wait so… is there a hierarchical distribution of the typology of women w.r.t. the SSH status of their husbands? Like, can we find regular patterns of female behavior that strongly correlate to them choosing particular SSH-types of men?
It is queued up to where he outlines his hierarchy but you'll probably want to watch the beginning where all the girls, including a 1, claim to be "10s".
Because women are solipsistic, they tend to incorrectly assume that men are attracted to women on the basis of the female pecking order. But men seek out women based on their individual characteristics, not their rank in the female pecking order. And men seek out women based on men's own criteria (youth, beauty, fertility, chastity, pleasantness, supportiveness, maternal instincts, domestic skills, intelligence, humor, grace, etc.) And men don't care about the criteria women use in sorting out their own pecking order (mean-girlness, skinniness, highest ranking boyfriend/husband, possession of gossip, capacity for bitchiness, career, clothes, enviable instagram page, and/or whatever else they worry about).
The SSH is understood implicitly by men and women. Women are attracted to the same guys that lesser men "want to be" or "want to serve." Whereas men, to the confusion of women, are not necessarily attracted to the highest ranking hens in the female pecking order.
No idea if there is a Female SSH, or what it might be. But based on my observations in the discussion of the Male-SSH (M-SSH), I suspect the following:
It will a while before we can get the average guy to stop applying the M-SSH to himself, or trying to redefine it to raise his rank. That means for those guys they are still in the awareness stage and can't use the tool properly yet.
If they can't apply the M-SSH properly, how can they participate in discovering the F-SSH?
This means that these guys are still too focused on themselves as the frame of reference.
Discovering an outside system while remaining self-focused within one's own system is not likely to yield much. As guys, we are going to have to develop a much better ability to perceive the mechanisms within our own system and learn to observe and anticipate actions.
Predictions, but not what the F-SSH is, but about it's arrival on our shores:
--If defined, only a few will be able to truly perceive it
--Even fewer will be able to apply it
--If the M-SSH is fertile soil for self-focus and squabbles over definitions, this will be no different
--If it makes it into widespread use, husbands will have new questions that will require diplomatic answers. (similar to: Does this outfit look good on me?)
--A sitcom will be ginned up wherein they manage to get the concepts almost, but not entirely exactly wrong.
--Dating apps will add the F-SSH ranks as hashtags or attributes. Like hair color. They will add the M-SSH as well, forcing all men to identify as Alpha or Sigma to get matched. Women will have a feature allowing them to specify a guy's rank as the reason for rejection.
--Left unexplored is the way in which Evangelical pastors will interact with this. The jokes write themselves.
Also prioritzing losing weight and having an under nourished body (in my opinion) seems to be a mostly european women thing. Yes other races do it as well but not to the extent.
This is how I envision the female hierachy: Crone aka the( Mother of Mothers), Mother, then the "not mother group". But within each group there is a hierachy mostly based on beauty but other traits such as skills, charm, and income level counts too. So within the each group there could be "fights" like the article suggests to be better/higher than someone else. So women can change there hierachy position unlike men. Although I imagine at the Crone level their probably isn't much "fighting" since they are older and beauty is fleeting. The only complication to this is women on the spectrum. The article implies healthy feminine female but I'm seeing more stories of females who don't feel feminine and "get a long with guys" more so they don't really interact with the pecking order. As suggested before I think that's a disorder caused by healthy issues or trama and not necessarily normal feminine behavior.
Women can take mentorship from a women one stage higher and can regress one stage lower when useful to their purposes.
The problem with this hierarchy is that there is no sexual component from a male perspective. (Other then certain problems with women are obviously endemic to certain stages)
For the male SSH, a man's status among other men directly affects how attractive he is to women. For women, their status among other women doesn't have any (direct) bearing on how attractive she is to men. In fact, the causal relationship is more likely reversed: her attractiveness to men greatly determines her status among other women.
The male hierarchy gives men concrete information on how to be more attractive to women, but it isn't as immediately obvious that understanding female competition can help women attract men (except maybe be skeptical of the advice of other women).
If there are any fixed categories in the female SSH, I suspect they have less to do with how they compete with other women, and more to do with what kinds of romantic relationships a woman is able to maintain with what kind of men.
For women it seems like they all want to knock down the pretty nail who sticks out. Which is why the least attractive one is the most slutty, and the one with the prettiest face is encouraged to cut her hair short. Meanwhile the one with the ugly face is always in short-shorts or has her titties on display.
As a non-expert, it seems to me that unlike a male hierarchy, women have more of a committee who ensure everyone is looking, talking, and acting the same. Which probably also explains why they are so likely to vote for collectivists who want to uplift the poor and tax the rich.
Other than @Julie C and a few others, you all got confused.
Tldr: Female Social Dynamics, too chaotic for hierarchy. BB said family framework, not packs. Women love efficiency and being organized, ala Jordan Peterson. Jealousy due to Gaussian Distribution and advertising.
Trying to look for "hierarchy" is the wrong paradigm and frame of analysis, which leads you down the wrong answers. As Big Bear previously discussed, women generally view groups in a family-type framework. (One reason why "Friends" and #ChosenFamily resonate so much with women in general.) So that is one thing to keep in mind. Instead, look at the Female Social Dynamics. (Hierarchy is too static. Women are too chaotic.)
Look at the mom-influencers. What are they selling, why women follow them. Look at Marie Kondo. Anorexia. The greatest common factor among all those, is "Organized". Women may have a sense of aesthetics, but they are (generally) not sexually attracted to other women, so they cannot measure sexual attractiveness on their own without male help. But they can measure Organized/Togetherness/Ability on their own. They aspire to be organized, in part because they are emotional, (sometimes) having difficulty organizing their own thoughts. So they celebrate the women who can "do-it-all", who can juggle a career and a three-course-dinner, while still have time for a clean house and well-dressed children.
(Fashion and fashion labels remain a mystery to me. Welcome insight on female fashion dynamics.)
So this female veneration for Taylorist efficiency explains much of the non-sexual components of female social dynamics.
Women cannot sustain large groups because of jealousy and competition. I think part of that is the different ability-distribution between women and men. Women's standard deviation is so much smaller than men's. Therefore, women rarely recognize ability differences amongst acquaintances. And therefore, when they see someone else getting what they themselves want, their first thought is often, "why isn't that me getting it?" Some women are of course more content with their station in life than others. However, modern advertising and the overall materialist culture prime women to prioritize Desire/Greed all the time, which makes them less content and often more jealous. (See Filipina's reputation for jealousy vs American ones, eg.)
[Also why some smarter but less pretty women, like gammas, revere iconoclasts and love inversion thinking.]
So women, though liking groups, often devolve into bonded pairs BFFs (in the absence of families). And often parasitizes off of a male social hierarchy, including both social scene and corporate scene.
It seems to me that the first point of departure of the female pecking order from the male hierarchy is this: for women, there is almost no advantage to being dominant. Women have their own version of status, and status is very important to them, but dominance doesn't buy women much status, whereas dominance does buy men status.
In my experience, the most dominant women are usually unsatisfied with life, partly because they can't find a man who's even more dominant. In the long term, women seem to be happiest when they can relax and even submit under the dominance of a suitable man. He might also need to be of the right social class and acceptable to her friends, but it's crucial that he be strong enough that she feels she can let go of trying to control everything. (In a very limited sense, they're similar to delta males in that respect.) And most men don't particularly like overly dominant women. So female happiness is either uncorrelated or negatively correlated with their dominance, and female status (of which their attractiveness to men is a big part) gets only a very limited benefit from dominance, mainly in settings where men aren't present.
None of this is to imply that I have the slightest idea how the female pecking order works. Only that there are clear reasons why it's nothing like the male hierarchy.
Been annoyingly haunted by this topic all day. I think I've boiled it down (at least for myself) to 2 simple tiers/groups
A The play stupid games, win stupid prizes female. This group gets a lot of attention / horror stories. They can be beauties or non beauties. Erroneously think their words create reality. Very limited risk vs benefits analytical skills (like marring another females looks or image will actually help their plight--most of the time this backfires). Less logical, primitive salesman influence tactics. They cannot remain hidden for long-- so keep your holiness intact & you wont fall into trap. Avoid!
B The No stupid games female. This group also contains beauties & non beauties. May have urges to behave like stupid games group, but whether by virtue or risk/benefits analysis does not, they are out there - Find!
Working with the Mosaic Ark crew (Fencing Bear at Prayer on Telegram) using the queen bee model gets us good queens (bees) and wasps. It is the Eve / Mary model, rather than the Adam / Christ model. Men generally fail the other the sex and society by skivving off. They replace their crown of thorns with one of tinsel (or refuse it altogether). One has Christian alphas like the-Admiral-my-father vs. Donald Trumps.
The wholesome female top of the pecking order thus most resembles the SSH Bravo. All the women want to be her, all the men would want her to be their wife (or if much younger their mother). In a flip of the SSH her social power greatly depends on the status of her mate in both dimensions, but she can affect that situationally by building up her mates status by improving her SSH relative to other women. That is by being both highly attractive to other men, and clearly respecting loving, and deferring her mate. Killer wasps henpeck ala Lady MacBeth.
Oddly, both wasps and bees appear to maintain status by how their court follows them, either by the crab bucket (wasps), or by setting a living example. In both cases, however, IIRC the Ark, to challenge the modus vivendi, beliefs, and manners of the Queen is to be cast out.
The Queen sets the rule of what ideas and values the of her court. Other women are not threatened by her, but desire to emulate her. She maintains a bevy of ladies in waiting who set style, temperament, as mini-queens, and who can step into her place if need be. Queen bees - unlike killer wasps - also continually train princesses who are situational Queens in their own homes, and whose court is their children.
That is as far as the first Mosaic Ark got, and my extrapolation thereof*. Unfortunately the MA livestream is unwatchable on UA - it only works for chat - and I find Telegram to be suss.
*Q & I have been working on this for the Game of Hives plot thread.
Can a bucket of crabs have a hierarchy? I don't have the IQ to figure it out.
wait so… is there a hierarchical distribution of the typology of women w.r.t. the SSH status of their husbands? Like, can we find regular patterns of female behavior that strongly correlate to them choosing particular SSH-types of men?
This is a pretty interesting take on the female hierarchy by hoe_math.
I'm a 10: Status Games: https://youtu.be/PQtdOuD4cLc?feature=shared&t=204
It is queued up to where he outlines his hierarchy but you'll probably want to watch the beginning where all the girls, including a 1, claim to be "10s".
Because women are solipsistic, they tend to incorrectly assume that men are attracted to women on the basis of the female pecking order. But men seek out women based on their individual characteristics, not their rank in the female pecking order. And men seek out women based on men's own criteria (youth, beauty, fertility, chastity, pleasantness, supportiveness, maternal instincts, domestic skills, intelligence, humor, grace, etc.) And men don't care about the criteria women use in sorting out their own pecking order (mean-girlness, skinniness, highest ranking boyfriend/husband, possession of gossip, capacity for bitchiness, career, clothes, enviable instagram page, and/or whatever else they worry about).
The SSH is understood implicitly by men and women. Women are attracted to the same guys that lesser men "want to be" or "want to serve." Whereas men, to the confusion of women, are not necessarily attracted to the highest ranking hens in the female pecking order.
Female hierarchy is simple. On a scale of 0 to 1, would?
No idea if there is a Female SSH, or what it might be. But based on my observations in the discussion of the Male-SSH (M-SSH), I suspect the following:
It will a while before we can get the average guy to stop applying the M-SSH to himself, or trying to redefine it to raise his rank. That means for those guys they are still in the awareness stage and can't use the tool properly yet.
If they can't apply the M-SSH properly, how can they participate in discovering the F-SSH?
This means that these guys are still too focused on themselves as the frame of reference.
Discovering an outside system while remaining self-focused within one's own system is not likely to yield much. As guys, we are going to have to develop a much better ability to perceive the mechanisms within our own system and learn to observe and anticipate actions.
Predictions, but not what the F-SSH is, but about it's arrival on our shores:
--If defined, only a few will be able to truly perceive it
--Even fewer will be able to apply it
--If the M-SSH is fertile soil for self-focus and squabbles over definitions, this will be no different
--If it makes it into widespread use, husbands will have new questions that will require diplomatic answers. (similar to: Does this outfit look good on me?)
--A sitcom will be ginned up wherein they manage to get the concepts almost, but not entirely exactly wrong.
--Dating apps will add the F-SSH ranks as hashtags or attributes. Like hair color. They will add the M-SSH as well, forcing all men to identify as Alpha or Sigma to get matched. Women will have a feature allowing them to specify a guy's rank as the reason for rejection.
--Left unexplored is the way in which Evangelical pastors will interact with this. The jokes write themselves.
I ordered the large popcorn for this one.
Losing unnecessary fat and under nourished are not the same thing. Excess fat is unhealthy. Slender is healthy. Body positivity is bad.
Also prioritzing losing weight and having an under nourished body (in my opinion) seems to be a mostly european women thing. Yes other races do it as well but not to the extent.
This is how I envision the female hierachy: Crone aka the( Mother of Mothers), Mother, then the "not mother group". But within each group there is a hierachy mostly based on beauty but other traits such as skills, charm, and income level counts too. So within the each group there could be "fights" like the article suggests to be better/higher than someone else. So women can change there hierachy position unlike men. Although I imagine at the Crone level their probably isn't much "fighting" since they are older and beauty is fleeting. The only complication to this is women on the spectrum. The article implies healthy feminine female but I'm seeing more stories of females who don't feel feminine and "get a long with guys" more so they don't really interact with the pecking order. As suggested before I think that's a disorder caused by healthy issues or trama and not necessarily normal feminine behavior.
The self aware woman
The idealistic woman
The independent woman
The good girl
The bad girl
Women can take mentorship from a women one stage higher and can regress one stage lower when useful to their purposes.
The problem with this hierarchy is that there is no sexual component from a male perspective. (Other then certain problems with women are obviously endemic to certain stages)
I hope this is useful.
For the male SSH, a man's status among other men directly affects how attractive he is to women. For women, their status among other women doesn't have any (direct) bearing on how attractive she is to men. In fact, the causal relationship is more likely reversed: her attractiveness to men greatly determines her status among other women.
The male hierarchy gives men concrete information on how to be more attractive to women, but it isn't as immediately obvious that understanding female competition can help women attract men (except maybe be skeptical of the advice of other women).
If there are any fixed categories in the female SSH, I suspect they have less to do with how they compete with other women, and more to do with what kinds of romantic relationships a woman is able to maintain with what kind of men.
For women it seems like they all want to knock down the pretty nail who sticks out. Which is why the least attractive one is the most slutty, and the one with the prettiest face is encouraged to cut her hair short. Meanwhile the one with the ugly face is always in short-shorts or has her titties on display.
As a non-expert, it seems to me that unlike a male hierarchy, women have more of a committee who ensure everyone is looking, talking, and acting the same. Which probably also explains why they are so likely to vote for collectivists who want to uplift the poor and tax the rich.
Other than @Julie C and a few others, you all got confused.
Tldr: Female Social Dynamics, too chaotic for hierarchy. BB said family framework, not packs. Women love efficiency and being organized, ala Jordan Peterson. Jealousy due to Gaussian Distribution and advertising.
Trying to look for "hierarchy" is the wrong paradigm and frame of analysis, which leads you down the wrong answers. As Big Bear previously discussed, women generally view groups in a family-type framework. (One reason why "Friends" and #ChosenFamily resonate so much with women in general.) So that is one thing to keep in mind. Instead, look at the Female Social Dynamics. (Hierarchy is too static. Women are too chaotic.)
Look at the mom-influencers. What are they selling, why women follow them. Look at Marie Kondo. Anorexia. The greatest common factor among all those, is "Organized". Women may have a sense of aesthetics, but they are (generally) not sexually attracted to other women, so they cannot measure sexual attractiveness on their own without male help. But they can measure Organized/Togetherness/Ability on their own. They aspire to be organized, in part because they are emotional, (sometimes) having difficulty organizing their own thoughts. So they celebrate the women who can "do-it-all", who can juggle a career and a three-course-dinner, while still have time for a clean house and well-dressed children.
(Fashion and fashion labels remain a mystery to me. Welcome insight on female fashion dynamics.)
So this female veneration for Taylorist efficiency explains much of the non-sexual components of female social dynamics.
Women cannot sustain large groups because of jealousy and competition. I think part of that is the different ability-distribution between women and men. Women's standard deviation is so much smaller than men's. Therefore, women rarely recognize ability differences amongst acquaintances. And therefore, when they see someone else getting what they themselves want, their first thought is often, "why isn't that me getting it?" Some women are of course more content with their station in life than others. However, modern advertising and the overall materialist culture prime women to prioritize Desire/Greed all the time, which makes them less content and often more jealous. (See Filipina's reputation for jealousy vs American ones, eg.)
[Also why some smarter but less pretty women, like gammas, revere iconoclasts and love inversion thinking.]
So women, though liking groups, often devolve into bonded pairs BFFs (in the absence of families). And often parasitizes off of a male social hierarchy, including both social scene and corporate scene.
It seems to me that the first point of departure of the female pecking order from the male hierarchy is this: for women, there is almost no advantage to being dominant. Women have their own version of status, and status is very important to them, but dominance doesn't buy women much status, whereas dominance does buy men status.
In my experience, the most dominant women are usually unsatisfied with life, partly because they can't find a man who's even more dominant. In the long term, women seem to be happiest when they can relax and even submit under the dominance of a suitable man. He might also need to be of the right social class and acceptable to her friends, but it's crucial that he be strong enough that she feels she can let go of trying to control everything. (In a very limited sense, they're similar to delta males in that respect.) And most men don't particularly like overly dominant women. So female happiness is either uncorrelated or negatively correlated with their dominance, and female status (of which their attractiveness to men is a big part) gets only a very limited benefit from dominance, mainly in settings where men aren't present.
None of this is to imply that I have the slightest idea how the female pecking order works. Only that there are clear reasons why it's nothing like the male hierarchy.
Been annoyingly haunted by this topic all day. I think I've boiled it down (at least for myself) to 2 simple tiers/groups
A The play stupid games, win stupid prizes female. This group gets a lot of attention / horror stories. They can be beauties or non beauties. Erroneously think their words create reality. Very limited risk vs benefits analytical skills (like marring another females looks or image will actually help their plight--most of the time this backfires). Less logical, primitive salesman influence tactics. They cannot remain hidden for long-- so keep your holiness intact & you wont fall into trap. Avoid!
B The No stupid games female. This group also contains beauties & non beauties. May have urges to behave like stupid games group, but whether by virtue or risk/benefits analysis does not, they are out there - Find!
Working with the Mosaic Ark crew (Fencing Bear at Prayer on Telegram) using the queen bee model gets us good queens (bees) and wasps. It is the Eve / Mary model, rather than the Adam / Christ model. Men generally fail the other the sex and society by skivving off. They replace their crown of thorns with one of tinsel (or refuse it altogether). One has Christian alphas like the-Admiral-my-father vs. Donald Trumps.
The wholesome female top of the pecking order thus most resembles the SSH Bravo. All the women want to be her, all the men would want her to be their wife (or if much younger their mother). In a flip of the SSH her social power greatly depends on the status of her mate in both dimensions, but she can affect that situationally by building up her mates status by improving her SSH relative to other women. That is by being both highly attractive to other men, and clearly respecting loving, and deferring her mate. Killer wasps henpeck ala Lady MacBeth.
Oddly, both wasps and bees appear to maintain status by how their court follows them, either by the crab bucket (wasps), or by setting a living example. In both cases, however, IIRC the Ark, to challenge the modus vivendi, beliefs, and manners of the Queen is to be cast out.
The Queen sets the rule of what ideas and values the of her court. Other women are not threatened by her, but desire to emulate her. She maintains a bevy of ladies in waiting who set style, temperament, as mini-queens, and who can step into her place if need be. Queen bees - unlike killer wasps - also continually train princesses who are situational Queens in their own homes, and whose court is their children.
That is as far as the first Mosaic Ark got, and my extrapolation thereof*. Unfortunately the MA livestream is unwatchable on UA - it only works for chat - and I find Telegram to be suss.
*Q & I have been working on this for the Game of Hives plot thread.