In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Alpha Males

One thing that always comes up in discussions of Nice Guys™ is the idea that in order to be a “success” with women, one should act like an Alpha Male.

Ah, yes, the Alpha Male idea. It’s a concept readily invoked by Nice Guys™ and evo-psych types, who love to wave in the general direction of the animal kingdom and say to themselves: yes, yes, that is how I should act, and the women will flock to me. Dominant. Aggressive. Chicks dig that.

But here’s the thing: they never really pick a species and stick with it. And if they do, they never seem to have really, truly considered the social structure of the species in question.

F’r instance: the great apes, just to keep things limited to primates, usually referenced because of the genetic similarities to humans. Orangutans, which lead solitary lives, and bonobos, who are matriarchal and egalitarian and who pretty much bonk all day long without aggression, are passed over in favor of the gorillas and, to a lesser extent, chimps.

But the social structures of gorillas resemble your average Colorado City compound — the older, dominant males hoard the females and run off the young males who might pose a threat to the senior males. The chimps are hierarchical as well, with one alpha per troop. Methinks this isn’t what the average horny young man who has convinced himself that he deserves female attention NOW, not when he’s old and gray, and that the secret to getting it is acting like an ass, has in mind.

So, chimps and gorillas? Perhaps not so much. What about canines, then?

Canines, such as wolves, arrange their society in packs, led by alphas. In the case of wolves, there is both an Alpha Male and an Alpha Female; this Alpha Pair is usually the only pair in the pack who gets to mate.

Hm. Doesn’t sound like a very appealing prospect to that Nice Guy™ lookin’ to be a hit with the ladies.

So, what’s a reverse-anthropomorphizing guy to do? Acknowledging that the bonobos might just have something there — after all, they are our closest relatives — doesn’t ever seem to be an option, because that might mean that the Nice Guy™ theory of How To Get Chicks might be all blown to hell.

Well, I suppose that if the Nice Guys™ are determined to do the Alpha Male thing, to study up on how to be a dominant male, they might consider plunking themselves down in front of the National Geographic Channel and taking in an episode of The Dog Whisperer now and then. They may find that their conception of the aggressive, dominant, jerky Alpha Male isn’t what’s going to get them anywhere.


27 thoughts on Alpha Males

  1. Ooops. Supposed to be in the New Yorker thing.
    Anyway….

    Alpha Male? No, I’m not a dog/wolf.

  2. Speaking of the New Yorker, did anyone read the Malcolm Gladwell article on the Dog Whisperer a couple of issues back? Profoundly problematic on like 18 different levels (dogs are like autistic children! dogs need to be choke-chained to behave!), but mostly in that Cesar Milan developed his dog whispering theory during couples counseling sessions with his wife, in which he realized that all she really needed to be happy was a man with a firm, controlling attitude, which was the EXACT SMAE THING that was wrong with dogs! Women=dogs! Yay Alpha Male!

  3. Science and feminism, together at last!

    I always want to track down those EP fans and thwack them over the head with Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation.

  4. They may find that their conception of the aggressive, dominant, jerky Alpha Male isn’t what’s going to get them anywhere.

    That reminds me: I’ve been meaning to ask if anyone’s made the acquaintance of aspiring alpha male Tucker Max, sort of the metastatic melanoma to Maddox’s slow-growing, noninvasive basal cell carcinoma, except melanoma can actually harm you, whereas the only way Tucker’s gonna do me any damage is if I can’t stop laughing at his idiocy and give myself a cramp.

    Whether he’s patiently explaining to the ladies that Maddox is a caricature, before whipping around to proclaim his and Maddox’s relatively modest literary successes as emblematic of eventual victory in the noble Fight to Reclaim Masculinity (they’re just kidding, see, except when they’re not kidding), or just patiently explaining to the ladies how second-wave feminists “are now in charge, and they quite literally run shit,” to the detriment of manliness, naturally–why, there’s so much to love here, it’s hard to know where to begin.

    I mention it only because I have nothing intelligent to say about the bonobos. 🙁 I do not mean to threadjack. Apologies and carry on.

  5. The book I just finished reading—Nicholas Wade, Before the Dawn—argues that humans are probably descended from an ancestor that resembles chimpanzees most among the living animals. Bonobos, the book says, are a separate, more recent development. This is why understanding chimpanzee psychology would be informative in trying to understand humans.

  6. Bonobos, the book says, are a separate, more recent development.

    Just like, for instance…us.

    This is why understanding chimpanzee psychology would be informative in trying to understand humans.

    Only in the same way that understanding chimpanzee psychology would be informative in trying to understand bonobos. To a much lesser degree, actually, since we split from them much longer ago.

  7. Thing is that since we began to develop language, the criteria for selection selection has changed completely, and the mind has become the most important thing. I blogged about this a while back, if in a rather sentimental way which you’ll have to forgive.

  8. I don’t think evolutionary psychology is particularly applicable to modern human interaction, but I think the Alpha Male illusion comes about because many assholes have confidence, and this is attractive -even if being an asshole isn’t- so it appears to certain shy people that it is the attitude as a package that is a success, rather than the confidence alone- so if a shy person emulates the package as a whole, then they are inadvertently being a jerk, when what they really need to do is just be confident in themselves. I don’t think you need to rag on shy guys who despair and wonder why (God, why?) when they witness jerks doing well with the ladies- which we do.

  9. I’d also like to point out that in many species with dominance hierarchies, an alpha male only gets to be that way for about 2-3 years of his life.

    Oh, and in some species, females actively avoid mating with the dominant males. Because they’re assholes.

  10. The Alpha Male thing might not work for you lot, but very few women are self-proclaimed feminists like the readers of this blog. Large numbers of women aren’t feminists and do go out with men who are complete bastards. Men who beat them, are controling, take advantage of them, exploit them, and so on – the whole usual litany of patriarchy inflicted woes.

    I loathe Nice Guys™ because deliberately behaving like an asshole in order to get laid isn’t a very moral thing to do. But there’s got to be some reason plenty of women do go out with those sort of guys, and if they’re not attracted to them then what is it?

    I don’t really buy the monkey business either. To me it’s always seemed like a no-brainer that if you want to understand humans your best bet is to study humans, not monkeys.

  11. nik:

    My experience, as a former “nice guy” who used to believe in all that shit before I actually grew up a bit, is that women *don’t* go looking for assholes. The “nice guy” myth that women prefer assholes comes from the fact that when you’re incredibly jealous, and you don’t understand *why* women have absolutely no romantic interest in you, you focus on the negative aspects of the relationships of your female friends/acquiantances.

    The vast majority of women that I know have wound up with *genuinely* nice guys as partners. Not self-proclaimed manipulative nice guys, but the genuine article. But I can’t think of a single case where the self-proclaimed nice guys haven’t insisted that the partners that they wound up with were assholes.

    Of course, the most interesting case that I’ve personally seen is a self-proclaimed nice guy who decided he was deeply in love with a lesbian, and proceeding to spend all of his time complaining about how she was only attracted to assholes – if she’d just be interested in a “nice” partner, she’d stop being a lesbian and hook up with him. Totally self-centered to the point of obsession, and with this absolute objectification of the target of his affections: her sexual orientation wasn’t real to him: it was all about *him*, and what *she* should be doing in order to make *him* happy, because he was a *nice guy*.

  12. Oh dear god. Bonobos. Something like Godwin’s Law appears to be operating in the case of bonobos, and perhaps argumentum ad paniscum should be recognized as a logical fallacy.

  13. As a minor mention – not only is the theory ludicrous, but at least with dogs they seem to get the behavior of Alphas entirely wrong. The nasty, snarling, jerky dogs are Beta wannabes. The natural alpha is usually a very laid-back dog. He’s best, and he knows it, and there’s no need to show off about it. The sweetest dog I ever had was also the most dominant. He never needed to get into a fight, he just ran the show through sheer force of personality.

    So their theory blows in more ways than your average tornado.

  14. I don’t understand why people (especially men) look to the animal kingdom for love advice. Every animal species mates differently. In the end, why does it fucking matter what baboons or chimps or bonobos do? Make your own damn decisions about your love life instead of using your local zoo as a crutch.

  15. There’s no reason to think “nice guys” are somehow less likely to hit a woman than other men. Or really that feminists are immune to being hit by a man.

  16. Ah, yes, the Alpha Male idea. It’s a concept readily invoked by Nice Guys™ and evo-psych types, who love to wave in the general direction of the animal kingdom and say to themselves: yes, yes, that is how I should act, and the women will flock to me. Dominant. Aggressive. Chicks dig that.–zuzu

    I think it’s also important to point out that some newly feminist men often use the archtype of the Alpha Male as an example of something to avoid; and if what sort of being an Alpha Male is, is confused in the ways that you point out, zuzu, it’s also not a particularly good example of what to avoid (though it could provide some insights).

    Along those lines, the Alpha Male type that Tapetum points out is still an example of a male that exists as he does through dominating females as well as males–not something any of us probably wants to aspire to either.

    Maybe it’s my lack of imagination, but it’s difficult for me to come up with examples of men in popular culture who are confident-but-not-dominant, and most of the ones I can come up with are, strangely, comedians, like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert…

  17. Piny,

    You seem to be saying that the concept of an “alpha male” is something that has some kind of legitimate socio-biological meaning. I don’t think that is what the “nice-guys” are thinking about. When I hear the term I tend to think of guys who, for whatever reason, have some quality, disposition, or physical attractiveness (or a subtle combination of the three), that seems to attract a women with a willingness to engage with them in sexual congress without the usual requirement of a defined relationship.

    I have known a number of men like this who, seem to attract women who will make the move on them, or failing that will put out clear and obvious signals that they are open for no strings or few strings attached sex. These individuals always seem to have women approaching them to the exclusion of other men in the room (thus earning the wrath and disdain of the so-called “nice-guys”). They also come off as “jerks” to the so-called “nice-guys” because a certain cocky confidence comes easy for them as they are rarely without sexual invitation from any number of women.

    Also the women seem to put up with it in order to get whatever it is they have to offer. These men tend to be good-looking, glib, and witty (as opposed to funny), and I guess they are desirable for a reason which is why the “nice-guys” hate them so much. The very thing that eludes the “nice-guys”, specifically no or few strings sex from attractive women, comes so easy to the “Alpha-male” as I am using the term here, which drives them bananas (to extend the primate metaphor).

    It’s hardly disputable that the Alpha-male types, as I have described them, exist and that they don’t really have to work at attracting suitable sex partners so they have the luxury of treating women in a way that is less then ideal at which point the “nice-guys” make the moronic leap of logic that being attentive and mindful of the needs of women is somehow a replacement for raw sex appeal.

    Now I could be wrong about all this and I’m sure that if I am that will be bought to my attention. [grin]

  18. I should also mention that I don’t think the population of Alpha-males, as I have defined them, produces more “jerks” then the population at large, it’s just that they can get away with more then in the male/female interaction arena then mere mortal men can, do to their collative gifts. Just like attractive women can “get away” with more or receive more consideration despite their flaws then their less attractive sisters can.

  19. You seem to be saying that the concept of an “alpha male” is something that has some kind of legitimate socio-biological meaning. I don’t think that is what the “nice-guys” are thinking about.

    Well, that’s my point, really. There *is* a socio-biological meaning for the concept of the alpha male, but it’s one that’s routinely ignored by Nice Guys™ because they get as far as the word “dominant” and stop there. And that’s also their problem with the “jerks” they find so repellent — if they bothered to really study these guys, they’d see that it’s the positive qualities that attract women *despite* the negative qualities.

  20. dude,
    I hate to bring this up but bonobos dont just bonk all day withou a hint of aggression. They aren’t elgalitarian either.They have a string female donimance hierarchy, with a dominant female who settles disputes, and eats everyone elses food first. Males have a low social position as evidenced by the act that when females are around, they eat last. Biologists had a hard time accepting this at first becuase they didn’t think of females participating as dominant forces in hierarchies.
    http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2003/Bryant/Gender.html
    But yeah, orangutans are solitary, gibbons live inpairs. Nothing suggest dominance hierrchy is ‘natural’ or inevitable.

Comments are currently closed.