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.
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.