Jordan Peterson had this to say about sex-differentiated status hierarchies:
Girls can win by winning in their own hierarchy—by being good at what girls value, as girls. They can add to this victory by winning in the boys’ hierarchy. Boys, however, can only win by winning in the male hierarchy. They will lose status, among girls and boys, by being good at what girls value. It costs them in reputation among the boys, and in attractiveness among the girls. Girls aren’t attracted to boys who are their friends, even though they might like them, whatever that means. They are attracted to boys who win status contests with other boys.
“whatever that means”. Heh. Shivvy way to say, “which means nothing”.
When JP discusses sex differences, he could be reading CH posts. Whatever one thinks of the criticisms leveled against him (some are valid), he does have a decent grasp of the sexual market and how men and women navigate divergent routes through an ocean of mate prospects to get what they want.
However, this is one of the rare instances when I disagree with his premise. He’s generally correct that, at least within the bounds of our current cultural arrangement, women have two status hierarchies available to them while men only have one.
Our gynarcho-tyranny not only encourages but aggressively impresses upon women the urgency and even moral duty of succeeding in male domains (leaning in), while simultaneously encouraging men to sacrifice their status within their own male domains to make way for more women (and consequently rendering themselves less sexually attractive to women who are now their equal or higher in social status).
Women who do succeed in the man’s world can expect to ascend the intrafemale status ladder (more precisely, the intra-feminist status ladder), but where JP is wrong is assuming these women don’t also suffer an SMV status loss the near-equivalent of the SMV status loss suffered by men who succeed at girlie games of one-uppance.
Just as girls aren’t attracted to effeminate males, and other men are repulsed by nancyboys, the inverse is as true: men aren’t attracted to masculine, status-striving girls, and other women don’t subconsciously look up to mouthy careerist shrikes with the same mix of envy and admiration that they look up to physically beautiful women.
Ballcutters pay a romantic price for their aping of male characteristics and their chutzpah to take on the men in the male status domains. Yes, even the beautiful ballcutters pay the price, (there aren’t many, but stand by for the point of this hypothetical). Men will want to bang a hot babe whether she’s a coy waitress or a boardroom banshee, but men won’t be keen to emotionally betroth the latter. And in the landscape of a woman’s hindbrain, romantic success is measured by quality of vows, not number of plows. If a woman has a reserved seat on the cock carousel, she’s likely to have a tough time winning over the hearts of alpha men, which is a much more valuable prize to women than men’s dicks.
What always gets lost in these discussions of intersex status competitions is the relevant feedback loop and polarity amplifying magnetism that accompanies the dynamic when a demure, feminine women who #resists leaning in meets a dominant, masculine man who insists on leading quim. The protective instinct in men is strong, and only vulnerable women who haven’t achieved maximum economic self-sufficiency and aphoristic empowerment can trigger it. Thus, men appraise ladder-climbing manjaws with the same simmering disgust and antipathy that they feel towards effeminate soyboys.
A woman’s femininity and vulnerability arouses men and incites them to emotionally commit and fall in love (psychological states which can later be leveraged by women into stone cold legal binding).
Girls who win in the men’s hierarchy will lose status — romantic and marriageable status — which they will #resist noticing because the here-and-now easy bangs with pump and dump looters (slooters?) cloud their judgment and long-term vision, hiding from girls the very real price they will pay down the road when those sexy alpha men are wifing up stay-at-home tradwives who have known no other Cock but his Cock.
I have to laugh at White Knights who think that women put themselves in a dangerous position by not pursuing a lucrative career and therefore making themselves dependent on a man with a plan. These numbnuts are oblivious, or act as if they are oblivious, to sexual energy and how it vibrates along different sex-based frequencies. Women who become like men in accomplishment, drive, temperament, and behavior become less like the women men truly desire. The paradox left unresolved in the minds of White Knight transactionalists is how the very act of embracing and cherishing her vulnerable femininity reduces a woman’s exposure to penury and abandonment. It’s no coincidence that the rise in the divorce rate, the decline in the rate of marriage, and the delay in age of first marriage all happened in lockstep with the increasing numbers of women marching into the domains of men.