The Male Social Matrix: Back To The Sandbox 
The Red Pill Room | August 30, 2012 | by Ian Ironwood
-------------------------
 There's been a lot of talk around the Manosphere lately about the
differences between how men and women relate to each other, socially.
 They all dovetail nicely to my Female Social Matrix/Male Social
Matrix theory nicely, so I'm going to cover them and expound upon them
because I do that sort of thing.  Let's talk about the Sandbox
[http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/06/female-social-matrix-playground-rules.html],
and what happens when a girl gets in...and why.

 [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CGf9wWM5EAg/UD_JrvbbkiI/AAAAAAAABuk/C01SOS1tdqg/s1600/men.JPG]


First, from the venerable Badger Hut, where Badger made the astute
observation in his post BEING AN EMOTIONAL MAN DOES NOT EQUAL
“TALKING ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS”
[http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/being-an-emotional-man-does-not-equal-talking-about-your-feelings/]:

> [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b6Sycgv4UeU/UD_MQk9pqcI/AAAAAAAABus/BbZYLQbXwgY/s1600/42-16543556.jpg]
> 
>         Note where the only female has been stationed...
> 
>  MALE SOCIAL DYNAMICS HAVE TWO MAJOR PARTS: THE FIRST IN WHICH MEN
> ARE TESTED FOR THEIR FITNESS FOR MEMBERSHIP, AND THE SECOND IN WHICH
> HAVING PASSED THE TEST THEY ARE ACCEPTED INTO THE GROUP ALMOST
> WHOLESALE. I DON’T SEE THIS IN FEMALE SOCIAL GROUPS (IN FACT I SEE
> THE OPPOSITE – IMMEDIATE SUPERFICIAL ACCEPTANCE, FOLLOWED BY AN
> UNDERCURRENT OF OBFUSCATED AND PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGES FROM
> THE INSIDE).

Cool, huh?  The next day, Athol did a piece about Why The Wannabe
Other Man Tests You First
[http://marriedmansexlife.com/2012/08/why-the-wannabe-other-man-tests-you-first/#comments],
in which he recounts a tale of a man whose masculinity was repeatedly
challenged in front of a group of friends, including his wife, and how
it was handled. 

Both posts bear examination, and both touch on a very sensitive
subject that we don't discuss often enough.  HOW WE SOCIALIZE AS MEN
HAS A GREAT DEAL TO DO WITH HOW WE ACT AND REACT AROUND WOMEN, AND
_VICE VERSA_. 

As Badger says, you don't get included in the "Man Club" -- the Male
Social Matrix -- just by having a penis.  If you recall my other
posts about the subject, you know that men test each other at the
outset of meeting each other in order to establish a
dominance hierarchy.  It may be a high-order hierarchy, like a
corporation or an army, or it may be a low-order hierarchy, like four
guys on a fishing trip, but regardless of the situation _YOU CAN'T GET
INTO THE SANDBOX UNTIL YOU'VE PROVEN YOUR VALUE TO EVERYONE._ 

That can take many forms, depending on the men and the situation --
but once you pass the test then you get into the sandbox and follow
the leader of the pack like the other boys, and _everyone_ has a good
time.  If you play particularly well, your status goes up.  If
you're kind of an asshole, your status goes down -- but you aren't
tossed from the group.  You just become the group's Asshole.  That
role comes with certain expectations, but we'll get into that another
time.

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QEtXJrfu9bI/UD_MhQBUixI/AAAAAAAABu0/XIKPo_orZeM/s1600/49PSG00Z.jpg]In
the case of Athol's story, the social interloper made several_ very
_public, _very _nasty emasculating marks that were clearly a challenge
to the other man, an overt play to intimidate him and impress his
wife.  The man dealt with it with a subtle threat of physical
violence, which countered the interloper's threat nicely.  It was
followed up with yet _another_ confrontation with a third party who
reiterated the threat.  Because, y'know, SOMETIMES SOMEONE JUST NEEDS
TO HEAR THAT THEY WILL GET THEIR ASS _RIGHTEOUSLY KICKED _IF THEY
CONTINUE INTERLOPING WITH DESIGNS ON ANOTHER MAN'S WOMAN.  As it
should be.

The aspect I want to address is the test-and-bonding ritual, and the
role that Alpha and Beta play in the Male Social Matrix.  In essence,
THE INTERLOPER VIOLATED THE TACIT RULES OF THE SANDBOX BY DICKISHLY
EMASCULATING THE MARRIED MAN, AND SEVERE CONSEQUENCES RESULTED.  He
was attempting to be a Bull Alpha and make a move -- or at least test
the waters -- on a woman who was _clearly_ already claimed by another
man.  Worse, he chose _emasculation_ in a public venue to make his
challenge, an arena where an overt display of confrontation would have
been problematic due to the mixed nature of the event.

You see, had the party been men-only, then the dynamic would have
changed _dramatically_.  If you attempt to verbally emasculate
another man in a group of men, then it's either teasing banter between
old friends or a direct challenge to be handled directly -- and
knowing the difference between the two is an exclusion criteria for
most groups of men. 

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4gDTnomMr2Q/UD_Mxxm3qBI/AAAAAAAABvE/STGm4rMn1HQ/s1600/ill-dynamite.jpg]
But IF A DUDE IS _THAT_ MUCH OF AN ASSHOLE AS TO CALL YOU "GIRLY" IN
FRONT OF A BUNCH OF OTHER GUYS, THEN DIRECT CONFRONTATION IS REQUIRED
TO COUNTER THE ASSHOLE'S PLAY FOR DOMINANCE.  Since it was done in
mixed company, the husband had to consider the ramifications of his
actions not just on the Sandbox, but what it would have meant to his
wife over on the Swing-set.  Women don't like direct confrontations,
they like nice, pleasant little gatherings where gossip can flourish
and they can stab each other in the back like civilized women.

This Social Testing for admission to the Sandbox can take many forms,
of course, but there's always an implied challenge, response, and
resolution.  THINK OF IT AS THE "PRISON YARD PLAY", WHERE A DEMAND ON
A NEW INMATE BY AN OLD INMATE _HAS_ TO BE MET WITH VIOLENCE, OR YOU'RE
GOING TO BE SOMEONE'S BITCH BY EVENING.  If someone calls you out in
front of a bunch of dudes, then either a demand for a retraction or a
confrontation is in order.  And even if the Asshole in question is
much, _much_ bigger than you, and you _do_ have a high chance of
getting your ass kicked, THE ALPHA THING TO DO IS TO GO AHEAD AND GET
YOUR ASS KICKED.  Because if you don't, then you tacitly admit his
(admittedly assholish) emasculation of you and accept the
consequences.

There's good news, though: IF YOU DO TAKE ON THE ASSHOLE AND LOSE, YOU
HAVEN'T REALLY LOST.  Losing to the AMOG may not be great, but it
doesn't send you to the bottom of the pyramid.  Your challenge made
you a "contender" for AMOG, even if the odds were long.  The reward
you get is the respect from the other men in the Matrix, who have
witnessed your response to the challenge and your bravery for taking
it on, and who don't count your loss against you.  YOU MIGHT GET YOUR
ASS KICKED, BUT NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO SAY SHIT ABOUT YOU, KNOWING
THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO DEFEND YOUR TERRITORY.  Bull Alpha bullies
depend on dudes backing down when they make a dominance play, and when
that doesn't happen, more often than not they back down themselves and
find something better to do.  That's life in the Sandbox
[http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/06/female-social-matrix-playground-rules.html].

Add just one woman into that mix, however, and the _entire dynamic_
changes.

 [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aqa9_j5_tFs/UD_Nn9zcNiI/AAAAAAAABvM/eXP3B9XyeIY/s1600/menonegirl.JPG]

I'll shift sideways a little to illustrate my point.  I live in the
Land O' Cotton, the glorious South, and I know a lot of black people.
 I'm not a racist, most of my black friends aren't racists, and 95%
of the time our cultural memes are _exactly_ the same, even if our
perspectives and presentatinos are slightly different. 

I bring this up because _that other 5%_ can trip you up if you don't
understand it.  A group of black folks in the South will act one way
when it's _only _black people within earshot.  Introduce a single
white face and their entire presentation subtly changes.  It's not a
negative thing -- it's not like they sneer or make negative comments
or anything -- iT'S MERELY THE FACT THAT A WHITE PERSON IS PRESENT
CHANGES THE RULES OF SOCIAL DYNAMICS AMONG MY AFRICAN-AMERICAN
FRIENDS.  

They're just as polite to me as each other, just as ready to engage in
discussion or debate, just as likely to include me in the event . . .
but there's no doubt in my mind that my presence has interrupted or
interfered in the all-black social group dynamics that was there
before I arrived.  It's a subtle thing, and most white people don't
even realize it's there -- _I_ didn't, really, until a white friend of
mine wanted to go see a step show at a local historically black
college, and I discouraged him -- because, as I told him, SOMETIMES
BLACK FOLKS JUST NEED THE SPACE TO "BE BLACK" WITHOUT ANY WHITE PEOPLE
AROUND.  It's not a racist thing, it's a cultural thing.

Similarly, ONE WOMAN IN AN ALL-MALE GROUP RADICALLY ALTERS THE
DYNAMIC.  Some women who seem determined to be included as "one of
the guys" find it highly frustrating when despite their best efforts
they _just don't make the cut._  I knew one in college who was
_determined_ to be accepted as "one of the guys" in Tech Crew for a
play, and she did everything she could to de-feminize herself (she was
straight, and I think she was after one of the other dudes, but I
digress . . .) in that pursuit. 

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2w3TSiKkESk/UD_N_c8jhII/AAAAAAAABvU/UCgdZefuweY/s1600/6869979044_29291167df_m.jpg]
But one night after rehearsal, the rest of the dudes went to an
off-campus house to watch porn and play videogames . . . _without
her_.  She was heartbroken and angry, and the next practice she
_demanded_ that they include her next time, even threatened to
complain of discrimination if they didn't.  She was unsatisfied.
 THEY WERE DUDES, SHE WAS A CHICK, AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY
RESPECTED HER ABILITIES, SHE STILL WASN'T A DUDE.  She ended up
quitting the next week, citing "an increased academic load", but we
all knew she left because she wasn't included in the Sandbox.

A single woman attempting to infiltrate the Sandbox will sometimes
understand the situation well enough to demand a male-style challenge
herself.  Depending upon the males in question, they may or may not
humor her.  And if she does succeed in the challenge, she will get a
little grudging respect, and she will be "included" in the next
"all-guys" night.  But "being included" often means "being ignored",
just like you'd mostly ignore a low-status Gamma or Delta.  A woman's
successful challenge to gain entry to the Sandbox usually means that
she's low-status to no-status...but the dynamic in the Sandbox shifts
anyway, because she's still a chick, they're still dudes, and even if
she watches porn and plays videogames she's still a chick and they're
_still dudes._

 [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-odPZqeTXfJI/UD_OwnPHoUI/AAAAAAAABvo/7XAXOKfkm-Y/s1600/187559-12_ad_slide.png]
Inclusion in an all-male group is rarely the prize that some women
make it out to be.  The key difference is the amount of respect given
to a woman, compared to a man, when she makes the challenge. A group
of men will cede respect to the challenger, if he's male, in
accordance with his style and success.  A group of men will almost
never cede their respect to a female challenger, because they all
realize the innate differences in approach and perspective between men
and women, and they understand at a basic level how allowing her to
accept the challenge is a serious compromise.  She gets just enough
respect to remain in the Sandbox, but will never rise any higher in
the hierarchy than the lowest Beta.

 Here's what Susan Walsh at the venerable HUS
[http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/29/relationshipstrategies/hot-mean-vs-not-hot-nice-what-do-girls-want/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HookingUpSmart+%28Hooking+Up+Smart%29]
has observed:

> IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT MOST HUMAN SOCIAL GROUPS HAVE A MALE
> DOMINATION HIERARCHY OF SOME SORT, WITH THE MORE SELF-CONFIDENT
> MALES NEAR THE TOP AND THE LESS SELF-CONFIDENT NEARER THE BOTTOM.
> MIND YOU, THEY DON’T BUTT HEADS OR BEAT EACH OTHER UP; THE MORE
> DOMINANT ONES LEAD THE GROUP, GUIDE THE CONVERSATION, ARE THE ONES
> THAT OTHERS LOOK UP TO, ETC. THE LESS DOMINANT ONES ARE FOLLOWERS,
> AND IN PATHOLOGICAL SITUATIONS, ARE RIDICULED AND TAKEN ADVANTAGE
> OF.
 [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-34o6wK-KCi4/UD_OayO4iWI/AAAAAAAABvc/NU-qIyvCfTk/s1600/299.1L.jpg]
Exactly.  And WHEN A WOMAN IS PRESENT, THAT SCREWS UP ALL THAT
BEAUTIFUL MALE CONFLICT RESOLUTION.  Because suddenly the dudes stop
trying to impress _each other_ and rise in the hierarchy through
achievement and start trying to i_mpress the girl,_ whether they're
into her or not.  They can't help it.  That's their genetic
programming.  Unless they're gay enough to warrant a fabulous pair of
designer beach sandals and matching swimsuit/swimrobe combination, you
and your buds are going to start focusing on _her_, not the success of
the group.

Susan also helpfully points this out:

> "SELF-ESTEEM THEORY SAYS THAT WE ALWAYS WANT TO MAXIMIZE OUR
> SELF-ESTEEM AND THAT WE DERIVE SELF-ESTEEM FROM TWO SOURCES:
> ACHIEVEMENT AND AFFILIATIONS (FRIENDS, GROUPS, LOVERS). "
 That is, MEN USUALLY GAIN THEIR SELF-ESTEEM THROUGH ACHIEVEMENT ("HOW
GOOD AM I?") WHILE WOMEN TRADITIONALLY GAIN THEIR SELF-ESTEEM THROUGH
AFFILIATION ("HOW POPULAR AM I?").  So while the men in the Sandbox
see the woman attempting to prove herself through achievement in
tackling whatever fitness challenge they've come up with, the woman is
focused _far_ more on her _inclusion_ than her _success_.  If success
is the only way to gain inclusion into an exclusive group (which is as
good as money in the Female Social Matrix), then the woman will pursue
success _to that end_.  Men, on the other hand, will focus on the
achievement and be less concerned about affiliation.  They might join
a group in order to achieve something, but the focus is almost always
on the achievement, not the affiliation. 

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-shKAiUpSp5w/UD_QuTjqVyI/AAAAAAAABv4/8TtcRBt6KA0/s1600/6255902646_1f8ca78737.jpg]
I think we men understand this at a basic level.  When a girl tries
to do something that usually only boys do, the natural hesitancy on
the part of men isn't -- as many women, particularly feminists,
contend -- because they don't want their social group to be
_exclusive_.  That's a chick thing.  MEN RESENT WOMEN WHO INTRUDE
INTO THE SANDBOX BECAUSE THEY'RE USUALLY DOING IT AS A MATTER OF
SOCIAL POSITIONING, NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME DRIVE TOWARD
ACHIEVEMENT THAT MEN DO.  To men, what you do matters, and why you do
what you do matters a whole lot.  Not so much over at the Swingset,
where it's what you say, not what you do, that counts.

And then there's this other thing: the tendency of those first "female
pioneers" in the Sandbox to attempt to re-write the social rules after
they were grudgingly included.  IN MOST SANDBOXES THAT MEANS DIALING
DOWN THE ACHIEVEMENT BAR TO MAKE THE INITIATORY CHALLENGE EASIER . . .
_FOR OTHER GIRLS._  That's because they're playing by Swingset rules,
which mandate that everyone strive for consensus and equality, and not
by Sandbox rules that mandate that everyone be judged by their
individual achievements and their individual contributions to the
group.  So when that first girl comes in, after she's been around for
a while and you just start to forget she's there, she'll often suggest
that next time you change the challenge criteria to make it "easier",
"simpler", and "more fun and fair for everyone".

 [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RYxN19cULEE/UD_Ms-__bDI/AAAAAAAABu8/E8QPMa0FnaM/s1600/menworking.JPG]
And boys naturally resent that, because the point is that the Sandbox
isn't supposed to be easy, simple, fair or fun for everyone.  IT'S
SERIOUS BUSINESS WHERE BOYS ARE COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER, AND THE
HARDER THE COMPETITION THE GREATER THE RESPECT AND GLORY TO THE BOY
WHO WINS.  Setting the bar lower just means giving up an individual
achievement in favor of consensus and "fun".  And before you know it,
another girl is in the Sandbox.  And that's when the trouble really
starts.

A single woman alters the group dynamic of a previously all-male
Sandbox. 

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-__IUZwF-wDY/UD_R3IM1woI/AAAAAAAABwI/zNnVc5m1k84/s1600/girls.JPG]

TWO women _destroy it utterly._

Why?  BECAUSE IT ONLY TAKES _TWO WOMEN_ TO FORM A NODE OF THE FEMALE
SOCIAL MATRIX.  Two girls in the Sandbox are almost _always_ going to
agree with each other over the boys, regardless of the issue.  Women
turn to each other for support and inspiration when things get tough,
whereas men tend to buckle down or fold -- _by themselves_.  While
that sounds like a VERY GOOD THING to those allergic to honest
competition, the fact is that DE-EMPHASIZING ACHIEVEMENT IN FAVOR OF
SIMPLE AFFILIATION IS _DISASTER_ FOR HOW THE SANDBOX WORKS.  

 [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FT5D3OQkNjk/UD_RTa1CSdI/AAAAAAAABwA/u7NKQTB63F8/s1600/6687762183_e881118a96_m.jpg]Two
intractable figures within the group who always agree with each other
and almost always suggest alternatives to leadership's dictates
(because offering "helpful suggestions" to the group leadership is
prized on the Swingset, but despised in the Sandbox) become a serious
problem -- especially when they start using their micro-consensus as a
point of leverage to change the direction of the group. More Swingset
stuff, because over there the focus isn't being the Alpha Female and
leading -- no one really wants that, because of the danger it attracts
-- IT'S TO BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP WHILE
AVOIDING PERSONAL RISKS TO POSITION, WITHOUT _APPEARING_ TO.

So when there is a two-girl FSM node in the middle of the Sandbox
stubbornly insisting that the group listen to their direction and
suggestions, not those of the designated-and-vetted AMOG, then it's
rightly seen as a challenge to their loyalty to the group, their
willingness to submit to group leadership in exchange for their
respect, and their willingness to put aside their personal issues and
sense of independence in order to further the goals of the group.
 And that's how the group dynamic of the Sandbox gets screwed up.
 Because with two women, it isn't an all-male Sandbox anymore, it's a
piece of the Swingset that has gotten out of control.

 [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JaifnR_-As8/UD_Unm9YUBI/AAAAAAAABxQ/8NT2Lxw-4jw/s1600/images+(37).jpg]
That is, the male/female dynamic often overwhelms the ability of the
leadership to handle it.  That's because THE LEADERSHIP WAS DEVELOPED
UNDER THE SANDBOX RULES WITH A MISSION IN MIND, AND THE SWINGSET ISN'T
_MISSION_-DRIVEN -- IT'S _PROCESS _DRIVEN.  When you start trying to
promote the process over the mission, you dilute the commitment and
the determination of the entire group to achieve. The point isn't to
make sure everyone has a good time or has a fair chance -- the point
is to build the bridge, win the war, get to the top of the mountain,
beat the record, win the championship, that is, to actually _achieve
_something. 

Making the entry challenge and conditions easier might actually _be_
"more fun and more fair", even for the boys -- _but you don't get the
bridge built._  With two or more girls in the mix, you can bet that
they will make a scene about how the bridge is getting built and not
let anyone get anything done until _their_ concerns are met, they've
been listened to, their opinions have been debated and discussed, and
a decision that they approve of has been made.

That's also why men, when confronted with the invasion of all-male
space by women, often retreat and re-form their group instead of
trying to contend with "equalizing" the Sandbox.  They want a group
dynamic where achievement, not consensus and affiliation, are
important.  They want to get the bridge built, not have fun --
building the bridge IS the fun.  Socializing along the way is often a
pointless indulgence of lower-status Betas and Gammas, so making
things "easier and more fun" (more feminine) is anathema to the
all-male power structure. It's not that men "fear" women invading
their spaces because they want to keep them exclusive just for the
sake of exclusivity -- that's a female thing -- they want to keep them
exclusive because including women into the group dynamic often, if not
always, deters the group from its stated mission.  You just can't
build a sandcastle at the Swingset, you have to do it at the
Sandbox...so if you want a sandcastle, you need to follow the Sandbox
rules.

Consider Badger's observations of how the Swingset operates:
_"immediate superficial acceptance, followed by an undercurrent of
obfuscated and passive-aggressive challenges from the inside"._  That
is, the New Girl will be enthusiastically invited to take the last
swing . . . and then be immediately bullied by the other girls through
subtle and snide comments, secrets between the original group, and
used as a pawn between the power centers of the consensus. 

When you bring that obfuscatory impulse and passive-aggressive
behavior into the usually straight-forward Sandbox, Ladies, you are
essentially taking a nasty dump right in the middle of everything the
boys have been working on.  It's the moral equivalent of having a man
show up to an all-girl group and start ordering everyone around.  Or
inviting a boy to give you a push on the swingset, only to have him
push you off suddenly and painfully.

 
-------------------------
Archived from https://theredarchive.com/blog/The-Red-Pill-Room/the-male-social-matrix-back-to-the-sandbox.7813