Feminism: The Female Beta Uprising
the case for feminism as a revolt of low SMV women against the 20th century SMP
Marx was right. Everything is class warfare. But what few, including Marx, seem to understand is:
“Class” is not just a measurement of socio-economic class nor even socio-cultural class. It expands far further out, into every dimension on which a human hierarchy has formed.
And given that it’s impossible to survive without values, that values lead inevitably to hierarchies, and that hierarchies disproportionately reward their winners and punish their losers:
“Class conflicts” exist in all human groups. It does not matter whether it is a country, an industry, a company, a social circle, or a family. Nor whether the “class” is made up of ten million people, ten, or just one. The fundamental structure of the classes and their conflicts remain the same.
Today we will be talking about how this applies to the socio-sexual hierarchy, generally referred to as the “sexual marketplace” (SMP).
The Class Conflict Within The SMP
The SMP has two dimensions of competition: inter-gender and intra-gender.
Inter-gender is men vs women. Intra-gender is men vs men and separately women vs women.
Feminist theory erroneously applies the class struggle framework to inter-gender relations—that men are the upper class and women are the lower class—when the far more useful and accurate application is intra-gender.1
Inter-gender (men vs women) is much more like two mostly-equal super powers than it is a “class hierarchy”. While Intra-Gender relationship for fairly traditional class hierarchies.
Intra-gender classes politically collaborate to gain more for their class at the expense of some other class. They will often collaborate with other classes in the SMP or outside the SMP entirely to achieve their aims.
Ex “lower” and “middle” class women tend to collaborate to extract resources from “upper” class men. And they often recruit “lower” class men to help them via the implicit promise of sex (which they of course never actually follow through on).
Because placement in the male hierarchy is mostly earned while placement in the female hierarchy is mostly innate—"women are born valuable, men must become valuable”—the male strategy is mostly geared toward improving oneself to increase competitive advantage, while the female strategy is more like fifty-fifty of improving oneself vs disrupting the success of the competition.
As I explain further in Plate Spinning Part 4.2, this situation of men being mostly positive sum and women being mostly zero sum is not a modern problem and is largely hard coded into our biology.2 But suffice to say: these temperamental commonalities permeate out far beyond our personal life choices, further into how we believe the world should be run. And when millions of people share similar preferences and goals, it turns into an ideological movement.
Defining The SMP Classes
As far as the Intra-gender SMP classes go, both genders have lower, middle, and upper classes.
Do note: It is my contention that the alpha-beta dichotomy is dumb and wrong. Not a 1D line of beta to alpha but rather a 2D matrix of Dickhead vs Power for men and Hot vs Crazy for women. However, for the sake of simplicity, we will use this 1D line, overlaying the classic 0-10 hotness scale, clustering into 3 classes: 1’s to 5’s as the “lower” class, 6’s to 8’s the “middle” class, and 9s and 10s as the “upper class”.
In men the classes manifest as something like:
Low – 1 to 5 – weak, loser, incel, no power, no money, no skills, no competence, etc
Middle – 6 to 8 – fairly strong, some money, some status, some competence, but also kind, reasonable, pro-social, etc
Upper – 9 to 10 – Jacked, Rich, high status, hot but also psychopathic, dark triad, mean, etc
In women the classes manifest as something like:
Low – 1 to 5 – fat, ugly, entitled, bitchy, dark triad, ogre, mean, etc
Middle – 6 to 8 – fairly pretty, fairly good at sex but also kind, good supporter, orderly, and low n-count, etc
High – 9 to 10 – hot as fuck, great at sex, but narcissistic, high maintenance, vain, etc
This scale is relative rather than absolute which is why there is class conflict. Men compete with other men to improve their ranking in an attempt to gain access to higher ranked women, and women compete with other women in an attempt to gain access to higher ranked men.
The Hollowing Out of The Middle Class
As I introduce in Simps, Sex, and The Masculine Revival and expand upon in Plate Spinning: Narcissist Edition: the middle class of SMV has been hollowed out, leaving us with a barbell distribution along our dickhead-power and hot-crazy lines.
This barbell distribution is what the classic “alpha fux beta bux” dichotomy is an observation of. This same thing happens in women too, though it is less pronounced.3
Why middle classes has eroded is another poast but the TLDR is: All middle classes are unstable because Pareto Distributions. This process applies to everything, including social hierarchies. It just takes decades if not centuries and inevitably leads to reorganizations of society aka revolutions.
With this context we can now get to my proposal...
Feminism: The Female Beta Uprising
Feminism was the beta uprising of the lower class SMV women. The women who were too ugly or mean or fat or smart or crazy to be selected as wives by the ever dwindling middle and upper class SMV men concluded the whole game was a sham and revolted.
As I explain deeper in Simps, Sex, and The Masculine Revival: Feminism doesn’t today and never has wanted freedom from men. They wanted and still want freedom from low SMV men. Women still want to be property. Just only of kings, not of peasants. They have always held this position, they just didn’t have much choice until the twentieth century.4
Any degree to which women claim to not want to be property at all is only the degree to which they either:
A) are performing classic ASD.
B) see all the “good” kings as taken, them left only with the option of choosing between an abusive king (chad), a peasant (betas), or to give up entirely to “be a stronk independent wahmen who don’t need no man”.
C) want to publicly “show solidarity” to the sisterhood and hide their heretical desires (meanwhile making fifty shades of grey the #1 best-selling book of the last decade in the US and #1 best-selling book of all time in Britain) or
D) some combination of these three.
Feminists Are Just Trying to Cut in Line
“Men compete with each other to win the race and women wait at the finish line to snag the winners”.
This is half correct. What it misses is to point out that the women are also in competition, but for their position in line at the finish line.
As a women: the lower your SMV, the further back in the line you are. And thus the lower the SMV of the men you can choose from. This sucks, because having a man’s children makes you dependent on and enslaved to him. And before birth control, labor saving devices, women in careers and school, etc being unable to acquire a high SMV man was at best a life sentence to prison. For most of our evolutionary history it was a straight up death sentence.5
For generations before feminism, large swaths of low SMV women would assuredly have chosen to compete in the male race if given the choice. At least then they’d have some agency in determining their position, rather than be born stuck in the back picking up scraps.6
This just wasn’t really possible until modern inventions like birth control and labor-saving devices and the cultural shifts that accompanied them.
Point is: the complaint of these low SMV women is not actually against male dominance—“patriarchy”. That, like most female communication, is a cover. What they actually want is to be moved up in line.
And how did they go about trying to enact this? Through SMV class warfare of course.
Feminism as SMV Class Warfare
Like all group cooperation: if you work together, you often more likely to get what you want.
For women in general, banding together —the “sisterhood”— to try and maximize their group interests is as old as hunting and gathering. Given women’s innate lower capacity for agency (physically weak, perpetually pregnant) this evolved as one of their dominant means for survival.
It’s not “I against my brother. I and my brother against my cousin. I, my brother, and my cousin against the world”…
It’s “I against that bitch. I and that bitch against those bitches. And I, that bitch, and those bitches, against men”.7
This conflict between the super powers of men and women is as old as time. Men went out and hunted and got scarce and difficult-to-acquire resources. And the women banded together to try and get those resources distributed “fairly”. And by “fairly” I mean “I will cooperate with that bitch and let her and her kids get some resources as long as it means more resources for me and my own”.
But as you might imagine, this cooperation is highly unstable. Because for hundreds of thousands of years women were not involved in the exploitation of the environment (positive sum) nearly to the degree that men were. They were only involved in the exploiting of men and the resources they created or brought back into the tribe (zero sum). And thus, even though these “gender norms” have relaxed significantly, slowly dissolving for well over a century, women still think and behave in mostly the same ways.
So besides becoming a lesbian, what option did our early 20th century female-beta have?
To band together with her fellow lower-class ogres to try and screw the babes out of their winners of course!
Death To the Plastics
After birth control and labor-saving devices and the ability to get education and jobs, low SMV women finally had the option to do something other than be baby ovens to losers. And what did they spend their free time on? Trying to meet their—and most any woman’s—one true goal of acquiring the power and resources of high SMV men of course.
But since they cannot compete directly, their only option is to subvert. Thankfully, their aforementioned lower agency has made women far more naturally adept at Machiavellian manipulation games (eg 48 laws of power) than the overwhelming majority of men.
When individual women in the past took such manipulations too far, they were burned as witches. But now—after that pesky enlightenment and its values of equality and personal freedom and nation states over pitchforked mobs—they were able to survive long enough and gain enough power to band together and coordinate their insurgency.
And what did they coordinate toward? The replacement of the system they were losers in, of course.
Now, in this frame, all the feminist beliefs begin to make sense. All of feminism serves to disrupt the line or the race, to increase her chances of gaining power, attention, and resources from high SMV men.8
Some examples:
Claim beauty standards as “oppression”, to try and convince the high SMV girls to become less hot and the men to question the ordering of the female line.
Claim marriage as “oppression”, to try and convince the high SMV girls to run in the race rather than wait and stand in line, and prevent the high SMV men from getting removed from the pool.
Claim masculinity (aka competence in winning the race), as evil and sexist to try and lower the SMV of the highest men so the hot girls get less and the ugo’s have a better chance of getting one.
Claim all sex as rape, to make middle and lower class men self-conscious and drop out of the race and instead join them in their fight against the SMP.
To replace men as much as possible with the state. eg Fight for bigger government, taxes, etc which will take the resources and power and protection normally provided by high SMV men to their high SMV women and redistribute it to the low SMV women.
Subvert modesty and its disproportionate benefit to high SMV women (A hot woman with clothes on seems less hot than a mediocre woman without).
Promote promiscuity, given that piety disproportionately benefits high SMV women (if you are insane or ugly the most you can offer men is sex. If you can get a high value man to sleep with you, you are more likely to get him to love you or even accidentally impregnate you, acquiring his power and resources for yourself).
Much more but I think you get the point.
To be clear, little to none of this is conscious. And most of the degree to which it is conscious is personal strategies for the individuals—the overwhelming majority of any seeming coordination an emergent side of effect of many with the same problems and goals rowing in the same direction.
Unintended Consequences
However, as happens with all class conflict: We can generally only see those adjacent to us in line. And thus what the lower class sees as the upper class is actually just the middle class. In the same way that, per Church, the Gentry and the Elite are indistinguishable to the Labor class.
And thus what these low SMV women see as high SMV women are actually mid SMV women. And in the same way that the Elite take advantage of the fact that Labor can’t distinguish them from the Gentry, the high SMV women are happy to let the mid SMV women take all the heat from the pissed off low SMV women.
This is why you see many high SMV women paying lip service to feminism. They are mostly sheltered from its negative consequences. Their men run things, they can avoid the taxes (both literal and metaphorical). Women other than them thinking sex is rape and beauty standards oppressive works great for them. It means less competition with the middle class. If anything, it helps them to gain more power, status, and wealth by pretending to be on the team of the lower-class masses.
In the end, it is only the middle class who is eroded, and the lower class never actually get even half of what they are seeking.
This is no different from how the Elite benefit from lib social policy (immigration, welfare, high taxes etc), the libs (Gentry) are sheltered from the consequences of their social policies (luxury beliefs), and most of the damage done is relegated to the conservatives (Labor), and the members of them who were kicked into the underclass who become far right extremists are only used as justification for more liberalism. This situation is a reoccurring pattern which hollows out all middle classes.
Conclusions
So what does all this mean? I still have to think more about the implications of this theory. But I can confidently say this at least:
Big if true.
Did you find this poast interesting? entertaining? moving? Annoying? Did it at least make your brain do a thing it was not already doing? Consider formalizing our sadistic relationship by chipping in a few bucks to support my work.
If you can’t afford it, please at least leave a like on substack or share the post with someone who you suspect will receive similar stimulation from consuming it.
I have never read feminist theory so am assuming that the right wing critiques aren’t complete strawmen.
Rather than “male” and “female” it is most accurate to ascribe these to “masculinity” and ‘femininity”, as such describes the “distilled essence” of the non-overlapping tails, while there is much overlap along the median (and the overlapping tails).
This is because whether a man should pick an “alpha” woman (a smoke show but who is insane) or “beta” woman (a good wife and mother but who is unattractive) first requires a man to have lots of options. And only 20% of men have such a luxury (compared to 80% of women).
This is further why so many self-proclaimed “feminists” are so into kinky sexual submission to Chads. Because their true complaint is not that of being subordinate to men, their true complaint is that the only men whose commitment they have access to are fucking losers.
The cultural practice of dowry’s existed largely as a way of increasing the prospects for a man’s low SMV daughter, as without this incentive most low SMV women would never reproduce.
Low SMV dudes who complain about how women “play on recruit difficulty” fail to understand that women are mostly born into their difficulty and have no way of changing it. Which would you rather have: you have a 50/50 chance of being born on the winning time or the losing team and once you’re selected you have to live your whole life there? Or have an 80% chance of being born on the losing team but with a few years of work you can move to the winning team? I know which one I would choose, and even the feminists agree. Imagine being more of an entitled pussy than feminists!
Note that by the nature of men going out into the environment to acquire resources, being capable of physical aggression, impregnating many women, they never developed a “brotherhood” to band together against women in the same way. The lower class of men are trying to do so, but they will fail as it is unlikely to ever be a match for the sisterhood.
Or, for the most resentful and blackpilled, to just light it on fire and watch it burn.
"To be clear, little to none of this is conscious."
Bingo. There are hidden incentives to this game we play. I typically take the economic side of this discussion, but you do an excellent job of pointing toward the social mechanics at work.
A true classic among FrogTwitter literature of the last decade.