So I was thinking today that domination paradigm in all it's ugly forms. That which forces those around the alpha male into lower status and lower value positions in social resource and propriatal domains, by brute force and utter discompassionate coercion, was actually brought on by females by their preference for strong and powerful males. For the female nature has a switch in it that every male dominator can use, so long as he is dominant, which compels the female to be irresistibly attracted to and submissive to the alpha male. Do women have something in their nature which seeks out strong males, weather or not they want them? And it is that very same nature that drives males to dominate one another in all realms of human experience? Thus competition in all forms regulating the evenflow of human existence. When male dominance is articulated, No male is attractive to the female until he is able to dominate a weak male is ignored...
When a male is dominating he has to literally force his ego over the multitudes of those around him so that they will fall in line to his will. When he does this, the emotions and the perspectives of that ego are uniformly applied across the spectrum of those affected.
Thus when one male dominates a crowd of people, he can also dominate their emotions, and their ideas. When this happens a female will be unable to resist him, because his ego is overpowering her own sense of self. This works to refine his ego by the power of his female consorts. And the more he is able to secure the more his ego's power is secured.

However there are two questions here that bring up a chicken and the egg kind of paradox.

First is it the female that motivates the male into the game of dominance, by some deficiency in her or is it more of his?

Second, as the male dominator secures territory property valuable goods social pleasures and power is it his ego that strengthens those things into his ownership, or is it those things that strengthen his ego?

For both questions I would answer "Both and". For females also play the game of dominance, within a male dominant society. Those females who admire dominance also more fondly support the dominance of their males because it strengthens their own dominance. Thus why they seek the male dominant in the first place.
It is also both and for the question of luxuries and the expansion of the male ego. For when the male is able to express his dominance over a person a peice of land or a good. This takes the immediate pressure off him to dance the dance of the all powerful alpha male. His further aquasisions then bathe his ego in comforts after the stress of presuing such goods. One supports the other.
But there is a problem in both of these models. First by preference of dominance the woman is ever unhappy in her relationship for having to compete for dominance with her male. This thus brings an end to it's stability.
And for the case of the aquisitioning male. It is true the ego and self empowerment gained from the hording of luxeries and property is a real bonus. The positive effects of that gain are reduced by the constant maitenence of his empire, and his ability to control them all silmultainouly. It is a fools game. One small crack in his imperial power structure and the ego suffers greatly. Thus what is brittle is easy to break.
Finally the business of dominance is extremely taxing on the individual. External conflict literally becomes internal conflict. And slowly but surely the effects of stress whittle away and decay the foundations of that ego. Constant efforts for domination ruin the health and vitality of the alpha male, until he finally falls into the chaos that Rome is known for.
Any major campaign for dominance will ultimately be undermined by the simple and minute stresses of small instances of losing control.
Like me loosing control of this essay because this dumb computer can't keep a hard disk running correctly...

Ok so, a couple more points...

First that OK we are living in a male dominator world. Pretty much everything in this world is dominator, SOMETHING or SOMEONE dominator. But the dominators are so high up now, they are so far withdrawn from the masses of those they control that their power is although pretty much complete, it still cannot find the permanent crystallization of their power they are so hungry for. Just a little farther they say, and it will all come finally, but it never does, only the pressure increases.
Meanwhile in dominator paradigm like now, the multitudes although also involved in many of their own interpersonal games of dominance, are also exploring the paradigm of partnership and non-competition by sheer rude dominance alone. Thus in the midst of a dominator paradigm and society, perhaps more of the world survives in a partnership paradigm. Thus the partnership and dominator styles are also in a competition of their own.
Obviously for partnership to rule, it has to not compete whatsoever "against" the dominator style paradigm. For that competition in itself is a complete loss to the other style which to it is opposed, and by opposing it strengthens it. Thus the partnership paradigm must support male dominance, it must instead of being transformed by male dominance into a competitive struggle, it must partner up with male dominance to spread it's partnership values. Thus by doing nothing, everything is done.

Discuss.