FINALLY EXPLAINED The mysterious function of female dominance hierarchies :-OOOO

On today’s episode of “It Takes a Sperg”, I’ll tackle a question nagging the proprietor of Le Chateau:

In my view, an unresolved mystery of human evolution is why women would bother engaging in status jockeying competition with other women when men choose mates primarily based on physical attractiveness and youth (but I repeat myself), traits which women have little control over and which are hardly altered by direct competition with other women. It’s obvious why men compete with other men….women are attracted to high status men who can provide resources and social connections for them and their children. It’s not so obvious why women compete with other women given that no man who wasn’t a scheming gigolo marrying an older rich widow to finance his gay twink lifestyle ever gave a rat’s ass about a woman’s social station.

Chateau Heartiste
Female Social Rank Is Irrelevant To Male Mate Choice

It’s a great post, would wallquote again.

In the most fundamental sense, female status striving occurs for the same reason as male striving, but with a couple of additional constraints that arise from sexual dimorphism. Anytime you have people/animals living together there are going to be differences of priority, opinion, and allocation. Decisions must be made. When differences of priority, opinion, and allocation are irreconcilable, conflict occurs. In the course of conflict, one person gets what they want (WINNING) and the other person loses. Conflict is destructive, and insofar as social competition rises above group-level hormesis it must be contained to reasonable levels to avoid complete atomization. Fortunately, social animals tend to recognize that the winner of one fight is likely to win the next fight too, so that instead of fighting the habitual winner is thereafter content with Alpha posturing and receiving a submission display from the Beta who correctly anticipates yet another painful loss. Over time these conflicts and pseudo-conflicts are formalized as status hierarchies to minimize destructive conflict.

There are three specifically feminine aspects of conflict: the male hierarchy’s monopoly on serious violence, the diminished female flight response, and sexualized neuroticism (which, interestingly, will explain the cultural practice of “sacrificial lambs”…another time).

As CH is wont to repeat, eggs are valuable and sperm is cheap. In any k-selected species it’s acceptable for males to be killed, but not females. It’s not preferred because the group’s capabilities to fight and hunt are severely weakened, but the loss of wombs is an immediate death sentence for the next generation. Wombs are therefore a resource which the male dominance hierarchy protects jealously. This means female conflicts must be kept nonlethal, passive-aggressive, and emotional, unlike the physical conflicts you see commonly among the more r-selected females. Rather than fighting the Omega female, an Alpha female is more inclined to starve the other girl through gatekeeping and ostracism, which restricts the Omega’s access to the group’s food and other resources. I expect that in the more feral middle schools it’s common for Alpha females to sabotage the Omega females’ ability to eat lunch, maybe by throwing their food trays on the ground or in the trash.

Women don’t have the same fight, flight, or freeze response as men because they don’t have the same historical capability for existing outside of society. Even as recently as say, 1700, a man might get fed up with and go live innawoods by himself without significantly increasing his chances of death. Given a hatchet and the basic survival knowledge common to pre-modern man about which bodies of water are likely to harbor dysentery, he might have 50/50 odds of getting through the first winter. Contrasting these odds with a human society teeming with tuberculosis, sewage, and bipedal parasites, country living would be more of a lifestyle choice than a desperate move. But for women, from pre-history until the industrial revolution, country living without external support would be suicide. This is primarily from lack of androgens like testosterone, which produce toughness in men subjected to prolonged stress, whereas women in harsh conditions become either panicked or gentle (or one followed by the other).

The final difference in female social competition is a bit darker and relates to the unfortunate nature of their sexuality. As top-earning sex worker Alice Little was keen to point out in her interview with Tim Ferriss, “Everything in life is about sex except sex itself, which is about power.” Because they are physically powerless, women are paradoxically prone to attack the things they love (this manifests as “nagging” in marriage and “shit testing” in PUA). This is because their winning defensive move is to be possessed by someone or something much stronger which can defend them properly. The way this plays out in practice is that they’ll lash out (fight) at whatever power structure (or Frame) they inhabit and then, upon provoking an anger response, submit (freeze) by opening their legs and cooing “I’m so harmless though, wouldn’t you rather just fuck me and possess me than kill me?” Contrary to our better judgment, this tactic has worked on men for millions of years and women in love (worship) are therefore caught in a never-ending emotional cycle between fight and submit, anger and sexual fear, hatred and terror.

Because their sexual expression is hopelessly cross-wired with fear and anger, women are prone to heightened neuroticism and the sexualization of power dynamics that invoke fear or anger but are not sexual in nature. Consider the example of women in corporate leadership positions:

Distressed that her tribe’s men are insufficient and unattractive, Mulan’s penis envy is released from its incest taboo and manifests as a desire to invade (where the natural state is for men to invade, and women to invite). Thus, she castrates her father by taking his sword and assuming his aspect, as I predicted in the composite countryman and racial infidelity: “The patriarchal image is expected to react with a dominance display, therefore boosting his attractiveness, and if he fails to do this she will castrate and enslave him.”…

In any case, we must take note that the feminine imperative contains a clear dichotomy: she must either castrate every man she meets, or submit to him. This is why, as Vox says, “The death knell is the female preachers. I don’t know why, exactly, but once a church reaches that point, you can rest assured that it isn’t coming back.” It’s the sexual nature of women to castrate any man in her care, for the crime of being weak enough to be under her. This goes for composites as well, like corporations, churches, et al. The nature of woman is to destroy male spaces until she finds one that’s too strong (high-value) for her to destroy it, then bag the highest-value man she can get. They can’t control this desire to destroy, they can only be contained.

The Heroine’s Journey in Mulan

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to FINALLY EXPLAINED The mysterious function of female dominance hierarchies :-OOOO

  1. glosoli says:

    Any thoughts on how the dynamic plays out between women, their husbands and their sons.

    My mother (supported by my father) had yet another meltdown recently over my red-pilled attitude, my faith, and my decision to not spend Christmas in this country (leaving them to the joy of each other’s company). Apparently, Christmas is all about family dontcha know, and there was me thinking it was about the birth of Christ.

    I sense she just wants all 3 of the men in the family to be her little poodles (she has two, including my brother), and will just keep attacking me because I won’t submit to her at all.

    It’s annoying and frustrating to experience, as I’ve told them I’m no longer a child, and will live my own life.

    Oh, and also, they think I’m in some sort of cult, lead astray. I think you and Koanic should come and meet them one day, a video of that would be a big earner on youtube.

    The cult of Jesus Christ, the ultimate reactionary, praise the Lord, it’s a fact, I’m in.

    Happy New Year everyone.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Any thoughts on how the dynamic plays out between women, their husbands and their sons.

      The same. Boys past puberty especially need freedom from their mothers’ attempts to geld them.

      >My mother (supported by my father) had yet another meltdown recently over my red-pilled attitude, my faith, and my decision to not spend Christmas in this country (leaving them to the joy of each other’s company). Apparently, Christmas is all about family dontcha know, and there was me thinking it was about the birth of Christ.

      Family is an aspect of Christmas, but not what it’s about. Christmas is a celebration in remembrance of Christ’s birth, and one ought to celebrate with family and friends, but a celebration of nothing is silly and “Dry crumbs in peace are better than a full meal with strife.”

      >Oh, and also, they think I’m in some sort of cult, lead astray. I think you and Koanic should come and meet them one day, a video of that would be a big earner on youtube.

      That’s the civil religion’s disposition toward Christianity. I tend to get along with people, as you know, so that could work.

      Happy New Year to you too, here’s to another Current Year!

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    Chateau is out to lunch. The key to female power struggles has to do with their influence on the male hierarchy. (Most) men have a strong protective instinct when it comes to women, which women manipulate and exploit. In the female power struggles, their key tactic is “outgrouping”. They practice on each other non-stop. Ever hear about the “woman scorned”? Did you ever wonder why good looking guys can still be beta? A good looking man who is low social status has to fear the “woman scorned”. She turns those “outgrouping” skills to good effect… on the male hierarchy. How? By invoking the protective instinct. This is why Roosh says “no women” on his forum. You can’t let women get their foot in the door, or they immediately bring massive chaos.

    So, why do women struggle to make their own hierarchy? Chateau was right that a woman who isn’t seen isn’t courted. This is the dynamic we saw with Cinderella and her two sisters, who bullied her to make sure she didn’t go to the ball and catch the princes eye. But, the other element is outgrouping. Women try hard to “outgroup” men who they find unattractive so that they are ONLY surrounded by attractive men.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Men are of value to a tribe; they are the workers and warriors and planners. So, when “scorned women” sow chaos and keep outgrouping “unattractive” men, this weakens the tribe severely. That is why patriarchy always wins. Patriarchy is the only system where women’s ability to sow chaos is minimized.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Yeah, I’m going to cover this separately in a Jeremiad against Western Alphas tomorrow.

  3. Mycroft Jones says:

    Female dominance struggles. Read Jane Goodall. Females are brutal. They kill each others children, when they can’t simply outgroup them, which means to deny them resources, which means ability to grow and be healthy. When females struggle for dominance, they are basically building social structures that increase the safety and success of their offspring.

  4. a says:

    >and sexualized neuroticism (which, interestingly, will explain the cultural practice of “sacrificial lambs”…another time).
    Or maybe shedding the blood of an animal is simply an effective way to make the sacrifice memorable and have some WEIGHT behind it.
    I have no comments if you were speaking metaphorically.

  5. Koanic says:

    Excellent post.

  6. Tanicia says:

    This is a really wonderful article, I do wish the female subsets were touched on a bit. The Vox head nod and quote fit in perfectly

  7. Pingback: On feminism | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s