Over at Pandagon, there’s a good discussion of whether “alpha males” — men who strongly exhibit stereotypically masculine characteristics, like assertiveness, self-control, extroversion, leadership, risk-taking, not-taking-shit-from-anyone — can be (pro)feminists. The conclusion, with which I agree, seems to be a unanimous “yes.” (I will note, in a probably futile attempt to forestall semantic debate, that I realize that the alpha and beta categories are generalized and fuzzy and not mutually exclusive. In any event, we can talk about the alpha-male characteristics without necessarily packaging them under that term.)
What interests me is the implication that whether beta males (unassuming, conciliatory, tolerant, behind-the-scenes, risk-averse) can be (pro)feminist is unproblematic. The issue is raised by, and hence focuses on, alpha males, who are trying to do away with the particular patriarchal expressions of alpha maleness in their lives. Confusion between these two levels — and hence improper generalization of feminists’ criticisms of patriarchal forms of alpha maleness into criticism of alpha maleness tout court — seems to be the core of the problem. Anti-feminists often make this implication explicit, when they charge that feminism wants to turn all men into beta-males, and cite the inevitability of alpha males as a reason why feminism will never succeed.
Looking at the feminist and (pro)feminist responses to the alpha male question, though, it seems that it’s alpha male (pro)feminists whose existence is unproblematic. Indeed, the paradigm case of (pro)feminist action — boldly calling out another man on his sexist behavior — is also a classically alpha male act. So perhaps we should be asking whether it’s possible for beta males to be (pro)feminists.
I must make clear that there’s one jump of logic I’m not willing to make yet. It would be easy enough to end this post by saying “pity the poor beta male, who is left out of (pro)feminism! We must reassure him that he’s OK, that he can be (pro)feminist in his own way.” (A very beta-male sort of argument, incidentally.) Instead we need to entertain the possibility that a certain degree of alpha maleness is a requirement for being a (pro)feminist, at least in a world where injustice and privilege must be actively fought, and where men have no mitigating circumstances or excuses.
Thought-provoking.
1. What does “calling out another man on his sexist behavior” mean?
Alpha: I understand “calling out” to mean that X privileges his own perspective as superior to Y’s and seeks to impose it on Y through a conflict of wills. In short, it involves embracing and exploiting privilege to promote a feminist agenda rather than subverting privilege. This seems analogous to Affirmative Action programs wherein race-conscious remedies are implemented to combat racism.
Beta: An alternative approach might involve X taking Y aside at a later time to inquire about the basis for the apparently different ways in which Y treats women and men. Such an approach would not involve privileging any one perspective over another, would demonstrate openness to Y’s perspective, and might promote greater openness on the part of Y to reflection and growth. But it would not provide immediate aid to people who are subject to Y’s sexism, or any dramatic vindication of a (pro) feminist perspective or vilification of Y.
I can see advantages in either approach based on circumstances, but I can’t recall ever having used the first approach. (Ok, I’ve “called out” my kids on their behavior; and even then, I suspect it was not an optimal approach.)
2. What does being an _________ist mean?
If a (pro) feminist, or a capitalist, or a Marxist, or a _______ist is a person who is confident of his views, closed to reconsidering them, and willing to impose them on others, I could well imagine that these categories would apply primarily to Alpha-type people. Maybe the personality type would embrace certain absolute perspectives; maybe the perspective would promote certain personalities.
In an effort to keep an open mind, I try to avoid labels such as (pro) feminist. But, admittedly, the extent to which I’m willing to reconsider my perspectives varies based on circumstances. The thoughts I’m willing to entertain during early-morning blogging are different than the thoughts I’ll entertain under deadline. I grow more doctrinaire (and arguably more pro-feminist) as time or money grow short – for good or ill, and probably for both.
In sum, if being an _______ist involves a willingness to impose your beliefs on others, and if only Alpha personalities are inclined to do that, then I can well imagine that the ranks of ________ists are filled by Alpha personalities. This hypothesis does not bother me, however, because I try generally to avoid both labels and Alpha behaviors.
I think the primary problem is that the alpha/beta distinction itself is a patriarchal one, implying dominance as a natural order. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the term gets used a lot more often by anti-feminists than feminists.
I also see a lot of “extrovert privilege” in these sorts of posts. For instance, in the last sentence of this one:
Instead we need to entertain the possibility that a certain degree of alpha maleness is a requirement for being a (pro)feminist, at least in a world where injustice and privilege must be actively fought, and where men have no mitigating circumstances or excuses.
Desirable, perhaps, but a requirement?
nobody.really: the problem with your “beta” approach is that, quite often, that second opportunity never arises.
I also disagree with the characterization that men calling men out on sexism involves using privilege to impose your will on someone else. Yes, there may be men who use dominance or bullying to advance their opinion, but it’s not essential to the concept. The reason it’s so important for men to call other men out is because of male privilege – we’re more difficult for other men to dismiss. If that’s not subverting privilege, what is?
That said, I think there are plenty of valid ways of confronting sexism that don’t fit into the “alpha male” rubric. I’m shy around strangers – my response to sexist behavior by people I don’t know is usually more a sharp “dude, that’s not cool” and a cold shoulder than a verbal harangue.
Alpha males males love feminism- when women can make enough money to support their kids, its frees women from trying to get (beta) male providers, so they have more short-term low investment relationships with alphas.
The “nice” guys that feminists don’t like, they’re betas.
jfpbookworm wrote:
I just want to echo this. It seems counterproductive to feminist goals to use language that essentially reinforces patriarchal ways of organizing the world.
The phenomenon described as “dominance”, in the natural order, would and will continue, entirely independently of how we choose to characterize it.
Is this another one of those areas where to be a proper liberal, one is obliged to ignore empirical data about the world?
and where men have no mitigating circumstances or excuses.
Are you talking about a hypothetical world where mitigating circumstances or excuses exist? Or are you insinuating that male privilege conquers all mitigating circumstances?
Doh. A hypothetical world where mitigating circumstances and excuses don’t exist.
Is this another one of those areas where to be a proper liberal, one is obliged to ignore empirical data about the world?
Dominance may continue to exist, yes. However, to imply that everyone fits into a dominates/is dominated framework creates a false dichtomy. There are plenty of shades of grey, plenty of people who are neither alpha nor beta, or who are sometimes alpha, sometimes beta.
Dominance may continue to exist, yes.
No, dominance will continue to exist.
There are plenty of shades of grey, plenty of people who are neither alpha nor beta, or who are sometimes alpha, sometimes beta.
Well, sure. A descriptive model of a wolf pack (which turns out to be not even a terribly accurate model in many ways) is not an adequate descriptor for humans.
My quarrel isn’t with that; it’s with the notion that the language concepts that are used ought to support a particular view of the world – rather than attempting to accurately describe the world.
Robert: The sort of “alpha/beta” dominance relations we’re talking about here are only “part of the natural order” in a Tom Wolfe novel. In the real world, people can and do opt out of that sort of thing.
Pingback: Feministe » Two Kinds of People in This World
In other words, the quarrel with using the concepts of “alpha male” and “beta male” is that they *don’t* accurately describe the world.
Don’t wolf packs have have 2 separate male and female dominance hierarchies?
Have you ever met anyone who would identify himself as a “beta male”? I would imagine that anybody who would non-sarcastically describe himself with a term like that, or for that matter who would tolerate having someone else paste an insult like that upon his person, would be pretty near incapable of doing anything at all.
How about a terminology change to avoid the side track?
Type A and Type B.
You can have a Type A personality without actually holding alpha male status, and not all Type Bs are beta males (far from it). We all know what the labels mean.
You can still have the conversation on the post itself (which I read as talking about whether indirect vs. direc confrontation). But calling someone a Type A/B doesn’t imply the various patriarchal/wolf pack roles that some are protesting.
In other words, the quarrel with using the concepts of “alpha male” and “beta male” is that they *don’t* accurately describe the world.
Jp, the quarrel presented was that using “patriarchal” language doesn’t advance feminist goals.
Labeling men alphas, beta, or whatever is the same stereotypical behavior that people use to label women as weak, or minorities as lesser people.
The labels do not take into account the myriad of personality differences that make up the human psyche that is built on genetics, social upbringing, and many other factors which form human thought.
If a guy is a jerk he will probably not be feminist or equality driven because he is a jerk. If a guy is nice he will probably want equality across the board.
To label men according to those labels you are doing the same thing that society has done to women, put them in a category that stereotypes them.
Given that I raised the issue, I think I know what my own problems with the term are.
Robert, the point is not that one can’t pick out patterns of dominance in groups of people. The point is that hierarchy isn’t the only way of looking at relationships between people, and that using hierarchical ranking as a primary way of navigating a social group is thinking too small. Maybe there are more important differences between people at play here that we’re missing because we’re letting patriarchally-structured thinking dictate the way we see the world.
What is troublesome to me is this: “we need to entertain the possibility that a certain degree of alpha maleness is a requirement for being a (pro)feminist, at least in a world where injustice and privilege must be actively fought, and where men have no mitigating circumstances or excuses”
The idea that alpha males could contribute more to fighting for feminism than beta males confuses the true nature of power today with the nature of power in the wilderness.
In a capitalist society with laws, power is no longer about who can beat up who or who is more assertive than who.
For example, an 11 year old girl armed with a Kalashnikov is stronger than three bodybuilders, or to paraphrase Puzo; the lawyer and his briefcase are stronger than 100 men with guns.
The Army is a better example of this dynamic.
Army Drill sergeants are stereotypically alphas.
. But in the grand scheme of things they do whatever the higher-ups want, and many of the higher-ups are frail old men.
So, in the present tense the alphas physical advantage has been defanged by legal consequences and or social stigma and is a negligible factor in terms of political organization.
JP, I didn’t respond to you. I responded to Richard in #5. You said A, he said yeah A, and B too! And I say “B seems a little off…”
Sara, that’s a very valid point. I certainly agree that hierarchy isn’t the only, or necessarily the best, way of looking at things.
That said, there are social constructions where hierarchy is empirically present, places and times where the organization *is* the central element. I object to the idea that a linguistic construct’s usefulness for advancing a particular agenda is the appropriate basis on which to assess the construct’s validity.
Some dude, I think you’re conflating physical strength with an “alpha” personality. Probably most of the men at the top of the military structure have “alpha” personalities.
I object to the idea that a linguistic construct’s usefulness for advancing a particular agenda is the appropriate basis on which to assess the construct’s validity.
By “validity” I suppose you mean “accuracy in describing reality.” With which I wholeheartedly agree.
However, the feminist goal is twofold: first, accurately describe reality, and second, change reality. One could make the argument that using different words might alter the alpha-beta relationships. I’m not sure I agree with this argument, mind–any linguists/sociologists want to comment?–but it could be made.
I think using the terms alpha and beta was probably a mistake. I don’t think the qualities I’m associating I’m associating with the “alpha” category — “assertiveness, self-control, extroversion, leadership, risk-taking, not-taking-shit-from-anyone” — necessarily imply hierarchy. Hierarchy is one thing that these traits *can* lead to, but they don’t have to. So, for example, calling another person out doesn’t necessarily mean “imposing” your views on them — it can mean boldly and unapologetically confronting them with the wrongness and unacceptability of their behavior.
(Incidentally, I’d describe myself as a definite beta in the sense that I’m using the terms here.)
My understanding:
If a linguistic shift were pervasive enough, it wouldn’t necessarily change what the relationships were at heart, but it would probably change what details we would find remarkable and worth highlighting about relationships.
You can see this in action with the idea of an alpha/beta male relationship. Although most individuals and most relationships won’t fit into the paradigm of an alpha/beta male relationship, if it’s put out there in the culture and language that dominance is teh most important factor in a relationship, then that’s what we’re going to look at. Moreover, the idea of an alpha/beta male carries in it an inherent assumption that the alpha male is better than the beta male, so it implies certain values about power as well. Different terms might highlight different things.
Robert, you wrote, in response to me:
Language always supports a particular world-view, whether one wants it to or not, even, and perhaps especially, when one thinks that all one is doing is accurately describing the world. Power will always exist; power will always be negotiated and mediated, which means that some people will always have more power than other people. This fact is not what is at issue for me when I say that using the alpha/beta distinction reinforces a patriarchal organization of the world; what is at issue for me is first, whether the alpha/beta distinction accurately describes the power dynamic it is supposed to describe and, second, whether the rigid hierarchy it represents in language is the only way to think about and describe power and the way power is mediated and negotiated. In each of those cases the answer is no. There ways of thinking and talking about power that represent power as something that is more fluid and more diffuse than the alpha/beta distinction suggests, not only because they include women/females (depending on whether you are talking about humans or animals) in the web of connections through which power is mediated and negotiated, but also because they do not necessarily see dominance, the strict application of power over others, as the only way to use the power one has (or has been given) within one’s community. We change the world by finding new ways to talk about it all the time; finding new things in the world forces us to change the ways in which we talk about. These are not new dynamics.
I don’t think people really know al that much about dominance. An insecure person may use physical threats and abuse to dominate those around him, but the astute person may prevail. Or a person may seem to be unassuming and non-dominant yet have a will of steel and the inteligence to always get what she wants ( I know dogs like this).
I watch a lot of hunting shows. I have seen “dominant” turkeys and elk on two different shows fight it out while a female went off with a quieter male waiting nearby. Does the violence of the two fighters earn them the tighter of dominant, or does the autonomy and cleverness of the other two animals?
Instead we need to entertain the possibility that a certain degree of alpha maleness is a requirement for being a (pro)feminist, at least in a world where injustice and privilege must be actively fought, and where men have no mitigating circumstances or excuses.
The more I read this, the more it seems to me to say “it takes guts to fight the status quo.” Which is really all that it’s saying, is it not? Or (since it’s phrased in alpha male terms) perhaps it is more accurate to summarize it as “it takes balls to fight the status quo.” And if you think the second definition is better you can see why some folks might get pissed.
I actually think what I’m disagreeing with is that “the paradigm case of (pro)feminist action” is “boldly calling out another man on his sexist behavior.” To me, the paradigm is more “changing your life to reflect profeminist views.” I don’t think you’re required to do so in an aggressive or confrontational manner.
It’s more of “use your abilities to their best effect.” If you’re a roaring aggressive type then you can “call out” people; if you’re a type who is a good convincer you can work behind the scenes. Both are equally necessary and together are highly effective.
“Indeed, the paradigm case of (pro)feminist action — boldly calling out another man on his sexist behavior — is also a classically alpha male act.”–Stentor
Others have pointed this out, too, but this is sort of what I was getting at in the post that Amanda’s commenting on…is calling another man out on his sexist behavoir an alpha-male act? Does it have to be? Is calling Hugo ‘twerpy’ jedmunds’ only option? Is it the best option?
Aren’t alpha and beta status dependent on sexual availability to females and control over female reproduction?
That’s my understanding. So, in my world we don’t need *either* to be feminist. Nor could any man who viewed himself as such be a successful feminist. Maybe a neandrathal, but not a feminist.
Aren’t alpha and beta status dependent on sexual availability to females and control over female reproduction?
Not in the way I’ve defined the terms in my post — but I’m realizing now that I had a very different conception of what those terms meant than most people.
Your categories are specious – there are plenty of people who don’t let “alphas” push them around, but don’t push other people around. What are they? When you start with terms extremely murky and subjective you don’t get anywhere. Anybody can be pro-feminist – by being pro-feminist. The fact that other people may be more assertive, risk-taking, extrovertive, blah blah etc. in their pro-feminism doesn’t undermine one’s pro-feminism.
I agree that the categories aren’t very useful to begin with, as they don’t encompass all the different variants possible for human behaviour, not to mention the fact that a single person could be “alpha” in one context and “beta” in another. And though I’m too tired right now to do it myself, I suspect it’d be fairly easy to come up with a scenario in which an individual displayed both alpha and beta characteristics.
I’ve already had my fill of male bullies in feminist spaces. The guys who thought they had a right to territorially piss in the space and drive off other men to “protect” the helpless females had no trouble turning around and abusing women while they waited around for another male target to wander in. Doesn’t matter to me what sort of nonsensical classification one might use to label them. Bullies are bullies and I don’t welcome their attention. All this “Alpha/Beta” stuff is just a smokescreen to me.