I Feel Sorry for “Alphas”
The Downside of the Constant Need for Dominance
In the wild, an Alpha wolf is the daddy of the pack. He’s the male part of the sole breeding pair and together with his mate, they care for and raise their cubs. In fact, now that researchers have actually bothered to study wild packs rather than groups of unrelated wolves in captivity (which is where the concept of the tough, aggressive, take no shit Alpha who has fought his way to the top originated back in the 1940s), the term now most commonly used to describe an “Alpha male” is simply “breeding male.” The pack consists of a breeding pair and their cubs from the past 1–3 years.
In other words, the myth of the strongest, most dominant, most badass male who has fought his way to the top and who is now entitled to all the spoils of power is just that — a myth. Sure, male wolves can be ferocious, but it’s most often in the protection of their mate or cubs.
Together with the breeding female, they take care of their family. They don’t necessarily eat first or enjoy whatever other wolfy perks have been imagined by men who did shoddy research or who are obsessed with dominance hierarchies. They simply are the dad.
The alpha wolves are not necessarily the strongest, the fastest, or the smartest. High rank has more to do with attitude and confidence than size or strength. Dominance also does not favor gender — either the alpha male or the alpha female may be the overall “leader of the pack”.
In other words, wild wolf packs actually mirror in many (but not all) ways the relational dynamics work of internationally known systems scientist, Riane Eisler. Eisler’s comprehensive research has identified a continuum of domination and partnership-oriented models and she is asked to speak on it widely.
“She (Eisler) lectures worldwide, with venues including the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. Department of State, Congressional briefings, universities, corporations, conference keynotes, and events hosted by heads of State.”
And although no human societies are entirely domination or partnership models, looking at the components of each offers insight into our world and where we sit on the continuum. It also informs where we might go if we so chose. “For example, Nazi Germany (secular, Western) and Khomeini’s Iran and ISIL (religious, Eastern) orient closely to the domination model. The Minangkabau (religious, Eastern) and Nordic nations (secular, Western) orient to the partnership model.”
Whereas domination systems are ultimately held together by fear, force, and the threat of pain, partnership systems are based on mutuality; there are hierarchies, but rather than hierarchies of domination, these are hierarchies of actualization where power is empowering rather than disempowering and accountability, respect, and benefits flow both ways, rather than just from the bottom up.
So, why do I feel sorry for men who identify themselves as “Alphas”? Well, first off is the completely skewed use of that word as relates to its actual meaning, but more importantly than that, it’s the constant performative hierarchy that goes along with needing to always stay “at the top.” It must be exhausting and isolating to always be looking over your shoulder to see if somebody else is nipping at your heels.
For that kind of guy, there are only two possibilities — at the top or at the bottom. You are either winning or losing and there is nothing possible in between. There is no understanding of what a partnership would even look like, particularly as it relates to interpersonal relationships.
Not long ago, Nick Apex commented on my article What I’ve Learned About Love From Non-monogamy
“ Commit to walking along beside each other on this journey and to supporting each other in what you each find.”
Love the sound of it, but is this actually possible today?
As a man, I will always lead.
In our continued discussion of this topic, we began to delve into my personal relationship dynamics. My (legally married to) partner and I are non-monogomous, but choose to only engage in sexual activity with other people when we are together. In other words, we do threesomes of foursomes, although I do have another man who is also my life partner, and James and I are both in love with the same woman.
This completely confused poor Nick, who really could not wrap his head around the idea that I would have sex with Nat with James there, when in fact, it’s the only way I’ve ever had sex with Nat. And those guys aren’t bisexual, so really all of the attention was focused on me. What a foreign concept? When I talked about three-ways, he could only envision that as meaning with women.
Because if you are obsessed with maintaining your dominant male status and control of your woman, it’s inconceivable that it would be OK for her to fuck some other guy, much less have a deep emotional bond with him, much less in your presence, much less that you as a man would actually enjoy that!
James and I had a pretty egalitarian relationship before we opened it up to other people, but the longer we are non-monogamous, the more that becomes true. We have basic agreements which we keep with each other (e.g., no separate dates) but otherwise do not attempt to control each other’s feelings or actions.
James considers Nat a part of our extended family, but he rarely has direct contact with him now that we live on separate ends of the country. I maintain my relationship with Nat and pass along any greetings or news, but otherwise, it’s primarily my relationship. We also interact separately and together with Tamara, although only ever see her together.
The lack of hierarchy in our family means that both adults have an abundance of love and connection, intimacy and sex. We do it all with openness and honesty and in support of each other. We get to express and explore who we really are and what we each want and need, without artificial strictures like the ones that Nick advises.
Men, a woman will push you to open up and be vulnerable. Do not do it. Keep some of yourself back and NEVER go to her with your problems.
So, rather than having loving support and care, in good times and in bad, you have to keep yourself apart in order to maintain your dominance. You isolate yourself to maintain the illusion of strength when in actuality you are simply indicating a deep-seated web of insecurities and fear. You keep your mate and all others shut out so that they won’t know that you aren’t perfectly confident or perfectly in control all of the time. How else will you maintain your spot in the pecking order if you disclose any perceived “weakness?”
“A woman won’t follow a weak man” nevermind that research indicates that most women who leave their marriages do so because they are sick of being condescended to and controlled in this way. And why are you so obsessed with having the woman follow? Why can’t you be partners in the ways that wolf families are?
Meanwhile, James and men like him (whether they are non-monogamous or not) are enjoying a less fraught existence. Their confidence comes from understanding both who they are and that they do not need to control anyone else or fend off perceived interlopers in order to have good relationships. The people in their lives are not all potential adversaries or oppressors.
They work on their own wounds and insecurities so that they can be their happiest selves, rather than hiding that they even have any. They have really hot sex because when women feel free to express who they actually are and what their true sexual natures are without having to adhere to gendered norms or expectations, the primal inside can be unleashed…. Aoooooo!
Our wolf pack has all the advantages of an actual wild pack, with none of the disadvantages of the mythical one. It’s something that I’d wish for anyone to have and I feel sorry for the ones who don’t.
*The discussion of hierarchy here is in relation to social hierarchy and is not intended to assert that hierarchy based on competence does not have value. So don’t try to talk to me about that and for the love of God, don’t bring up lobsters!
