The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? The Buddha was male, so was he an &quot;alpha male&quot;? It's a facetious question. Are Buddhas e.g. submissive and androgynous? I am asking because 'alpha male' is a recurring idea in Western culture right now, and I wondered what Buddhism and the imitation of Buddhas' character, has to say about that.
An answer claimed androgyny is &quot;consistent with Buddhist philosophy&quot;.
No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own &quot;me&quot; and &quot;mine&quot; first.
'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane. So I was thinking &quot;no&quot;; but perhaps Buddhism offers a critique of 'macho'.
Please see the sutta quote below of AN 7.51.
The Buddha was neither alpha male, beta male, alpha female, beta female, androgynous, dominant or submissive (from a gender-identity perspective).
Rather, he was unbound and free of all such binding gender identity views.
He was not even self-identified as a human being - he was simply the Awakened One - also please see this answer.
From AN 7.51 (or numbered AN 7.48 here):

A woman focuses on her own femininity: her feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So she focuses on the masculinity of others: masculine moves,
masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine
voice, and masculine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes
pleasure in it. So she desires to bond with another. And she desires
the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient
beings who are attached to their femininity are bound to men. This is
how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
A man focuses on his own masculinity: his masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he focuses on the femininity of others: feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he desires to bond with another. And he desires the pleasure and
happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings who are
attached to their masculinity are bound to women. This is how a man
does not transcend his masculinity. This is how one is bound.
And how does one become unbound? A woman doesn’t focus on her own
femininity: her feminine moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways,
feminine desires, feminine voice, and feminine adornment. She isn’t
stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it. So she doesn’t focus
on the masculinity of others: masculine moves, masculine appearance,
masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and masculine
adornment. She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.
So she doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does she desire the
pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings
who are not attached to their femininity are not bound to men. This is
how a woman transcends her femininity.
A man doesn’t focus on his own masculinity: masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure
in it. So he doesn’t focus on the femininity of others: feminine
moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine
voice, and feminine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes
no pleasure in it. So he doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does
he desire the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond.
Sentient beings who are not attached to their masculinity are not
bound to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity. This is
how one is unbound. This is the exposition of the teaching on the
bound and the unbound.”