Being an alpha male and socialist?

Howdy, folks. Californian serf here.

A male, I've always been heavily in tune with my masculinity, despite my staunch stance as a social democrat, as my mothers and fathers before me. Without the intention to romanticize or sketch pity, my father perished whilst I was very young in a naval accident deemed suicide due to the posterical stresses of submarine going, something I've been pained with all my 22 years. He was a reactor operator on the USS Dallas.

But anyway, what I wanted to draw on was, quite simply, if dominant masculinity is indeed accepted in the leftist dialogue. For any who may have read Julius Caesar's commentary on the conquest of Gaul, you would know that Julius' father perished when he, too, was young, allowing his masculine, decisive features to develop prematurely (he had to make the decisions for his family). I've pursued all sorts of mustang endeavors over the past couple years of college, and it's been great. But I've been called misogynist, sexist - racist, once, for refusing to accept a black man's offer of pip pip gollywock. As a man who supports the dismantling of the fascist governments, however, I legitimately am none of those things, from the core of my soul.


So really what I'm coming to is: is it acceptable to be a dominant alpha male and socialist at the same time?

This isn't intended to be an answer to your question (But it could be taken that way I guess):

moved to oi learning due to the o.p. saying he's a social dem and them manarchist nature of the question.

I think you should start wearing a dress.

Also, I don't know what an alpha male is. It sounds like a cartoon character. Do they fight crime? Do they have any superhero capabilities?

But to answer the question: no, it would be counterproductive.

First, what qualities of "alpha maleness" are we talking about? If we mean assertiveness and confidence, then yes these are beneficial for a class movement generally, and in the sense of for individual radicals in workplaces and communities and prisons to be able to help others organize and to teach them to be confident and assertive. If we mean qualities like dominating and intimidating others, then no I don't think these are beneficial for a working class movement.

Second and most fundamentally, why are these qualities associated with maleness? Anecdotally and historically, the idea of inherent gender based social qualities doesn't hold up. Because of sexism in society there tend to be some differences in how people generally act based on gender, but this isn't inherent. For example, women are generally encouraged to not argue or say contentious things while men are encouraged to express their opinions.

So to try and build a movement of broad leadership from below, of workers, we need a movement that can help train people to be leaders and assertive. Create space for people who have been taught in school and jobs to follow, to lead and organize themselves. That means finding ways to overcome social habits and biases that mean working class people in general are not starting from a point of being trained how to organize and speak confidently; more specifically women who are by default not encouraged to speak up or lead in our society. Movements themselves will train a whole lot more people than we ever will and in the us a lot of the early militant industrial organizing was done by immigrants and often women. Subjectively, though we should do what we can to create inclusive groups and movements that help people support and learn from each other -- not movements dominated by those best trained in our society to lead by default... College educated white men, for example.

Yeah, OP's definitely gonna have to expand upon what he means by "alpha male". All I think of when I hear the phrase is "posturing manchild" and that isn't usually a good thing to be.

I'm sorry for your loss.

It's going to depend on how you define "dominant masculinity". It sounds to me that even use of this term carries a hint of sexism. I also consider myself a male with those personality traits generally associated with being "alpha". But I also understand that the main reason I feel driven to find this important is because of the influence of the existing patriarchy. Just as you must consider this very same influence on Caesar. I think you will find that those traits aren't necessarily unique to men--though they are generally associated with them. This is mostly a social construction.

I think it is very acceptable to have confidence, surety, and decisiveness and be a leftist--if this is really what you are asking. But associating these traits with a particular sex, is sexist and not acceptable.

My father too died when I was very young (2), but I'm not very masculine :( :(

Also, what's a pip pip gollywock?

Are we really doing this?

You're right. Let's not engage anyone that we have disagreements with. What a great way to move leftism away from it's fringe status! :laugh:

I think it's p. obvious this thread isn't serious.

Ugh.

You should ritually cleanse yourself of your former beta-male status through ritual sacrifice of an omega-male.

I guess your right--I mean look at the guys name and all. But I still think engagement is useful.

There's a time and a place ya loon. This is not it.

Yea, I guess that's my problem. I'm always overly optimistic.

Don't feel bad about it. It is a good habit to try to help people.

Nah, I don't. BTW, good book Profitting without Producing. I'm reading through it now. I found your post on it in one of the What are you reading threads.

I'm glad that I could help. I had to stop reading it due to exams but I started again last night.

I just want to know what a pip pip gollywock is.

I think that it is some kind of breakfast sandwich.