Women “policing the hierarchy”

Here is something I wrote at The Lost Art of Self-Preservation (For Women):

http://grerp.blogspot.com/2010/11/manospheres-spinster-schadenfreude.html

“I think women lie to men about what really turns women on, perhaps because they are doing what Steve Moxon has written about. They are “policing the hierarchy”. They don’t want ordinary men to know, because knowledge is power. They would prefer that only elite men know these things and preferably that they know them intuitively. If every clueless guy is told the truth, it means that a man has been helped, who in the eyes of many women does not deserve to know. Women just expect men to know without being told.”

Steve Moxon has written on “policing the hierarchy”:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/06/the-science-of-female-supremacy-an-interview-with-steve-moxon/

For example, he writes “Feminism is just business-as-usual elitism. It is not about serving the interests of women as a whole: it is a disservice to most women. Feminism is an intensification of the natural prejudice we all share towards males — that is, towards the majority of necessarily lower status males. High status males and attractive women win out. Plus ca change.

The reason that we all have a prejudice towards males generically is because of the biologically based importance of “policing” the male hierarchy. The function of the male as the “genetic filter,” and indirectly that the female is the “limiting factor” in reproduction, gives rise to the adaptation of male intra-sexual dominance-submission behavior and the epiphenomenon of male hierarchy. All males (even the lowest ranked) have a strategic interest in being members of this, but males have an interest in tactically getting round this to obtain sex, if they can. This has led to the evolution of our shared social psychological “cheater detection” mechanisms to very effectively “police” male behaviour. Consequently we tend to “do down” men, and conversely “big up” women.”

It makes sense therefore that women will not want to help men rise in the hierarchy beyond their natural level. Women will not tell men what really turns women on sexually. They will tell a man that being a “nice guy” works best, because she thereby creates one more nice guy and ensures that he is kept in his low place in the hierarchy. That is, she polices the hierarchy in Moxon’s terms.

About these ads

21 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by namae nanka on November 16, 2010 at 2:32 am

    I think that most (younger) women don’t even know what turns them on or when they are turned on, and thus it’s easier for them to sprout nonsense, or that they try to play nice and keep on rehashing the lies or they really think that what turns them on couldn’t possibly true for all the women. NAWALT in opposite direction.
    The cheater detection is true, and I think women also use the slut shaming to that effect, though their jealousy is perhaps not as striking as men’s, nor their honor to play by rules.

    Not that they can’t be vicious, as various videos of girls ganging up to beat up a single girl on net shows; sisterhood is all good, unless another female arrives:

    Reply

  2. Posted by Retrenched on November 16, 2010 at 7:39 am

    “If every clueless guy is told the truth, it means that a man has been helped, who in the eyes of many women does not deserve to know. Women just expect men to know without being told.”

    I think you’re exactly right. Women expect men to already know these things. To a woman, a man’s ability to push her submissive buttons demonstrates experience, i.e. preselection. Which, of course, drives them wild.

    If a man is a natural alpha, he’s “born with it”, or (more likely) learns these skills at an early age. If he’s a beta, he may still develop some of these skills, though he won’t be nearly as good as the alpha. If he’s an omega, he probably never learns them at all.

    Reply

  3. After reading all these “game” blogs, I come away with a much stronger belief that women simply ought to be caged, otherwise shot. If we’re to be Hobbesian about it. Too much waste having to navigate loopy loosed-female behavior.

    Reply

  4. Posted by modernguy on November 25, 2010 at 7:13 am

    I don’t think it’s as malicious as you seem to. Women can sympathize with weakness as long as it’s not confused with sexuality. They can understand the weak nerd who doesn’t get laid. That is, they can understand how he feels (weak), but what they can’t fathom is the idea of the weak nerd turning into a dominant sexual force. For a woman, sex is a force, the opposite of weakness. From external appearances the nerd doesn’t have it in him, so how is a woman supposed to advise him on becoming a sexual force. She is aware of how it turns her on, but not how it comes to be. The girls that go for the thugs and dominant ‘alphas’ generally don’t understand the character of these people, they are only aware of the force they possess.

    So I don’t think women ‘lie’ as such about what turns them on. Most of them must be genuinely hurt when they get dumped by the ‘bad boy’, so in a sense they are not aware of what they are really attracted to. How can so many girls think that they are going to change the ‘bad boy’ into a good one? They are attracted to the force, the dominance, but not really the shady behavior.

    Reply

    • I doubt that women are that lacking in self-awareness. Maybe women are turned on, basically, by a credible threat. Men who are emasculated by society, as many Western men are, are not sexy to women because they do not present a credible threat. “Bad boys” do, because they have credible power. They are not constrained by fear of the law, or by the normal restrictions placed on a man’s behaviour by his own sense of empathy. The kinds of men that women might find viscerally attractive extend beyond “bad boys” to men who have other kinds of power: political and social power, the power that good looks bring, the power that comes with well-applied intelligence and wit. Power implies the capacity to make or pose a credible threat.

      Women do not wander around blindly, being preyed upon by powerful men. They seek out and detect powerful men.

      Reply

  5. [...] Here’s a comment that gets to the heart of why game doesn’t exist and is a complete wast… After reading all these “game” blogs, I come away with a much stronger belief that women simply ought to be caged, otherwise shot. If we’re to be Hobbesian about it. Too much waste having to navigate loopy loosed-female behavior. [...]

    Reply

  6. Posted by Bob Smith on November 28, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    “Policing the hierarchy” doesn’t seem much different than soft polygamy.

    Reply

    • Yes. Steve Moxon, whom I mention above, is an English writer on the subjects of gender relations and immigration. He has written some academic papers on the former, from the point of view of evolutionary psychology. Some of his ideas are very similar to the American ideas found in the Manosphere on female hypergamy and its practical effects. But the lines of thought tend to run separately, though in parallel.

      Reply

  7. Oh that poor lioness.

    Reply

  8. Hi David.

    Reply

    • Hi Jennifer. How has it been?

      Reply

      • Pretty good thanks. I miss you guys, but thought it best to stick to more neutral areas for a while; I needed to clear my head. I’ve gotten a better understanding of game, agree with the universal aspects of it, men putting their best traits forward in a positive and assertive frame, and also did some thinking about why the really ugly advice of nasty gamers can be affective; disturbing stuff, but it’s good to study such things as a Christian and one interested in human psychology. Susan Walsh is amazing and her blog offered a lot of healthy nuance on the subject. I also met a nice guy recently and he’ll probably make a fun pal. This post is interesting and offers quite an in-depth theory! How have you been?

  9. Posted by Svar on August 20, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    “I also met a nice guy recently and he’ll probably make a fun pal.”

    Just a pal? Sounds like he got the LJBF.

    i have noticed that you’ve been spending a lot of time off of Trad Christianity and on other Christian sites as well as some of the more milder game sites(It would be hilarious to see you on Roissy).

    Reply

  10. Posted by farm boy on October 10, 2012 at 12:39 am

    This post is gold. Everybody should read it and understand.

    Reply

  11. Posted by farm boy on October 11, 2012 at 12:55 am

    Well, it explains a good bit about an important subject, one that has perplexed guys for a long time. Knowledge is power.

    Reply

    • I don’t think I ever got much of that “be a nice guy” advice. I did have a priest at school assure us that the girls at our sister school talked most about the politer boys, not the more manly types. I believed that for years. It might even have been true in 1972!

      One of the things that surprised me about the Duke slut, Karen Owen, was that – despite being a feminist I am sure – she wanted to sleep with the athletic guys.

      In any case, I don’t think I got too much “nice guy” advice.

      Reply

      • The other thing is that I have a bit of a dominance kink, and I have always wanted to dominate any girl I found attractive. So I had a sort of personal defence against any Nice Guy tendencies.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers

%d bloggers like this: