Nonsense. Your first comment nitpicked the intro (the allusion to Christian myth) which happens to be tangential to the argument that follows. How on Earth does the argument that males, for instance, are privileged because their masculinity is a form of antisociality depend on the question of whether Satan was creative, destructively creative, or just destructive? Or how is it relevant that the label "alpha" might apply ethologically only to those who are in top positions? I could just pick a different label if I needed to do so. I doubt you even read past the introduction, so you might not even know how irrelevant your criticisms were.