But beyond that generalization, human beings actually associate together in a number of different ways depending upon the purpose of the gathering and the composition of the gathered. For our purposes, consider there to be three basic groupings, male-only, female-only, and mixed. Within each group a different set of basic rules and preconceptions applies. Knowledge of these patterns of behavior can reveal hidden group dynamics that can be used or exploited for a number of purposes. Male and female social patterns -- call them matrices of social interconnection and authority -- have a huge role to play in how men and women pursue their mating strategies. Let's take a look at how the boys do it, first.
The Male Social Matrix
Men, when they congregate in male-only groups quickly establish a soft, somewhat flexible dominance hierarchy almost immediately, through subtle gestures, body postures, gentle discussion, and demonstrations of intelligence and worthiness based on the unwritten/oft-written about code of masculine behavior.
Men value respect, and from respect derives authority. Watch how a group of men who are strangers to each other act when they meet, say at a wedding, funeral, or civil ceremony. The basic ritual is the same, whether it's a group of teens or a bunch of geezers:
But that's the cursory inspection, because unlike women, men value character over context in a social situation. How firm was his handshake? Did he look you in the eye? Did he address you by name? Did he get your title right? Does he act like he has his shit together? Is he an obvious douchebag? All of these elements go into the male assessment of other men in small groups. Men, in other words, prefer to establish a "pecking order", an informal or formal hierarchical structure which provides a stable and transitive order and chain-of-command.
If there's a group of four high-powered executives in suits and an unemployed, unshaven dude in casual wear sitting at a table, for example, a woman would see four Alphas and a rumpled Gamma based on their appearance. Four winners and a loser.
But the men, who quickly established that the unemployed man was in fact the most Alpha, being recently medically discharged from the Special Forces for wounds received while leading an operation in Afghanistan, invested the unemployed soldier with the bulk of their respect and admiration, and thus made him the temporary Alpha of the group. Respect and admiration for personal character, as exemplified by the masculine ideals of courage, sacrifice, and honor trumped their mere material successes. Regardless of the job titles of the executives or their salaries, they would forever be inferior to the man who took up a rifle and risked his life to preserve that of his comrades on the battlefield.
Men tend to form their social hierarchies based on a fairly limited but firm criteria., and we do it very, very quickly. We like rules, and we like them fast. Remember one of the first things the Lord of the Flies boys did when they made it to the island was start making up "Rules! We have to have lots of rules!". Men like firm social boundaries, standard metrics of success and failure, validation and condemnation in easy-to-swallow, bite-sized pieces. We like to know that if we do well by an objective measure we will progress. We like to know the rules of the game before we play.
Nor is the first "Alpha" necessarily set in stone. As the size of the group increases, sub-groups will naturally form around strong individuals. That's expected and accepted, because competition is one of our natural male elements. We want to see the Alphas fight it out -- with the one with the best ideas or most persuasive arguments taking the unofficial "Alpha Leader" title. Until a better one comes along. While men form hierarchical organizations very quickly, they are also prone to allowing their order to decrease over time, allowing demonstrably more competent leadership to take the field.
If the purpose of the group is purely social, then that happens in conversation. We start bragging, shooting the shit, telling stories that refer to our achievements and accomplishments, establishing our masculine "street cred" with a history of our experiences. Or we use the opportunity to demonstrate our wit and humor, a demonstration of intelligence and character. Possibly we will show off trophies that exemplify our success, our tastes, our achievements, or our wealth. In this setting, every male is theoretically in play for Alpha status, and if there is alcohol involved then things may well proceed to Demonstrations of Worthiness, including dangerous testosterone-laden stunts involving lighters and farts.
If the purpose of the group is practical, with a goal or a mission in mind, then the males self-organize behind the Alpha best able to command their loyalty and respect by his presentation. They will often give him their respect and loyalty in good faith up front, particularly if he has the initial social status to command it. But once the mission starts, that respect and loyalty is conditional on his performance. Losing the confidence of the men saps a leader of the respect upon which his authority is based. They will often give him the opportunity to re-claim it, but repeated failures will provide an opportunity for a secondary Alpha being unofficially elected as leader, the respect and therefore the power of authority transferred to the new leader.
Think of the first lieutenant in the war movie who screws up three or four times, only to be rescued by the grizzled old sergeant. The secondary Alphas step up when the primary fails. The men transfer loyalty and respect, and often the secondary Alpha will transfer a portion of it back to the failed Alpha primary -- like Ford pardoning Nixon and allowing him to retire into obscurity, or the tough old sergeant chewing out the men for disrespecting the failed young lieutenant. Authority and respect, intertwined, demand that the efforts be rewarded honorably even if the result was a failure. It's a character thing.
In male groups initial social position is no guarantee of respect and admiration. Watch a group of men from a company go to a Habitat for Humanity build, for example. Once the ties come off and there are hammers in their hands, the measure of respect is your competence, not your title. When you're building a wall it doesn't matter if you have an MBA, that social context is meaningless against the ability to drive a nail. Because of the mission and mission parameters, the male social hierarchy ideally re-arranges to put those demonstrating the best competence in a leadership position. A good Alpha with social skills will accept his demotion gracefully and with good humor, transferring his respect and therefore his authority to the new Alpha. A poor Alpha resents his temporary displacement, and that resentment reflects poorly on his character.
Okay, so men are pretty easy. Competence, respect, admiration, authority, loyalty, success. The success of the group is a larger factor than the success of any particular individual, but the failure of the group is ultimately the responsibility of the Alpha leader. When the group succeeds, then the subordinates are granted respect and admiration by the Alpha leader. When the group fails, the Alpha leader blames himself and usually acknowledges his defeat personally, as General Lee did after the Civil War.
Groups like team sports, the military, Boy Scouts and naval culture are all based upon the masculine model of social organization. The focus is the mission, and devotion to that mission is the measure upon which the individuals flourish or perish. Mating is a secondary issue to this: the goal is to establish a high enough social status within the male group to impress females through a kind of masculine preselection. You might have been the bench-warmer, but if you were the bench-warmer for the championship team, you're still gonna get laid. Men in general prefer an organizational reward system of equitable shares, that is, allocation of resources based on individual effort.
Women, on the other hand, are very different.
The Female Social Matrix
The Female Social Matrix
When women congregate in social groups, the dynamic is very different. Despite clamoring for gender equality, these differences are quite readily apparent to feminist theoreticians and social scientists, as well as casual observers. As one female commentor observed,
While the commentor clearly is trying to tout the advantages of the female-oriented group dynamic, wherein the individual submerges themselves within the group, as opposed to attempting to distinguish herself (and therefore attract unwanted attention and competition) as a male would do in a male-only group.
That doesn't mean that there are no female leaders -- far from it. Indeed, the entire point of the Female Social Matrix is to dominate the group without the appearance of dominating the group. The emphasis is not on gentle competition with words or demonstrations of competence. It is far more a matter of establishing social position through consensus and alliances and then defending it. Meanwhile, the role of the group is to ensure that no one leader gains enough power to dominate the consensus. All-female groupings have traditionally been seen as naturally more democratic . . . but that observation likely misses the subtleties of female group dynamics.
A better conceptualization of all-female group dynamics is the Crab Basket Model (Bischof-Köhler, 1990, 1992). In a basket full of crabs, one does not have to put a lid on the basket to prevent crabs from crawling out because every time one crab tries to crawl higher, another will hold her back by crawling over her. According to this model, women build dominance hierarchies in the same way men do, basically, but those hierarchies are less stable across time and less likely to survive organizational challenges intact. It is telling that despite an overall stability of the rank orders across time, rank position changes occur among low-ranking individuals in all-male groups, whereas in all-female groups, such shifts are far more frequent among middle- and top-ranking females (Savin-Williams, 1979), demonstrating the constantly shifting social alliances determined to re-position a particular individual or group.
While men will decide on a leader and then advance their respect and grant him authority in good faith until he proves his incompetence, once women decide on a leader they immediately begin looking for ways to cast her down, undermine her authority or mitigate her power. . . without looking like that's what they're doing. Female competition is subtle and indirect, a matter of turning group consensus away from the established leaders' desire toward your own. And if you're thinking that's a lousy way to run a company or a non-profit or any organization that wants to actually get something done, well, I can't argue with that. For women all-too-often impose their mating-oriented social ordering on group dynamics in a way which actually rewards inefficiency if it means advancing a particular woman or clique to a dominant position in the Matrix even at the expense of the stated group mission. In other words, it's more important in all-girl groups that things are "fair" that it is that they "get done".
That's why women didn't build the pyramids. Of course, in their defense, women also wouldn't have seen the need to build a huge pile of stones for no particularly good reason.
I find it odd to realize that most men don't observe something that is obvious to every woman I know: that there is a competitive male dynamic to groups that is completely different from the way female groups act. They don't know, of course, because unless the group is overwhelmingly female, the dynamic of any mixed group always defaults to male, with women fading back into supporting conversational roles. Maybe it's the kind of thing you can only observe by contrast to the extremely anti-competitive nature of female groups.
The easiest way to put it (and this is hardly original) is that men in groups are focused on their role within the group. Women in groups are focused on the group. Men gain status by standing out from the group; women gain status by submerging themselves into it — by strengthening the group, often at the expense of themselves.
While the commentor clearly is trying to tout the advantages of the female-oriented group dynamic, wherein the individual submerges themselves within the group, as opposed to attempting to distinguish herself (and therefore attract unwanted attention and competition) as a male would do in a male-only group.
That doesn't mean that there are no female leaders -- far from it. Indeed, the entire point of the Female Social Matrix is to dominate the group without the appearance of dominating the group. The emphasis is not on gentle competition with words or demonstrations of competence. It is far more a matter of establishing social position through consensus and alliances and then defending it. Meanwhile, the role of the group is to ensure that no one leader gains enough power to dominate the consensus. All-female groupings have traditionally been seen as naturally more democratic . . . but that observation likely misses the subtleties of female group dynamics.
A better conceptualization of all-female group dynamics is the Crab Basket Model (Bischof-Köhler, 1990, 1992). In a basket full of crabs, one does not have to put a lid on the basket to prevent crabs from crawling out because every time one crab tries to crawl higher, another will hold her back by crawling over her. According to this model, women build dominance hierarchies in the same way men do, basically, but those hierarchies are less stable across time and less likely to survive organizational challenges intact. It is telling that despite an overall stability of the rank orders across time, rank position changes occur among low-ranking individuals in all-male groups, whereas in all-female groups, such shifts are far more frequent among middle- and top-ranking females (Savin-Williams, 1979), demonstrating the constantly shifting social alliances determined to re-position a particular individual or group.
While men will decide on a leader and then advance their respect and grant him authority in good faith until he proves his incompetence, once women decide on a leader they immediately begin looking for ways to cast her down, undermine her authority or mitigate her power. . . without looking like that's what they're doing. Female competition is subtle and indirect, a matter of turning group consensus away from the established leaders' desire toward your own. And if you're thinking that's a lousy way to run a company or a non-profit or any organization that wants to actually get something done, well, I can't argue with that. For women all-too-often impose their mating-oriented social ordering on group dynamics in a way which actually rewards inefficiency if it means advancing a particular woman or clique to a dominant position in the Matrix even at the expense of the stated group mission. In other words, it's more important in all-girl groups that things are "fair" that it is that they "get done".
Female social hierarchies depend upon loyalty, just as male hierarchies do, but rarely is that loyalty paid to the Alpha leader directly. Instead women form smaller cliques much more easily, allying themselves socially with other women for the purpose of advancing their social position.
Women have a facility for easy social connections, based on their superior communication skills, that allows quick alliances to form and break down. A woman will often find one or two social partners within a group and stick with them, using the combined power of the smaller group to attract advantageous allies. In this sense consensus becomes far more important than authority and respect.
Women have a facility for easy social connections, based on their superior communication skills, that allows quick alliances to form and break down. A woman will often find one or two social partners within a group and stick with them, using the combined power of the smaller group to attract advantageous allies. In this sense consensus becomes far more important than authority and respect.
Conventional wisdom says that women are far less likely to develop social hierarchies than men. After all, women are also far more likely to prefer a reward system of equal allocations, wherein every member of the group gets an even and equal share regardless of effort expended or success achieved (Dobbins, 1986). But the fact is that women express dominance to each other in very different and more subtle ways than men do (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992) and therefore you cannot measure male-dominance in an all-male group the same way you measure female-dominance in an all-female group. Men will clearly display their dominance through visual or situational cues -- a private saluting a general, for instance, is pretty clear-cut dominance-and-submission.
Women, however, use more subtle tools to socially dominate. In particular, they employ conversational aspects that are strongly related to dominance, such as interrupting another woman talking, a fairly common yet subtle female dominance measure. And it's not only straightforward conversational interruptions that contribute to a woman's dominance in the Matrix. Women gain dominance points by "getting the last word", or adding verbal support to another woman's statement, even if the content of that support is semantically null.
The higher up the Matrix you are, the more you can get away with interrupting your subordinates -- indeed, it is expected for female leaders to interrupt in ways that males would consider rude or challenging. Women, one the other hand, score unofficial "points" of dominance to the group with their ability to interrupt and hold the conversation longer than the woman they interrupted. If you register the number of conversational "wins" and "losses" due to successful and unsuccessful interruptions among participants in an all-female group, then a very telling social matrix can be charted establishing dominance and leadership even in situations without a nominal leader.
It's interesting to note that women interrupt each other in all-female groups FAR more often than all-male groups do, and that the number of interruptions rises with the longevity of the group. Further, because the perception of female group members by other group members profoundly influences the formation of a hierarchy within an all-female group, we can conclude that peer perception serves to externally validate conversational "wins" in interruptive interactions that accurately identify dominant women in the group.
In other words, a woman cannot be a leader of other women unless the consensus has validated her dominance . . . she depends on the consensus for authority, and she gains that authority by garnering verbal support and validation from other women.
In all-female groups winning interruptive competitions is positively related to being perceived as involved in the group discussion . . . and among women, "being involved" in the group is extremely important -- more important than actually accomplishing anything. The perception of involvement is almost always given higher status and credit than achievement. And since women, in general, tend to portion out rewards equitably, that extends to status granted for participation. Regardless of the success or failure of the endeavor, as long as everyone participated, everyone's a winner. Competition is downplayed . . . officially.
Unofficially, the power struggles "behind the scenes" and under the surface can be titanic. Thanks to feminine adeptness at subtle and subtextual communications they are rarely in forms that men can plainly see, and they follow a sophisticated "code" of verbal and physical communication that women generally socialize into with great ease. Viscous verbal sparring may sound like polite, almost meaningless conversation to men who do not appreciate the context of the communication -- which to women is more important than the communication itself. Anyone who grew up in the South will recognize this instantly as the "Church Lady Effect".
Southern churches are notorious hotbeds of the Female Social Matrix in its rawest form. With deft speech and subtle innuendo, "Emily is such a social little dear, bless her heart!" can be translated -- in context -- as "Emily is a social-climbing little slut who will stop at nothing to dominate her sphere of the local Matrix, and she had better watch her step, or she's going to get taken out by the current leaders of the Matrix -- but on the other hand she does show some potential as an ally, so I won't condemn her as much as put her in her place because that is how magnanimous and gracious I am -- for which I should earn status within the Matrix."
Context, you see, is everything for women.
Men, on the other hand, see over-involvement in a group or discussion, too much oratory at the expense of brevity, as an attempt to hijack existing social authority. Unless the competence of the leadership has been commonly called into question, it is often met with disdain and disapproval. A dude who talks too much is almost always demoted in status in an all-male social group. She's promoted, in an all-female group. Where men use order and competence to establish dominance, women use consensus and participation, and that determination is made largely on the basis of who talks the most, the loudest, the most deftly, and to the right people.
If Men form hierarchical structures quickly and easily, all-female groups need more time than all-male groups to form highly hierarchically structured groups. This is in large part on the need to develop consensus and peel back the obscuring layers of subtle discussion to reveal who the real power brokers are within an all-female group . . . until they themselves are challenged and overtaken by lower-ranking members of the Matrix.
Because the moment a crab tries to rise out of the basket, the consensus seeks to balance that by "taking her down a notch" and depriving her of status on pretext. Whereas men celebrate and reward individual achievement as the natural consequence of successful competition, women see such singular achievement as a threat to the consensus that is supposed to sustain them all. Hence the acidic response women often show at the news of their female peers achievements -- even their best, closest friends' laurels almost instantly get trashed with rationalizations about why their success isn't truly deserved.
You see, the Female Social Matrix runs by consensus -- it lives and dies on consensus. And as consensus is the absence of leadership, any time a real leader chances to emerge from the group it threatens to break the consensus, and therefore must be punished by the rest of the group. This consensus is formed by sharing opinion and exchanging information, ceaselessly gathering data on who is who at the global, national, state and (most importantly) local level, and through this constant exchange of information and situational updates, each woman can establish in her mind just where she fits (generally speaking) into the Matrix. But once she establishes that, she accepts her peer-validated position within her self-defined group -- her local Matrix -- and begins to scheme to improve her status. At the same time, by accepting her place in the Matrix she also tacitly agrees to maintain the social discipline the consensus requires of her.
Now this might be vastly different, depending on the nature of the local Matrix. If the girls in question are young, pretty, horny, and obsessed with just how much they can trade on their appearance and sexuality, then the consensus requires that all those within the local Matrix agree to "slut out" with everyone else . . . and so the chick who's still a virgin looses serious status, locally. That same chick gains serious status when the local Matrix emphasizes demure sexuality, saving it for marriage, and places a high value on virginity in a young woman.
So how does a woman know which local Matrix she's in? Again, it's a question of context.
A young unmarried woman in her 20s actually has several overlapping Matrices in her life: her contemporary peers, the women in her family, the women at her job, the women at her church, the women in the neighborhood, the women in her scrapbook club. Her position within any of those local matrices is going to be determined upon the context of the relationship. Her trendy fashion sense and sarcastic comments put her at the top of her peer Matrix . . . but those same advantages actually lose her status when she's around her mother, sister, grandmother, female cousins and aunts, who may see it as wasteful and flamboyant (even as they admire it). The woman hasn't changed, but her position within and relative to the local Matrix has changed with its composition.
When a strange group of women meet, they undergo the same sort of social hierarchies that men do, eventually; but instead of demonstrations of alphatude to establish a pecking order, women take longer to evaluate and portion out their respect and loyalty to other women . . . because first they must establish the context in which they are all related before they can decide who leads the local Matrix. That means a lot of informal communication and careful observation of established social cues before the initial soft alliances -- grouping into cliques -- begins.
In other words, before women can even establish a Matrix consensus they must carefully evaluate the other women in social context first, and then begin making personal assessments that can lead to a decision whether or not to socially ally with them. When the women are strangers and there is no pre-established common point of discussion upon which to base an evaluation, women will defer to the culturally and socially mandated rituals which are acknowledged as socially productive segues into a fuller exchange of information.
In other words, women have to talk about their shoes before they can figure out who's going to lead the Matrix.
The shoes a woman wears, once you understand the code, demonstrate her socioeconomic status, her physical appearance, her mood, her personality, her income level, her skill in handling heels, her health concerns, her taste, her bargain-hunting ability, her knowledge of fad and fashion (for which she must use the context of style and fashion magazines, celebrities, and exchanges of information with other women -- "gossip") and her willingness to suffer in the name of beauty. That's a WHOLE lot of information to get with a glance at her shoes . . . but it's all there.
Not that the topic stays on shoes, but they offer a common point of reference and point of departure, as well as an opening for either woman to steer the conversation. It's almost like a lodge ritual, the way they exchange opinions on likes and dislikes. And from shoes they go to hairstyle, make-up, and wardrobe, each step filling their need for data to establish context. The underlying assumption is that all women are equally at odds with their footwear and appearance, and that by sharing common misfortunes and victories with each other, they are establishing the basis for a possibly larger rapport later.
Often potential rivals at a particular woman's level are recognized at this stage, and social polarization around the two (or more) factions begins to coalesce. That doesn't signal the beginning of competition -- remember, the goal is consensus. Consensus happens when one perspective is adopted by multiple parties in the furtherance of a goal or belief. Ideally, the consensus of the Matrix is unanimous . . . but the potential for using the action of gaining consensus as a means to break the consensus has great allure for ambitious members of the Matrix.
If unanimity cannot be achieved, then the de facto leaders of the Matrix (who may or may not be the ex officio leaders of the Matrix . . . context, again) begin to press for consensus by enforcing discipline among the Matrix until consensus is reached (or opposition to their perspective is challenged and crushed). That can amount to gentle persuasion, social leverage, personal bullying, threats of social embarrassment and loss of status, and outright ostracization, in extreme cases. But the Matrix leadership has a vested interest in maintaining the consensus that validates their authority and control, and opposition to their domination of the group has to be challenged and dealt with before any progress can be made.
Nowhere is the determination of status within both the local Matrix and the Greater Female Social Matrix more pronounced, nor discipline more rigorously enforced, than on the subjects of sex, marriage and love.
How The FSM Began The SMP
The Female Social Matrix was designed in the Time Before Writing by our paleolithic tribal forebears first and foremost as a means of protecting the quality of human genetics by controlling who bred with whom. Men were far less concerned with paternity in tribal societies, as the important cultural component known to anthropologists as "ancestor worship" often emphasized nephews and nieces issued from sisters (who were assuredly related to you) more than sons and daughters. As long as the ancestral line persisted, who actually fathered the kid wasn't as big of a deal in most cultures. Besides, only the mothers knew for sure. When they did know.
In those cases, when human populations averaged groupings around 100-200 and transportation options were slim, it's reasonably safe to assume that in the course of a paleolithic humans life he or she would be unlikely to travel more than 50 miles away from where they were born (except in openly migratory societies) and encounter in their entire lifetimes only 300 or so other human beings . . . half of whom you were directly related to. In order to protect the genetic quality, therefore, women found ways to manage the sexuality of the tribe. Hence the network of taboos concerning intermarriage within clans and other cultural ordering that characterizes tribal societies. They probably served to keep relatively small genetic populations from inadvertently creating genetically weak decedents through inbreeding.
With a definite limit on your potential mating selections, it became even more important for the health and peace of the tribal unit to ensure a carefully-controlled access to sex and marriage. In societies where the supply of protein was tenuous, for example, it is not unknown for a cultural mandate restricting sex for seven years after the birth of a child to be in place, managing the population by limiting the number of children in need of high protein. In societies where violence in the defense of the tribe or to provide large amounts of protein (hunting) then managing adolescent males in the throes of testosterone poisoning -- and adolescent females in the throes of baby-rabies -- it was essential that the love-life of the tribe be adequately managed, lest duels over women start breaking out among the violence-prone young warriors or the status-prone maidens.
The Female Social Matrix was therefore used to control the rules that limited access to sex, marriage, and mating with a society. For things to run the most smoothly, pairing individuals with complementary traits was a good idea -- a good hunter with a healthy mother, for instance, or the weakest boy in the tribe with the weakest girl. That may seem overly contrived by modern standards, but the genetic stakes were a lot higher then, and the social alignments created by the Female Social Matrix were quite necessary. Left uncontrolled, wanton disregard for sexual rules allowed mating so haphazardly that the genetics of such a small human population would quickly become compromised. More, unrestricted access to sex always shifts control within the Matrix toward those who provide it, and that often led to unacceptable instability.
So the Female Social Matrix developed the Sexual Market Place, establishing the ground rules for a particular society to mate. Big hunter paired with pretty girl. BOOM! Strong kids. Big hunter with younger sister. BOOM! Two-headed kids. But it didn't take long for the existing power structures to start manipulating the rules to perpetuate their own power. They didn't want a pretty girl from low-status mother to get paired with a big successful hunter, depriving the current Matrix leaderships' daughters of the opportunity, not to mention increasing the girl's mother's status dramatically . . . at the expense of the current Matrix leadership. After clean genetics, the temptation to use the Matrix as a means of control becomes irresistible. So did the temptation to "cheat".
As the de facto Sex Rank of every eligible single in the tribal village was established as a precursor to mate selection by the Matrix (usually in the form of a "woman's society" who manages such things), women learned that successfully attracting male attention increased their chances of a beneficial pairing, while men learned that exaggerating prowess or displaying impressive trophies elevated their chances. They also learned that a failure to keep discipline on sex both before and after marriage invited some pretty dire consequences. In the early development of labor division to protect the females and young during the extended feeble period humans enjoy, the sex-for-security swap was well-established. Men provided protein, shelter, and protection, women provided sex, gathered or cultivated fruits, vegetables and herbs, a home, and babies.
But if some woman in the tribe violated that contract by, say, having sex with any man in the tribe who wanted her, that wrecks the contract for everyone else. There is no need to form a pair-bond with the mother of your kid because you're getting the very best parts of the deal from that slut in the next cave, and she's surprisingly low maintenance. The SMP rewards her behavior with increased social status among the men . . . but the Matrix lowers her status within it and lashes out for her breaking the consensus. Discipline is in order, in such a case: shaming, gossip, discredit her, subvert her, undermine her by any means necessary. And as the consensus condemns her (and the leaders of the Matrix "reluctantly" agree to take action) the woman giving away pussy becomes a social pariah among her fellow women . . . because by giving it away she's devalued their own market value.
Pluses: twice as much pussy, which fulfills the genetic diversity requirement; twice as much labor to tend the household and care for children. Minuses: your very own built in Local Female Social Matrix, with attendant struggle for dominance. Or "hell on earth", according to many men who are dumb enough to marry two wives.
After ten thousand years of Agriculture in which the mating/social/economic realities changed, we are now faced with a very sophisticated, well-developed FSM that spans the entire globe. Never before has a woman had so much information to establish her position in context of the whole world's FSM.
How Position Is Determined Within The Matrix
So what things increase and decrease a woman's position in the general FSM? Here are a few basic rules:
1. The primary consideration to status isn't, as you might guess, appearance -- it's FAME.
I was going to say it was appearance, but a friend of mine pointed out that a butt-ugly, surly chick (say, Rosanne Barr) can instantly rise to the top of the Matrix by the simple expedient of fame. Being widely known -- and it really doesn't matter why -- is a ticket to the top of the Matrix. Talent and such aren't strictly necessary, merely having a whole lot of people know who you are, for whatever reason, will increase a woman's position in the Matrix faster than anything else. Just ask the Kardashian sisters. (Hint: use short words).
Fame is an aphrodisiac, as all dudes know -- one of the perks of pro-sports, politics, or an article in People magazine is the sudden and inexplicable interest in you shown by women who wouldn't have noticed you breathing beforehand. But fame also serves the FSM. Fame not only provides leverage to increase your position, it also acts as a powerful networking tool. When people know who you are, then other people will want to know you, too. Picking up a faithful entourage of hangers-on once you become famous is almost standard equipment, for men or women . . . but with women the effect is far more insidious.
Men are naturally suspect of men who are famous for being famous -- Kato Cailin springs to mind. Being famous for who they are fucking, even, isn't necessarily a good thing. If Tom Arnold hadn't had been as talented as he was, then he would have long been forgotten as anything other than "that poor dude who married Rosanne". Men prefer to follow the fame of those men who have achieved: sports stars. Politicians. Musicians. Corporate CEOs. Entrepreneurs. Fame is part of the reward for achievement, part and parcel with the glory.
Women, on the other hand, see fame as it's own reward. Why? Because women are far more invested in networking than men are, and fame (even notoriety) brings opportunities to improve their personal network, and therefore their position within the Matrix. Being famous dramatically improves your position within the Matrix -- but being the friend to someone famous is almost as good, perhaps better. In Hollywood there is even a subculture of women who pursue short-term relationships with the famous with all the dedication of a junkie pursuing a fix: the Starfuckers. These women get off on the fame in a sexual way, and they see a sexual liaison with a famous person (of either gender) as profoundly improving their own position. And they aren't wrong. Being able to show off the famous people in your contact list is as good as a three-carat diamond ring in terms of your credibility in the Matrix.
2. Beauty and physical appearance . . . call it Glamour. Women gain status in the FSM with beauty, although beauty does not guarantee them leadership. But the very, very first thing a woman assesses about another woman is "is she prettier that I am (was at that age)?" From that determination, much else will flow.
.jpg)
4. Social rank.
This is where things get interesting.
Sexuality figures prominently when determining social rank for women. Not just appearance -- already covered -- but her sexual status is factored into positioning her within the Matrix relative to yourself. Most importantly, whether or not she is in a relationship.
I've already covered just why being a relationship is so important to a woman. A single, childless woman is often severely demoted in the FSM if there are enough wives and mothers present. Your ability to establish a relationship with a man that is advantageous to you is key to success in the greater FSM. And while the type and nature of the man, as well as the nature of the relationship, are all important considerations, an inability to attract and keep a man in a relationship is a serious blow to your status within the Matrix.
But beyond that, the man himself may add or detract to social status. Absent violent abuse, the lousiest relationship with the worst man is better than no relationship at all in terms of position in the FSM. A wealthy man gives you that much more status, and a wealthy, strongly Alpha man can leverage a woman's position in the FSM tremendously. A powerful man, ditto. A man of achievement is next -- a sports star, a famous musician or actor, a Ph. D. or industry leader are all status-elevating aspects of having a man in your life. A man-of-action, fire, police or military, are scored fairly high. Of course having a handsome man is even better (almost as good as money or fame), and a handsome man-of-action who is a good provider and good in bed . . . well, that's the stuff of romance novel heroes.
Your average Beta chump? You still get points. Far more than a string of bad boy boyfriends gets you . . . but if you can keep your Beta boy and still see your bad boy on the side, then your status goes up depending on the constitution of the local FSM. Being divorced, even, is better than being unmarried.
After your relationship, whether or not you have successfully reproduced is the next consideration in determining status. Moms generally have much higher status than non-moms, even as the moms envy the non-moms their perceived freedoms.
After reproductive status, then age, cultural considerations, and economic considerations start coming into play. All of these can affect social status . . . but so can baseless rumor. Reputation is a heavy foundation of determining position when popularity is coin-of-the-realm. A woman with a rep for rebelling against the Matrix gets shunned by consensus. If a new woman in the office has a reputation for whining and sleeping around, then she'll have found her permanent place in the hierarchy the first day, regardless of the veracity of the rumors.
I recall Mrs. Ironwood, back in her student days, working a clerical temp job in an office completely staffed by women. A month or two later another temp joined, a somewhat pretty blonde woman just a few years older than my wife. For a week they got along famously, as they traded information and the consensus evaluated her for suitability. Then one day at lunch, when a comfortable rapport had been established, the new woman let slip that she'd once starred in a porn movie (one!). Even in my pre-pro-porn days I didn't think that was a big deal -- it was the 1990s, people were experimenting with video a lot. But the social rules of the Local Female Social Matrix said that anyone who had sex for money in any way was therefore an unredeemable prostitute . . . and in the rural South, that's a big deal. Nice women just didn't suck dick on camera, or if they did they only did it that one time for their husband's birthday, not with a complete stranger. Pretty blonde lady was fired at the end of the week. Because she violated sexual discipline she was expelled from the Matrix.5. Affluence
Women are impressed by affluence in ways men are not -- perfectly reasonable, considering they are subconsciously looking for the best-possible-mate to father their children. Nor is this merely about money -- it's about how money is used to display status. Affluence is a Display of High Value for women, regardless of whether or not the display is made by a man or a woman. And while men are far more inclined to be impressed by another man's car, for women -- after their jewelry, wardrobe and shoes -- their home is their primary display of affluence. Not just the cost, of course, but the neighborhood, the schools, the decor, the exterior, the curb appeal, the whole package. If men demonstrate their personal sense of style via their cars, women demonstrate theirs based on their homes. A tastefully decorated, well-appointed home capable of comfortably entertaining a couple of dozen friends in elegance catapults a woman's position within the Matrix. Whether or not she furnished the money for the home is irrelevant -- it is the fact that she spent the money as an expression of her taste and style.
6. Education and Career
It's ironic that women have this in there at all when it comes to other women -- education and career have traditionally been the ways in which women evaluate men, not other women. But with the industrial age and female economic independence, not to mention the number of female business owners and executives, what a woman does now informs her position in the Matrix along with everything else. Career achievements are respected and noteworthy, and education is seen as an economic advantage that all women should do their best to aspire to. Making a good living doing something well grants a fair amount of status in the FSM -- not as much as getting married or having a baby, but if you can't manage either of those, making VP before you're 30 is kind of impressive.
Being a SAHM . . . not so much. Despite their claims of sisterhood, feminists in particular are brutal when it comes to women who elect to raise a family before they raise a career. They value a woman's right to choose her lifestyle . . . as long as that choice is congruent with their idealogy. Staying at home to cook, clean, and watch the kids is what their great-grandmothers did back in the Dark Ages before sexual harassment regulations and birth control pills. No matter how intelligent or educated, a woman who stays at home loses points . . .
7. Sexuality
Yes, Virginia, the FSM is incredibly concerned with who you sleep with . . . and how often. But not always in the same way.
You see, your position in the FSM is fluid and subject to fluctuate not merely dependent upon your own behavior, as a woman, but as the composition of the local Matrix changes. If most of the women in the room are young, single, and sexually liberated, then you can bank on the threshold for position to be dependent on just how "adventurous" you are with how many guys. Likewise, if it's a room full of demure, middle-aged moms or recently-retired cougars, then the threshold is going to shift. And if its a mixed lot, then things really get interesting. Unfortunately for women, due to the obfuscatory nature of women's perspectives on sex (a defense mechanism within the Matrix), sometimes they don't know just who holds what position, until someone reveals theirs first and she can judge the reaction of the rest of the local Matrix.You see, the quietly demure spinster office manager could be a Craig's List hookup freak on the weekends, and the soccer mom could be banging the coach to make up for her emotionally stifling marriage, and you would never know unless they revealed it. And women are definitely tuned in to such things.
I've been flirted with (back in my Blue Pill days) and didn't even know it . . . until Mrs. Ironwood pointed it out. Sometimes she was furious with me, when I thought I was just being "nice". I really was that clueless, pre-Game. Not only didn't I pick up on the hair-tossing, lip-biting, and all the other IoIs, I missed the clever innuendo they would use to ascertain my status and humpability.
I still didn't understand. She tried to explain that, essentially, women use the power of their sexuality not just against men -- or even foremost against men -- but against other women. If you successfully flirt with another girl's dude until you know he would sleep with you, you've gained advantage over that woman, even if you don't close the deal. It's a power-play within the Matrix, as is actually going ahead and poaching the other girl's dude.
Women can use a consensus of prudery to maintain discipline, as well. Condemnation and slut-shaming are so common as to be cliche -- slut is the first dire insult a girl learns in Middle School, whether it is warranted or not. Insinuating that a woman is violating sexual consensus is a power move, usually undertaken by higher-positioned women in the Matrix against lower-positioned . . . or close rivals. This position doesn't have the power it once had, of course -- the Sexual Revolution revised the appropriate standard of female sexual behavior, for better or worse, and now the lack of a healthy sex life is open for criticism in the Matrix as much as either prudery or sluttery.
8. Participation and Affability
As mentioned above, women give other women Matrix points just for participating. They also grant them for being "easy to get along with", "fun to hang out with", and "adventurous". What the Matrix Consensus means by this, of course, is that these women are willing to ally themselves with other women in a way that theoretically advances all of them within the Matrix.
As mentioned earlier, men and women have different standards when it comes to competition and cooperation in a group. Men value achievement and results. Think of Boy Scouts: from the very first day as a Tiger, you know that the ultimate goal is Eagle Scout, and that your achievements will take you there, one step at a time. For each achievement you are given some badge or belt loop or tangible trophy of your success, the accumulated mass of which shows off your apparent competence in all sorts of manly endeavors.
By the time you get all the way to Eagle Scout, you have pretty much maxed out your achievements, proving your abilities. There's a reason why many employers will hire Eagle Scouts in preference to other candidates: Eagle Scouts have demonstrated their ability to get things done, to see a project through from conception to execution, to lead and be lead. An Eagle Scout in Class A uniform shines like a Christmas tree, he has so many marks of merit, honor, and achievement.
Girl Scouts, on the other hand, places very little emphasis on achievement (outside of cookie sales); instead they emphasize participation. My daughter gets a patch for just about everything -- I have a huge pile of them, and not nearly enough space on her uniform sash. She even got a patch for eating pizza. Indeed, most Girl Scout troops have de-emphasized the whole uniform down to an easy-to-throw-on-and-off sash, tabard, or vest.
Not to attract a boy. But to deal with other girls. To survive the oftentimes-brutal Female Social Matrix.
Girls learn how to participate within the Matrix from a very young age, probably about the time they start playing Barbies, and one disproportionate plastic blonde doll starts talking shit about another. Little girls socialize fast and hard. They quickly establish their own personal networks of "friends", "best friends", and "best, best friends" . . . and then a descending list of enemies. Girls practice social ranking based on popularity -- which is based on, at this point, participation and affability -- from a very early age, long before puberty. They become cliquish in the extreme, using their little-girl group consensus to include or exclude other girls based on their participation and position in the proto-Matrix. In order to do this, certain skills are vitally necessary, and failing great beauty, fame, wealth or power, a girl who participates and communicates has a chance to improve her position within the Matrix.
This was recently illustrated to me by my wife. Tired of one of her friends being unwilling to acknowledge the fact that she was in a relationship with a dude she's been seeing (but not acknowledging) for years, now, Mrs. Ironwood finally got fed up with the bullshit and called her on it: "Are you two a couple, or not? Is he free to date other people, or not?"
Now, Mrs. Ironwood, by her own admission, is in a socially inferior position in the Matrix in relation to this other woman -- Mrs. Ironwood is smart, a good dresser, and is socially adept, but she doesn't have her friend's long blonde hair or big boobs, so she recognizes that she's in an inferior position without wanting to take the lead position (she's smarter than that). So calling out her friend's unwillingness to commit was, in fact, a challenge to her friend's position. Needless to say, her friend didn't appreciate being called out on such a personal matter, but conceded that as her best friend, Mrs. Ironwood deserved to know and needed to know what to tell other people. Still, her friend was upset and saw the point as a challenge to her position.
Mrs. Ironwood, however, is smart. When her friend started to push back in that intra-Matrix way that two good friends will, she called in reinforcements: Woman #2, a mutual friend.
Now, Woman #2 is a prime example of how Participation can elevate a woman's position. She's not attractive, she's overweight, she's abrasive, she's aggressive, and she's crude at times. Despite that, she enjoys a high position in the local Matrix because she talks to everyone and is a MAJOR channel of communication between diverse elements of the Matrix. Woman #2 is the kind of woman who will be on the phone thirty seconds after she's heard a juicy piece of gossip. She has a good heart, and after years of proximity I have to admit that she's grown on me, but her appeal is definitely better suited for the Female Social Matrix than the SMP.
But by including Woman #2, Mrs. Ironwood expanded the local Matrix by one, which allowed a new consensus to form. The new consensus? Woman #1 needs to shit or get off the pot, because there are other women who would like her boyfriend if she's not using him right now.
Now, if either Mrs. Ironwood or Woman #2 had come to Woman #1 by herself, it would have been a straight-up challenge for position and treated as such, and Mrs. Ironwood likely would have lost out. But by broadening the consensus -- and the potential embarrassment involved in flaming out about it -- Mrs. Ironwood adeptly forced Woman #1 to back down, reassess her position, and reluctantly agree that yes, she was in a relationship, and it could be talked about now. The end result (so far) has been fairly innocuous, as Mrs. Ironwood was not in fact looking to supplant her friend at the top of the Matrix, she just manipulated her to achieve a desired outcome, and then was content to fade back into her lower position.
This points up another important aspect about the FSM, the fact that much of the maneuvering and manipulation is obfuscated by layers and layers of social protocols and seemingly meaningless subtextual nuances. Perhaps influenced by the clandestine nature of the female reproductive cycle, which gives women a much better opportunity at finding a good, secure position, the "between-the-lines" conversations and the misdirection, distraction, rumor and gossip that are the bread-and-butter of the Matrix are often hidden from plain sight.
Depending on the players, a woman defending her position at the top of the Matrix might get challenged and not even know it until the social challenge is over. Nor is every challenge, as Mrs. Ironwood's case represents, an attempt to usurp authority within the Matrix -- sometime it is merely a means of enforcing consensus discipline or manipulating a situation to a woman's best advantage. Trickery, deceit, innuendo and general verbal obfuscation are all legitimate tools of the Matrix, provided they are used within the limits of the unofficial rules.
It's important to remember that the Matrix is not a hierarchical organization with firm rules, the way men tend to design them. It's a highly flexible, highly plastic social construct in which position and authority shift with each passing hour. Being at the top of a hierarchical organization such as a football team or the military denotes very specific powers within the organizational framework. The Matrix, by contrast, does not confer automatic, official authority on anyone -- those at "the top" may wield great social power, but they are not necessarily the most powerful members of the Matrix.
Indeed, the local Matrix of an extremely popular, pretty, wealthy girl (think Paris Hilton) is going to be filled with plenty of friends and allies. But while she's going to be at the top of her local Matrix by default, she's also going to find her position as stifling as it is powerful. Nearly as powerful, and much less subject to social pressure, is that rank of "beta" girls around her. While they increase their position by allying with her, they also use their position to influence her, and the greater consensus, often far more adeptly than those at the "top" of the Matrix.
So who is the true "Alpha" woman, the one who has everything -- looks, money, fame -- or the one next to her, who can have everything she wants through her proximity without the drawbacks and vulnerabilities of being "at the top"? Mrs. Ironwood is usually content to let the "pretty girls" dominate socially -- or at least lets them think they do -- while she stays in the background, shaking hands and exchanging business cards in their wake. But she's so well-connected and so adept at networking, both professional and social, that if she wants to accomplish something she knows which buttons on which women to push to make things happen. And that -- control -- is far more important in the Matrix than passing beauty or wealth. Being able to control a social situation is far more important than being the "leader" in a consensus situation.
So . . . what does this mean for YOU?
Well, Gentlemen, now that you have a rough introduction to the FSM, why is it important?
First, consider that despite your studly looks and massive penis size, no matter what woman you decide to seduce, she's going to be enmeshed in the FSM to the extent where your relationship takes on far more impressive connotations for her than it does for you. Indeed, she gets Matrix points for having a boyfriend. You don't get shit for having a girlfriend (unless she's scalding hot and a nymphomaniac -- dudes DO get Matrix points for having sex . A lot.). Her ambitions, goals, and desires are all reflected within her personal Matrix, and the women who participate in her personal Matrix are going to have far, far more influence on what she does than you will.
Secondly, understand that you are never dating "just one girl". You are intersecting with a node on the Matrix, a node that will communicate and continue to interact with the rest of the Matrix. Your actions will undoubtedly be communicated in one form or another, as gossip and information is the life's blood of the Matrix. Women's ability to network and communicate are justifiably praised as sophisticated, compared to the laconic nature of masculinity. Fuck up with one woman, they all know about it eventually.
Thirdly, remember that her loyalty to the dictates of the Matrix is going to inform her goals and ambitions far more than, say, a pair of suddenly-damp panties. Unless you can pitch your Game to work with her Matrix-oriented ambitions, not against them, you're going to be fighting an uphill battle. If she wants to get married and have kids to fulfill her matronly dreams of respect and admiration, that's one thing; if she wants to keep looking for a billionaire Prince Charming and is only using you until one comes along, then that's quite another. Talking the the former woman about your desires for fatherhood will get you points; talking to the latter woman about the importance of a robust investment portfolio will get you points.
Don't get me wrong -- women, in aggregate, do have a compelling desire to find a good man and mate. But that desire is never separated from their role in the Matrix, nor is how a romantic alliance with you is going to affect her position therein. Understanding this fact, and the sophisticated, maddeningly complex way in which women socially interact, is the first step towards unraveling that mysterious thing known as female sexual psychology. And the Matrix lies at the core of its social expression.
Fourthly, her immersion in the Matrix gives her far better communication and networking skills than you have. That means that the unwary man is bound to be subject to her critical eye as she measures you up and considers you in a thousand ways you never even thought of, and that half of the things that fly out of your mouth she's going to try to figure out what they really mean . . . despite the fact that they don't mean any more than you said. A woman's experience within the Matrix prepares her for subtle digs and double-meanings, and sometimes a woman will read far more into something you said than you meant as a result. More importantly, her superior communication skills make her a formidable opponent in an argument.
You can't get rid of it. You can't ignore it. And sometimes -- if your woman is on your side and canny enough to do so -- the FSM can even work for you. Indeed, it has been deployed repeatedly to help my male friends find dates, at one point or another. And it has helped me find a job upon occasion. Indeed, when your woman is well-plugged-in to the Matrix, she can make it jump and twist on your behalf . . . and that can have a beneficial impact on your position within the Male Social Matrix.
Since the Matrix encourages obfuscation and free-range hamsters in order to rationalize blatant subtextual power moves, it is very quick to pick up on any tool the Matrix Consensus thinks might be useful. Once upon a time it was the adoption of Christianity in Europe, then the Reformation, and as industrialization came along, the Matrix took over an aspect of trade unionism. Then came Abolition. Temperance. Suffrage. Women's Rights. Feminism. Each generation sees the Matrix adopt new social ideologies to better refine its ability for individual nodes to improve their positions.
Feminism, as it has evolved, is particularly insidious in being used as a tool of the FSM. Feminism attempted to remove the sex-based relationship-status element from the Matrix in favor of education and affluence, and succeeded only in more greatly polarizing the respective "cliques" around the topic. Even those who proudly stated slogans about fish and bicycles, feminists were in the vanguard of the orgy of hypergamy in the 1970s and 1980s as they used men and marriage to improve their positions within the Matrix and in society at large. And you could hardly blame them. It provided perfect cover for all manner of social machinations, from forcing a general consensus on some issues (women's reproductive rights) to controlling the sexuality of the consensus in a manner which benefited those at the top of the Matrix a lot more than those at the bottom.
Feminism has become, in short, just the latest attempt by the Female Social Matrix to maintain social and sexual control over its constituents, and by extension society at large. With it's nominal focus on "sisterhood", feminism is easily adopted by power-players within the Matrix because it rationalizes so many of their intra-Matrix maneuvers. It can be used as a tool of shame to keep lower-ranking Beta girls in line, keeping them out of direct competition for Alpha males in the name of female solidarity. It can give leverage to mid-level nodes who use feminism to justify hard-nosed tactics previously frowned upon by consensus.
Feminism provides an excuse for fame to some, sexuality to some, and solace to those who cannot reasonably aspire to glamour or affluence to others. By demonizing men, masculinity, and male sexuality, the upper nodes of the Matrix have tried to control sexuality through a cultural denigration of the importance of marriage (Second Wave) and the lower nodes have tried to control sexuality through a celebration of open female sexuality (Fourth Wave). Feminism gives the lower-ranking members an excuse while their mating strategies have failed so badly, and the upper-ranking members a justification for divorce and hypergamy.
But even without feminism as an excuse, the FSM can be a dangerous, scary place for men to wander around in. We're just not generally equipped to use those kinds of Machiavellian moves -- male socialization is a lot more straightforward. But you can't ignore the FSM, not if you want a woman in your life. Your best bet is to learn about it, respect it, and recognize it when you see it in play . . . and then stay the hell away from it. The FSM is a force of human Nature, like gravity or atmosphere, and you'd have about the same luck trying to control it.
Post a Comment