Alpha-Beta Males And Females

January 2, 2008
9:31 AM CST

Here we go, over the top from the trenches of the gender wars, into the minefields and barbed wire of the battle between the sexes. Reader Mike H (the bastard) sends me this chirpy little piece:

In America research shows successful young women are hiding their accomplishments for fear that their academic achievements and financial kudos will scare off potential suitors.

And it is no different here. Researchers from Aberdeen, Bristol, Edinburgh and Glasgow universities discovered that high-IQ women saw marriage prospects fall dramatically, but men with high IQs had little trouble finding a mate. They found that for each 16-point rise in a woman’s IQ, her marriage prospects declined by 40%, but the man’s chances of marriage increased by 35% with each rise.

So far, so good. The reason that accomplished men get access to more owners of desirable poontang is that women are hard-wired to seek out successful mates. And the reason that men shy away from “successful” women is that men are hard-wired to be protectors and providers.

Here’s a tip for the ladies: typically, when men find someone who is in competition with them for the aforesaid sevices, our instinct is to compete, or destroy—because, also typically, that competition has generally arisen from other men.

Now throw a ‘gina into the mix, and we get confused. We are simple creatures, with a simple outlook on life.

Here’s a little secret: my wife has always earned more than I have, even when I was a shining star executive in the retail business. I know that “anecdotes are not data”, but what has been instructive about our experience is that I never worried about that stuff—and instead, became more of a support to my wife as she made a good living. I took away some of the “wifely” stuff that men typically leave to women, and freed her up to be even more successful.

It has not been a journey without some downside. Because, as a man, I am hard-wired to be the provider and protector, there have been times when I’ve felt unworthy, that I’m not doing my bit. This was especially apparent when we discovered that I have not the slightest ability to do what she does—because had we been co-consultants on a couple of jobs, we would now rule the world instead of having to sell guns to pay the gas bill. And when she forsook her consultancy to become a salaried drone (out of necessity, I should add), the resultant loss of gross income was a major downer for me—because, having taken time off the corporate hamster-wheel to raise and educate the kids, I had suddenly become undesirable to corporate recruiters in the job market.

But enough about me. Let’s continue with the article:

The widespread view is that accomplished women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men start out by saying they want a strong, powerful woman and then end up running off with the secretary.  I should know. A few years ago my Swiss banker found my conversation too arty and cast his attentions on a lovely Spanish girl who worked in his office.

Should women pander to male insecurities? Self-help guides exhort us to flatter the male ego; don’t talk too much and let him make all the jokes if you want him to like you. Well I would rather skewer my eyes out than change my personality.

So what is the answer? Someone has to surrender in the sex war. Should women soften their image if they want to marry an alpha?

Short answer: yes. (I’m not interested in the rights and wrongs of the issue, either. If surrender is inevitable, men would prefer that someone else do it—we’re funny that way.)

Longer answer:  as I said earlier, men view competition somewhat differently to the way women do. Women will accomodate, and compromise. Men don’t do that stuff—hence, when Mrs. Bossy becomes too much to handle, it’s off with the secretary we go.

And lest anyone think this is all about Ms. Wonderful, I have a couple of things to say to men, too. If you feel “threatened” or “unworthy” by living with a successful woman, you need to get over it. Yeah, we’re hard-wired this and that and the other. But as The Great One (that would be Heinlein) said (and I paraphrase): ”We are not insects.” We are men. We can adapt—and if we can learn to fly a fighter jet at 30,000 feet, I think we can learn how to adapt to living with a senior vice-president from CitiCorp, don’t you think?

That said, I’m not going to apologize for this male quirk, either. Women and men have been playing a game with clearly-understood and accepted rules for centuries (if not millennia); and yet, after all that societal and even genetic conditioning, when the rules of the game suddenly change, it’s we men who are supposed to change, just as suddenly?

Nor am I going to get into the argument about how ”the rules have always oppressed the Sisterhood! so this change was really A Good Thing.” I’m not interested in that stuff anymore.

We all witnessed the implosion of the 1980s power couple. As women flexed their shoulder pads all you got were stressed couples who were battling for the same role and trying to find a slot in their diaries for dinner.

But now there is a third way. The second-generation feminists—that is, women in their twenties and thirties—have found a new way to solve the alpha-beta paradox. The 21st century sisters have a terrifyingly clear agenda when it comes to finding a mate. They map out their life plans early: rise to the top of their chosen career, get the smart house, the cute kids and curl up in bed with a loving beta male. The alpha girl doesn’t need Mr Alpha to sweep her off her feet and buy her a condo in town; she has enough money to do that herself. She is successful, confident and she wants a caring man who can pick up some of the domestic slack.

My flippant comment about that is if she’s so “successful and confident”, she should be able to handle it when Hubby runs off with Little Miss Tits from Starbucks.

My serious comment is that men are not predisposed to be the non-providing partner in a relationship. Unless they are hopelessly pussified (and don’t get me going on that little issue again), sooner or later, that old male-dominant urge is going to resurface.

And when I read the piece to The Mrs., she made the point that successful women don’t need a beta male—they need a super-alpha male.

More to the point, I’m not so sure that women, deep down, really want a “beta male” as a mate. But I’m not going to presume to speak for women in this regard: it’s just an observation, based on women I know and stories I’ve read. Let’s give Miss Mulvey one last comment:

For young women this shift in economic power has given them new choices. But what about the men? While it is true that many older men seem stuck with the �man as success object, woman as sex object� idea and would never contemplate marrying a ball-breaking alpha earner, men in their twenties and thirties seem to be redefining masculinity.

Having grown up with successful women such as Margaret Thatcher and Madonna as role models, and with popular culture awash with fantasies of all-powerful women, from Lara Croft to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, men are not so uncomfortable with the woman in control. This value system recognises the trend of female supremacy, which while not as yet the norm seems to be pointing the way for future relationships.

Sorry, I had to go off and be sick at the thought of Madonna being a role model, for anyone—and I feel insulted that a condescending woman will consider that a Real Man would even begin to consider that Lara Croft and Buffy the VS could be role models. They’re fictional characters, and wishful thinking at best. And speaking of fantasies, here’s a quick quiz for men.

What would you rather do with Lara Croft: just have sex with her, or marry her?

Oops. Sorry, girls.

What we men see is that instead of Lara Croft, women in positions of power are just as likely to behave like the wretched Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib infamy, and instead of Margaret Thatcher, we actually have far more female politicians who are like Hillary Clinton: Super-Nanny. Likewise, instead of Clarence Darrow, we get… Gloria Allred?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Mulvey’s whole article belongs to the pathetic fallacy that Women Can Have It All; but guess what? nobody can have it all. You wanna be powerful, and successful? Fine. You want a man who will accommodate you? Good luck: you’re going to need it.

Yes, there are men out there who are prepared to take on a lesser role (and I know of at least one—see above). But if you Superwomen thought that the marriage pickings were slim before… just wait until you look for super-alpha males and committed beta males. And even if you find such a man, the odds are not good that it will be a permanent relationship, either, unless everyone does a little growing up.

And frankly, I think all this alpha-beta stuff is a load of old bullshit.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range.