…“Bad boys” DOES NOT equal “socially dominant” and this is the major mistake in your post that turns it into ideological mush, no offense. You constantly conflate “bad boys” and “dominant men” in your post… which is bloody maddening. You seem unaware that the bad boys were already given long prison sentences by the lawyers and judges (dominant men).
So, who are you talking about, in that case?”
- Daisy Deadhead, on Nice Guys
I’m turning my reply to Daisy Deadhead into a post, just so more people can watch this important public service announcement:
Yes, it’s true that aggressive “bad boys” who are anti-social often end up low on the social hierarchy, (like “Chad”), and good men who ‘play by the rules’ can often rise to relatively high-status positions in society. That’s called “having a society that more or less functions.” In fact, I’d say that the extent to which “bad” men are punished and “good” men are rewarded reveals a lot about how decent and just a particular society is. In modern western democracies, there is a correlation (albeit a relatively weak one, I’d argue) between ‘playing by the rules’ (“being good”) and enjoying prestige and respectability. (The correlation is probably higher is social democracies like Sweden, and lower in countries with a less humane social hierarchy, such as the United States.) I’d also add that it’s possible for a man to be dominant and aggressive AND also be a decent human being. See: Emmanuel, Rahm.
You’re wrong, however, in discounting the correlation between aggressiveness and the “high-status/social dominance” of men who are successful. Look around at who has power in the world. High-status men are, like the rest of humanity, a mixed bag. Some are good and decent, others not so much. Some men achieve high-status positions by being kind to others and contributing to society. Other men achieve high-status positions by playing hardball, stepping on others, and taking advantage of the weak. The latter don’t behave like thugs (at least, not publicly) because they are smarter. But their behavior can be even more harmful. Sometimes, the difference between a brutish lunkhead and a high-powered Wall Street trader is not “goodness,” but rather intelligence and the ability to think strategically and delay gratification.
Also, although a blockhead like “Chad” eventually finds himself with little status in society, when he is young (in high school), his aggressiveness is overvalued at a time when his classmates, other teenage boys, are just beginning to explore sexual relationships with girls. This can cause other, less aggressive boys to question their own value and attractiveness. So, even though the “Chads” of this world eventually lose out, their youthful popularity still has negative and isolating effects on other teenage boys.
So to answer your question. Who am a talking about? In my “nice guys” post, when I talk about “socially dominant men”, I’m defining the term as: “Men who exhibit hypermasculine characteristics such as dominance and a sexually entitled attitude.” This can include “bad boys” such as “Chad,” above, and can also include men who will go on to be more “successful” in life.
Many commenters have pointed out that men can be “confident” without being unkind, and that there are a lot of good, “confident” men who attract women. I agree with this.