfect Boys” is made to ensure that little girls, who may have otherwise viewed their male peers as fully realized human beings, learn to reduce and catagorize these boys to the same terms that adult women use to categorize men.

From the Amazon description:

In Finley’s middle school, kissing frogs might lead to princes—if there were any frogs! Categorizing classmates leads to a battle of the sexes…

According to Finley and her BFF, Maya, middle school boys can be put into three separate categories: tadpoles, croakers, and frogs. Per their official Life Cycle of Amphibian Boys, while tadpoles are totally not developed yet (read: boys who still love fart jokes and can’t have a normal conversation with girls without making fun of them), a frog is the top of the boy food chain—evolved and mature. Sadly, not many boys have reached that elusive frog status at Staunton Middle School.

Welcome to the adolescent indoctrination of girls to the culture of categorization. It isn’t much of a leap to understand “frogs” as the desirable Alpha male; “croakers” as the spare-parts beta-male, and “tadpoles” as the invisible and worthless Omega male.

As adolescent boys are taught how great it is to feel pride in being “wimpy,” girls are taught the real deal at an early age- the majority of men are disposable.

Follow me on Twitter @ KillToParty

New to KTP? Check out my hand-picked “BEST OF” material.

Like my post? Please help share it~!


  1. Ben · May 1, 2015

    Awesome. Great blog, great post.

  2. Pingback: Masculinity, Positive Masculinity, and the White Knight as a Perversion of Masculinity  | Kill To Party
  3. David · August 29, 2015

    The explicit connection of alpha/beta/omega to the power relationship with females is an insight that I haven’t seen elsewhere. It feels correct. Outstanding!

  4. Pingback: Attraction and the Female “Culture of Categorization” | Thrill To Party

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s