It was 2 AM on a Friday that still felt like a Thursday. After pulling enough all-nighters to write an essay about how to do so and still be functional the next day, I have realized I am far more susceptible to comments I do not agree with when I have not slept for more than 21 hours. And so, unfortunately, because the universe had also realized this, and because it loves to test me, it seduced me into the claws of social media and away from the French midterm I was supposed to be studying for – tres terrible, I know. It purposely presented me with two contradictory posts about the role of the modern woman; one would excite me while the caused me outrage.
Both posts were shared on a closed group of only women, so I can imagine I was not the only one moved. The first post contained the link to the first article: “Society is creating a new crop of alpha women who are unable to love”, by Suzanne Venker. This article was published in the Fox News opinion column on February 8, 2017. The second one had a screenshot of a tweet that would redirect readers to the second article. This article was posted by Nylon Magazine on February 9, 2017 with the headline: “Renowned human rights lawyer Amal Clooney and her husband George are expecting twins!”.
Now, let’s start by dissecting the first article, shall we?
The author, Suzanne Venker is known for her provocative views on gender roles, family and work. In this article she argues that today there are far too many alpha women because “women [have] been groomed to be leaders rather than to be wives. Simply put, women have become too much like men. They are too competitive. Too masculine. Too alpha.”
Yes, that is a direct quote from the article. So now, after allowing ourselves a moment to let that sink in, let’s analyze what this affirmation entails. Is Venker saying that only men can be leaders and women should focus on being what she will later describe as “soft wives”? Because being leaders is “too competitive”, “too masculine”, “too alpha”, and women should not be any of those if they want to have a long lasting relationship. What do you think Oprah Winfrey thinks about this? Malala Yousafzai? Hillary Clinton? Emma Watson? Amal Clooney? Rosa Parks? Joan of Arc? Janet Yellen? To name a few… What do you think the women that follow these leaders think about this? Will they say, “You know what Suzanne, you are right. Emma Watson might be right on feminism, Malala might be right on Education, Rosa Parks might have been right on human rights, but they are just too alpha, so I will ignore their teachings, you know, for the sake of my relationship”?
She also states that her mother was the quintessential alpha woman, she was the boss of the house, which is the reason why she was not a good wife.
Then, Suzanne explains this by arguing that any good relationship needs both a masculine and a feminine force.
“In essence, being feminine means being nice. It means being soft instead of hard. (…) As a man named Chuck once wrote on my site: ‘A strong woman is awesome. But she must be inviting and be able to mesh into an actual relationship. Needing to dominate and overpower, that is a no go.’ ”
Should us women listen to “a guy named Chuck”? Or should we not be afraid to have an opinion? What if there really needs to be a alpha and beta in a relationship but it has nothing to do with who is more feminine or masculine? And who defines masculinity and femininity? Can feminine be harsh? Can masculinity be soft and sensible? What if my husband wants to be a beta? What if we are both alphas and betas in different instances during our relationship? What if a relationship is more about balance? Maybe she dominates in the financial spheres (at times) and he dominates in the emotional spheres of a relationship (at times)? What are the limits of femininity and masculinity?
Finally, Venker ends her moving article by saying that her alpha ways were bumping into her husband’s alpha nature before she decided to be a beta full time. So basically men are born to be the boss while some women unfortunately fall into those ways, thus Suzanne decided she wouldn’t jeopardize her relationship and now she is super happy and excited about it. If this is being a beta and it is not in her nature to be alpha, good for her! But should she actively recommend women to be betas, even if they do not feel it is in their nature, I ask her?
I will end the analysis of Venker’s article by stating that her whole conception of alpha might actually be wrong. For me, having an opinion, arguing soberly and not accepting whatever your husband thinks is what makes an alpha an alpha. Suzanne seems to think an alpha is close minded, not open to discussion on topics she thinks she is completely right. She thinks being alpha means being prepotent and authoritarian, while it might actually mean knowing when to delegate power, knowing that we need to pick our battles, and knowing how to argue in a rational way. These qualities are what makes us alpha: true leaders, not dictators or pushovers.
Now, we turn to why the second article caught my attention. As many of us know, Amal and George Clooney are expecting twins. Most people know who George is, but unfortunately ignore the amazing lawyer Amal is. This is the reason why the headline of the second article was so important; it named Amal first. I do not want to discredit George as he is a very talented actor, but Amal is currently jeopardizing her life to sue ISIS: she represents Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Nadia Murad, a survivor of the Yazidi Genocide, on the legal fight for accountability. Not only that, she also represents Yazda, a non-profit organization that protects and supports the Yazidi survivors in Syria, Iran, and the US.
I must confess that I had no idea she existed before she married George Clooney, but this article reminds me that we need to make smart people famous. I had not Googled her name once as Amal Alamuddin, unfortunately. However, I have Googled Amal Clooney many more times than I have looked up George Clooney. She deserves all and more of the recognition she has received for her wholehearted work. She is what maybe Suzanne Venker will call an alpha woman; she has an opinion, she defends human rights, and I can assure you she is happy to be a leader (I would never use the term bossy to describe her). She would not be in the position she is if she were soft and submissive. In fact, her alpha personality is probably what made George fall in love with her. Besides that, she is also beautiful and has an amazing sense of style: is that what Suzanne would call “feminine”? And would Suzanne argue that she needs to leave her alpha ways behind, now that she is expecting twins and might want her relationship with George to last? Because for Suzanne, George might feel intimidated by Amal’s power and harsh ways. Being a “badass” is what makes Amal Amal. She is an inspiration to me and many other girls that are interested in politics; girls that see that women are a visible minority in the chamber where she works; girls that see that she is not afraid of men and is not afraid of making strong statements that leave people perplexed. She is not afraid to be smart and use that intelligence for the causes she believes in. If it is in her nature to be opinionated, why should she change her nature while men are encouraged to have an opinion? Considering her experience and knowledge on, for example, human rights, why should her opinion be worth less than a man of similar background?
I will leave these questions open ended, inviting my readers to answer them and think about them with scrutiny.
Both Suzanne and Amal have power and use it in different ways, but If I were to pick a mentor, I would choose alpha Amal twelve thousand times over beta Suzanne.