House of Eratosthenes

I was talking about relationships with my buddy John Hawkins of Right Wing News, and the following IM conversation ensued:

John Hawkins: Show me a woman who is stronger than the man she is with and I will show you a woman who is unhappy or getting there.
Cassy Fiano: Think so?
John Hawkins: Definitely. Some women like being stronger than the guy at first…but it eats at them both over time.
Cassy Fiano: You don’t think there are any circumstances where maybe the woman is the alpha and the man is the beta and its a good thing?
John Hawkins: Short term, yes. Long term, I think it’s unhealthy. Some people make it through anyway, but it’s not good for them, nor do I think they are nearly as happy as they would be if the positions are reversed.
Cassy Fiano: why do you think the man needs to be the alpha for happiness to occur?
John Hawkins: Not just that. I think the woman needs to be the beta to be happy.
Cassy Fiano: OK, but why? I don’t see myself as a strict beta female.
John Hawkins: You don’t have to be. But, it’s built into us. It’s genetic. A woman, in her core, wants a man who is stronger than she is. If that’s not the case, she will eventually feel like less of a woman. A man wants to be stronger than the woman he is with, too. It makes him feel like a man. If you are stronger than the man you are with, you will eventually start to feel contempt for him. It’s as natural as a dog chasing cats. You can train a dog not to chase a cat, but it’s his nature.

That conversation definitely got me thinking. Do women really need to be the beta in a relationship in order to be happy? My first inclination, obviously, was no. As I said above, I certainly don’t see myself as a beta.

In a sense, I agree with John. I do think that in a healthy, long-term relationship, the man needs to be the “alpha” in order for him to feel happy and secure. If a man feels like his wife is stronger than he is, and more controlling, then he will feel disrespected and, as John said, like less of a man. Likewise, while many feminists will probably tell you that women are perfectly happy as the Alphas in their relationships, if a woman’s husband cannot show her strength and backbone, then she will slowly cease to respect him. (Marie Claire had a great article on an alpha female-beta male relationship implosion.)

A lot of women will think this means that men don’t want strong women, and I don’t think this could be further from the truth. I think most men do want a strong women… I think they want a partner who is intelligent, successful, confident, and intelligent. However, if a man is made to feel like less of a man, then there’s a problem. Men need to know that they are respected by their partners, and women need to feel like their partner is strong enough to be deserving of their respect. A spineless weakling a woman can walk all over is not going to garner any of her respect, is it? The more disrespected the man feels, the less happy and fulfilled he will be. Likewise, the less a woman respects her man, the more resentful and bitter she will become.

On the other hand, a man whose wife respects him and looks up to him will probably be the happiest man in the world, while his wife will find herself proud rather than resenting.

So, I guess I agree with John. I think it is importantand healthy for the man to be the “alpha”, or the head of his household, or however you want to phrase it.

I just have one exception. And it’s a big one.

I don’t think that either the male or the female needs to be “stronger” than the other. I think for a relationship to be healthy, the two need to be equals. Just because the man is the alpha, it does not mean that the woman needs to be the beta doormat. The main issue here, I think, is respect, and it needs to go both ways. Just as it is unhealthy for a woman to feel she can walk all over and control her man, it is unhealthy for a man to feel that he can walk all over and control his woman. There needs to be an equality and a balance, and without it, the relationship is doomed regardless of who the alpha is.

I’m curious about other thoughts on this topic. Are John and I way off base here? What do you think — do women need to be betas to be happy?

My own thinking? John’s got some of it…Cassy’s on her way there. As for the rest of it, I dunno. Maybe I should break form and keep my silence this one time, for sake of getting along. I know that’s not my trait, but I’m still smarting from that beak-poking I got last time I talked about women. Yes, let’s try to turn over a new leaf. That’s the ticket.

Naw. In for a penny, in for a pound. So here goes.

Women are more sensitive than men are, to pointlessness. A common mistake I see fellas making with their women, is to acquiesce. It starts out so harmless — “oh no, honey, those shorts do not make you look fat.” And then the “oh, I dunno, whatever makes you happy” in response to…what dress should I wear…eggshell or creamy off-white…Noritake or Corelle…cedar or mahogany…

Having no opinion, is so safe. Can’t guarantee an opinionated man will be threatening, but you can always guarantee a man without an opinion, won’t be. Right?

It’s not so simple. Because women are sensitive to pointlessness, they train this sensitivity, first and foremost, upon their men. It’s instinctive. The man is there for the purpose of planting his seed; the seed exists to carry a genetic blueprint; having no opinion, is like having no blueprint. Women want men to provide a signature. An inclination. Something that sets the fella apart from that other fella she was thinking about choosing, but decided not to. What’s the impact? What’s being done differently from the way that other guy woulda done it? That’s the question; the million-dollar question.

Note…I’m not talking about what’s done better. Just different. It’s the sense of identity. And so, to the feminine way of looking at things, a guy who doesn’t put his opinion into a relationship doesn’t put anything else into it either. They never say that, especially the feminized ones. But they all feel it. So in real life, all these guys go out of their way to act like Luke Wilson in “Legally Blonde,” just doing nothing but…adoring. Nothing else. And they end up losing their women, because they aren’t providing the signature.

What complicates this, is that women want themselves to have purpose as well. Oh, Lordy, do they ever.

Both of these are non-negotiable, so when it comes to making women happy it’s a little bit useless to talk about terms like “Alpha” and “Beta.” But you can see, by now, where I agree with John; if a woman provides all the strength, and all the function, to day-to-day living, what’s that guy doing there? Emotional support? She can get that anywhere, really. So even if her material needs are being met, and all other needs being met — she’ll still be unhappy and unfulfilled. It’s not that she thinks some other guy would make her happier. It’s just there’s no hard answer to the question, “Why Him?” That love-shit doesn’t cut it. Being friends as well as lovers doesn’t cut it. Deep down, she knows she could just as much be in love with someone else. Things have to have a purpose.

So each half of the couple has to have a “turf,” and the lady has to realize internally that she, as well as her dude, have it. She doesn’t have to come first in all things, she doesn’t have to come last in all things either. The point is, is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? If so, then she’s fulfilled, and if not, then she isn’t. A woman who feels she’s just there to do stuff for her man, and nothing else, is going to be unhappy, not because of all the work, or the lack of gratitude, but because any other woman would be able to do it just as well. A woman whose man is a jack of all trades and master of none, will be equally unhappy, not because of his lack of talent but because of his lack of specialty. She wants that sense of identity, and she doesn’t want it to come from within her; she wants it to come from her man, as the Good Lord intended. Yes, I mean that. Look at all these civilizations that grew, isolated from each other. In all those cultures, the male is in charge of the surname — he passes the one to his children, that he got from his Dad. This is not an accident.

This is made out to be something a tad more complicated than it really is. Our women adjudicate our relationships with them, and they do it according to what makes those relationships worthwhile, whether they realize it or not. They’re doing what just makes sense. If both participants are living a life richer together than it would be if they were apart, the relationship is a success, and if not, then it isn’t. This is true in general of women. They don’t seem to make much sense, until you study them awhile, and then they do.

Case in point, my happy alpha-beta woman seems to have slipped off to bed. Think I’ll shut this laptop down and go join her. G’night.

[…] House of Eratosthenes (mkfreeberg.webloggin.com) – January 07, 2009I do think that in a healthy, long-term relationship, the man needs to be the “alpha” in order for him to feel happy and secure. If a man feels like his wife is stronger than he is, and more controlli… […]
- Act Like A Lady Think Like A Man | 01/07/2009 @ 12:03

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Unhappy Alpha WomenWednesday, January 7th, 2009

Unhappy Alpha Women
Wednesday, January 7th, 2009