Picture this scenario. You’re the youngest (or oldest if you prefer) in the family, but your sibling is less mature because of a disability, so your parents (subconsciously or not) turns to you to be the leader of the two, thrusting all the responsibilities onto you as well as any punishment for any faults of your “team”. As you get older and find yourself living in a small town where a lot of people will be counting on you to take more responsibilities in the community because people are aging, and you just so happen to have (whether you were really trying or not) the qualities that they’re looking for and are just expecting you to take over one day. Later your sibling becomes so helpless and spoiled that your parents can’t deal with them, and one of them blames you for their behavior, acknowledging that they had treated them better.
They scream at you. “It was your fault. You have been guiding your sibling all along.”
You point out. “You spoiled them.”
They later tell you. “Leaders are important. Without them nothing could get done.”
Instead of all of this making you stronger and a leader, it makes you more apprehensive about doing anything involving teamwork. People talk about there being alphas or betas and how alphas or strong personalities are better, and betas are immature and weak. Well, for starters, the term beta in nature means second in command and are every bit as strong as an alpha. If they beat an alpha or the alpha dies, they assume command. These terms confuse me because I feel like I’m both. They feel like two far ends of the spectrum. One is large, in charge, and boastful. The other is meek, weak, and full of complaints. I am meek but not weak, tough but not boastful, and yet people just decides a role for me. Both depending on the situation, but is being dominate and a leader really that desirable? How can you tell another person what to do? Can someone who doesn’t desire that really be called weak? Does all these labels really matter?