Feminists are gonna blow an ovary reading this study. Perfect.
Although most researchers acknowledge the speculative nature of evolutionary arguments in this area, social aggression among reproductively viable females is usually interpreted as a form of mate competition. Hess and Hagen, for example, suggest that the sex differences uncovered in their study would likely have been even more pronounced in a younger group of participants. Evolutionarily, historically, and cross-culturally, they point out, girls in the fifteen- to nineteen-year-old range would be most actively competing for mates. Thus, anything that would sabotage another female’s image as a desirable reproductive partner, such as commenting on her promiscuity, physical appearance, or some other aberrant or quirky traits, tends to be the stuff of virile gossip.
File under: Women are the world’s worst misogynists.
So now science has come along to (re)prove what we all knew anecdotally: women, particularly younger women who are most desirable to men, gossip viciously as a means of tearing down the female competition for high quality men. So gossip is analogous to a woman stitching a verbal scarlet S (or F or H) onto the blouses of other women who would compete for the men she likes.
Stay classy, ladies.
You’ll notice as well that the sort of stuff women primarily gossip about — sluttiness, infidelity and fatness — to cut down their female competition, are exactly the character flaws and vices that feminists claim should be free from judginess, and accepted by everyone, especially men. Why do feminists focus on these things? Because they know they matter. Men really are less likely to commit to sluts, whores and fat chicks. And for good evolutionary reasons. (Not to mention good aesthetic and tactile reasons.)
An interesting question is why, if gossip is, presumably, evolutionarily adaptive as a means of reducing the mate value of sexual competitors, men don’t do the same thing? Where are all the male yentas tearing down the competition?
First, men have their own version of gossip; it’s called winning. Men kneecap male competitors by fighting and defeating them, physically, mentally or socially. Second, women are more intuitive than men are about reading subtext in gossip. A man who gossips about another man’s sexual prowess, or social savviness, or whatever, in the hopes of reducing his mate value is likely to be perceived by women as a second tier beta clumsily trying to undermine better men than himself. And gossip just doesn’t sit right on men; women are liable to think you’re gay if you prattle on about other men a lot.
Personally, I think a lot of female gossip is much less effective than believed by women. Men mostly judge women by how they look, so a guy is not going to stop boning out for a hot chick just because some mother hen gossiped about her disloyalty. But gossip is universal and still with us, so it must offer some mating advantage to women. My guess is that gossip which distills to slut smears (“she’s got crabs!”) is probably the most effective at handicapping a woman’s ability to snag a high value man into a long-term relationship. This is why women who aren’t broken losers are so mortified at the thought of being labeled a slut.
Like feminists who claim otherwise, they know it matters.
Good post. This is universal too. Women make the same smears their rivals everywhere you go. The true value of this blog is its exposure and explanation of womens’ animal nature.
Pyervi!
Can’t believe this even takes a scientific study to demonstrate, this is just filed under “no duh” for any teenager or parent. Are social sciences so corrupt by the virus of feminism that this is even contested?
This is why I wrote in the last thread a few times that I don’t need to be a control freak with some of the younger women in my MLTR who can’t stay away from the night clubs.
I know their own friends might cut them down (rat them out) if they had a ONS.
Just give one of their friends a bit of hope that she could someday be a replacement. That girl then becomes your spy, with the contract being unspoken an unsolicited.
*Great* post- love having my eyes opened to a whole new aspect of women’s psych.
Especially the correlation with youth. It’s pretty bad with married women too- the stakes are higher and they’re better at it.
Surprised people needed a study for this. I thought it was just known that when one chick starts talking shit to you about another, it’s because she perceives a threat. With me it’s gotten to the point where if a woman starts viciously bad mouthing a friend/acquaintance, my interest level in the friend/acquaintance increases because I figure she must (a) be pretty awesome or (b) be interested in me to inspire that kind of hard core hating.
Direct game all the way:
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh70u8scTLbePF1r8K
ftw
This isn’t “game”, this is high-dork.
[…] [Women Gossip To Compete For Men] […]
I wouldve thought gossip is more about women trying to up their status in the female pecking order.
Same difference, if you know what I mean
It has to do with subconscious control. Being under someone’s thumb makes you less likely to voluntarily act outside of the controller’s own patterns. It is a purposeful control play to waste the most fertile years of a girl’s life.
No feminist is encouraging young girls to marry early. You could easily associate that with simple emnity.
If they married early it would be to older men mostly. Can’t have that in Femnazi land.
Excellent point. The higher ranking members of the feminist Matrix are undermining their competitors’ chances by derailing them into promiscuity and career goals as a means of social control. Hmmmm…
“Evolutionarily, historically, and cross-culturally, they point out, girls in the fifteen- to nineteen-year-old range would be most actively competing for mates.”
Walking through the mall last night, was struck once again by how so many girls peak at 15-16 y/o, then its all downhill for them. No wonder they’re so fucked in the head.
Quite true. 50+ years ago one would be very hard pressed to find a teenage skank in Anytown, USA. You would really have to dig through the trashiest part of town. Now the country, formally known as America, is overrun with teen whores.
Worse yet, their bastard spawn… proudly displayed in tow, at that.
I think you mean formerly known as America.
[…] Women Gossip To Compete For Men: Feminists are gonna blow an ovary reading this study. Perfect. Although most researchers acknowledge the speculative nature of evolutionary arguments in this area, social aggression among reproductively viable females is usually interpreted as a form of mate competition. Hess and Hagen, for example, suggest that the sex differences uncovered in their study would likely have been even more pronounced in a younger group of participants. Evolutionarily, historically, and cross-culturally, they point out, girls in the fifteen- to nineteen-year-old range would be most actively competing for mates. Thus, anything that would sabotage another female’s image as a desirable reproductive partner, such as commenting on her promiscuity, physical appearance, or some other aberrant or quirky traits, tends to be the stuff of virile gossip. […]
“First, men have their own version of gossip; it’s called winning.”
Now there’s some gossip I’m willing to invest in.
Female reader here, nodding a lot. Love this study — it makes a lot of sense.
Another evolutionary/social perspective I read about that clicked was the use of gossip as a form of social control; women are constantly monitoring the subtextual emotional and moral response of the other women listening to their story. In addition to feeding women one of their prime forms of emotional crack (aka Righteous Indignance) gossip allows women to learn what’s “okay” and what’s “not okay” in the eyes of ‘society’… which will always be the eyes of the group of women they’re associated with.
Women lie, confabulate and embellish a lot when they gossip, too; it’s not just a straight exchange of scandalous facts. I think it’s a subconscious way to run a virtual reality scenario — a test of whether some kind of status-seeking behavior would be approved of or not, and to what degree.
It’s not just schadenfreude or the enjoyment of taking another woman down a few notches with a gossipy story — it’s also a pure vicarious thrill, an imagined secondhand experience of being the kind of girl “who could get away with it”. (Aka, a higher-value, hotter girl.)
Yeah woman talking is like men fighting.
I would say, rather, more like men competing. We can usually find a non-violent way to metaphorically whip out our genitals and decide who’s bigger. But once that’s established, it’s usually fairly set. Women, on the other hand, have an expiration date on their mating behavior that enforces a constant awareness of the opinions and actions of other women. They are, by nature, more subtle and more duplicitous than men.
No-one else moderately surprised by her post? A woman showing insight and offering a good contribution….rare and welcome.
Even a blind squirrel finds an occasion acorn.
PS: If anyone ever wonders what the draw to feminism might be for some women, given that it’s completely irrational and obviously harmful pseudoscience, remember: Disapproving indignance, and the experience of having it mirrored back to you, is chick crack.
Take the words and specifics out, and you’ll find that the “tone” and conversational tactics are no different between a group of girls discussing the Kardashian show, and a group of women in an ‘intellectual’ political meeting.
.
Good observation.
That’s a fascinating idea! Take any group of women talking on video and mute it before you know what they’re talking about. Then try to guess the subject based on their group dynamic and individual performance. I’m guessing that the changes in dynamic would reflect each woman’s level of security and confidence about the particular subject (nerd girls being more aggressive and competent in some areas, while less confident in others) but would all follow the same consensus building/consensus betraying pattern.
Something else that’s chick crack? The perception of consensus and solidarity, with the possibility of being able to personally control that consensus.
Something else that’s chick crack? The perception of consensus and solidarity, with the possibility of being able to personally control that consensus.
Too many alleged men evince that trait… even here at the chateau, one of the more manly forums.
And if we’re talking straight here, that also happens to be Jew crack.
If everyone likes you, you’re doing something wrong.
Beware Of The Man Who Has No Enemies. — Edward Abbey
HAHAHA!
Other women’s sexuality can be threatening, so it needs to be controlled. Being too provocative is the quickest way to make other women dislike you. Women need other women throughout their lives. If a woman can’t find a way of bonding with other women, she is an inferior mate choice.
Or it can work in your favour as a woman. If a woman is all provocative and a powerful, well connected man is somehow caught in her trap, being friends with her can have its advantages – as long as she knows you are not after her man.
I find that beautiful, sexy women tend to be lonely for female friends so if you play your cards right and play down your own looks to be friends with them, you can share in their benefits without having to nab a man yourself – like going on shopping trips or girlies weekends away, courtesy of her rich boyfriend.
Are you for real? Play down your own looks to be someone else’s tagalong? Forget that! Play UP your own looks and get your own man
Girlies week-ends getaways… rich boyfriends footing the bill?
Sheesh, don’t interrupt her while she’s two-thirds through her Sex In The City marathon.
I’m not saying a vacation with friends wouldn’t be fun, I just don’t think anybody should be sublimating their own chances at happiness to be some sort of female eunuch friend. Personally, I refuse to be a fat, ugly, slut (which is what *some* women would prefer I be) in order to blend into the social fabric and not be a threat to them. The sacrifice is *some* female companionship. But, ultimatly, do i fantasize about one day finding that perfect female friend to vacation with or about having a husband. Pretty simple choice.
But, ultimatly, do i fantasize about one day finding that perfect female friend to vacation with or about having a husband.
Didn’t you get the memo… you’re a fabulous, empowered woman with no need to compromise… in short, you can have BOTH!
/and hubby pays the freight!!!
Nope, I have never gotten the memo. If I did, I threw it away as junk mail. If I am ever again safely married, it would likely follow that certain women would be more pleasant.
I don’t know why I’d have to play down my looks. I wouldn’t go after her boyfriend, anyway. There’s plenty of other men out there.
“Personally, I think a lot of female gossip is much less effective than believed by women.”
I suspect that in the evolutionary frame such gossip could result in lethality – women certainly seem to play it as if it is a deadly game.
Imagine a foreign woman who comes into the tribe and becomes the Alpha’s number 1; the women of the tribe would be highly motivated to bring her down, kill her children, and instill one of their cousins or sisters on the throne.
Even if it doesn’t turn lethal, it prevents individual women from rising above the herd; nowadays it also helps guarantee that they all go down together as broken sluts, by targeting healthy relationships..
“Take the words and specifics out, and you’ll find that the “tone” and conversational tactics are no different between a group of girls discussing the Kardashian show, and a group of women in an ‘intellectual’ political meeting.”
Very insightful. Should be in the running for comment of the week.
Comment of the week? For a chick? On CH?
I’m not feeling it, bro. It could create a vortex.
Funny, our local womans magazine had article “Why women backstab and slander each other, now more than ever?” Reason according to article was because of…..drumroll…equality.
“Equality” is hamstereese for “the perception of consensus”. Women all want to be equal. They merely want to personally be slightly more equal than all the others. Every woman strives for consensus in public while plotting for control or influence of the perceived consensus in private.
Again, you’re not talking about merely women.
quality post. the comments on here are really a great boon as well as Heart’s great articles.
http://www.michellevillalobos.com/why-women-play-dirty-how-wo/why-women-play-dirty-specia.pdf
A wise man once said:
Females call their competition “sluts”.
Males call their competition “losers”.
If you consider the roles of the sexes, this makes perfect sense.
Thank you. I just shared this with my new niece-in-law and all her Air Force pals.
Grit
Great analysis.
So from an evo psych perspective feminists, as a mating strategy, are trying to devalue competing females (young and nubile) by holding up flaws as virtues so as to increase their own market value.
I think its much simpler than that. Most leading feminists are ugly, dykes or both. These characteristics would result in them being at the bottom of the social order in a traditional society. Therefore, by bringing down marriages and healthy relationships, they reduce the magnitude of their relative disability in society. It has worked extremely well so far. Honestly, one cannot blame them for it – it is what any sane person would do if cursed with physical attributes that condemned them to a life of inferiority.
There are more noble ways to spend one’s life than making envy into an art.
Understandable? Perhaps… as much as Satan’s desire to be like God is understandable, and failing that, making an effort to bring down His entire creation.
But no, it is not blameless… nor is it sane.
When you explain it away as “normal” or justify it as “understandable”, you’re an enabler, at risk for an equal share of guilt.
I believe the social control argument more than mate competition. The problem is that “talk is cheap.” It is easy to gossip but even easier to not believe it. So this can’t be a credible signal in terms of competition.
Agreed. if the point of gossip is competition over men, then it can only work if men to listen and believe in it – which it appears men do not.
No, the point of gossip is social control, particularly attempts by the lower-ranking members of the Matrix to undermine higher-ranking members through subversion…it’s about relative positioning, with no crab able to rise to the top of the basket without being pulled down by all the others. Whether men believe it or not isn’t important. The attempt is to control the Matrix, which controls mating behavior in the tribe, After you can control the Matrix, you can influence the distribution of men in mating.
consider: I may have heard that Jane is a slut, but as a dude that doesn’t bother me much on the surface because I know it may not be true and I’m secretly hoping it is true, but either way it won’t make much difference to me. If my girlfriend declares that Jane is a slut, on the other hand, then I have to agree with her out of social necessity because to do otherwise would violate the emotional terms of our union and cut off my pussy supply. Jane may not be a slut, but if I do not tacitly approve of my girlfriend’s declaration, then I risk my mating privileges. Therefore it doesn’t matter whether or not I think Jane is a slut, the perception of sluthood thus stated is enough to alter the perceptions of the group and control the narrative. Jane is a slut, everyone knows that.
And if I catch you hanging around Jane…well, everyone knows she’s a slut so the only reason you’d do that is if you were thinking about cheating…
which it appears men do not.
correction – alpha males do not.
It’s not just for women to tear each other town. Gossipping is also exactly why a man does not need to clarify to people that he is single or taken (unless, perhaps, he moves to a new town where he’s not known).
Jane Austen, anyone ? In such cases, gossip serves the purpose of indirect communication when direct communication is not deemed appropriate or impolite.
I’m such a loser women don’t recognise me as a man at all. A plus side is that they don’t stop talking with each other when I’m in proximity….you’re sure not kidding about ‘impolite’…the brutal social machinations and normalisation of sexual kinkiness that goes on in gossip sure ain’t for open conversation.
Men are (usually) not plugged into the gossip Grapevine, but women are.
Could it be the point of the gossip (e.g., labeling a woman an STD carrier) is not so much to inform Mr. Desirable directly, but rather indirectly.
In other words, infect the minds of Mr. Desirable’s sister and mother (who are genetically plugged into the Grapevine, with a Gigabit Ethernet connection).
These socially influential women will, in turn, have the ear of Mr. Desireable, due to their social proximity and gravitas.
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/does-wanting-a-baby-make-a-woman-more-likely
Of note:
“Clue #1: Twin-based evidence shows that orgasm frequency has a modest heritable component. Uncomfortable as it may be to think of your flush-faced grandmother moaning in ecstasy, there is a clear genetic contribution to female orgasm. Hereditary factors account for only a third of the population-level variance in female orgasm, however.”
and
“Clue #3: Educated women are more likely to report having masturbatory orgasms— but are no more likely to experience coital orgasms than are less educated women. Religiosity is another social mediator: religious women tend to have less frequent orgasms than nonreligious ones (or at least they report having fewer).”
C’mon women there’s no need to fight because there’s plenty of men to go around. Oh wait they’re fighting because of the shortage of Alpha males. Dang.
Shortage of alphas?
To hear the boasts here, you’d think that a dead cat couldn’t be swung without hitting one.
Am I the only one who thinks that the comments are pretty truthful?
Sure, there may be a few keyboard jockeys, but most don’t deny their beta past, share their experiences about being rejected/cheated on or their failed seduction attempts.
And going from a beta to a post-red pill lesser alpha is believable, I’m not gonna talk about myself but I saw what the mystery method and seduction bootcamps can do to a man.
We’re all potential liars here, but I think the proportion of self-declared super alphas is low enough to maintain a satisfactory level of credibility..
You’re right that there’s a goodly number of “I have seen the light” honest posts.
I was just having a bit of sport… directed at the types who take no small pains on nearly every post to speak of their alpha-idity.
I still don’t really get the whole alpha thing…apart from those men being as narcissistic and deluded and sexually depraved as women are on the inside, there’s not much attraction.
There are two competing schools of thought here at the chateau, in re ‘alpha’.
One is the peacocking, shit-talking, anything-goes-just-bang-that-ho faction. Think de Valmont of Dangerous Liasons… but without the elan, elocution, and fancy wardrobe.
The other holds more to the traditional idea of a man’s man, for whom the concepts of quality and conscience still hold a bit of sway. Think Athos, before Milady soured him.
In response to Greg, both those types have their appeal.
As a long time married man, I find that wives don’t gossip about each other. Rather, they protect each other in the presence of husbands. That is, that cover up for each other.
True. I probably wouldn’t criticize another woman my age for cheating on her husband.
After all, it’s the lout’s fault, isn’t it?
That’s fascinating! Can you elaborate? Why wouldn’t you criticize her for behavior you’d find reprehensible in a stranger, an enemy, or a celebrity?
Sisterhood trumps all… deep-down, most women are in an “it’s us against men” mentality… especially AFTER they’ve lassoed a meal ticket and can afford to drop pretense.
I think it’s an equilibrium between “sisterhood trumps all” and “every sister for herself!”. It’s in their best interests in terms of the Matrix to appear to be consensus-seekers, but self-interest and solipsism encourage them to use sisterhood as a convenience, not an ideology.
Exactly, hence the ‘amoral’ aspect of women… sisterhood when solidarity is to her benefit, stand-by-her-man when the wind blows from a different direction, and “bow before your queen!” when she’s able to lord it over both sexes.
solipsism= female reproductive autism.
TRUTH!
It’s hard for an older woman to play a younger woman’s game. If she can do so successfully, I’d admire that.
It’s hard to rob a bank, too… but admiring that sort of chutzpah is strictly for the silver screen.
Bad girls in books or movies are often the best characters. In real life, they usually aren’t quite as charming.
Its a lot harder to criticize people you care about and with whom you probably sympathize than absolute strangers. There’s also no risk of losing their friendship. People may not out and out throw rocks at an adulterer, but they might simply withdraw their time, interest, support, etc., which subtly indicates to the outer world that something is amiss.
So why are so many wives often more compassionate, in word and deed, to complete strangers over their own husbands?
Ah, I see… you did mention “with whom they sympathize”.
oh comment moderation, we meet again. Tune in next week maybe for my contribution to this topic lol it tells you how to use gossip to get rid of AMOGs.
Funny you say that, I just successfully turned a sister off a guy I don’t like via pressing gossip buttons.
I had three points:
– Why does he live alone? Even his friends can’t stand him.
– Classic sociopath, manipulative
– Clown, inferiority complex
The first one was what did it. Two hours after we spoke, she said on her own “I’m glad you said that, I shouldn’t be going out with someone who has a bad reputation especially since I just moved here.”
Knowledge is power.
Male gossiping is also rampant in feminized environments such as Encorpera.
the greatest alpha (Neil Armstrong)of all time died. The first man to land in moon is no more..
Oddly enough, he was a self-described ‘nerd’… and certainly didn’t give off a great alpha air… very introspective, mild-mannered, and somewhat plain in appearance.
Not to take away from the worthy fellow… but he may have merely been one of those ‘lucky’ examples to whom Fate and History bestowed their graces… after all, a trip to the moon was not accomplished by the will and daring of one man… and the choice as to who would ‘be the first’ could easily have gone to many of the worthy men of NASA.
I must respectfully disagree. According to his official biography all of the astronauts had a ton of respect for him. He was definitely a leader in a high-status pack even before he was named the commander of the Apollo 11 flight.
I was talking about his persona and “look” to the outside world… let’s face it, he could have been the equivalent of a rock star, post landing… he remained aloof, leastwise, as much as was possible in his position.
I’m well aware he was well-respected among his peers, otherwise his name wouldn’t even have been in the unofficial lottery to see who gets to step out first.
Point is, pretty much each and every peer with equivalent credentials and experience was likewise well-respected. Calling him ‘the greatest alpha’ is a bit of a stretch… especially how ‘alpha’ is deemed on a PUA site.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/26/opinion/seymour-armstrong-appreciation/index.html
Interesting article about the “laconic” Armstrong. Perhaps it was his very lack of overt alpha characteristics and his sang froid in earlier training mission danger situations that won him the coveted spot.
Makes sense. If anything was going to go wrong, better the near-robotic lack of emotion than some high-spirited hot dogging.
A big part of Alphadom is being in control of your emotions. Armstrong had that to the ultimate degree. By all accounts he was the most clear-headed man ever.
Remember when he lived and grew up. The Second World War meant that a huge number of American men had been off doing dangerous and heroic things (and a lot of boring things too). Alphadom in the mid-20th century was underplayed, and Armstrong was a prime example.
I suppose that’s another form of Game most of us can’t aspire to: Genuine Achievement Game. That’s where you actually do something monumentally awesome and stop worrying about how Alpha you are because you know it precisely.
He was an accomplished test pilot. That is one of the reasons he was chosen.
Does CH have a spam filter/moderation for longer comments? I can’t tell if mine just got eaten.
Does CH have a spam filter/moderation for longer comments? I can’t tell if mine just got eaten.
I’ve had longer posts fail to upload.
One young woman explained it to me thusly: “Every time a woman gets engaged to be married, that means there is one less marriageable man in the pool for every other woman.”
Regardless of the lip service about sexual revolution, getting married is a status symbol to most women. It means they have snagged in a man. And given that women generally marry up, it also means more wealth for the bride-to-be down the line. It’s a competition for position among one’s peers, as well as material security. And these fights get bloody. Therefore, it is in a woman’s interests to bring down all other women who are competing with her.
This is not the case for men.
Females are competing for a smaller pool of males than are men competing in the pool of women. Again, females tend to marry up, or chase after a limited number of alpha males. Males have a much broader perspective on with whom they will mate. If a woman gets married, there are statistically more women remaining in the marriageable pool. For example, say that men see 50% of women as desirable; women might see 20% of men as desirable. When a couple get engaged, to males there are now 2% fewer available females; to females, there are 5% fewer. A 250% difference.
When a man gets engaged, other men may show sympathy for a comrade who is losing his freedom (and in these decadent days, much of his wealth upon the statistically probable divorce). To be cynical, for a man, every marriage-hungry female taken out of circulation via a walk down the aisle is one less female who will victimize a single man down the line with wedding vows.
You missed the point. The SMV of men does not necessarily decrease with age as there are more factors in play for his SMV besides looks. So with every year a new generation of women become available for him to game as they come of age. That is why “abundance mentality” is not just effective strategy, it’s also simple common sense. Even if tomorrow you were to magically and permanently fail with every living woman on the planet over the age of 18, next year a new crop of 18 year olds will be available.
OTOH, a womans’ SMV constantly decreases with age (her appearance reflects her fertility). So in general she is usually looking for men who will accept her SMV value. Usually this translates into men older than her. Not b/c of the SMV of the men, but because there is a possibility that they themselves will have less of a sense of their ability to attract high-SMV (read young and hot) females.
Bottom line: For women, every man that gets married is in fact a man taken off the market. At least in non-polygamous societies.
In a polygamous society this situation gets reversed. As one man can technically dominate every woman around, leaving nothing for all other men. And every woman will technically have the ability to gain access to the highest alpha.
That is why I believe polygamy is absolutely inevitable. The entire institution of monogamy was created for us betas. And haha, who gives a fuck about us, eh?
Yuri
the greatest alpha (Neil Armstrong)of all time died. The first man to land in moon is no more..
————————————————————————————————
And he may have taken the greatest secret of all time with him to the grave.