I have no idea what this thread is about

[gauchecritic]

ABG's thread about self image has prompted one poster (S-Des) to include use of the phrase 'Alpha Male'.

My all too fallible memory not-with-standing this is the first time that I can recall seeing this phrase on the AH, although I've heard it used many times on many occasions and a quick google will give better than 1.5 million hits.

First of all, I really hate the phrase when applied to humanity.
The first time I ever came across the phrase was in reference to chimpanzees whose 'alphaness' depends almost entirely on strength and agility. (Bonobos apparently can have some kind of political method in leadership) I hate the application to humanity because, for me, it carries nothing but brutish connotation and does nothing to carry forward the thinking, sensitive aspects (sensitive as in the senses) of modern man.

Use of the phrase about individual people (almost exclusively the male, though you will find many articles about alpha females) brings us down to the level of the animal, intent on procreation and eating and wholly ignores that which our society and lives are built on; cognative ability.

quoting from S-Des

I think a lot of male writers have trouble writing a male character that's not an alpha male unless they're making him a wimp.

So instead of derailing ABG's thread I thought I'd start this one, but I don't really know what it is supposed to be about. I'll just tell you what I thought of when I read that line above.

Does anyone recall that episode of 'Happy Days' when the school ballet dancers took on Fonzy's bike gang? Or the very last scene from 'Billy Elliot' when he's waiting to appear from the wings? (and the whole gay thing which was touched upon throughout)

I just hope anyone reading this can come up with the question or discussion that I'm trying to raise because I don't know what it is.

Real men aren't women?
Populist phrases shouldn't be used by non-scientists?
Muscles abhor sensitivity?

 

[impressive]

I'm finding a lot of variance in the "alpha male" concept which arises from the animal kingdom and that which has developed in the romance genre. It almost seems counterintuitive to me to write (my perception of) an alpha male as the male protagonist -- and yet, that is what (publishers believe) the readers want.

However, I'm learning that my perception and the industry perception are not in sync. Alpha male does NOT mean misogynistic asshole to romance readers.

Interviewers often ask, "Tell me about your hero." ... and I don't know how to respond. I wanna say, "What hero? Must I even HAVE a hero in my work? How sexist is THAT?"

So ... I guess what I'm rambling about is stereotypes, perceptions, etc. Here are a couple links I found interesting:

http://www.likesbooks.com/alpha.html

http://www.wewriteromance.com/articles/alphaheroes-katewalker.html

http://www.roadtoromance.ca/articles/articlebetahero.htm

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm familiar with the concept of "alpha male" from ethology, where they use it to refer to the dominant male in a pack of social animals, like wolves. From there, the term started showing up in Corporate get-ahead manuals, where CEO's liked to flatter themselves with the term, and then I started seeing in in BDSM adds, where Doms liked to strut around and proclaim themselves hard-core alpha-males.

The next place I saw it, though, was in discussions about romantic fiction or romantica, where publishers would say thing slike, "We're looking for typical romantic fiction involving attractive heroines and bad boy or alpha-male heroes..."

Apparently what they mean is what used to be known as "he-men", a man's man, rugged individualist--a hero. That's not really surprising, since so much romance fiction is based n the "Beauty and the Beast" fantasy in which a woman's charm and beauty conquers and domesticates a male's strength and power. The form demands a strong male. (For some reason, these days it seems to demand an alpha male in a kilt and bare chested. Scottish warriors are all the rage lately.)

I've dealt with alpha males too. In my earlier and more cliched BDSM fiction, my dom was usually rich, confidant and, of course, commanding. But these guys aren't really characters as much as they are caricatures, Classical BDSM is a very conservative, very rigid type of fiction in which readers seem to demand caricature, exaggeration, and cliche. (In fact, that's true of most porn in general.)

In the stuff I take more seriously, though, my male leads tend to be more like myself and other real men I know--not very confident, confused, and very often scarred and damaged. I write a lot about misfits, too, because I know the feeling, and we all can identify with loneliness and isolation. It's probably the one motivation we can all empathize with.

Quite honestly, it's much more difficult dealing with less-than-perfect heroes, and it often makes me uneasy. But lately I'm hearing from female readers who are really interested in getting more inside the man's head in romance and porn too. They want to know what the male really thinks of all this sex and love business, and not in cliched terms either. Of course, that's harder to write, because it involves telling the truth rather than dealing in cliche, and fuguring out what the truth is and describing it is always difficult.

There's a trade-off though. In my view, pornography is sexual propaganda. Pronography is fiction whose sole purpose is to sexually arouse the reader. It's idealized fantasy, so you want the beautiful bodies and cliched characters, the effortless, guiltless sex and multiple simultaneous orgasms and gallons of come. You lose that when you start bringing in reality. The literary value goes up, but the pornography value goes down.

EDITED TO ADD: Exaggerated Alpha-Male behavior is one of my prime back-click triggers when I'm reading. All I have to see is some mention of the size of his cock or his black belt in karate and his sculpted body and I know the guy's an oaf and I'm out of there.

 

[Pure]

interesting thoughts, mab

 

[LadyJeanne]

Alpha males get the girls.

No, it's not me saying that - it's guys saying that (same guys who bemoan the 'nice guy' syndrome, though nice isn't the problem - being doormats and/or lack of chemistry is usually the problem). Most guys don't fantasize about sensitive and thoughtful men - they fantasize about strong, powerful, manly men getting the girls.

Anyway, stands to reason if men believe alpha males get the girls, they will write/film/etc. about alpha males getting the girls, with the occasional Revenge of the Nerds fantasies as exceptions.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

To me, an alpha male simply means the most intelligent and willful man in the room. A natural Dom or leader, who isn't necessarily physically bigger and tougher. Nor is he the obvious choice. He could be that seemingly nerdy lawyer who puts on a shy front but is a free-thinker and a killer in the courtroom. He might not be the sort that gets every girl, but he gets the ones that he pursues. He knows what he wants out of life and takes it without apologies for being himself. The jock in high school might not be an alpha male. He just might seem like one at first. No one would have taken Socrates for an alpha male, or Nietzsche, for that matter. But I would consider them that.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I view the "alpha male" as a dominant personality who is likely to be physically imposing as well. He's aggressive. A leader. First to the scene of the crime/battle. People will listen to him. He's got a lot of charisma.

I think it's a perfectly acceptable term that can be applied to humans just as easily as apes. While I think of it as an expression of mainly physical qualities, it incorporates mental aspects as well. He has an iron willpower. Not necessarily the smartest, but he has cunning, or whatever you want to call it.

I don't think of alpha males as people who are in touch with their feminine side. As has been said, he's a man's man.

I hope I've just contributed something worthwhile and wasn't just spouting the obvious.

 

[3113]

Use of the phrase about individual people (almost exclusively the male, though you will find many articles about alpha females) brings us down to the level of the animal

Um, but we are animals. And we do often fall into animal (pack) behavior, following the charismaic, decisive leader. Especially males who, either due to nature or nuture, seem inclined toward pecking orders. I've seen it in action--guys who argue until one other guy says, "That's enough" in a deep voice and they fall right into place. Pretty amazing.

I also remember an experiement done with four-year-olds. They had a guy and a girl leading the kids, and they asked the kids to pick out a colored hat. The guy was in charge, and the boys picked out blue hats like him, the girls picked yellow like the woman. But when they did the experiment again, putting the woman in charge, the boys as well as the girls went for yellow hats. Seems the boys wanted the hat that went along with whoever was in power.

I can't, of course, say how valid this experiment was, but it does raise some interesting questions.

That being said, Sev makes an excellent point:

To me, an alpha male simply means the most intelligent and willful man in the room. A natural Dom or leader, who isn't necessarily physically bigger and tougher. Nor is he the obvious choice. He could be that seemingly nerdy lawyer who puts on a shy front but is a free-thinker and a killer in the courtroom.

I don't think anyone would have classified Hitler or short little Napoleon or even aristocratic FDR or bulldoggish Chruchhill as Alpha Males, but there those guys were, unifying and leading nations into war. Some of them came close to ruling the world.

As pointed out, there's Alpha Male in fiction which includes the big cock, karate training and a kilt

Then there's true Alpha Male. And that's neither a good thing or a bad. He's a person who can capture attention, unify and lead and win the argument. That might be a really horrible and nasty bully, or it could be...well, Jesus Christ.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Um, but we are animals. And we do often fall into animal (pack) behavior, following the charismaic, decisive leader, that being said, Sev makes an excellent point:


I don't think anyone would have classified Hitler or short little Napoleon or even aristocratic FDR or bulldoggish Chruchhill as Alpha Males, but there those guys were, unifying and leading nations into war. Some of them came close to ruling the world.

As pointed out, there's Alpha Male in fiction which includes the big cock, karate training and a kilt

Then there's true Alpha Male. And that's neither a good thing or a bad. He's a person who can capture attention, unify and lead and win the argument. That might be a really horrible and nasty bully, or it could be...well, Jesus Christ.

Well stated. Thanks for the back-up.

 

[AngeloMichael]

Interesting discussion and opinions all around. Regarding Alpha-males in fiction and what Dr. Mab said:

EDITED TO ADD: Exaggerated Alpha-Male behavior is one of my prime back-click triggers when I'm reading. All I have to see is some mention of the size of his cock or his black belt in karate and his sculpted body and I know the guy's an oaf and I'm out of there.

I would agree with you if this type of character was the protagonist of the story, but what if he was the antagonist?

In describing one of the main characters of R. Scott Bakker's "Prince of Nothing" series, one person memorably said:

Kelhus is a fanboy fantasy char - unstoppable, irresistable, and god-like compared to the people around him. If he wanted it, he got it. Nothing stopped him - laws, morals, decency, NOTHING.

and yet I found this story incredibly fascinating because of the protagonists and anti-heroes that are consistantly trying to bring this mother fucker down. These characters are not perfect, in fact they are all seriously fucked up, yet they are the ones I root for. However, I like reading about the uber-alpha-male in measured doses, seeing into his machinations and I like this character being so seemingly perfect and powerful because who want's a pussy villian?

 

[FallingToFly]

To me, an alpha male simply means the most intelligent and willful man in the room. A natural Dom or leader, who isn't necessarily physically bigger and tougher.

That's pretty much a summary of my opinion as well, but I do have a bit to add.

According to most, my husband is an "alpha" personality. He's actually a very sweet, loving, romantic man, but he carries an air of authority that has nothing to do with abrasiveness and everything to do with being confident and comfortable in his own skin.

By the same token, I -am- an "alpha" female, again, not because I'm abrasive, bitchy, or vicious as a rule (I can be, just like anyone else) but because I made peace a long time ago with who and what I am.

Now, from a social standpoint, there is a definite difference between alpha and "beta" personalities in situations where any kind of competition for opposite sex attention (or same sex, I suppose) can be found.

I quit going out to any kind of social gatherings (parties, clubs, bars for a drink after work) without at least a couple of not-easily-intimidated friends because of the sheer cattiness women who are insecure in themselves will show a woman who doesn't give a damn about the rest of the world's opinions. I don't want their boyfriends, or girlfriends, but try to convince them of that. Several of my female friends have discovered the same problem - to solve it, we go out less frequently, as a group, and ignore the women who take issue with us.

Similarly, my husband, if he goes out to a pool hall or to a bar for a drink, will usually get some guy who wants to say something because he thinks my husband is "after" his girl. His usual response is "I have a woman who keeps me completely satisfied, and allows me to share her girlfriends if they're so inclined. Why would I want yours again?" He has also quit going out, except on the rare guys' night out with his buddies and family members.

This isn't an uncommon thing. The next time you go to a party, or a bar, try to pick out someone who radiates confidence, and watch them. They get a lot of dirty looks, a lot of whispered comments or elbow nudges as they pass, and generally, a lot of flak. They don't have to be beautiful, or wealthy, or exude physical power, it's how they carry themselves that just simply irritates anyone who doesn't have that same confidence. It's something that the animal world qualifies "alpha" and all it means is that this particular individual has proven, repeatedly, to be a fit mate, and can sire strong, resilient offspring who can cope with the world. In people, from what I've observed, it pretty much means the same thing.

When you get down to the basics, humans are just animals who let thought get in the way and fuck everything else up.

 

[kendo1]

Alpha Male.

 

[gauchecritic]

Maybe this was my point

Can you really have an alpha male human?

In social animals, the alpha male or alpha female is the individual in the community whom the others follow and defer to. Where one male and one female fulfill this role, they are referred to as the alpha pair.

Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges. Canines also show deference to the alpha pair in their pack, by allowing them to be the first to eat and, usually, the only pair to mate; wolves are a good example of this.

The status of the alpha is generally achieved by means of superior physical prowess. However, in certain highly social species such as the bonobo, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take his/her place.

(My bold)

Fair enough we do follow certain animal traits in certain situations but I contend that because we use language we are not animals. This being the case the term Alpha Male can only and exclusively be used in terms of physical ability.

In human society the attributes of Alphaness (deference, leadership etc) depend so much on context that the term is effectively meaningless.

Hitler, Napoleon etc weren't exactly Adonises yet they've been given as examples of Alpha Male. It's giving title using different yardsticks, and I honestly cannot believe how people still subscribe to the notion.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What do you call those of us who immediately get our backs up in the presence of alpha-males?

Omega-males?

 

[FallingToFly]

Can you really have an alpha male human?



(My bold)

Fair enough we do follow certain animal traits in certain situations but I contend that because we use language we are not animals.

Actually, I work with horses... breeding horses, rding horses, retired out to pasture horses, youngsters just starting horses...

You think they don't have a language?

That's like saying that just because you don't speak Chinese, Chinese people don't have a language.

Not everyone may speak it, but animals, ALL animals, most certainly have a language. Most of them more complex than any human language.

So, does that make us superior? Or them?

 

[3113]

Fair enough we do follow certain animal traits in certain situations but I contend that because we use language we are not animals.

From Wikipedia:

ANIMAL: Animals are a major group of organisms, classified as the kingdom Animalia or Meta*zoa. In general they are multi*cellular, capable of locomotion and responsive to their environment, and feed by consuming other organisms.

Sounds like us.

Let's see....

HUMAN: Humans, or human beings, are biologically classified as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens...under the family Hominidae (the great apes)

Whoopsee! Unless you want to join the Creationists, it looks like we're still big monkeys. Big monkeys with big brains and this neat-o ability to communicate and make complex tools, but still big monkeys.

I'd say that qualifies us as being part of the wild kingdom there. Animals. Language may distinguishes us from OTHER animals (though by how much I'm not sure. We still don't know what Whales are saying to each other. Maybe they're quoting Socrates?). It may make us a better and smarter animal, but we haven't transended to angel or supernatural beings so far as I know. We're still multicellular, consume other organisms, etc. etc. etc.

Just sayin'....

Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges. Canines also show deference to the alpha pair in their pack, by allowing them to be the first to eat....

And this exact behavior isn't evident in human beings?

 

[gauchecritic]

You think they don't have a language?

Categorically not. There are no animals that can predict future events except humans, the way we predict future events is through language and being able to label abstract concepts, thereby manipulating not only our environment but also our immediate future. I'm not saying animals don't communicate just that they have no ability to predict.

Whoopsee! Unless you want to join the Creationists, it looks like we're still big monkeys. Big monkeys with big brains and this neat-o ability to communicate and make complex tools, but still big monkeys.

I'd say that qualifies us as being part of the wild kingdom there. Animals. Language may distinguishes us from OTHER animals (though by how much I'm not sure. We still don't know what Whales are saying to each other. Maybe they're quoting Socrates?). It may make us a better and smarter animal, but we haven't transended to angel or supernatural beings so far as I know. We're still multicellular, consume other organisms, etc. etc. etc.

Again, if they could predict the future by manipulation of their environment through language then they would never be flensed by Japanese trawlermen and be an endangered species.

As for your classifications; bicycles have wheels and motive power, that doesn't make them SUVs.

And this exact behavior isn't evident in human beings?

I did allow for behaviour in certain circumstances being of animal origin but again we are highly specialised, socialised to the nth degree animals, which sets us apart and precludes us from being labeled by instinct.

Omega males. I like that one Zoot.

edited to add: highly specialised being in the sense that we manipulate our environment sufficiently to slow down (or stagnate) our physical evolution.

 

[FallingToFly]

Categorically not. There are no animals that can predict future events except humans, the way we predict future events is through language and being able to label abstract concepts, thereby manipulating not only our environment but also our immediate future. I'm not saying animals don't communicate just that they have no ability to predict.

You've never been around horses before a natural disaster have you? Or any animals, for that matter.

In the settling of the old Western states, many a man was saved purely by watching the actions of his horse, and the wild animals. They predict what's coming far better than we ever could, as far as the natural world. They have more common sense than the average human as well.

Simply because they have instincts that they haven't blunted yet, intuition that they follow rather than ignore, that makes them less? Haven't you ever had that feeling along the back of your neck that says "Don't go in there" or that instinctive shying away from a person with the thought of "There's something wrong there?"

I have had dogs that refused to allow certain people on the property, nomatter what, and later turned out to be quite correct in their assessment. I had a cat that could smell other women on my ex-boyfriend's skin and would attack him to keep him away from me (the girl he'd been cheating on me with had chlamydia, and I've always been thankful that Zillah tore him up to badly to even give him the remote chance of infecting me). I have a horse that will not come within ten feet of anyone with any kind of cancer. He won't let my sister, who has mental health issues, lay a hand on him. And he emphatically refused to go down a certain path on the plantation we ride on, along with every other horse in the barn. About six months ago, they suddenly had a huge hole appear out of nowhere on that path - a sinkhole that the bottom simply dropped out of. A year ago, not one horse in our barn would cross that ground, but people drove four wheelers and farm trucks over it nearly every day.

You'll never be able to convince me that animals have no "higher" functions. They have enough intuition and empathy to avoid things that human blatantly ignore the dangers of, and they work within their environment, instead of against it. They know what's going on better than we do, and usually are better prepared for the next disaster that's coming. If anyone is backwards, it's US, not them.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Can you really have an alpha male human?



(My bold)

Fair enough we do follow certain animal traits in certain situations but I contend that because we use language we are not animals. This being the case the term Alpha Male can only and exclusively be used in terms of physical ability.

In human society the attributes of Alphaness (deference, leadership etc) depend so much on context that the term is effectively meaningless.

Hitler, Napoleon etc weren't exactly Adonises yet they've been given as examples of Alpha Male. It's giving title using different yardsticks, and I honestly cannot believe how people still subscribe to the notion.

You want to reserve the usage of the term alpha male to animals and men with physical prowess, then? It may be too late - the term has already morphed to encompass another set of criteria when applied to human beings.

 

[cantdog]

Just as 'survival of the fittest' was twisted, when it entered the popular mainstream. In neither case is the term being applied to the concept for which it was coined.

 

[JamesSD]

Since I'm a scientist, am I allowed to use populist terms?

All joking aside, I was thinking how many people I've known in my life that I would call "alpha males" or true leaders. The sort of man that others follow not through coercion or bribery, but simply because they have faith in him.

I had to think a while.

I feel that way more men like to think of themselves as leaders than are. Leaders almost have to be infallible, but few humans are.

Oh, and in my experience, the most intelligent and willful man in the room is known as a "loner". Unless he's physically attractive. "Willful" is really just half a step from "prick".

So yeah, end of the day, I find the term silly. It's like the notion of "big man on campus" or "most popular girl in school". More of a fairy tale, or at best an exaggeration.

 

[Liar]

The difference between humans and other animals (because we're all critter) IS language.

Not meaning the ability to talk to one another, all animals communicate through a setup of specific signals. But our ability to combine those signals into abstract symbols and combne those symbols into new meanings. This makes us able to store and transport bits of communication. We can say, "Bob told me that Steve told him yesterday that Carol has caught the flu." This kind of abstraction is quite unique for us. First of all, the words themselves which are sonic signals far removed from the direct emotional response, then the combinations into phrases then stuff like metaphor - she didn't 'catch' the flu, if anything, it caught her.

There's only one type spieces that has anything similar - hive animals. The bee dance showing the rest of the workers where the good dew he found is located, is the only known communication abstraction that is anywhere near human language. And still, as far as I remember, one bee can't retell the other bee's directions, without first going there himself.

What gauche means about prediction, I'm not sure. Sounds interresting tho, if he could elaborate.

What has this got to do with alpha males? Uh...nuffin, but the subject came up.

 

[gauchecritic]

I don't need to be around no stinking horses

What gauche means about prediction, I'm not sure. Sounds interresting tho, if he could elaborate.

What has this got to do with alpha males? Uh...nuffin, but the subject came up.

I think I've been misunderstood because I used the word prediction. Although accurate, taken out of context it means something else entirely, there's no mysticism about it, no tarot, no horse sense.

The phrase was "predict future events [is] through language and being able to label abstract concepts"

Predicting future events: Crossing the road.

Watch a cat cross a road with a vehicle coming down it. It knows where it is going and it sees the vehicle. These two things are the only two things that a cat knows (I'm giving it a lot of credit about knowing the vehicle is there)
The cat sets off at its own pace with absolutely no reference to the vehicle. As the vehicle gets closer the cat will speed up slightly until it feels safe, if after two paces it feels safe it will slow down again until if feels danger once more and then speed up accordingly. I've seen cats do this. Expending only the necessary amount of energy required regardless of the situation.

Consider yourself. You stand at the curb and know several things, some of which are concrete, some abstract which come together in your mind to form a prediction. You see the vehicle, you know how fast you can move, You estimate very accurately how far you have to travel across the road, you estimate the speed of the vehicle, you do the maths (extremely complex maths) and all before you even set a foot on the tarmac.
This is impossible for you to do without being able to contain abstracts, the only way you can contain abstracts is with words.

You may say that dogs know about crossing the road (seeing eye dogs for example) Yes, because they have been taught the behaviour of crossing the road, not because they can estimate the speed of an out of control Mack truck.

For a much better explanation read "The science of Discworld" by Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen.

Other names for prediction: forecast, extrapolate, invent stories.

 

[S-Des]

My turn

Well, since my unintended useage of a word accidentally started this, I figured I should at least clarify what I meant (not that it's really important, but what the hell, it's 4:00AM and I'm bored). I used the phrase "Alpha Male" in reference to strong male characters who appear flawless in some way. They're super rich, super strong, incredibly good looking, very well hung, or just incredible lovers (to the point of causing women to walk away from marriages or even their children just to get some of that lovin').

We've all read stories here that have some version of that male character in it. I was trying to say that I like characters that are more flawed and have to find another way to distinguish themselves. Even when my characters have been overly tough (one story had a guy getting revenge against a group of men by himself, another was about a man saving a woman from a rape at the hands of three men), I tried to make them have flaws so that they would appear more real.

I don't flame people, so I won't mention any examples, but I can think of dozens of highly rated stories on this site (in several different categories) that contain male characters that are completely flawless. I will sometimes read those stories, but will rarely take them seriously. At the same time, if that's what someone else wants to read about, more power to them. It's not my place to judge.

Speaking of judging, to dr_mabeuse, since I spent several years taking karate, competing in tournaments, and it's still a significant part of my life, it doesn't make me an oaf to put it in my stories. If your hobby is photography, I don't judge you for making a character interested in that.

Martial arts is a balance of mind and body, which is very positive in my view. I also think that there are times when a man has to defend his family, and I think using your hands is vastly preferrable to other violent means. Anything can be overdone, so I try to balance out my characters physical actions with attempts to resolve situations by using their minds. I understand this doesn't work for everyone, the same as my dislike for stories about husbands who get off on watching their wives with another man. Different strokes for different folks (no pun intended).

 

[3113]

I think I've been misunderstood because I used the word prediction.

I've no problem with your discussion of prediction. My problem is that you're defining yourself to victory.

You say: Humans have language, therefore, they're not animals.

But that's a questionable premis. YOUR definion of what an animals is--one that has no language or "prediction" ability. I don't see that having language makes us any less animal. A more COMPLEX animal, perhaps, but still an animal with animal urges, needs, reactions, and, yes, thought processes, too.

That we can sometime get beyond those baser animal urges may make us special, but, again, no less animal. If a dog helps another dog who's hurt and in the middle of the road (as we've read in stories), does that make him any less a dog?

We're animals. And not that far or that long removed from very primitive ancestors--ones we share with all other animals on this planet (nice fishy creature). It's incredibly arrogant of us to think that just because we have language we've escaped our animal nature--including that need some males have to lead, dominate, take possession and top the pecking order.