"Alpha" Males

They're a big focus in romance novels. Just about every woman in them wants a strong, decisive, powerefully dominant male presence. Unfortunately, as my wife stresses, REAL alpha males are extremely rare. Many of those who project that image are NOT really that way, and become obsessively controlling because of their own inner fear of being weak.

Think back to high school. Who were the guys who were most popular? Mostly loud, arrogant jocks. Men with something to prove, and the chance to do it every week, or every day on the practice field. Looking to these guys isn't the fault of the girls, but of society telling them that these are the guys they SHOULD look to.

I think some of it's instinct, going back a long, long time. Guys who come across this bold and strong provide a sense of security. They seem like they'd make good protectors, where the soft-spoken, introspective types do not.

The worst thing, perhaps, is that these guys don't really KNOW they're deceiving anyone because they are, at the same time, deceiving themselves. They think they ARE strong and capable. They're tough. They're winners. They scored the points. They defended the line. They sacked the quarterback.

But the minute they're put into a situation where that sort of strength doesn't matter, they're NOT strong or decisive. They don't know WHAT to do. They're good at playing a game, or talking shit with their buddies, or blustering up enough self-confidence to convince naive young women, but they're NOT secure in themselves by any means.

It might not be until they're older, when they realize all the success of their high school years doesn't translate into success in the real world, when it hits them in the face that being BMOC back then doesn't mean shit. They've got a wife, a kid, maybe one on the way, and they're trying to keep everything together with a crappy job and a boss that is all too happy showing them exactly how inferior they really are.

So where do these guys turn to prove to themselves that they're NOT weak? To those weaker than themselves. To their spouses, and their children. And this happens even to men who are outwardly successful, because they feel they have to make up for the fear they feel every time they have to make a big decision, or push that little extra bit to make a deal go through. They feel like their life is out of control and they have to find some way to exert control over some little part of it.

It's absolutely fucked up that women are killed. It's fucked up that kids are beaten and sometimes killed. All because our society doesn't teach men to understand themselves--their strengths, their limitations, and how to deal with the real world without bullshit posturing.

And what's even worse is that these assholes RUN the country. The very same mental and emotional issues that drive men to do the unthinkable in domestic cases are the VERY same ones that drive people like GW and Cheney and their ilk to project their fear and weaknesses and ineptitude outward toward targets they perceive as being vulnerable to their power.

In one, perhaps the truest, definition of "Alpha" is one who cannot be dominated, who'd rather die than be subjected to domination. It is NOT a person who seeks dominance over others, but over him (or her) self.

These are just the observations of someone who works in a female dominated industry and sees not only the misconceptions about these personality traits played out in fiction all the time, but how those misconceptions can affect real life. They're dangerous illusions, in my mind, and ones perpetuated in almost every level of our society. True strength is resiliant, and conforms to pressure when necessary. False strength is hard, but fragile, and explodes into razor sharp shards when put under pressure. And all too often it's the innocent who end up skewered on those shards.

Edited because I forgot to finish a sentence.

:shrug: These "alpha males" are just much too much. :P

A LOT of authors and readers seem to think the alpha male is all that.

I have a slightly different point of view.

What's even stranger is that some of MY novels are characterized as "Romance," though I tend to break all the rules as a matter of course.

I'm just more into action and horror novels when I have the opportunity for fiction. I want to be kept "freaked" and on the edge of my seat - not have some goof-ball Fabio look alike come onto me. :eyes: :P

Romance sells <shrug>. But I think good fiction includes romance, humor, drama, and action in more or less equal parts. So it all comes down to how the editor/publisher decides to categorize any particular novel.

:-) :hi:

I'm an RWA member, although I write mostly science fiction "with romantic elements" (and non-fiction). And I HATE the way the term Alpha Male is used in most of the genre's discourse. It's not even biologically valid--in other social animal groupings, the Alpha Male is the pack leader, not the one who postures the most aggressively.

There are some honorable exceptions within the genre; here are three that I know of:

Alicia Rasley - a writer of Regencies, she's also written several background booklets analyzing character types. The Alpha Male, she points out, is a leader because he's socially adept, and hes goal is to build consensus and group cohesion whenever possible. She writes "Just think about it, how do leaders act?" (She wrote this during the Bill Clinton era, so of course it was more convincing.) A Heroic Alphabet is the name of the booklet, I believe.

ACCIDENTAL GODDESS by Linnea Sinclair, has a hero who's a military commander. But it's clear that his subordinates follow him not because they have to, but because of his competence and his ability to take all their needs into account.

BLOOD AND CHOCOLATE (don't have author's name at the moment) is a young adult paranormal (werewolf) romance. The hero of this has to earn his leadership role, and the process shows what goes into it--again, willingness to sacrifice for the good of the group, and a whole lot more.

The OP's definition is somewhat different, more a portrait of everyman. And that's OK too; most men in our society hopefully fall into this category: men who want only to live honorably in their own corner of the world, but who will fight if it's necessary to protect their home or family.

What do you have in print? PM me, maybe?

but I did a review for Games of Command. Really liked that one.

I've heard of Blood and Chocolate...I know there's a movie out now.

Another good futuristic romance series is Angela Verdenius's "Heart and Soul" books.

without flinging it across the room followed by a string of curses. That means at 3 AM during a night shift when everybody was remarkably healthy, the computer system was down, all the carts and supply rooms were straightened up, and I was bored out of my skull.

That's usually before Brad Putz has even appeared on the scene but is during the description of a high achieving woman who has everything but there is sill this mysterious empty space within her........fling, curse, that's all she wrote.

I realize the romance genre is female porn, but I don't get it any more than the male variety.

Finding out that Brad Putz is an Alpha Male puts it all into perspective and gives me yet another reason to avoid those things like the literary plague they are.

"Romantic Suspense" and "Futuristic Romances" are usually much better. In fact, some of my favorite novels are romantic suspense.

and transitioned to crime fiction trash, which is at least readable. Two of them managed to perfect their literary chops writing treacle and progress to writing crime fiction that is both interesting an hilarious. One is Janet Evanovich with her numbered series. I defy anyone to get through her first few books without laughing out loud at Grandma. The other is Dorothy Cannel, whose first few books are theme books, one of which was a sendup of the sick making stuff she used to write, "How to Murder the Man of your Dreams."

I guess it's a matter of where we find our bliss: the dream of falling in love or the dream of murdering him once we've been married to him for a decade or more.

whose FBI books are quite good. Or Nora Roberts, whose J.D. Robb pseudonym writes futuristic cop fiction. Kay Hooper, who writes paranormal romantic suspense.

I can name a dozen or more such authors worth reading.

n/t

nt

thread that turned into more gender wars; then I saw this one.

K & R. I hope this one prompts more discussion than flame-throwing.

:wry grin smiley goes here:

I went to a nerd school with only basketball and track. They weren't emphasized at all-academics and theater were. The 'in' crowd were all thespians--the 'out' crowd were the artists (that's me). So it wasn't until I started working at my current place of employment that I encountered the adult male jock reveling in their high school glory and clueless about how it doesn't translate into instant success. What's really sad is that the boss(the ex-jock) is pushing his kid hard in sports in order to win a scholarship. And his worker with a kid is pushing his into football. Realistically, the most either can hope for from their sons are a good high school career, with maybe a shot at college, but even that is iffy. I've never understood the fascination with sports in this country. I have seen, through the eyes of my boss and his son, that there is resentment and clawing to be "alpha male", and it isn't pretty at all.

I went to a few alternative high schools that weren't this way, but that was probably because they didn't have any sports at all. We were all screw-ups and more or less equal. LOL

a university lab school-3 Nobel Laureates are alums, and, alas, also a fellow named George Will. One thing about that school--after that, I realized how NOT intelligent I was, and that intelligence isn't everything.

Great post!! :) Well thought out and stated!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Every male on DU and elsewhere should read this and think about it, imho.

And then share it with all their male friends! Females too!

:kick: & Recommended!

...but you are pushing a totally bullshit stereotype.

At the high school I went to, the big jock guys did get a lot of attention, from girls and from the community.

I was not and am not a big sports fan, but it never really bothered me. Maybe it's because I'm a big guy myself, but I never got any grief from them, and the one flamboyantly gay boy at my school (this was El Paso in 1987, okay), the boy who wore nail polish and carried a little purse - well he used to constantly give love notes and gifts to one of the football players, and you know what happened to him? The football player said "thanks", every time, and never gave that boy any grief over it. I won't lie, a lot of people in the school snickered about their "relationship", but that particular football player never let it bug him.

My other memory was of one of the rare times I was getting picked on by some guys, and a huge football player who I had just assumed was a dumb brute stuck up for me, even though he barely knew me.

I also recall 2 of them taking the home ec class, which actually had a day care center so that teens could experience child care - those huge guys were just as nurturing as anyone else.

Football does require some level of strategic thinking and intelligence, and I have known any number of jocks who went on into the work force to become perfectly nice, gentle guys.

Please understand - I *HATE* the sport of football. I find it intolerably boring, and growing up in Texas, where football is a religion, was tough. But I respect football players and other jocks who push themselves to excel. Do they deserve more attention than I did when I won my dorky FFA awards? Well, most people find football more interesting than agriculture, so I guess so.

I don't disagree with your characterizarion of "men" who are cowards hiding behind false bravado, but the implication that it's a "jock" thing is unfair.

A LOT of jocks are like that but, believe me, it's not only jocks. Usually it's the overt "tough guys," whatever their particular trip. Tough guys and "bad boys." Usually trouble.

I think the OP's point is right on target!

No, not all men who play sports behave that way but a lot do!

And I've seen that behavior outside the sports arena, in other competitive disiplines.

Those football players at my high school - they played their best, and maybe some aspired to college or even major league football, but most of them were probably aware that they had little chance of ever making a career of football - the odds are just against it.

But the people at the pro sports, major league level are the best of the best - and they have known it since high school or earlier. They were endowed with incredible gifts and have spend a lifetime of being praised for them, with all doors open and seldom being told "no". I think it's the string of non-stop success from early age, without the experience of real difficulty or failure that tends to produce an outsize ego and a lack of empathy that often leads to antisocial behavior.

Oddly enough, it's their innate talents that have sabotaged their development as people.

It's conceivable that some of the brainiacs who graduate college at age 12 could be subject to the same ego trips and sociopathic traits.

Violence and seeing violence against women, at ayoung age, is the problem and thinking that it's ok.
Being brought up in a world where violence is the accepted 'norm' is the problem.
And it's not just violence either, imho. It's also the males that are 'always right' mindset :eyes:
and throw their weight around, being bigger, louder, verbally abusive etc.; in a threatening way.

It's a bullshit stereotype. I never joined any team sports myself, but I liked working out in the gym even back then (the only sport I was ever any good at was powerlifting), and I'd work out with some of the football jocks on occasion. They were no more crass or stupid than any of my own friends. Just guys.

I think some people just have a kneejerk hostility to anything that's regarded as establishment, or authority, or macho, or whatever. I'm guilty of it myself- I think it can actually be heatlthy. But not when it means stereotyping regular people just because they happen to enjoy a certain sport.

I also don't think most type A men (or women, for that matter) are compensating for any lack of confidence. Quite the opposite.

Personally, I think they're exactly what they appear to be. Arrogant assholes who feel they have the right to hurt other people.

Why our culture (patriarchy) places people into such strict gender roles is beyond me....and why do we insist on staying in them? The mental and emotional problems created are enormous.

We should teach emotional intelligence in schools as well.

There are plenty of assholes in this world who never were on the football team.

I was a nerd in high school, and yes the jocks did get a lot of attention. But that's kind of how high school is set up, what with homecoming football games and all that. Sports do get a lot of focus. Big deal, so the jocks got a moment in the spotlight. Just because someone was good at sports in high school doesn't mean they went on to become wife beaters later in life. It's very judgmental to suggest it.

"Tough guys" who are used to getting their way, be they jocks or something else entirely, who suddenly find they're not nearly as capable as they believe they are.

The only reason I make the pun is because Tough Guise is the title of very good documentary on masculinity. Excellent original post btw. As you pointed out, it is just an example. The point is that many men act tough, but are only fooling themselves.

I love big strong guys (that doesnt mean buff body-builder types) who are confident and who I feel safe with, but there is a fine line between being that and being domineering, controlling and abusive. Unfortunately many women don't figure that out until it is to late.

Emotional abuse should be looked at with the same disdain that physical abuse is. While, due to strength and other factors, males are generally more inclined to be physically abusive, when you generalize abuse the problem quite a bit closer to being gender neutral. The consequences of emotional abuse are similar to physical abuse and there are fewer social safety nets for those who are abused emotionally.

There is really no place for "alpha" mentality in a truly egalitarian Democracy. I think "Democracy" when and if the human race finally achieves it, represents our higher evolution. Alpha has no place in a community where all voices are given equality. "Alpha" seems to be a major component in fascism and oppression.

I think the real "strong male" is not alpha at all, but a human being who has evolved and grown in compassion, tolerance, wisdom and taking responsibility.

Females of many species look for a male that can defend them and their children. Naturally, they go for the biggest, toughest, most violent ones.

Oh, women rationalize how they'd like sensitive, understanding, kind men, and I and a lot of other guys believed them, but they still went for the jocks. Women were, and are, in denial.

Of course, it's true that societal pressures make the desireability of a Terminator as a mate less important...but try telling that to your DNA.

In case you were wondering, this results in three conclusions: Women still prefer bastards, nice guys finish last, and we're all doomed.

(Edited to fix a missing letter. Funny, I swore I typed it right the first time. But then I'm not a confident, powerful Terminator type.)

as "creative"
Just a few weeks ago, I read about a study dealing with this. Women were presented with a series of photographs of men who were identified as having different characteristics. The arousal response of women who weren't ovulating was pretty evenly distributed across all of the samples. However, the ovulating women overwhelmingly responded to the men who were identified as "creative"
The ladies want to breed with the artists. And that's cool! :)

Now THAT might have been something I could've used when I was younger. LOL

Al scored 4 touchdowns in a single game and got laid under the grandstands!
Alpha Male!
:rofl:

Frequently, corporate sociopaths are labeled "Alpha Males".
I'm missing something. :shrug:

I don't like Al Bundy OR Corporate Sociopaths.
I wouldn't shake hands with any of them, even to get into FREE BBQ & Rodeo.

Always appreciate your insights, mythsaje.

50 years away from high school, that alpha-boy-jock things seems far away.

It's like life is a series of competitive events. High school athletics was one. Those fortunate enough to excel at that were sometimes mean and ridiculous.

But there are other events in the lifetime competition. I suspect that in time most high schoool jocks, like John Updike's Rabbit and Al Bundy of Married With Children, got quickly disabused of their superiority.

Later on, you got the competition for money. Those fortunate enough to excel at that can be just as mean and ridiculous as high school jocks.

And you got the competition for organizational power. Again, those who excel can be mean and ridiculous.

And what about artistic competition?

Note that in these other life competitions, women can also excel and be mean and ridiculous.

Hopefully, out of all these competitive games, each of us learns that life's not really a competition, we figure out how to get along with others and be part of a nourishing and tolerant community/family.

even when we're competing at some level or another. The vast majority of them are women, since I operate on the fringes of a primarily female dominated genre and the ONLY time I've had a negative experience with another author, it was another male fantasy author. It probably doesn't help that we have opposite opinions about almost everything related to our mutual genre--books I like, he doesn't, books he likes, I don't. But he jumped into one of my promotional efforts and made comments that were TOTALLY inappropriate, something not ONE of the women among my fellows would ever consider doing.

that doesn't make us nerds, does it? :)

Your wife is right in that REAL alpha males are an extremely rare breed.

"In one, perhaps the truest, definition of "Alpha" is one who cannot be dominated, who'd rather die than be subjected to domination. It is NOT a person who seeks dominance over others, but over him (or her) self."

Bingo.

I'm a woman, and I understand the popularity of those romance books, although I don't read them myself (mainly because I have a hard as hell time finding well written ones), because I AM attracted to alpha males. NOT "bad boys," for whom I have nothing but disdain and disgust. But a real, assertive, strong, confident, man - yes. However, the rarity of actual alpha males explains my anemic love life. :)

But then again, I've always sort of known that I'm an alpha female, so it would make sense that I am attracted to a similarily resilient and strong individual in looking for a mate. It's very, very hard to find BOTH a man who is comfortable with and desires a strong, assertive, confident woman, AND one who is just as strong and confident in himself. That's what legions of "nice guys" who complain about women not wanting them utterly fail to understand. I don't go for either "bad boys" OR bland, doormattish "nice guys." Which leaves me waiting for an alpha male, and I might be waiting for a long time, at the rate things are going! :D

I think another great example of a real alpha vs a false one can be found in the 2004 election. John Kerry is the first man who comes to my mind when thinking of a REAL alpha - he's a quiet warrior who proved his physical courage on the battlefield and his moral courage on the homefront, respected by his men because he cared about and respected their individual humanity, and unafraid to stand against "authority" during his BCCI investigations. Bush, on the other hand, is the CLASSIC false alpha - a macho, blustering, arrogantly cruel bully who swaggers and postures to convince himself of his 'manliness' and who covers up his deep-seated insecurities and fears through his belligerent warmongering. Unfortunately, our culture's obsession with false machismo and gender roles played a very big role in Bush's victory, as his "tough guy manliness" was extolled to the heavens by the same press who turned a true alpha male war hero into a "French looking sissy traitor." Yes, we have a long way to go in this country, and I don't think we as a society will progress all that much until we destroy this obsession with false, dangerous machismo.

She couldn't tolerate doormat either. I'm very laid back, but I'm spikey. Stepping on me tends to be painful, figuratively speaking. I don't bother with fighting. If it's not important to me, or of relatively little importance, I simply let it go. But if it's important, I don't budge.

I'm what's either considered a strong Beta or an Omega, by her lights. I don't join groups, I don't seek out leadership positions, but I adapt to them well enough if circumstances require it.

And I'm comfortable with who I am.

There are a lot of good romance authors out there, but my tastes tend to run toward romantic suspense most of all. I find the strongest writing in the genre tends to be in that field, though there are some paranormal authors who are also quite good. From what I understand the stuff that straddles the line between romance and chick-lit, though I myself don't read it, can also be quite well-written.

You might check out my wife's review site, Love Romances and More, if you ever get the chance. They review a lot more than romance.

Most of the genre fiction I read is some variety of medieval/Tolkienesque fantasy. The paranormal romance stuff might appeal to me - I assume those deal with werewolves, vampires, that sort of thing? I've never been big into vampires but werewolves have always intrigued me. I'll check out your wife's review site, thanks for the tip!

Don't you write some kind of fantasy/sci-fi stuff? I'd definitely be interested in checking it out.

I don't write high fantasy...mine is of the "low," "urban" variety that dances on the line between fantasy and paranormal.

Paranormal romance covers a lot of territory. Vamps, werewolves, faerie, time travel, and just about anything else you can imagine. There's several great authors in the field, though there are some seriously mediocre ones as well.

You might find you enjoy Charlotte Boyett-Compo's stuff, though I myself am not a huge fan. Her "reapers" are an interesting lot, but I find her work a bit dark for my tastes. If I want to bludgeon the "hero" it's usually not a good sign.

If you haven't checked out my website, I definitely suggest you do. My upcoming print novel, Sword and Shadow, is the closest to what you're used to, I think, though, like all my stuff, it bends all the standard fantasy rules. It's classified as a "futuristic romance," believe it or not. The hero's a vamp, but he's not your typical vampire character by any stretch of the imagination.

My third novel, "Freak City" features a werewolf character. It's got plenty of magic, and zombies too. LOL

My website is http://www.sajewilliams.com

I'm looking for a new good fantasy series to get into, and I'm always interested in expanding my boundaries, and hey, if werewolves are involved, who am I to complain? :P

Several different kinds of lycanthropes, actually, though they're not the most common critter in my books. Ben Dalmas was my only werewolf protagonist, actually. There's a major secondary character in my newest novel, currently only available in ebook, though it goes to print in November, who's a were-panther.

Just about every fantasy type critter you can imagine makes an appearance at one point or another in my books, from goblins to dragons. But they're not quite what you're used to.

You'll see...

especially in "ghetto" african american communities and redneck white america

you're probably an asshole.

:D

"Whatever happened to Gary Cooper, the strong silent type?".

Always preferred that kind of role model to the John Wayne type.

My guys have always been intelligent, usually somewhat poetic, generally understanding, and creative - always creative.

I even raised 2 stepsons that way. One, at 6'6" in his freshman year of high school, was actively recruited by the football coach. In Alabama. Crimson Tide v. Auburn Tigers country. Bear Bryant, et. al.

He declined. He took a class in art, instead. No, he's not gay. Just wasn't interested in getting his ass busted every day on a playing field and having to be nasty to everyone else who didn't.

My daughter is much tougher. So is her mom.

Your "alpha male" theory fails with me but probably not with much of the female population, and I can't understand why. Because, to me, true strength is in the heart. It's in whether or not you stop at a car wreck to make sure everyone is OK. It's in stopping next to a parked motorcycle (we ride) that may be in trouble, just to make sure. It's in fighting a fire at 4:00 a.m. for no pay at 40 below.

THAT is an alpha male - or female. "Leader of the pack" depends on how you lead.

I can't stand em. I like quiet, musical, non-dominant engineer/math types.
Most of the engineer/math types I have run into were dominant males, which I broke up with.

Alpha females are beautiful on the outside, and use that to get whatever they want - the problem with men whining about Alpha males is that they are complaining about not getting the alpha females.

Every man, no matter how fat and ugly, thinks he's entitled to a beautiful young woman.

There are homely, fat woman out there. This whining is due to the entitlement to do better than they.

Alpha males, however (good looking) will get the alpha females, regardless. Even with wealth, if you're old and ugly (Fred Thompson) you've always got to wonder if she's cheating on you with an alpha male.

We are the shallowest society that ever existed.

Type A personality, control freak.

He's great until the pressures of everyday life crop up.

Then he takes things out on those around him.

After reading this scribe, I am now going to run upstairs and kiss him all over... well, within reason... the kids are up there visiting with Dad since he just got home from work (and they'll get kisses too). :loveya:

OMG she's beautiful!! Your son is very cute too. :)

it has as much validity as "social darwinism"
None.

For some reason the term alpha male is synonymous with "arrogant douche bag", which couldn't be further from the truth.

Also, give women some credit! Most of them (especially the ones who have their shit together) are experts at sniffing out the fakes.

When it comes to abusive guys (which it sounds like your OP was directed towards) the women involved have to be taken into account, as well as a slew of other factors.

It's not like guys are the only ones who are capable of being highly insecure, low self-esteem, low sense of deservedness, and etc.

As far as jerks go, jerks tend to be viewed as attractive because they do certain things that trigger the emotional response of attraction inside of a woman, they just happen to mix it up with a bit of 'asshole'.

What "nice guys" don't get is.... well, pretty much anything that has to do with women!

They try to buy her affection with dinners and gifts, and just generally being NICE, not realizing that you can't 'convince' somebody to feel chemistry with you.

Think about it. A hot girl doesn't walk up to you and pull out a flowchart and deliver a report on her hotness. She doesn't walk up and say, "As you can see I have good skin, and a pretty nice chest, which means I will be good at nursing children. I also have some really nice legs and a nice ass which means that my Hot-genes will get passed on to our kids ensuring that they too will be attractive", after she doesn't say this, you also don't say, "HEY GOOD POINT LOLOLO *BOI-OI-OI-OINGGG*".

You just see her. She's hot. BAM. Attraction triggered. Not a choice.

... but I agree with the main thrust of your post. Alpha male =/= "arrogant douchebag" as you put it.

And OMG thank you for summing this one up:

"What "nice guys" don't get is.... well, pretty much anything that has to do with women!

They try to buy her affection with dinners and gifts, and just generally being NICE, not realizing that you can't 'convince' somebody to feel chemistry with you."

It's so true but nice guys have convinced themselves that women must either choose between them or "assholes" and then engage in a whining circle jerk about how we always choose the assholes, etc. Well, I actually NEVER go for assholes - as you said, for the most part, women (the ones with strong senses of self and a decent amount of confidence) can pick out the blustering macho poseurs. But that doesn't mean I go for simpering doormat "nice guys" either.

The attraction HAS to be there or else there is no hope for anything romantic, I'm sorry. That doesn't mean that guys who aren't "conventionally attractive" have no chance - there are likely some women out there who are attracted to their particular set of features. But these "nice guys" expect women to not even entertain male physical attractiveness at all in our determination of what makes a good mate, which is bullshit, since I don't know ANY man - so-called "nice guys" included - who regards the attractiveness of a potential girlfriend to be irrelevant. The difference is, we get called shallow for expecting our mates to be attractive, whereas it's just accepted as par for the course that men yearn for a beautiful woman.

Welcome to DU, by the way!

The "alpha" is a leader. Leadership can be passive, aggressive, or both.

In a horse herd, the stallion isn't "alpha." There is only one stallion, and he will chase the youngsters off when they mature to the point of challenging him for the mares. His job, though, is not that of leader. His job is protector. He protects the herd from outside threat. When they are on the move, he's the tail guard making sure stragglers keep up.

The leader, the "alpha," is usually the oldest mare. She's the one that leads the herd to food and safety. The herd defers to her wisdom.

In a wolf-pack, there is an alpha "pair," both male and female. They are the breeding pair. The rest of the pack is submissive, and there is a pack heirarchy.

Those who follow, who are "submissive," do so because having someone to lead gives them a degree of safety and security. People do this as well. Most people are not "alpha." People feel safer and more secure with someone, or something, to follow. Whether it is a faith, a nation, a political party, a political or spiritual leader, a teacher, a media pundit....most people are obedient to the leader that makes them feel secure.

In human herds, who is the alpha? The stallion, the mare, the breeding pair, or...? I'd suggest that one reason why human interaction is so dysfunctional is that we're unsure of our roles. We've tried to place the stallion in the alpha's place, replacing testosterone-driven aggression with wisdom. The natural outcome of a culture driven by fear.

Honoring elders, male and female, for their wisdom and leadership is done in some cultures. Not in U.S. culture. I believe that, in human herds/packs, "alpha" should be characterized by wisdom and leadership, not by the response to threat. A protector is not the same thing as a leader.

On edit, here is different perspective on "alpha" and leadership which is worth contemplating. This one is about horses, not humans, but I can "see" people I know in the different characterizations. I'll bet you will, too:

http://www.markrashid.com/passive_leadership.htm