The FEMALE Socio-sexual Hierarchy

Alpha Girl or Sigma Woman?

Everyone is talking about Sigmas. Where did the term come from?

Well, it initially began with a man by the name of Vox Dei (Voice of God) who is most likely himself a Sigma and a clinical narcissist and is not to be confused with the Whig party of 1709 as he is very bald and averse to wearing them. Sorry, enough levity. Theodore Robert Beale, Vox Day, constructed what he refers to as the Male Sociosexual Hierarchy, repurposing the old Greek alectoria (equivocal monikers) and organizing them as he saw fit. A summary of that heirarchy and its progenitive traits are in the image below:

I recommend watching the video at 2x speed as the IQ 150 Vox Day is a very methodical speaker.

The proliferation of this Literary Hierarchy was largely the result of the early culture wars which featued Social Justice Warriors (SJW), Anti-Fascists of America (Antifa) The Proud Boys (originally a knuckle-duster of Gavin McInes), a variegation of what became known as third-wave feminism, and a cornucopia of keyboard warrior anti-SJW video media content creators. The war rages on in the name of Trans-Ideology and the TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). You will find a number of YouTube SHORTS dedicated to celebrating the “I Do Not Care” attitude of the Sigma Male, an attitude pretentious of “Generation Z”.

This being documented, I felt it a lark to consider a Female Sociosexual Hierarchy might also be helpful in helping with intra-social intercourse. Certainly, establishing lists of distinguishing traits might also help suss out the clowns from the created.

***TRIGGER WARNING***

From here on out OBJECT will represent human person and/or purported host system of any scale or diversity. Some may choose to identify themselves free of “Personhood” but I testify that I think the context is moot.

Many feminists may disagree with this paper. That is okay. This describes things as they have been, as they appear ot be now, but is not intented to compel position objects of the future.

Female Socio-Sexual Heirarchy

After a great deal of research and a lifetime of studying the human condition, I surmise that there simply isn't one. There is no hierarchy, inculcate or otherwise in the female. This should then serve as a PRIME indicator of the social training and expectation of a given object.

eg. Query: Is the object male or female?
FSSH Assessment: How does object innately position in society?
Deduction: If object strives to position based on social hierarchy, object is male

Female position in society is based on cloister, propinquity and influence (this is the potential TRIGGER allayed to earlier as it might be interpreted as anti-feminist in nature).

Female vacissitude of Social Positioning is based instead on the following elements:

Degree of influence over males directly connected to and by some measure responsible for the female:
The quality of available males
The quantity of available males
Pietry of available males to the presumed matriarchal cloister

Influence is established by measure of proficiency/exhibition of the following traits:
Agreeableness
Appearance and Hygiene
Gainful Talents
Contribution to Society/Cloister
Distribution of Resources
Adherence to and Inculcation/Instillation of fundamental and familial culture,
ethics and priniciples

Overt Genetic Traits (physical and intellectual attributes atesting to potential for
producing strong, viable offspring:

Unless you are intentionally trying to make a chihuahua, you don't breed
weak with weak. Strong breed with strong to make stronger.

G-IQ Selection bias has swerved towards the signature traits associated with
malfunction, genetic weakness and poor immune systems. Selecting for
smart instead of healthy in G makes for a mess of overpopulation by
spiteful mutants (Woodley Effect) aka “the gamma male”.

K-Selection bias has swerved towards virtue signalling rather than
hypergamy as females increase in wage-earning.

Those intelligent and healthy enough to have powerful offspring are choosing
to not have children because their mid-wit minds think the earth is being
destroyed by U-Populists. It's the G-Populists. You cannot make the world
a better place if you do not contribute to its betterment, and that is absolutely
integral to contribution of positive genetics, child-rearing mentally healthy
offspring.

The Strength of the woman is based partially upon the strength of the males in her tree of influence, and then by her own adherence to the moral character she embodies. A woman acts, sings, shifts, never solidifies, but while she is fluid and ever-improving, she remains trained up against the arbor of belief systems she has no intention of compromising. She will train up in the way that she will go. The male object will force the training to procude a desired outcome of self regardless of what must be sacrificed in order to achieve it unless they themselves were taught the value of allowing an object to express and manifest without enforcing an externally imposed outcome. In short, if you try to force a bonsai or a grape vine into a shape you prefer, it will break or become fruitless, but if you train it up in the way that it will naturally grow, it will be fruitful, not break from its ties to its fundamentals but will not look quite like you may have hoped it would.

Female Socio-Sexual Impact Stratification

This is how females position themselves. Influencing her Males to Coalesce, training them to grow up as they will and insisting that they only adhere lifelong to the fundamentals of responsibility and mutual respect. I call this a Consortium vis Auctoritas, or a Force of Agreeable Authority.

The way a male exerts power by insistence upon compliance with his will and maintains authority based on his position in society as a male, a female accessorizes herself in order to encourage those around her to comply with an established and enfoced system of judiciary expectations. While the male will insist absolute submission, the female will replace those who dissent with males available by proponquity or adjacent to her cloister.

You can label a man and he will be happy with it forever, and strive to reach labels of higher regard and absolute power.

You cannot label a woman as she cannot be drawn using only a straight line and will absolve herself of power in favor of increasing the accessories of her Consortium. This is why “A Karen” never sees herself as “A Karen” and will often disregulate emotionally as a means of escape the oppression of male expectations.

I know many will disagree, so, please, be respectful in the comments and replies.