Married Ladies & Committed Relationships: Can Alpha Men Make Good DH/SO?

[greight]

Ok, I'm right now skimming the thread and I still don't understand why beta males get such a raw characterization? I feel that there is a greater allowance for alpha males than there are for betas.

I know plenty of beta males who are leaders in their fields. They won't dominate the room in an obvious way, but they still climb the ladder.

And I'll use this as an example: President Obama. People would characterize him as an alpha male, but if you read about how he approaches conflicts and situations, it is very much a beta frame. He attempts to deal with rifts, he looks for common ground, he's not the type to steer the direction of the conversation immediately. When he was editor of Harvard Law Review, he was known for being the conciliatory factor in dealing with alpha types who viewed other opinions with disdain. People often didn't know where he stood on certain things, but they still listened.

 

[aribell]

ITA; particularly with the bolded.

To me, high or notable levels of emotional availability contradicts what I have witnessed and been taught to understand as being indicative of alpha. Everyone has a soft spot here or there on something in our personal lives but as a rule, alphas overachieve independently and aggressively in career and every other area of their life, including marriage and family. To achieve such status requires ones to be emotionally contained, regulated and logical as a driving force of one's decisions and state of mind 9 times out of 10, in every situation or scenario. They are goal-oriented and driven, which means they can't afford to have too much vested interest in emotions, their own and those of others, wives included.

This brings me to my other observation that wives of such men are not particular sensitive, empathetic or openly emotional in general, not even with their children. Most don't require much emotional availability because they aren't big on being emotionally available themselves so this factor is not a problem. IME these types of wives are emotionally reserved, somewhat detached and a bit aloof. Rarely to almost never criers, no matter how feminine they appear. Like their husbands, most wives of alpha males are alpha females, so they are goal oriented & pragmatic in their marital, parental and personal decisions from beginning to end.

These are interesting and clarifying observations. The first bolded is my father to a T, which...well, it is what it is...but I do think that is indicative of alpha males and it's often more difficult for such men to appreciate the "softer" aspects of relationships and what they consider to be an adequate expression of their love may not translate as such to wife and children. I think these men tend to grow in understanding of such things as they get older.

ETA: I think a truly classic example of an "alpha-female" is Lauren Becall's character in How to Marry a Millionaire. In fact, all three women characters kind of typify different "types" of women (limited of course). Marilyn Monroe's character was, of course, the ditsy sex symbol. And Betty Grable's character was down to earth and fun-loving. It's interesting to see the types of men they went after (besides "rich") and who they ended up with. Anyway, I always thought Becall's character was really interesting--beautiful, but shrewd, elegant and classy, but pragmatic. Uncompromising standards and unapologetic about her expectations. She was materialistic, of course, but besides that I always admired that persona.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

Depends on how you define an alpha: uncompromising, wants to head fam at all times, thinks they're always right? Nah


But someone like Barack Obama (or my sweetie)...then I'd say sure, I think most definitely. I think Alpha's can lead but also be kind, caring, stand up for you and the family if necessary, and also know when to let others lead if they know a better path, but still strive for success in career. So as long as it's a secure Alpha I'd say yes, but an insecure Alpha I'd say you're asking for trouble. Disclaimer: this is a theory I'm only engaged not married. But have indications from the dynamic of my relationship with my fiance so far.

 

[butterfly_wings]

^^ what is a secure alpha and an insecure alpha?

Sent from my HTC Desire using HTC Desire

 

[barbiesocialite]

................

 

[barbiesocialite]

These are interesting and clarifying observations. The first bolded is my father to a T, which...well, it is what it is...but I do think that is indicative of alpha males and it's often more difficult for such men to appreciate the "softer" aspects of relationships and what they consider to be an adequate expression of their love may not translate as such to wife and children. I think these men tend to grow in understanding of such things as they get older.

ETA: I think a truly classic example of an "alpha-female" is Lauren Becall's character in How to Marry a Millionaire. In fact, all three women characters kind of typify different "types" of women (limited of course). Marilyn Monroe's character was, of course, the ditsy sex symbol. And Betty Grable's character was down to earth and fun-loving. It's interesting to see the types of men they went after (besides "rich") and who they ended up with. Anyway, I always thought Becall's character was really interesting--beautiful, but shrewd, elegant and classy, but pragmatic. Uncompromising standards and unapologetic about her expectations. She was materialistic, of course, but besides that I always admired that persona.

One of my favorite movies as well

I think what made this film so good was the fact that most of the actors were playing a version of themselves. Becall's character seemed very similar to her real-life persona. Not only did she land Bogie, you notice she was the only one of his wives that could ultimately keep him and had his children....After Bogie's death, Becall was also one of two women (the other being Ava Gardner) that could tame the ultimate bachelor, Frank Sinatra.

 

[CurlyMoo]

^^ what is a secure alpha and an insecure alpha?

Sent from my HTC Desire using HTC Desire

Higher Alpha vs. Lower Alpha

 

[anon123]

interesting article...

for purposes of this thread does/doesn't educational and career obtainment or personal/familial income matter in the final assessment?

Personally, I don't consider certain men/women alphas unless they have reached the highest level of their desired occupation.

As far as alpha males marrying alpha females goes, I do believe most alpha males marry alpha females but it is the extent of her beauty and femininity that establishes her alphasness to most males in my observation and my personal experience. Whereas with males it's his educational obtainment, career status, and income or familial financial pedigree that defines masculine alphaness...

While not as extreme as your view, this plays into my view of "alpha" and "beta" types, too. I think lots of people are talking about a distinction of Type A vs Type B personalities, which is not the same thing, I don't think. An Alpha is at the top of the pack, and there are far fewer of them in number than Betas. They are leaders of a group, so necessarily there are fewer leaders. I think there are plenty of Type A personalities that are not Alpha males. In general, they are the men with the most resources - money, power - and women with the resource that they are generally valued for the most, youth and beauty. Not to say that personality is not a factor, because it is.

I don't know, but I'm inclined to think that this is more a sliding scale than an on/off thing, especially for betas. There are the true Alphas, the top pair of the wolf pack, and then there's everybody else on a sliding scale, with the Omegas at the bottom.

 

[Syrah]

is anyone going to admit they are married to or attracted to betas? y'all make 'em sound so lame compared to alphas.

Agreed. I think folks are basically labeling any man that's on top of his game an "alpha". When in reality, it goes a lot deeper than that.

I always thought that Alphas, while possessing emotional intelligence, rarely acknowledge or react to the stimuli. An Alpha male isn't going to sit and rub your back while you're recounting a story (for the fifth time) about a woman you work with. Its not that he doesn't care, its just that the need to do so simply doesn't cross his mind.

I don't see Alpha males as men who exhibit one persona in their professional lives and another in their personal. There are one person, at all times and they operate in relationships in the same manner that they operate in their careers; competitively. To be on top.

I haven't made my mind up on Jay-Z's Alpha Male status...

 

[luckiestdestiny]

^^ what is a secure alpha and an insecure alpha?

Sent from my HTC Desire using HTC Desire

Again these are my definitions. Because I think the definition of Alpha should be expanded. It's always seen as a win at all costs type of personality when I don't believe that's true.

To me there are secure and insecure people in the world. Insecure Alphas, imo try to dominate others and overwhelm them so to speak

Secure Alphas know how to lead in a just and compassionate manner. And that means sometimes letting others take the lead, graciously. They are usually successful and goal oriented (Barack was my ex of a secure one, so think the opposite of that. I can only assume that he is what I speak of from what I see. He seems happy, easy going, but goal oriented and successful. And his wife seems through her body language to really be happy with him, and he is affectionate with his children. BUt another example is my fiance because at least I know him. He has shown me that you can be a leader, and compassionate/loving at the same time, and also care about others feelings and desires.)

Basically all the negative connotations I've read in this thread in association to Alphas...think the opposite those that have a heart and aren't afraid to show love, make you feel loved, etc.

 

[Syrah]

Depends on how you define an alpha: uncompromising, wants to head fam at all times, thinks they're always right? Nah


But someone like Barack Obama (or my sweetie)...then I'd say sure, I think most definitely. I think Alpha's can lead but also be kind, caring, stand up for you and the family if necessary, and also know when to let others lead if they know a better path, but still strive for success in career. So as long as it's a secure Alpha I'd say yes, but an insecure Alpha I'd say you're asking for trouble. Disclaimer: this is a theory I'm only engaged not married. But have indications from the dynamic of my relationship with my fiance so far.

I wouldn't consider Barack Obama an Alpha Male. He's a Beta IMO. He is phenomenally successful, confident and charismatic. But Barack the professional (POTUS) and Barack the husband/father are two very different people. Alpha's, IMO, don't make this break. They are the same person professionally and personally - and they play, in all circles, to win.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

Agreed. I think folks are basically labeling any man that's on top of his game an "alpha". When in reality, it goes a lot deeper than that.

I always thought that Alphas, while possessing emotional intelligence, rarely acknowledge or react to the stimuli. An Alpha male isn't going to sit and rub your back while you're recounting a story (for the fifth time) about a woman you work with. Its not that he doesn't care, its just that the need to do so simply doesn't cross his mind.

I don't see Alpha males as men who exhibit one persona in their professional lives and another in their personal. There are one person, at all times and they operate in relationships in the same manner that they operate in their careers; competitively. To be on top.

I haven't made my mind up on Jay-Z's Alpha Male status...

But see that's why I propose a new alpha category. Because the idea that Betas are on top of their game doesn't work for me. I consider Betas walk overs, and beyond nice (you can be nice but assert yourself. They seem to not know how to do that).

Versus an alpha man who is ahead of his game but nice and will stand up and assert themselves if need be, but also a good man and attentive to needs.

That's why I said it depends on the definition.

I suspect there are two divisions of alphas and probably a couple types of betas as well...but I could be wrong. BUT I don't think of alphas in terms of guys who are afraid to assert themselves if need be, at all.

By your definition I would like Betas then. But I don't like guys who are afraid to assert themselves if necessary, and do not go for goals.

I do like guys who assert themselves if someone tries to step on them, set goals, but also care and are attentive to their women. So whatever we define that as...sign me up

 

[barbiesocialite]

I wouldn't consider Barack Obama an Alpha Male.

He's a Beta IMO. He is successful. But Barack the professional (POTUS) and Barack the husband/father are two very different people. Alpha's, IMO, don't make this break. They are the same person professionally and personally - and they play, in all circles, to win.

This is a very valid point. Which is why I mentioned the fact that many people do consider him a beta. He is very inconsistent in his personal and professional life which doesnt add up. He is also a people-pleaser which is the antithesis of what it means to be an alpha.

Until I hastily typed out my post about POTUS, I had been undecided about his status. You are correct, he is not a real alpha. Furthermore, although he is President, he isn't a particularly effective politician.....

 

[luckiestdestiny]

I wouldn't consider Barack Obama an Alpha Male.

He's a Beta IMO. He is successful. But Barack the professional (POTUS) and Barack the husband/father are two very different people. Alpha's, IMO, don't make this break. They are the same person professionally and personally - and they play, in all circles, to win.

But could you play to win at being the best husband and father? Like you want to make sure your family is super happy? Would that be a form of "playing to win" in your private life? Just curious to your thoughts on this...

 

[Syrah]

Alpha's aren't just successful, they're at the TOP of their game. He's not just a lawyer - he is THE lawyer in whatever niche he operates in. His name and his reputation precede him. And they believe that the same attributes that lead them to be successful in their professions, can (at times, mistakenly) lead to success in their personal lives.

It takes a VERY special women to be in a relationship with an alpha male because Alpha's struggle to draw distinctions between professional and personal lives. Its not that their cold and unemotional, but moreso that they show and give love in ways that most of us are not accustomed to. Its contradictory to what most women pursuit and expect from relationships.

A beta man believes that your love of him increases his value as a man. Beta men seek to be worthy of you. An alpha man believes that your love of him increases your value as a woman. Alpha men are constantly assessing whether you are worthy of him.

 

[barbiesocialite]

But could you play to win at being the best husband and father? Like you want to make sure your family is super happy? Would that be a form of "playing to win" in your private life? Just curious to your thoughts on this...

playing to win = classic narcissism. Overachieve in everything. Land the best,most attractive & highly desired wife. Breed the most intelligent, accomplished and overachieving children. Doesnt matter how happy they really are, it's how it looks to everyone else that they are happy/perfect/ideal....

i.e. Tiger mom families

 

[luckiestdestiny]

Ok, I'm right now skimming the thread and I still don't understand why beta males get such a raw characterization? I feel that there is a greater allowance for alpha males than there are for betas.

I know plenty of beta males who are leaders in their fields. They won't dominate the room in an obvious way, but they still climb the ladder.

And I'll use this as an example: President Obama. People would characterize him as an alpha male, but if you read about how he approaches conflicts and situations, it is very much a beta frame. He attempts to deal with rifts, he looks for common ground, he's not the type to steer the direction of the conversation immediately. When he was editor of Harvard Law Review, he was known for being the conciliatory factor in dealing with alpha types who viewed other opinions with disdain. People often didn't know where he stood on certain things, but they still listened.

But to me that makes him the dominant one. Are Betas considered dominant? What you say reminds me of a pack of wolves. Say there are two wolves that the pack fears: ferocious, strong, won't back down, etc... but another wolf comes into the mix and basically calms those two down and influences them to do what he wants or at least opens them to other options.... Those Alphas are no longer dominant? So is that still a Beta? I'm not arguing for or against because I'm open to understanding other defintions. Just curious to responses on this.

 

[Syrah]

But could you play to win at being the best husband and father? Like you want to make sure your family is super happy? Would that be a form of "playing to win" in your private life? Just curious to your thoughts on this...

Yes. But where Alpha men struggle is in understanding what it takes to "win" in a relationship is very different from what it takes to "win" professionally. Winning in a relationship means putting other's needs before your own. And as man, that usually means the conscious decision to come last (behind your wife and children) in the needs hierarchy. This notion, IMO, is counterintuitive to Alpha men because they believe that their needs are the "right" needs.

I think a lot of us are taking what we want in a man - the pitbull in the boardroom and the cuddle bug in the bedroom - and attributing that to Alpha men, when thats not what they are. Alpha men are rare, and they are extreme.

I'll take an ambitious Beta over an Alpha any day.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

playing to win = classic narcissism. Overachieve in everything. Land the best,most attractive & highly desired wife. Breed the most intelligent, accomplished and overachieving children. Doesnt matter how happy they really are, it's how it looks to everyone else that they are happy/perfect/ideal....

Okay so Alpha= narcissist? Just trying to see your definition. I took playing to win as trying to be really good at what you do (not at all cost, but just upping your game). So if you're a husband you care about what your wife thinks, you want your children to be happy inside (not just smiling and fake but inside) and you want to be the best man you can for them. But what you're saying is that alpha only wants to win at all cost so the wife, and family is a reflection of him...if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

[Syrah]

But to me that makes him the dominant one. Are Betas considered dominant? What you say reminds me of a pack of wolves. Say there are two wolves that the pack fears: ferocious, strong, won't back down, etc... but another wolf comes into the mix and basically calms those two down and influences them to do what he wants. Whose really in control then? So is that still a Beta? I'm not arguing for or against because I'm open to understanding other defintions. Just curious to responses on this.

IMO, what determines an Alpha, Beta or Gamma, isn't the actions but the motivation behind the actions. If the wolf is intervening for the good of the community (the other wolves) - that's a Beta, or Gamma. If the wolf is intervening to prove to himself and others that he controls the pack, that's an Alpha. It doesn't mean that other people don't or can't benefit, but that the motivation behind the decision wasn't other people's benefit...but their own.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

IMO, what determines an Alpha, Beta or Gamma, isn't the actions but the motivation behind the actions. If the wolf is intervening for the good of the community (the other wolves) - that's a Beta, or Gamma. If the wolf is intervening to prove to himself and others that he controls the pack, that's an Alpha. It doesn't mean that other people don't or can't benefit, but that the motivation behind the decision wasn't other people's benefit...but their own.

Okay then. I'm on board if that's the definition. That type of Beta I'm just fine with: one who stands up when necessary, but also cares about others (the good of others) and is sometimes willing to concede for that good, or lead when necessary but is also a leader.

 

[Syrah]

But see that's why I propose a new alpha category. Because the idea that Betas are on top of their game doesn't work for me. I consider Betas walk overs, and beyond nice (you can be nice but assert yourself. They seem to not know how to do that).

Versus an alpha man who is ahead of his game but nice and will stand up and assert themselves if need be, but also a good man and attentive to needs.

That's why I said it depends on the definition.

I suspect there are two divisions of alphas and probably a couple types of betas as well...but I could be wrong. BUT I don't think of alphas in terms of guys who are afraid to assert themselves if need be, at all.

By your definition I would like Betas then. But I don't like guys who are afraid to assert themselves if necessary, and do not go for goals.

I do like guys who assert themselves if someone tries to step on them, set goals, but also care and are attentive to their women. So whatever we define that as...sign me up

Beta's aren't bums.

And Alpha's aren't always prizes. They're an extreme personality, that I think, are very difficult for 99% of women to deal with.

 

[barbiesocialite]

Okay so Alpha= narcissist? Just trying to see your definition. I took playing to win as trying to be really good at what you do (not at all cost, but just upping your game). So if you're a husband you care about what your wife thinks, you want your children to be happy inside (not just smiling and fake but inside) and you want to be the best man you can for them. But what you're saying is that alpha only wants to win at all cost so the wife, and family is a reflection of him...if I'm understanding you correctly.

Yes, this is accurate of what an alpha male is.

As I stated upthread, a lot of women think they want this but in actuality it's not always a pretty picture IRL. IME the traits that make up true alphas are not necessarily traits that makeup the definition of a good husband to many women, particularly BW. Money, power and status are the defining elements of alphaness so aspiring to obtain an alpha for a functional & fulfiling relationship is pretty much fruitless unless those three traits are a woman's personal goals as well. Hence alpha men usually only work with alpha (mentally) women.

 

[Syrah]

Why adjust the definition of "Alpha" to fit what we want? Why not just be happy liking/loving Beta/Gamma men?

 

[barbiesocialite]

Why adjust the definition of "Alpha" to fit what we want? Why not just be happy liking/loving Beta/Gamma men?

I just think beta has a negative connotation to it and there is also a lack of clarity of what/who is an alpha. There are only a limited number of people that are straight-A-valedictorian types at all times, across all areas of their life. Reality is most people are B or C students in the game of life which is perfectly acceptable and fine. That's not failing or a failure, nowhere close to the bottom. It's just not an alpha, for a man or woman.

 

[Katherina]

barbiesocialite

I disagree that alpha men prefer alpha women. It makes more sense that they would prefer a wife with femininity, which would compliment their alpha-ness (femininity is diametrically opposed to alpha female-ness IMO - how can the two not be in opposition if one of the defining aspects of an alpha is machismo). I can see an alpha man mandating that his wife values his career goals over her own (an alpha woman would not comply).

An alpha man may desire a woman (girlfriend or wife) of suitable intelligence / education in a respectable field (not necessarily a genius, but a woman who can provide compatibility and conversation), but they do not necessarily desire what I would think of as an alpha female (someone so driven and devoted to her career like Janet Jackson's character in For Colored Girls).

Honestly, I think that alpha females prefer alpha males more often than alpha males prefer alpha females.

Also, cosign everyone else who is confused about Barack. His status is ALPHA, but his personality doesn't appear to be...

 

[greight]

But to me that makes him the dominant one. Are Betas considered dominant? What you say reminds me of a pack of wolves. Say there are two wolves that the pack fears: ferocious, strong, won't back down, etc... but another wolf comes into the mix and basically calms those two down and influences them to do what he wants or at least opens them to other options.... Those Alphas are no longer dominant? So is that still a Beta? I'm not arguing for or against because I'm open to understanding other defintions. Just curious to responses on this.

I think this conversation is interesting with the varying definitions. It's fascinating since I think I'm with the minority in this thread in that I prefer Betas, but I never thought Betas would get such a poor rap.

But, let's consider this: extroverts vs introverts. Would you characterize most leaders as extroverts? Or do you think an introvert can lead just as well? I ask this because most would characterize extroverts as the leaders of any group simply because they're visible; but that doesn't make introverts any less capable of leading.

With that said, President Obama is a Beta. Pure and simple. I characterize Alpha-males as those who go after whatever they want, will burn bridges if they have to, and are the type to suck the air out of the room when they arrive (so all eyes are on them).

President Obama wasn't even trying to run for President at the end of 2006. Yes, he had political ambitions, but it was Dick Durbin and a few others that told him that he should probably consider it and ultimately convinced him. He gave FLOTUS veto power over his presidential bid ("Michelle is my rock. I wouldn't do this without her"). He is conflict resolution; he does not feed off of "my way is the right way."

Just because he is President of the United States does not mean he's an Alpha male. It's a leadership position, but his whole political campaign was about rising above the political rancor and creating "purple" states. That's an Alpha male?

One more example... I don't know if I would put Trump as pure Alpha or pure ***hole, but he has the characteristics of one. He absolves himself from mistakes. He goes after the women he wants. He sees himself as the source of truth. He thinks his way his right. He even tried to blow up his net worth in order look like he's dominating the industry when he isn't.

With that said, going to your example of a pack of wolves: I see two different ways of leadership. Alpha males have one style, Beta males have the other. Neither are good or bad, but that doesn't mean that Beta males can't assume leadership roles and still dominate. They simply don't think conflict is necessary to yield results.

 

[~~HoneyComb~~]

I think this conversation is interesting with the varying definitions. It's fascinating since I think I'm with the minority in this thread in that I prefer Betas, but I never thought Betas would get such a poor rap.

But, let's consider this: extroverts vs introverts. Would you characterize most leaders as extroverts? Or do you think an introvert can lead just as well? I ask this because most would characterize extroverts as the leaders of any group simply because they're visible; but that doesn't make introverts any less capable of leading.

With that said, President Obama is a Beta. Pure and simple. I characterize Alpha-males as those who go after whatever they want, will burn bridges if they have to, and are the type to suck the air out of the room when they arrive (so all eyes are on them).

President Obama wasn't even trying to run for President at the end of 2006. Yes, he had political ambitions, but it was Dick Durbin and a few others that told him that he should probably consider it and ultimately convinced him. He gave FLOTUS veto power over his presidential bid ("Michelle is my rock. I wouldn't do this without her"). He is conflict resolution; he does not feed off of "my way is the right way."

Just because he is President of the United States does not mean he's an Alpha male. It's a leadership position, but his whole political campaign was about rising above the political rancor and creating "purple" states. That's an Alpha male?

One more example... I don't know if I would put Trump as pure Alpha or pure ***hole, but he has the characteristics of one. He absolves himself from mistakes. He goes after the women he wants. He sees himself as the source of truth. He thinks his way his right. He even tried to blow up his net worth in order look like he's dominating the industry when he isn't.

With that said, going to your example of a pack of wolves: I see two different ways of leadership. Alpha males have one style, Beta males have the other. Neither are good or bad, but that doesn't mean that Beta males can't assume leadership roles and still dominate. They simply don't think conflict is necessary to yield results.

I agree with your whole post--it tickles me that Beta men are often labled as "weak"--quite the opposite can be true,--I believe there is just too many definitions that are being applied to the two, but neither should get a bad rap and one is not more of a "catch" than the other.

 

[Katherina]

[edit4space]

One more example... I don't know if I would put Trump as pure Alpha or pure ***hole, but he has the characteristics of one. He absolves himself from mistakes. He goes after the women he wants. He sees himself as the source of truth. He thinks his way his right. He even tried to blow up his net worth in order look like he's dominating the industry when he isn't.

[edit4space]

Oh, I know...He is most assuredly the latter . An alpha a-hole.

 

[LaFemmeNaturelle]

Honestly as I read through all of your responses, I don't think any one man perfectly fits into any one category. Initially, as I was reading this thread, I thought, ok maybe I don't know what beta and alpha is. Then I read all the definitions (through google and some posted here) and I think the distinct categorizations are a bit stupid. I've yet to meet one human being who is either alpha, beta, or gamma (except for a FEW people who most of the time suffer from some type of social anxiety disorder or something else). That will be my stance until I find a person IRL to prove me wrong.


ETA: Oh yeah and I stopped reading around page 3 because my last research paper of undergrad (whoop whoop) is due at 4 lol