edit: And I see that eight people have opted for "Gamma positive" while only I have opted for "Gamma negative". WAKE UP PEOPLE YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELVES.
edit2: Here's a thought, has anybody else noticed that these categories map pretty well onto social class? Alpha as bourgeois, Beta as commercial petty bourgeois, Gamma as professional petty bourgeois, Delta as proletariat and Omega as lumpenproletariat. And I don't think that's just an analogy, either, I think that may be what these categories are actually about. Whoever designed this list isn't just listing masculine archteypes, he's presenting a legitimising ideology for capitalism. Capitalist social hierarchies re-framed in the logic of the wolf pack, and thereby legitimised as natural and inevitable. Something to consider.
edit3: Further elaborations, probably more tenuous. Alpha positive as the productive bourgeois, masterful but conscientious. Alpha negative as finance bourgeoisie, regarded warily because their rapaciousness brings the whole system of masculinity/social class into question. Beta positive as the loyal petty bourgeois, the idealised "small business" who can aspire to bourgeois status. Beta negative as the disloyal petty bourgeois, downwardly mobile and prone to Poujadism. Gamma positive as the loyal intelligentsia, aloof from the day-to-day affairs of capitalism but both dependent on it and willing to sanction it philosophically. Gamma negative as the disloyal intelligentsia, Jacobin lawyers writing angry tracts from their garrets, contemptible but dangerous. (Note that while other strata are described with more disdain, none are described with more venom.) Delta positive as the loyal worker, lacking talent or intelligence but doing their best. Delta negative as the disloyal worker, a shirker, characterised by a Marxian refusal to acknowledge the natural right of his superiors to their superiority. Omega positive, the passive lumpenproletariat, the dregs of society but knowing their place. Omega negative, the criminal lumpenproletariat, marginal but disobedient, ignorant of the rightfulness of their lowly status and prone to disrupting the whole system through antisocial behaviour.
The genius of this is that by placing both destructive capital and dissenting subalterns into the same category of "negative", the logic achieves a sort of pseudo-progressivism, perhaps even pseudo-socialism, as the system (masculinity/capitalism) becomes your best defence against the system itself. Just as the fratbro, the emo and the Nazi-furry represent toxic masculinities, so Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street and somebody mugging you on Wall Street represent a sort of toxic capitalism, self-interest without respect for social structures. There is nothing outside of the system, outside of the social order preordained by God and/or Nature, there is only loyalty and disloyalty to that order. As the graphic works out as an appeal to a dignified, traditional masculinity, in which the possibility of achieving masculine virtue and the good nature of the virtuous binds event he lower categories of male to the system of masculinity, so it works out as an appeal to a corporatist capitalism, in which the possibility of social advancement by the meritorious and the beneficence of the bourgeoisie keep the subaltern classes invested. And perhaps most importantly, all this is presented as a function of individual character and individual effort, with appeals to circumstance to explain either one's own failure or another success specifically marked out as a character flaw, perhaps the greatest flaw of all. Criticism of the existing system is self-invalidating, because only losers and ingrates don't like the system.
It's possible that I'm over-thinking it. I'm certainly thinking about it more than whoever constructed the graphic. But I don't think I'm wrong.
