Alpha Males in the Manosphere
Or: get me out of here
Recently, I wasted an hour of my life getting stuck in a rabbit hole that led to the delusional land known as the manosphere. What a mistake.
Turns out there’s a whole ecosystem of podcasts/YouTube videos in which two or more guys circlejerk about masculinity, being a ‘high-value mate’ (I just threw up in my mouth a little bit1), and what women should - and mostly shouldn’t - do. In short, they make it their quest to help men become ‘alpha males’. I couldn’t hear the rest through all the howling and chest pounding.
As you’ve guessed, this annoys me. What’s more, this annoys me for reasons beyond the foolish false-claim-based misogyny, which is bad enough on its own. These ‘influencers’ (another unpleasant burp) often try to use evolutionary biology/psychology to justify their claims. Fun fact: I did a PhD on the evolution of animal behavior.
*cracks knuckles*
So, let me make one clear statement that runs counter to every article/podcast regurgitated2 in this fabled manosphere: there are no human alpha males.
Can we all go home now?
No, you want more? Don’t mind if I do3.
Let’s go back in time, to 1982, when primatologist Frans de Waal wrote Chimpanzee Politics. In that book, he used the term alpha male, which was popular in animal behavior research in the 1970s and 1980s. You know, the time when science was even more of a male bastion than it (still) is now. Since then, we’ve learned a lot more about animal behavior, not in the least thanks to a more diverse group of scientists. The alpha male wolves that kickstarted the whole concept turned out to be - oopsie - not real. The researcher who originally described them in those terms was enough of a scientist to change his opinion as more data on wild wolves came in. Wolves tend to move in families. Alpha wolves were simply mom and dad.
But what about primates? After all, that’s what Chimpanzee Politics is about and humans are primates too. Surely it’s not too much of a stretch that if we find alpha males among primates it might apply to humans too? Newsflash: you’re not a gorilla. Also, de Waal’s book was picked up by Republican politician Newt Gingrich and he passed it along to his underlings with the message ‘ooh, ooh, alpha’4. Those chest-pounding bootlickers twisted de Waal’s message so much that the primatologist has been spending a lot of time ever since debunking the alpha male idea that resulted from a wrong interpretation of his book.
For argument’s sake, let’s take a brief look at non-human primates.
Yes, there are some species in which we see what’s called a strong vertical dominance hierarchy. AKA a pecking order with the alpha on top who monopolizes access to resources and mates. Think gorillas, some species of baboon, mandrils, capuchin monkeys, and - to an extent - our pals the chimps5. Several ecological and evolutionary influences nudge those primates to such a strong social hierarchy. I’m glossing over massive amounts of detail here, but dominance hierarchies arise out of a combination of inter- and intrasexual competition. Let’s make that even simpler: for strong dominance hierarchies, you ideally live in small groups with stable membership, have differential access to resources, and, depending on the prevailing type of competition, you (tend to) get a positive feedback loop for pronounced sexual dimorphism (size difference between males and females6).
Time to return to the human primate.
Small social groups with stable membership? This is probably the most solid counterargument against human alpha males. Our social world is too complex. We are all part of several groups with different members and changing membership. Alpha in the office, beta at home, for example (even though those terms don’t apply, which is the point…).
Differential access to resources? Sure, but not how the manosphere missionaries see it. Structural social inequality is a systemic problem that extends beyond the control of an individual. It’s more about the inertia of an unjust system that widens the gap between rich and poor than about a single person creating and maintaining that gap. And while that gap disproportionally affects women and minority groups, women are perfectly capable of taking care of their own material needs in this day and age, thank you very much (especially in the Western world which is the manosphere’s main habitat). So, the manosphere howlers are basically trying to impress other men at this point.
Sexual dimorphism? Again, we’re definitely not gorillas. If we look at body size, we see a sexual dimorphism of roughly 15% in humans. Gorillas, in contrast, come in at about 50%. Chimps and bonobos sit around 30%. What’s more, that relatively small human female-male size difference has probably hovered around the same level for at least 150,000 years. So, there was no paleo7 alpha either.
“But wait,” the manosphere minions sneer, “dominant guys are more successful in life and in attracting (conventionally attractive8) women.”
Sure. And yet again, not quite as manosphere acolytes see it. Do you hear that? That faint whisper that tickles the back of your neck and makes you a little bit uncomfortable? Nuance has arrived.
Agreed, not everyone has the same social credit in life and in that mysterious realm called the dating world. And yes, natural and sexual selection continue to shape human behavior and evolution, including the prevalence of and variation in so-called ‘dominance’ behaviors. However, as psychologist Scott Barry Kaufmann explains in this article, when it comes to human attraction it’s not so much about social dominance as it is about accruing social ‘prestige’. In short: confidence and ambition are great, but when they veer in the direction of arrogance and aggression9, they backfire. It’s only when combined with pro-social behaviors such as kindness and generosity that sparks of attraction start flying. Also, could we try to back off from attempting to infer ‘the one true universal checklist’ for potential partners? Preferences differ, people change, and let’s try - gasp - to see each other as individuals. Unfortunately, that message doesn’t get all the clicks and likes…
So where does this leave the idea of the human alpha male? In a 2016 article, neuroscientist Dean Burnett concludes:
Maybe the supposed human alpha male is a combination of disgruntled male wish fulfilment and borderline-pseudoscientific justification for resorting to bullying, intimidation and generally all-round unpleasant behaviour by men hoping to impose their will on a world they find too complex and unnerving so they revert to their baser instincts to get what they want, despite knowing deep down they don’t deserve it and shouldn’t have it?
Yep.
This one turned out to be more labor-intensive than I thought. Feel free to share it with others who might be interested. Think of it as algorithmic selection…
Of course, certain traits are - on average(!) - more desirable, which might make them more ‘valuable’ in terms of finding a partner, but I will not indulge this attempt at commodifying the beautiful chaos that is a person into terms like ‘high value’. Sue me.
They don’t seem to find it masculine to have an original idea now and then. They’d rather copy others in their oh-so-manly hunt for clicks and likes.
Also, what follows assumes a heteronormative setup, as that seems to be the only way of living that the manospherians recognize…
Poetic license.
For chimps especially, ‘alpha’ status (which, by now, is an outdated term in behavioral ecology) is more the result of cunning, caring, and networking beyond sheer physical dominance.
Body size and weight are easy metrics to quantify sexual dimorphism, but not the only ones. Doesn’t change the point.
If you’re interested in more about how silly it is to try to model modern life on a non-existent paleo template, check out Paleofantasy by Marlene Zuk.
Another unspoken and wrong assumption that pervades the manosphere - a woman’s value is her looks. Are you kidding me?
A lot of manosphere influencers have strayed so far in this direction that it’s (almost) sad.
The Manosphere, just like the entire outer right now, are grifters and scammers trying to make money out of the stupidest people.
Very well written piece! I was familiar with the origins of the 'alpha male' term, but you still added some always welcome perspective.
To me the 'manosphere' (what a terrible word by the way) is yet another manifestation of the many little 'cults' that exist online where people can find confirmation for whatever they like. Each of these 'cults' can be educational in moderation (I consume content on anything from gardening to guns), but when you get stuck in one for too long it just starts eroding away your sanity — and it's hard enough to stay sane in this world as it is.