Tags
Commenter Wudang asked me to explain the following:
What do we really mean by alpha and social dominance and the man in the relationship being dominant and why is that not oppressive.
Matt King (King A) followed up with a link to Roissy’s post called Arrogance Vs. Confidence. I think this post is spot on. First, I would like to go through some of Roissy’s points:
Arrogant man – Gets defensive when challenged.
Confident man – Has nothing to prove.
Most have us have seen the arrogant man do this at some point. He’s ready to fight, often at the drop of a hat, to defend his manhood. The confident man, on the other hand, doesn’t feel the need. He knows, without question, who is the man and feels no need to take it further. I’ve seen this presented with humor, with aloofness, and with simple straight, no backing down, eye contact. Now, some will say that not defending oneself might be seen as beta, but there is a vast difference. A beta will tend to drop his eyes, give a slight slump of his shoulders or even raise his hands in a defensive position. The confident man will do none of these things. He will however, if the situation warrants, make it very clear through his eye contact and body language that he will, indeed, throw down should the need arise. The arrogant man will often simple start throwing fists, lamely walk away trying to maintain frame, or will lose himself altogether. I am very keenly reminded of this.
Arrogant man – Childish.
Confident man – Child-like.
The arrogant man tends to come across as childish when things don’t go his way. He sort of stamps his feet and walks off sulking. The confident man simply fixes the situation. His child-like ways often will come out around those he loves, when teasing and playing around with his wife and in playing with his kids. Confident men aren’t afraid to play with kids like they are kids and have a wonderful time doing it. The mirth one sees in their eyes is genuine and infective.
Arrogant man – Aggressive.
Confident man – Resolute.
Arrogant man – Threatens.
Confident man – Messes with their minds (not a direct quote, modified for language)
This one is interesting to observe. The arrogant man is quite obvious. He hears something he doesn’t like and he will get loud and make various threats. He is standing up for himself, but it is almost too much. He is losing his frame in his anger and it diminishes him. The confident man will play with someone’s head. Often, the person on the receiving end won’t quite know for certain what happened and if it was derogatory, funny, witty, etc. It is a very good example of the male hamster spin. This is when you can almost see the person being messed with almost turn his head to the side in wondering what just happened? Did he miss something? (I know there have got to be a thousand examples of this on youtube and I am drawing a complete blank.)
On to one of the biggest differences:
Arrogant man – Domineering.
Confident man – Dominant.
The definition of domineering is: Assert one’s will over another in an arrogant way (google search) or inclined to exercise arbitrary and overbearing control over others (Merriam-Webster). A domineering man will often use some kind of threat to assert his will. He usually has no other way to enforce it. Therefore, people do what he wants to avoid some kind of a bad outcome. A dominant man most often inspires people to do what he asks. They want to do it to please him. He is well liked, yet often has very high standards. He will not respect anyone and everyone. People must earn his respect and they strive to do so. People around men like this will often go above and beyond for them and they will be respected for it. This will drive them to continue to work in this fashion. As an example of this dynamic, I am reminded of Mel Gibson’s character in We Were Soldiers (though it’s been too long since I have seen it to pick a specific scene).
The terms dominant and domineering have been hijacked in recent years in an attempt to bolster women and put men in their perceived place. Feminists referred to the patriarchy as domineering in their attempts to end it. But, while there were certainly some domineering men, most men were simply dominant. They had a family and a home to care for and they did it. These men knew that in order to care for the family, tough decisions must be made and they were often at the expense of what their women said they wanted. Here’s the thing, though. Their women respected them. They may have been hurt they didn’t get their way, but the decision was made and it was what was best. She may not have overtly understood (though, I think far more women did understand this then) that the decision made was best for all the family members, including her, she knew on some level that things were good, safe, and secure. She could depend fully on this dominant man, and she loved and respected that (Need I say that, obviously, not all marriages were like this and that there were domineering men? They were still fractionally small compared to the dominant man.)
Unfortunately, many women and men now conflate domineering and dominant and cannot (will not?) see the difference. They fear dominant men because they do not understand them. I also sometimes wonder if some people have never really met a good, dominant man. Some people cannot tell the difference, especially if they have not been able to garner his respect. They will still deride him as domineering, very possibly because of this lack of respect. It may be easier to deride than accept their shortcomings in his eyes.
On the Rock 
Good post. Thanks. Plenty to think about.
Dominant versus domineering. Where can you see a difference ? From history, I’d point to the two generals that duked it out at the Battle of Chancellorsville. And this is what Lincoln wrote to his general :
And what happened at the Battle of Chancellorsville :
Lee won that battle. Domineering vs Dominance. And Lee was dominant.
And yet, as you said, his army won the battle. These men were inspired by a dominant man and they pushed themselves for him. They believed in him and his goal and were willing to die for this inspiration. Dominant men are powerful. People long to be around them and do what it takes to stay there. A dominant man’s vision becomes the vision of others.
FYI: I left a comment at you blog and for some reason, all my comments at other blogs are ending up in interwebz ethos. Maybe in your spam filter?
Dominant: “Go to bed.”
“Put this in the microwave for a minute.”
“Call me.”
These are examples I recall off the top of my head that dominant men have said to me. Very simple commands that are easy to follow 🙂 Simple and effective communication.
Yes, it was in the spam filter.
Keen observations. And any post with a reference to Tombstone is a post I like. Truly the last of the great old-fashioned Westerns, and a flawless film.
I’m not big into the “Wolverine” reference, though, or any comic book reference. Boys today are raised on superheroism rather than heroism; extraordinary powers from mutant men facing surreal challenges, rather than extraordinary courage from ordinary men facing real challenges. Steyn, following the unknown master James Bowman (whom he quotes), had a great article recently about this recently. Bowman’s thesis for years, which nobody has seemed to notice, is that the growing reliance of our entertainment on fantasy over reality is stunting and emasculating us. Just look at the most popular films of last year to get a taste of hollow-chested nerdboy escapist zeitgeist.
Not that the Tombstone scene you posted doesn’t suffer a bit from its cinematic romanticism in its portrayal of pristine unblinking courage against quickly unmasked beta bravado. But the circumstances retain enough non-CGI reference to reality that we can relate to a virtuous ideal, as opposed to the adolescent dreamworld of omnipotence in colorful leotards where the weakling — at last! — can have cathartic revenge against the bullies who defined his life.
Let’s take after Marellus above and learn from real examples, warts and all, so that when our moment of truth comes the courage required of us is not a wholly foreign expectation. We clamor for examples of leadership from a vast murky pool of beta mediocrity, and finding none, invent cartoons out of caricatured virtues with which no man can relate. Only a boy can imagine “Wolverine’s” “go f— yourself” is true confidence, and not the comic-book simulacrum of it.
Matt
Stingray wrote:
I’m also facing global WordPress moderation: here, at Rollo’s, and at Roissy’s. I thought I pissed on their rug last night or something.
Oh, and where is Marellus’ blog? Your link goes to your “gravatar,” brother. I’ll put you on my hit-list, as I am wearing out my welcome at Roissy’s and tiring of the grade-school ethos of strict pick-up totalitarianism.
Matt,
Of course, you’re right about Wolverine. I won’t lie and say I am not wholly entertained by some of those movies though. They are fun. Tombstone, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Hang “Em High, even Two Mules for Sister Sarah (hell, any Clint Eastern western. No, most any spaghetti western, really) are entertaining, but they are more than that. They illicit a feeling of respect whereas The Avengers, X-Men and a couple of others are just plain fun.
I admit that I never thought that superheroes could be emasculating but it makes a whole lot of sense. Personally, I can’t wait to watch lots of westerns and film noir when my kids are old enough. Maritus laughs at me because the men in the film noir are such . . . MEN. I am goo-goo eyed the whole movie. One of my favorites is Kansas City Confidential. Fantastic.
Maybe this scene would be a far better example.(start at 30:25 to 32:22)
Matt,
Here it is:
http://marellus.wordpress.com/
Also, thinking on movies, we go maybe once every two years for the reason Steyn said at the end of his article. Everything is CGI and there is no story. Hence all the westerns and film noir. Though, I am reminded of Second Hand Lions. Michael Caine and Robert Duval playing wholly dominant men. Wonderful movie with great characters. I think it is fully story run. No CGI.
The last interesting movie I watched was called The Iron Lady and was about Margaret Thatcher. Interesting in its portrayal of a woman who chose career over family. Favorite line: “I don’t want to die washing a tea cup.” 🙂
From the Mark Steyn piece:
. . . music has fled our schools: In California and New Jersey, you can reach twelfth grade without having heard a note of Mozart. At the school concert I attended this month, the students contented themselves with insipid group karaoke from the current hit parade
This is very sad, but also true. People are not taught to appreciate music any more, but they will always, always be moved by great music, even when they don’t understand why.
Here is your KC Confidential link that starts you at the appropriate time. Good stuff. Much better than the faux machismo as imagined by the figment of some teenage geek’s id called “Wolverine.”
Stingray wrote:
Of course they are playing the singular piece of universally accessible Western music (since bastardized by that very accessibility). And still many of them gawk with iPhones rather than absorbing the experience unmediated.
I dedicate this line to you, Mrs. Maritus:
Wer ein holdes Weib errungen,
Mische seinen Jubel ein!
(Whoever has snagged a devoted wife,
Join in our jubilation!)
To this day, I get goose bumps hearing that VOR GOTT! sung properly, despite it having been heard in Die Hard and Honda Civic commercials. I will not watch A Clockwork Orange nor forgive the dead Kubrick for molesting my eyes with 1970s-psychedelic grotesqueries married to the sounds of The Ninth. I don’t care what sociological point he was trying to make or what products those companies want to hawk. These are sacrileges.
The final line of the closing argument to a jury of atheists would be the following, coaxed from the throats of 300 singers, an infinitesimal fraction of the angelic choir we so crudely attempt to imitate:
Brüder, über’m Sternenzelt
Muss ein lieber Vater wohnen.
(Brothers, over the heavens
Must a loving Father dwell.)
“It is that beauty the great poets dream about but describe most poorly and inadequately.”
Matt
Well isn’t that something. How did you get the whole movie to break down to a specific time?
And then there is the music of Ennio Morricone.
You erase everything up to the video code and add #t= . Then you put in the desired time with m for minutes and s for seconds, e.g., 30m25s.
It doesn’t work when you are embedding a YouTube on WordPress, only when you provide a link.
There’s a difference between a man who is dominant and a man who is domineering.
A dominant man takes charge and leads. A domineering man is demanding, arrogant, churlish and unpleasant. A dominant man protects and leads those under his charge. A domineering man cracks the whip, pushes too hard and then complains when things don’t go his way. A dominant man commands respect by his mien and bearing, and his wife and children are safe and secure with him. A domineering man gets no true respect, only superficial submission, and his wife and children secretly hate and fear him behind his back.
It appears to me the manosphere does not advocate for male domineering. It seeks, and celebrates, male dominance.
We agree. However, so often, those outside the manosphere who might be threatened by what it teaches (for many different reasons) often do not see it that way. Then, as a form of protection, the words domineering and oppressive are thrown out to shut down conversation. These words should not be able to shut down any conversation as they are so far off base.
For example, I saw your conversation regarding Game 2.0 at Badgers place. I could see these terms being thrown around by women who want that. It would be a way to find somewhat stronger men, but keep them in check as well.
“A dominant man takes charge and leads.”
With all due respect, Deti, even if we take everything you’ve said here at face value it still strikes me as wankery overall. No matter how excellent their talents or noble their character, the simple fact is that not all men can be leaders; it’s mathematically impossible. So this ultimate grail of dominance, as you define it, is simply not something that anything like a majority of men can aspire to. Do you really think that “take charge and lead” is in any way practical advice for all men? Have you ever been in a room of 20 men, where each and every one is simultaneously trying to take charge and lead? worse chaos is hard to imagine.
Your comment, and by extension the manosphere as a whole, starts to look like the almost cultish worship of a few, gifted individuals, with very little practical relevance for men at large. I would say, if you want to worship Superman, then move to Metropolis where it’ll only be a local call.
Uncalledfor,
In the grand scheme of things, you are correct. However, any man can stand up and take charge of and lead his wife and family. Also, as situations vary, different leaders will emerge. A man can be a leader in his martial art class or on the baseball field. He may not be the leader in a different situation. No man can be leader of all situations.
Standing up and leading at something, being dominant of his family and striving for more in his life, will lead to respect from many women and very often, his wife or girlfriend.
Yes, I am a quiet, introverted, bloke. But I found myself in a leadership position at work. And my wife responds well to my taking leadership and responsibility at home. I think though that women respond best to your doing it more than talking about it. Also, don’t push her. Just lead, and she will usually follow. Leadership doesn’t have to be noisy. It can be just setting a tone.
“So this ultimate grail of dominance, as you define it, is simply not something that anything like a majority of men can aspire to. Do you really think that “take charge and lead” is in any way practical advice for all men? ”
Yes. A man should have hobbies, activities, pleasures in life where he is able to lead. He should also lead his household. I believe that those are healthy, necessary things for male psychology and happiness.
Hell, how hard would it be for a man to get a group of men together for a weekly BBQ where its men only time, to cook some meet, enjoy a drink, and discuss life? THAT right there is being a leader.
How hard is it for a man to see a problem in his neighborhood – anything minor – and organize and lead a group of people to just fix it? Cut out the BS of applying to some council or organization to do it for you and just. go. do. it.
That’s leadership. That’s what you need as a man to have a healthy amount of control, ego, self esteem, and leadership in your life. Its the minimum you need to keep a woman attracted to you besides being a leader at home, but its usually also the only amount you need for most women unless they’re entitlement whores.
as i’ve said before men have a hard time learning the difference in being dominant and confusng it by being dectatorial.
Pingback: Biblical Alpha: Proverbs – Part 2 « Free Northerner
Pingback: A Woman in Love « On the Rock
Pingback: My Husband Got All Dominate On His Ass! | The Submission of Elle
Thank you for this post. I just referenced it in a post on my blog that I made today about a situation that occurred yesterday that perfectly illustrates the difference between a dominant man and a domineering man.
http://thesubmissionofelle.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/my-husband-got-all-dominate-on-his-ass/
Reblogged this on qqquietone's Blog.
Pingback: A Woman in Love | Girls Being Girls
Pingback: On the Rock
Occasionally, I browse weird subjects and dominace vs domineering happened to be one of them. The explanation you gave these two subjects were enlightening.
However, I would like to argue two points. You said that most men are dominant. Why do you think men are the only ones? Women can be dominant too. Most with strong will and leadership are dominant. We are all humans, the only difference is that women suffer pain for a week every month.
In addition, you said:
“They may have been hurt they didn’t get their way, but the decision was made and it was what was best.”
How do you know if the decision was for the best? People are subjective creatures, most times they can’t get over their emotional bias and choose wrong decisions, as we have seen in history. Two heads are better than one. Why can’t women and men compromise?
Beka,
I’ve been very busy of late and I apologize for this short and quick answer. In a few weeks, if things slow down for me, I’ll try to give you a more in-depth answer.
Why do you think men are the only ones?
I don’t think that. Never have. Your average man is going to be more dominant than your average woman. It’s a bell curve, and a woman at the top of the female dominance bell curve is still likely going to be less dominant than a man at the top of the male bell curve.
We are all humans, the only difference is that women suffer pain for a week every month.
This is simply untrue. Men and women are very different while still being human. While equal in value, we are very different. Even our brains are wired differently.
How do you know if the decision was for the best?
Because in most instances, even if the decision was the wrong one, it shows trust and in the long run, this can be far more important than and bad decision. Now, before you come back with a man that made a horrible decision that may have ruined his family, yes, I understand that this does occasionally happen. But it is not the norm.
Why can’t women and men compromise?
I’m not saying they can’t and in the marriages that work like I describe in this blog, the woman is second in command. She is the help-meet. The one the man trusts to help him make big decisions. However, there are some decisions that just can’t be compromised.
Thank you, Stingray. You were very kind in your response, and pretty complete for a quick answer (though I’d love to see the full edition). I was strongly tempted to do a point by point of the logical fallacies that swarmed over her comment. Then again, I was in sort of an extended bad mood. Glad I held my fire.
Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar.
It’s still unfair if the man is dominant. It’s supposed to be EQUAL. Why can’t y’all get that through your heads? Women are not “supposed” to be submissive to men. We are human beings, too. It should be a give and take. Also, messing with people’s heads is wrong, too. Don’t be petty or manipulative. There are so many good men out there who are not like this, either. Ladies, find one of them. A guy you can REALLY be friends with, with an even back and forth. Feminists do not seek domineering OR dominance. We expect, however, to be EQUAL. We are not lesser than you.
While I tend to agree with most of your article – mostly the difference between dominant and domineering – towards the end you end up in the same place we’ve been in for too long. A more evolved species will be that which no longer needs labels and roles such as ‘dominant’ but we’re not there yet. As a result we are seeing more and more women choosing to be single, especially as they get older because they have realized they are capable of doing for themselves what you portray a dominant man role as being. Your same old paradigm is a transactional model that trades power for power whereas an evolved model would not need one role to be dominant because that aspect would interchangeable with the woman at times taking a more forward approach when her skills and experience warrant and stepping back when it would clearly be advantageous for the man to do so but there would be no recognition that one was more so or less so or better at etc… as it would be a seamless effort of both. Your model is still a one half plus one half equals one where if sent asunder for any reason their role is now compromised and incomplete. A more evolved couple would be one already complete person plus another already complete person equals two operating as one. Two people operating each in their full capacity as both a dominant and submissive (to use your archaic terms) fluid personality that can blend, ebb and flow as situationally needed yet remain their own intact personality.
I think a better descriptor of your ‘dominant’ man – or woman – would be ‘prominent’ as the term dominant etymologically and literally means to rule over and is a more male originated concept. Prominent means to ‘stand out from‘ as most confident males and females do and they stand out because they are not trying to rule over others but with others by simply including and inspiring them to the point where they feel they are the ones of accomplishment. As in Lao Tzus Four Kings.
Here comes the age old debate- to be strong and “manly” without being dominating/controlling and while holding the concept of equality between the genders?- as one automatically would think dominating means to control another, which erodes the quality of equality.
So women want men who don’t just ask questions like: “where do you wanna eat today?”, vs “let’s go to so-and-so”, fine, but then this seems to imply that men should ignore the input of their female companions and decide entirely on their own? – so then what about equality then?
Also, when u mentioned the olden days with men making decisions their own way without their wives and the wives regretting it but “knowing it was for the best” – idk, I’m sorry but that sounds “domineering” to me and not “dominant”- according to your definition bc you’re being a tyrant again where it’s either your way or no way, right? So I think that’s a bad example of “dominant” in your words. Yes, having a quiet, stoic and stable strength may be more in line with “dominant” than the loud, obnoxious, T. Rex type ppl…
As a man, I often struggle with this, bc I get conflicting messages all the time- you have “balls” if u make bold decisions without anyone’s input, even if that other person is involved jointly in a certain issue, or, “who wears the pants in this relationship?” (which is quite ironic for men, since much time is spent in the eternal goal of removing one’s pants, not in “wearing” them, though I know what the expression actually means). Oh, and here’s a favourite one- if you’re out in public at maybe a party or something, and your gf or SO gets drunk, or just becomes a drama queen without even being drunk, and starts acting embarrassingly, you’ll have ppl say “oh, he can’t ‘control’ his wife/gf”- well what in tf ppl? On the one hand I have to be the take-charger and controller of the situation, but then if I’m supposed to “control” by default, the wife or gf, then how in the hell are we equal?? But then see, women also play into this damaging paradigm while championing equality bc they, like men, are also constantly bombarded with messages that if their man has to always ask them questions about certain decisions, then those are those puzzy, “nice”, shy, low self esteem schoolboy guys; yet, if they bring out their inner barbaric cavemen, then suddenly now that’s considered acceptable- so this is contradictory- you want gentlemen who respect and consider women as equal on the surface, with allowable periods of spirit possession of these same men by caveman entities when appropriate on occasion?? You see he problem with these societal expectations and norms, and how much confusion is generated?
Obviously, here are some common sense themes for being a man- like being assertive, standing up for your rights, and the rights of those around you- like friends, family, coworkers etc.,and not being a pushover. Obviously, women would not like whiny babies who constantly doubt and need to question them about everything, but again it seems that for men to take the “lead” in relationships, he must make his own decisions without even considering what a woman would want- at least in the old world paradigm- but then some women will say “back then, men were ‘men’, and women loved them for it”- so it’s reinforcing that that’s how men should behave, well for f’s sake then, it would now appear that we’re back to square one, are we not?
As a man, if you follow these norms and lack much cerebral activity, you will live prolly happily enough (except of course where it comes to the chances of getting custody of children in divorce, or the chances of receiving sympathy and support from others in divorce as mostly ladies know that she has most of the power and leverage over these issues and may try to blackmail the poor dude via threats of calling police and feigning abuse if he doesn’t comply with her bc lets face it, 99.9% of the time, everyone will take the ladies’ side, EVEN if the man is the innocent one here, but there’s unfortunately a good reason for that: men traditionally have done and still do all the crime- at least 8-9 times/10, so my gender’s own bad behaviour has created this mess…).
But, if you tend to think a lot about things, you tend to feel guilty as a man, for being a
man- for being the eternal oppressor, the dominator, the “abuser”, the bully, the perpetual “initiating offender”, while the female is seen to be the perpetual “responding defender” who is always the victim. For God’s sake look at the explicit vulgar terminology used like in pop culture today- like a college dude flaunting his “skills” with women where he would say to his buddies: “Dude, I always *slay* it”- note the word *slay*, as if the lady is something to be slain, like a dragon, in a violent way and that the man is the “hero”, and his unit is some kind of a brutal WMD. This is a very destructive and dysfunctional view of men, women and sexual relations between the two, but it unfortunately seems to exist as “normal” without anyone even questioning how degrading of a viewpoint it is to the woman…so then what are men to do? Shall they examine their own genitals in disgust, as symbols of oppression, violence and sexual violence and quietly proclaim “bad, bad Willy” and tuck and hide poor Willy away into the abyss between their testicles, while hanging their heads in shame?”