The Alpha Female: Estrogen and Female Dominance
My readers and students of the game know all about the Alpha Male. We study and contrast the traits of Alpha versus Beta Men and cultivate the former while eradicating the latter. Other men cannot muster the gumption to challenge their fears and develop esteem to elevate themselves. What characteristics does the Alpha man possess that his Beta and Omega brethren lack? In large part it is the behavioral and morphological effects of testosterone.
It is shown that success and social dominance provides a temporary boost to testosterone levels as does sexual intercourse. This dynamic sets up a state of inertia that works to perpetuate your present status in a positive feedback loop. Men who are working to break the Beta cycle know how hard it is to remold your mindset, behaviors, thought patterns, and everything else that works in concert to hold the Beta back. It is the development, to use the words of David DeAngelo of “Inner Game.” It is the search to present a consistent and congruent face to the world. It is to endeavor to overcome one’s limitations, to vanquish fear and anxiety and to steel your will and resolve. It is the reversal of the feedback loop harnessing it to build and perpetuate your alpha state to your benefit.
Well now we know that a similar dynamic is at play in women with regard to their estrogen levels. Estrogen, a hormone closely related to testosterone and responsible for secondary female sex characteristics responsible for beauty in women, has now been linked to dominance in women. For every alpha male an alpha female it seems. This is interesting in light of women’s penchant for social maneuvering among themselves. Anyone who says women don’t establish pecking orders obviously has forgotten Junior High and High School. For women with aspirations, estrogen fuels the need for power.
New University of Michigan psychology research suggests that the sex hormone estrogen may be for women what testosterone is for men: The fuel of power.
Until recently, some researchers doubted whether women had a biologically anchored need for dominance.
“Women have long been overlooked in biological research on dominance,” said psychology researcher Steven Stanton. “Using a male model, the small body of existing research has struggled to link testosterone to dominance motivation and behavior in women.
“However, estrogen is very behaviorally potent and is actually a close hormonal relative to testosterone. In female mammals, estrogen has been tied to dominance, but there has been scant research examining the behavioral roles of estrogen in women.”
Furthermore the level of the hormone was contingent on external variables for those women motivated by power, just as testosterone is in men.
The researchers found that even before women got involved in the contest, higher power motivation was associated with higher levels of estrogen.
Winners of the contest showed even further increases in estrogen after the contest, but only if they had a strong need for power. Notably, this increase could still be detected one day after the contest was over.
In contrast, power-motivated losers showed a post-contest decrease in estrogen. These effects were not observed among women who did not possess a strong need for power.
“Our findings perfectly parallel what we have observed for power motivation and testosterone in men,” Schultheiss said. “In men, power motivation is associated with heightened levels of testosterone, particularly after a contest victory. In women, estrogen appears to be the critical hormone for power motivation.”
It is intriguing that there is a correlation between sexual desirability (aka reproductive capital) and degree of social dominance. I suspect that this is not coincidental. Though it is less than PC to say so, people self segregate by their social status and reproductive capital, factors we’ve just seen are intricately related. Those at the top of the hierarchy know their worth, and seek to match with others of equal desirability. It is interesting in light of the impact of estrogen to enhance feminine characteristics and increase their degree of dominance if they are so motivated, that it is also shown that attractive women “want it all” in a mate.
Although many researchers have believed women choose partners based on the kind of relationship they are seeking, a new study from The University of Texas at Austin reveals women’s preferences can be influenced by their own attractiveness.
David Buss, psychology researcher at the university, has published the findings in “Attractive Women Want it All: Good Genes, Economic Investment, Parenting Proclivities and Emotional Commitment” in this month’s Evolutionary Psychology.
Previous researchers argued that what women value depended on the type of relationship they were looking for. Women looking for long-term partners want someone who will be a good provider for them and their children, but women seeking short-term flings care more about masculinity and physical attractiveness, features that may be passed down to children.
Buss and Todd Shackelford, psychology professor at Florida Atlantic University, found women ideally want partners who have all the characteristics they desire, but they will calibrate their standards based on their own desirability.
“When reviewing the qualities they desire in romantic partners, women gauge what they can get based on what they got,” Buss said. “And women who are considered physically attractive maintain high standards for prospective partners across a variety of characteristics.”
What we see here is that women know exactly what they can get and that they know it is contingent on appearance. No such correlation exists for men. Men are judged on other qualities and appearance is only important insofar as indicators of good genes such as symmetry and health. Here is what women seek in men.
The researchers identified four categories of characteristics women seek in a partner:
- good genes, reflected in desirable physical traits,
- resources,
- the desire to have children and good parenting skills, and
- loyalty and devotion.
Most women attempt to secure the best combination of the qualities they desire from the same man, but the researchers said a small portion of women who do not find a partner with all the qualities may trade some characteristics for others.
Although women’s selectivity across categories reflected how attractive they appeared to other people, the researchers found the characteristics men desired in a partner did not vary based on their own physical attractiveness.
This is just further evidence that men value youth and beauty in women while women care more about security and protection from men. They will take the best genes they can get, and will be more likely to be faithful if their partner possesses these qualities, but attractiveness is less important for a man than status, resources and personality.
These studies highlight the fact that far from being above the hustle for dominance and reproductive success, women are just as involved in striving to dominate others as are we men. We use somewhat different strategies for competition, but we are all reaching for the vaunted alpha status.
Hmm…As a dominant but non feministic woman, this is certainly food for thought.
I wonder though, if there is a link between a woman’s social dominance and her attractiveness to men.
Insofar as they are expressions of estrogen obviously. I’d like to draw a distinction between dominant aka dominatrix and social dominance. Most men don’t want to be dominated by their women, fetishists excepted. A woman who is dominant socially and among her peers though is often deemed attractive, think “Mean Girls.”
Feel free to make your case.
A man becomes learned by asking questions
To answer the first question just look at female CEOs. None of them are doable… they pay young boys for forced sex.
Just shows that women should focus on getting the best deal when they have beauty. Looks is the only thing they can offer.
This is really sad. the problem stemmed from the 70′s. When men REQUIRED women to be beautiful, while the were quote MACHO! What men need to remember the only reason they were MACHO is women were submissive. WOW, have things changed, the men have to be perfect and the women arenow the dominant ones, thus creating metrosexuals men that hae to be PERFECT for their women. Its almost like the roles have 100 percent changed!!!
This is really sad. the problem stemmed from the 70′s. When men REQUIRED women to be beautiful, while the were quote MACHO! What men need to remember the only reason they were MACHO is women were submissive. WOW, have things changed, the men have to be perfect and the women arenow the dominant ones, thus creating metrosexuals men that hae to be PERFECT for their women. Its almost like the roles have 100 percent changed!!!
Yep, men are supposed to be rough around the edges.
I would like to underline the fact this post is amazing , you got me bookmarking your site!
Thank you for this great article. My spouse and i loved the thought you put straight into it. I really believe I will study much more you’ve writen on the topic. Many thanks again!
Hi, quality article. We are huge proponents of natural testosterone production – life is too precious to ruin it with synthetics… so we push new products that work naturally. Anyway, thanks again and cool blog… I’m subscribed to your RSS feed now so I’ll be checking in regularly!
I’m not sure what research you are referring to, but this would seem to contradict the idea of ‘alpha’ in nature… the clinical idea of alpha is related to testosterone levels, which is in turn related to aggression, sex drive, and other ‘male like’ traits, the ‘pecking order’ to to speak. High estrogen levels may indeed be related to success due to the increased need for social interaction in the business world…However, this is not ‘alpha’ in the traditional sense. Also, you’ve failed to examine the role that pheromones and other characteristics play in ‘alpha.’
Xenoestrogens have made women aggressive and men gay. That’s why there is way more gay men in USA than in Europe where both BPA in plastics (estrogen mimicker and endocrine disruptor) and hormone laced meat & dairy (rBGH aka estrogen) have been banned. Gay men are made in womb nowadays by parents whose systems is toxic and contaminated from too many xenoestrogens. Google the scientific studies on frogs who changed sex, and crocs who became chemically castrated by the xenoestrogens dumped in their rivers & swamps.
American men are very submissive and their American women are all Jerry Springer escapees. That’s why mail-order brides from Russia & China is big business w/American men. China’s milk is now making infant girls with breasts, watch out the xenoestrogens! They’ll soon be worse than US women!
If USA wants to stop producing gay men & lesbian women at such an alarming rate, get rid of Monsanto and their evil growth hormone & GMO’s and get rid of BPA like the rest of civilized world. Gays make up more than 50% the US population that’s why insanity is rampant there such as marriage between homos. What an aberration! By 2030 the gay population in USA will have peaked at 75%-85%. That’s the goal of Monsanto: everyone pay to have kids, no more penis in vagina kids, from then on it’s only penises in the ass! STOP MONSANTO NOW!
Endocrine disruptors are an underestimated concern and have profound and intergenerational effects as you state. Nonetheless, homosexuality has occured throughout time and to some extent is a natural phenomenon. I am a strong proponent of letting consenting adults do whatever they like. In a secular nation imposing the majorities religious morality on others is a crime. As the old saying goes, being American means that while I may not agree with your opinion or choices, I will defend to the death your right to them. The idea that we should use religious motives in the legal secular world to deny our fellow citizens to pursue their own happiness is anathema to our constitutional ideals and moreover downright inhumane. Laws must conform to the golden rule. If you are not harming others or society, you should not be subject to punishment. Subjective and moral choices arising from the free pursuit of your chosen faith are a personal choice and besides anything based on faith is fundamentally unprovable. You may disapprove of gays from a Christian standpoint say, and you can ever ban them from your church or whatever, but they are your fellow citizens and deserve the right to freedom and happiness as much as you do. I fully agree that Monsanto dreams of a future in which nobody can grow food without paying them royalties. I’m not sure they consciously conspire to make America gay in order to usher in a Gattica like world of test-tube baby eugenics. I tend toward embracing the idea that thousands of selfish actors exploiting a system that refuses to enforce laws that perpetuate human and ecosystem health at the expense of corporate profits and which downplays or doesn’t look for risks when approving chemicals for public use is a more likely explanation than some orchestrated conspiracy as Occam’s razor would suggest. Believing in something like the Illuminati requires enormous faith in the powers of certain individuals to exercise precise control over vastly complex systems. If Keynesian monetarists can’t even effectively manage monetary policy, how omnipotent do you think a global cabal of the powerful really is? There are men of stupendous means, but they share our human ability for insight, nature dictates they are subject to the same foibles as the rest of humanity and further entropy and chaos ensure that he best laid plans can be derailed by the unforeseen. It simply defies belief that such is possible at this point in human development. I choose to view our plights as likely arising from a tragic comedy of errors and human shortsightedness and greed than from some grand scheme orchestrated to enslave humanity. Honestly if you really believe in such conspiracies wouldn’t the rational choice be to tear it all apart now? Why would most of us work towards a future in which some fucking corporation owns all life? May as well be hell and I’d die today to prevent it with joy and I think most of us would. The future of humanity is predicated on adherence to natural law. Just as we need toxic garbage to grow monoculture crops of corn, there is no future in a homogeneous human race created in some lab. The genius of evolution and life is endless increase in variability. Anything which seeks to prevent or control this is doomed to failure.