sigelphoenix

Head on over to oyceter's (LJ) post on alpha males in fiction for some great discussion. The original post is specifically about mainstream heterosexual romance novels, but of course the alpha male trope shows up in romantic relationships in all kinds of fiction. It's a great read for those coming from feminist perspectives but who enjoy fictional romance - and who know why I put that "but" in there.

I was particularly glad to find this in light of my earlier entry about my struggles with fictional portrayals of "romantic." Not only is it nice to find people who agree with me in a hey-I'm-not-alone way, but it helped clarify some things in my head.

Some highlights:

"[S]peaking of textual vindication, I think that is why I am ok with things in 'dark and disturbing yet really hot' that I normally would not be, because they are being portrayed as dark and disturbing and clearly not normal or romantic behavior."

"My idea of a dominant man is one who's strong, and strength does not equal 'inability to control oneself' in my eyes. That's weakness [...] Being tempted to lose control is hot, yes. Nearly giving in is hot, yes [...] But the point at which the control breaks is the point at which the line is crossed in my eyes."

"I actually see a whole lot of appeal in real alpha-male types. You know--the quiet strength, the steadiness and confidence, the leadership chops? I find that stuff deeply sexy. Which is part of why the badly-done alpha types we see so much of in fiction tend to drive me nuts."


I fell for the fictional alpha male when I was younger (and still do - see earlier entry), and find that infatuation one of the persistently troublesome tropes I took from a fiction-based education on romance. (Another one, for example, would be the idea that marriage/resolution was the end of the story.) The dynamic between the alpha male hero and passive heroine (who might occasionally be assertive, but often that's just temporary "spunkiness" and he still ultimately dominates) takes a lot of good things and twists them, or pushes them too far.

One example, as mentioned in the quotes above, is that being strong requires being "loud" about it - always pushing, always being the aggressor, basically showing one's strength by displaying a neon sign about it. The problem with that, of course, is that constant aggressing requires an object upon which to act. Like bullies who need a target to demonstrate their dominance upon, alpha males need to act against something. That "something" can be a threat to the heroine, which he gallantly protects her from - but it can also be the heroine herself, as he sweeps past her protests or reluctance and crosses her romantic or sexual boundaries.

Of course, when alpha males are being textually supported, this violation is portrayed as a good thing - which requires that the woman be in the wrong somehow. She's too prudish, or unnecessarily suspicious, or just shy and in need of someone to make her "open up." Then it looks like women don't know what they want, and they need men to strong-arm them into the "right" answer.

Strength and dominance are actually things that I do like - but the real, good kind. My favorite kind of strength is the kind that doesn't announce itself - that surprises you with its constancy and reliability. That doesn't put you down to put itself up. And while a partner's strength can mean I am being weak, or at least passive rather than active, there are ways to do this as equals - perhaps we take turns being the active and passive ones, or perhaps I choose to give up control, which is different from the alpha male who "convinces" the heroine to give up control by pestering her until she realizes he Knows Better and gives in. Someone who supports me in my judgment, rather than usurping it - who lends his strength, rather than attempting to replace mine - that's the kind of assertive male that I find attractive as a romantic hero.

I'd go on, but this is a topic I could talk about for forever and a half. Given a focus, I might get a more coherent entry out of it, but for now I'll just point you to the original discussion.