Higher status reflects stability and one's ability to be responsible for and account for all the member of one's family, tribe, pack, etc. This in turn also reflects one's dominance. Dominance's role may have changed over the years, the fighting may no longer be physical, but the competition still exists, it has merely been updated for the times. I'm of a mind like mimihigurashi, ShinyAeon. You are viewing dominance as being the equivalent of a bully. Bullies are insecure, and insecurity does not reflect dominance, which is a state of confidence that exists in one's abilities to adapt, to provide for subservient members of the pack, and to maintain cool-headed leader ship despite challenges by those who more easily lose control in stressful situations and come at you with anger and contempt because of fear-driven motives.
It appears your definition of dominance, like many others (including many, many males), ShinyAeon, is the insecure male who tries and beat down others to prove something. Real dominant leaders have nothing to prove until a challenger steps up, and then they handle the situation as it needs to be handled. Especially in the case of humans, they take into account the needs of others and what they have been through. He would not be an enabler, not like a mother who simply says you are in the right no matter what because they can't stand to see you feel bad. He is a teacher, a mentor, in other words, acts like an actual father. Enabling people's emotions does not help them survive, it causes them to depend more on others. It's the difference between teaching somebody to fish and putting a rule in place saying all fishermen must distribute their catches to those who still have the ability to learn and actually physically do it because they are simply too weak willed or otherwise ignorant or lazy. The idea that dominance is like what you see with the fetishes or that it is like a schoolyard bully is a very childish understanding of dominance.
You clearly have an understanding of what dominance is on some level, but you are wanting to name it something else when it already has a name, and demonizing those who happen to actually be true alpha males (not betas, like you are describing) for being that way, which is honestly more detrimental to society than helpful. What should be happening is learning the difference between the misconception of what dominance is and what it actually is.
If you do research on differences in neurochemistry in the case of dominance, it is nearly always the case that alpha males and females have higher levels of serotonin than do the submissive members of the family/tribe/pack. Higher levels of serotonin generally (I italicize because nothing in neurochemistry is really this simple) are more content (and with that more faithful), experience less stress and are able to better handle stress, make more use of higher thinking, are more considerate, more able to realize what has to be done for the good of the team, and allows you to better control emotional instability and random outbursts. It shows that alphas do not lead with an iron fist, if members of the pack want to leave they are free to do so, but the alphas are simply more fit to lead because they actually lead. They lead by example, make the tough decisions, do things as right as possible for everybody, and most importantly show mercy. Why show mercy? Because they can afford to, they do not think so highly of themselves in the sense that they are better than others that they view submissive members as actually lower, they recognize that everybody has a part, a role to fulfill. Each role is equally as important as their's. This does not mean they are not confident in their abilities though. There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance, just like there is between pride and vanity. Once you really start to think about what makes a successful pack leader, the more you realize what dominance really is.
|
|
Bookmarks