Isn't it perpetuated by women too? After all, it's not men who are writing and reading most romance novels.
This is what puzzles me, as I associate the term "alpha male" when applied to humans with the pseudoscience trumpeted by the "men's rights" and "PUA" movements. Why would women want to use the term for a type of male hero in romance, especially when the term could definitely mean different things to different readers? My guess is that it's convenient.
How long has the term been used by romance readers and writers? Is it possible the men's movement lifted it for their own purposes and are citing romance novels as evidence that women really like controlling, pushy men?
OMG that's the worst. I actually think there's something potentially admirable in alpha-maledom in terms of pushing other males around, in a career sense.
I don't agree here, and one issue is that in a career sense, men aren't just competing with other men these days. Of course, it depends what you mean by pushy. I think there's a huge difference between being assertive or taking the initiative in professional settings when it's needed and with being aggressive, though society still tends to measure men and women against different meters when it comes to assigning these labels.
Different strategies and tactics between individuals and the genders in professional environments, and their affect on the upward mobility of women in these professions, is of course a major topic unto itself. And as you said, it's a different situation than romance or everyday social life. In fact, many people are very good at being decisive, even ruthless in some situations and accommodating and gentle in others. I think the idea that some people are just "dominant" in general is rather overstated.
I'm all for sneering at monogamy as the only option on the grounds that it is not biologically natural, and that being forced into it drives us crazy with repressed urges and makes us hate ourselves when we fail to live up to an arbitrary standard, but only if the logic applies equally to both genders.
What do you mean not biologically natural? It works for many species of animal, and for many human couples, and there is a lot to be said for it in terms of stability and having someone at your back when you need them. Every reproductive strategy has a cost-benefit breakdown.
Personally, I'm a strong bonder who does not have the emotional energy to maintain more than one romantic relationship at a time. My partner is my best friend as well as someone I like to have sex with, and when I'm really in love with someone, I still experience attraction to others, but it's not paired with a strong desire or need to act on such. Especially since I know that (for me) it takes some practice with a new partner before the "what works" for bringing physical pleasure issues is hashed out.
But I accept that people are not all the same here. The hard part is when strong, monogamous bonders fall for people who have a different romantic orientation and vice versa, and when it becomes clear that the couple is incompatible for a long-term commitment, one or both resorts to manipulation, shaming, and deception to get what they need from the other.
That's an extreme. If you look at the heroines of Jane Austen, who ought to know what she's talking about, none of them would say they're worse or dumber than their male peers, though they might say that they have a different (not necessarily lesser or subordinate) place in society than men. They wouldn't necessarily be openly defiant to men, though. They wouldn't necessarily be openly defiant to anyone. They'd be tactful or witty. This is where I grate most at modern characters in period costume. It's not that they're unfeminine. It's that they're un-genteel.
This is exactly my point--there were intelligent and motivated women in the old days, even when they did mostly adapt (externally) to the traditional roles of their time and place.
But un-genteel, even scandalously rebellious, women existed in the old days too, and some of them found love and have stories worth telling too.
The thing that's always a fly in the ointment for me with period romances is the contraception thing. Women did have sex, sometimes before marriage, but even after marriage, the consequences for having lots of sex were pretty severe--near constant pregnancy. This would be terrifying and really put a damper on things for women when it came to enjoying sex.
Even though most women want children, pregnancy and childbearing were quite literally life threatening back then. Yet the
only fear women in most romance novels ever seem to have over pregnancy is the loss of reputation and not being able to care for the child. They never seem to be scared of the illness and exhaustion associated with pregnancy, nor of dying, nor are they ever anxious about what being pregnant year in and out would do to them (and their relationship) once they were married to their hero.
This was touched on in
A Precious Jewel, where the MMC's mother had run away from his father because of repeated pregnancies, stillbirths, and miscarriages (heh-
-maybe she was rh negative and he was her firstborn). But there was also this implication that douching within an hour after sex is effective contraception (it isn't) and that douching 3x a day wouldn't carry significant health risks of its own. I have no doubt that women had tricks to reduce the risk of pregnancy in the olden days, but I don't think any of them were nearly as effective as modern contraception.
But as a reader, I prefer hot, sultry romances with some sex scenes, and the female character being constantly worried about pregnancy would put a damper on this, so I can see how there's this trade off between realism and history (since romances are about fantasy).
