When we talk about being an "Alpha" male or female, we're referring to one of two things:
The role of "most dominant" in a particular group or social environment. The "Alpha" of a particular pack.
or
The general character and attribute set that gives a person a greater propensity to "rise up" in the social hierarchy, making it more likely for them to wind up in leadership positions.
Now, from my experience, a sexually homogeneous group is a straightforward hierarchy. Everybody knows who the head cheerleader is, or the captain of the football team. And even once you start mixing the sexes in social environments, there is often still a clear cut leader, either a male or a female. But what happens when a male and a female find themselves competing for the top leadership role in a particular group? It gets a lot more complicated and, often, nasty.
For one thing, there's a lot more at stake. When a male and a female vie for social dominance of a group, it's not just about deciding who's in charge. It determines:
Think of the campaign competition of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for President for example. The fact that a male and a female were on opposite sides of the ballot made the election process many times more heated and complex, just because of the simple "Battle of the Sexes" factor.
Some observations I've made from personal experience are:
What do you guys think?
The role of "most dominant" in a particular group or social environment. The "Alpha" of a particular pack.
or
The general character and attribute set that gives a person a greater propensity to "rise up" in the social hierarchy, making it more likely for them to wind up in leadership positions.
Now, from my experience, a sexually homogeneous group is a straightforward hierarchy. Everybody knows who the head cheerleader is, or the captain of the football team. And even once you start mixing the sexes in social environments, there is often still a clear cut leader, either a male or a female. But what happens when a male and a female find themselves competing for the top leadership role in a particular group? It gets a lot more complicated and, often, nasty.
For one thing, there's a lot more at stake. When a male and a female vie for social dominance of a group, it's not just about deciding who's in charge. It determines:
- Will this group be a matriarchy or a patriarchy? These models function differently, and people are subconsciously aware of that.
- Who stays and who goes? Dominance disputes between members of the same sex tend to be resolved fairly quickly and subtly, and the loser falls in line, often with still relatively high social standing. The more complex hetero disputes often take a while to show a clear victor, and once one person wins out, the loser is often forced to choose between leaving the group entirely, or taking a very, very low place on the totem pole.
Think of the campaign competition of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for President for example. The fact that a male and a female were on opposite sides of the ballot made the election process many times more heated and complex, just because of the simple "Battle of the Sexes" factor.
Some observations I've made from personal experience are:
- Women get a huge handicap boost from the start. I think this is mostly due to the Peacock factor -- fighting with a penalty is impressive. Because it is still much more common in Western society for men to be the leaders, anytime a woman takes a shot at the corner office, it's automatically much more impressive, because she's seen from the beginning as both the underdog, and having more mojo for standing up.
- Small children are much more likely to gravitate towards female leaders, while older people are much more likely to gravitate towards male leaders, with a fairly linear transition between the two extremes. Middle aged people seem to have the least inherent bias towards either matriarchy or patriarchy, while young adults still prefer females more than males, usually.
- The woman picks the rules, or the "weapons of the duel," so to speak. If the man can beat the woman at her own game, he'll clobber her in the eyes of the crowd. If the woman manages to beat the man in his own frame, she wins hands down. But if the woman loses the man's game, it's not nearly as big of a loss as if the man loses in the woman's frame.
- Men get a huge advantage in particular settings. I can't readily define these settings, but there's definitely still a strong bias in favor of men for certain, usually official, roles.
What do you guys think?