I would add that whatever hierarchy or system exists for women, it's inverse of males (if I understand the SSH correctly) in that social success for women is dependent on their long term sexual success: marriage, preferably to a high status male.
She also gets right that there is a system of sorts, and it's more fluid less set in stone than the males it seems. Yeah some things can't be changed, like base looks, but marriage status, spouse rank, weight, etc can be changed and those all impact female status among females. The ultimate goal is competing and clawing for resources, no matter how muted that drive or instinct may be among more 'genteel' females like nice Christian moms. The instinct is still there, and it seems like most females don't notice it despite all of us responding to that very instinct in the same ways and following the rules of interaction.
A 'bestie' is a Bead with longstanding loyalty to the Hub, usually a childhood friend. They reinforce the Hub and act as the Ideal Bead. They usually don't want to be the Hub and are settled in their role in the Wheel.
This is a disturbingly accurate picture of the dysfunctional state of Western Civilization. The shallowness would be shocking if it weren't for the fact that it's been, in essence, normalized for so long. This is what you get when individuals are trained from birth to focus on ME, MY, MINE, with others only being necessary as potential resources. And it's easy to see why this world view has been carefully indoctrinated into the population when you see how effective it's been at concentrating the wealth (world resources) of the West into fewer and fewer hands. The ultimate parasitic game.
Do the wheels interact in predictable ways? Or do they tend to avoid each other.
With guys, one gang might go up against another gang over territory using physical aggression. Is there a corollary with the female groups? In men, you typically see battles between similar peer groups. You would not see a group of top athletes gang up on a group of computer geeks. Maybe because there is no honor in such a win.
But two groups of street toughs? Sure, the gangs have their own personality that is apart from the individual gang members.
Do the wheels have a distinct collective personality that interacts with other wheels? What form does inter-group competition take?
With groups of men they could. Obvious example cheerleaders and athletes.
This is an interesting way to model female relationships. As for the “resources” the hub allocates, I think Access and Time need to be considered, as they’re more valuable. The bead closer to the hub gets more text threads and afternoon coffee invites, diminishing until the bead flies off the spoke altogether.
Speaking of spokes, we’re probably talking about some wobbly wheels, with maybe three or four spokes at best.
"The biggest losers in the female social systems either can’t get into or stay in a Wheel ("one of the guys") or are confined to low status Wheels, which only get lower as they age."
Ouch, that hurt.
As an observer, this is quite true, shockingly so. Gives good ideas on how to improve the lives of future women I encounter. Thanks for the post.
It's a pretty good take, but from what I see, the model of a spoke and wheel are too stable for the utter chaos that is female social groups. Especially single women.
I would say that this is generally a good take and the concept of wheel and hub are what I termed the "generic" status or "type" that is rather tenuous when compared to the male hierarchy. I would also add that while the writer is clearly more self-aware than the average woman by... a LOT, most of the behaviour she describes, insofar as it fits observable reality, is done by women mostly unconsciously, similarly to how men too for the most part, fall into their hierarchy structures by instinct.
2 is most likely, seeing how you don't spend any words describing the social structures that you are exposed to and how they don't line up with this lady's description.
While the topology of this model (hub-bead) might be correct, the explanatory dynamic is wrong.
1. "Resource acquisition". This is Marxist economic thinking in action. Human motivation is much more than dollar signs. The fact that poor aristocrat women will bitterly hold onto their social station and ruthlessly gate-keep against the nouveau riche, and the nouveau desperately trying to infiltrate the upper strata, plainly shows that women value "social status" more than money. High School observation might show the rich girls on top, but that is more a proxy of status, and the active shunning of any poor-but-higher-status-girls (due to jealousy), than "resource acquisition". Remember that Female Status is not synonymous with "popularity".
2. "High status men". Female Social grouping is not based on husband/boyfriend acquisition. This is due to the writer glomming onto Vox's SSH, and trying to mirror that model. Also due to the confusion of sexual-attractiveness with actual active sexual activities. Women group by attractiveness more due to jealousy than anything else. Women social groups can be more body-diverse, if formed by other factors (a Hub accumulating friends over time). It is more that changes in attractiveness (weightloss, new hairstyle) might upset the social order and induce turbulence.
Social status is not a "resource", but an end in-and-of itself. Poor aristocracy is the proof. "Social capital" is invented by jealous poor women and poor gammas.
Incorrect. Poor aristocracy can still go places and call in favors you can't. Access to useful people is a resource. Spare time is a resource. Mental capacity is a resource.
Having an aunt who will watch your kids is a resource. A friends couch to crash on is a resource.
Your mental frame work is too monetarily focused. Resources existed before money did.
Women groups more for the "fun factor" than "sexual attractiveness stratification". Slate and other female pubs are full of advice columns for girls complaining that their friends keep having rich girl activities that their bankrupt selves cannot afford.
This rings true in my experience.
I would add that whatever hierarchy or system exists for women, it's inverse of males (if I understand the SSH correctly) in that social success for women is dependent on their long term sexual success: marriage, preferably to a high status male.
She also gets right that there is a system of sorts, and it's more fluid less set in stone than the males it seems. Yeah some things can't be changed, like base looks, but marriage status, spouse rank, weight, etc can be changed and those all impact female status among females. The ultimate goal is competing and clawing for resources, no matter how muted that drive or instinct may be among more 'genteel' females like nice Christian moms. The instinct is still there, and it seems like most females don't notice it despite all of us responding to that very instinct in the same ways and following the rules of interaction.
A 'bestie' is a Bead with longstanding loyalty to the Hub, usually a childhood friend. They reinforce the Hub and act as the Ideal Bead. They usually don't want to be the Hub and are settled in their role in the Wheel.
Interesting that she doesn't mention the "besties" phenomenon, I always thought that was key to the female social order.
I think so too
This is a disturbingly accurate picture of the dysfunctional state of Western Civilization. The shallowness would be shocking if it weren't for the fact that it's been, in essence, normalized for so long. This is what you get when individuals are trained from birth to focus on ME, MY, MINE, with others only being necessary as potential resources. And it's easy to see why this world view has been carefully indoctrinated into the population when you see how effective it's been at concentrating the wealth (world resources) of the West into fewer and fewer hands. The ultimate parasitic game.
Sounds almost like a fractal concept.
Do the wheels interact in predictable ways? Or do they tend to avoid each other.
With guys, one gang might go up against another gang over territory using physical aggression. Is there a corollary with the female groups? In men, you typically see battles between similar peer groups. You would not see a group of top athletes gang up on a group of computer geeks. Maybe because there is no honor in such a win.
But two groups of street toughs? Sure, the gangs have their own personality that is apart from the individual gang members.
Do the wheels have a distinct collective personality that interacts with other wheels? What form does inter-group competition take?
With groups of men they could. Obvious example cheerleaders and athletes.
This is an interesting way to model female relationships. As for the “resources” the hub allocates, I think Access and Time need to be considered, as they’re more valuable. The bead closer to the hub gets more text threads and afternoon coffee invites, diminishing until the bead flies off the spoke altogether.
Speaking of spokes, we’re probably talking about some wobbly wheels, with maybe three or four spokes at best.
"The biggest losers in the female social systems either can’t get into or stay in a Wheel ("one of the guys") or are confined to low status Wheels, which only get lower as they age."
Ouch, that hurt.
As an observer, this is quite true, shockingly so. Gives good ideas on how to improve the lives of future women I encounter. Thanks for the post.
It's a pretty good take, but from what I see, the model of a spoke and wheel are too stable for the utter chaos that is female social groups. Especially single women.
I would say that this is generally a good take and the concept of wheel and hub are what I termed the "generic" status or "type" that is rather tenuous when compared to the male hierarchy. I would also add that while the writer is clearly more self-aware than the average woman by... a LOT, most of the behaviour she describes, insofar as it fits observable reality, is done by women mostly unconsciously, similarly to how men too for the most part, fall into their hierarchy structures by instinct.
This Hub and Spoke idea sounds a lot like:
Alpha Female and Delta followers.
Interesting. I don't see any evidence of this kind of social structure in the lives of any women I know. I can think of several possibilities:
1. This theory doesn't fit, or at least doesn't fit most women.
2. I'm blind to female social structures.
3. This applies to tribal/village/small town life but not modern urban environments.
4. Some other explanation ...
So, which is it?
2 is most likely, seeing how you don't spend any words describing the social structures that you are exposed to and how they don't line up with this lady's description.
It describes beta orbiters to a T, surely you have seen women with beta orbiters.
No.
Believe me, I'm completely open to the idea I'm simply blind to this phenomenon.
Very interesting, thank you for posting!
Women are mercenaries. If a man doesn't have money, they don't date/marry/stay with them.
If a man does not have money because he is lazy, then yes there are many "mercenary" women
That's just retarded thinking right there.
This is pretty darn spot on.
While the topology of this model (hub-bead) might be correct, the explanatory dynamic is wrong.
1. "Resource acquisition". This is Marxist economic thinking in action. Human motivation is much more than dollar signs. The fact that poor aristocrat women will bitterly hold onto their social station and ruthlessly gate-keep against the nouveau riche, and the nouveau desperately trying to infiltrate the upper strata, plainly shows that women value "social status" more than money. High School observation might show the rich girls on top, but that is more a proxy of status, and the active shunning of any poor-but-higher-status-girls (due to jealousy), than "resource acquisition". Remember that Female Status is not synonymous with "popularity".
2. "High status men". Female Social grouping is not based on husband/boyfriend acquisition. This is due to the writer glomming onto Vox's SSH, and trying to mirror that model. Also due to the confusion of sexual-attractiveness with actual active sexual activities. Women group by attractiveness more due to jealousy than anything else. Women social groups can be more body-diverse, if formed by other factors (a Hub accumulating friends over time). It is more that changes in attractiveness (weightloss, new hairstyle) might upset the social order and induce turbulence.
The OP explicitly stated not all mentioned resources were monetary.
Economists typically reply to your argument that people don't define "resources" broadly enough.
Social status is not a "resource", but an end in-and-of itself. Poor aristocracy is the proof. "Social capital" is invented by jealous poor women and poor gammas.
Enough with the would-be "corrections", Jimmy.
Incorrect. Poor aristocracy can still go places and call in favors you can't. Access to useful people is a resource. Spare time is a resource. Mental capacity is a resource.
Having an aunt who will watch your kids is a resource. A friends couch to crash on is a resource.
Your mental frame work is too monetarily focused. Resources existed before money did.
Women groups more for the "fun factor" than "sexual attractiveness stratification". Slate and other female pubs are full of advice columns for girls complaining that their friends keep having rich girl activities that their bankrupt selves cannot afford.
It is a great essay and the beginning of a 10 million-view YouTube video.