Why I hate terms like 'alpha male' and why you should cringe at them too.
A conundrum - if an 'alpha male' genuinely wants to do a 'beta' thing, but he doesn't solely because it's 'beta', is he still an 'alpha'?
Whenever someone makes normative claims like 'A real man/woman is X' or 'Doing Y is alpha' or God forbid, 'I am an alpha male' I can't help but feel all of those comes from a deeply insecure place. There is nothing inherently wrong about wondering what makes people attractive, how you stand on the totem pole of sex appeal or how to make oneself more desireable (I know I spent my early 20s thinking about that deeply). There is also no doubt that attractive people have it better in life on almost every front or that people vary in traits such as dominance, femininity or leadership. But there is also a funny paradox where if we become concerned with achieving the label of 'alpha' we are less likely to meet its definition. Someone who is grounded in who they are is not going to be evaluating their self-worth based entirely on external perception. After all the mythical 'alpha male' is not ruminating in the shower 'Oh, shit, was I alpha enough in that conversation?'.
Here's a conundrum - if an 'alpha male' genuinely wants to do a 'beta' thing, but he doesn't solely because it's 'beta', is he still an 'alpha'? Therein lies the problem with the terms — they reinforce the thinking that men should model their behavior not on their values or needs, but on whether it fits the mold of conventional attractiveness (this is of course applies also, if not more so, to women as well). When I was growing up in the 1990s and 2000s it wasn't considered cool or manly to have nerdy hobbies. Now we see women (and men) thirsting for Henry Cavill even when he's describing how he likes to play with his Warhammer miniatures or talking about his obsession with World of Warcraft. So was it unsexy then, but it's acceptable now due to social proof? Maybe, to some degree. I'd argue it never had much of an impact, but we certainly acted like it did.
You often hear, especially in men's dating advice, that an 'alpha male' is unreactive. Not 'emotionally stable', not even 'not overtly reactive'. Unreactive. Stoicism, which in recent years has had a renaissance in terms of popularity, also might be misconstrued to suggest that the less reaction we have to the world the better it is for us. But what sort of emotional feedback is permissible? This is something I'd be especially curious to ask those who preach the importance of unreactiveness. Suppose I'm in a relationship where there are things about my partner that shouldn't irritate me. There's not much justification why they should irritate me. Few people would agree they are irritating. But I find them irritating. Should I express that to my partner and to what degree? I used to believe that I shouldn't, because it's unreasonable and likely unconstructive. Because it sounds like a me problem, not an us problem. I think that is a pattern that many men fall into because they strive towards this idea of being an emotional 'alpha' rock. But the emotions you feel will be there regardless of how you view their significance. If there's resentment, it's going to keep building. Right now I'm much more in favor of being open with feelings, even if expressing them might come off awkward or even if that act is viewed by some as 'beta'. I find that to be much healthier than the alternative.
Are there characteristics that almost universally cause attraction? Sure. It's only natural to try to embrace them as we all want to feel loved and desired. But if we focus a bit less on trying to fit in a generic label and more on finding out our values, accepting our 'ugly' sides then maybe we could arrive at a place where we would like to be sooner.