#hierarchy

[highvizthecone]

Which one is doing dirtier job?

[highvizthecone]

Waiting for the next task.

[bettyforever]

Explaining social hierarchies

So I’ve come to realize that a lot of neurodivergent people want to understand social hierarchies and unwritten rules. What I’ve noticed is that social hierarchies differ from friend group to friend group, but one of the main factors that comes into play is desirability, how desirable someone is to the invisible audience.

By “invisible audience,” imagine there is a camera in the room or following the friend group around. Who would be the most popular or conventionally desirable person in that setting?

For example, in a typical American group the hierarchy is often influenced by who is the most physically attractive, financially attractive, or socially attractive.

Let me break down those three categories.

Physically attractive: This has more to do with model-like features. How are your teeth? How’s your skin? How’s your voice? Do you fit conventional beauty standards?

Financially attractive: This speaks for itself. How much money do you have, and how do you spend it? What type of clothes are you wearing? What kind of jewelry do you have on? What kind of job do you work? What neighborhood do you live in?

Socially attractive: How many friends do you have? How many parties do you get invited to? How many people follow you back on Instagram? How much support and validation do you receive from your community? How do people speak about you when you’re not around?

I've seen that people who try really hard to maintain social attractiveness engage in behaviors like not taking sides, gossiping about one of their "friends" instead of having an honest transparent convo, saying one thing to one person and something different to another, or actions not aligning. They may be trying to maintain their social attractiveness by being "non-problematic" and not " rocking the boat" they will not want to make enemies or call out someones behavior if the now it will low their social attractiveness. From the outsidde they look cowardly meek and do not lead, they are trend followers.

Basically, these are the social hierarchies many people pay attention to. These are the rules of the game for the people who choose to play it.

Are you socially attractive? Are you cool/easy going? Do you go to nice places? Do you travel a lot? Are you involved in things that people admire?

Physical attractiveness. Do you work out? Are you slim, intentionally muscular and lean, or curvy and well-proportioned? I’m speaking specifically about the beauty standards I’ve observed in my 25 years of living and the traits that tend to get praised.

Then there’s financial attractiveness. Are you rich? Do you have status? Do you have the ability to live a leisurely lifestyle?

Someone who is considered a “good catch” or the top of the social hierarchy usually has a combination of all three forms of attractiveness. They have more respect and attention without even working for it. their Bad behaviors get dismissed quicker etc

If someone is not conventionally physically attractive, they may lean more heavily into being socially attractive or financially attractive. They end up being very nice/helpful/easy-going. Or they work on being financially successful they probably have a lot of businesses work work a high-paying job.

If someone doesn’t have a high-paying job, they may focus more on physical attractiveness or social attractiveness.

If someone struggles socially, meaning they have few friends, have social difficulties, or aren’t particularly well-liked, they might focus more on becoming physically attractive or financially attractive.

When it comes to people who don’t possess any of these three forms of attractiveness, they often end up near the bottom of the hierarchy.

I do want to clarify that not everybody is playing this game. Some people are not interested in status hierarchies at all. However, if you’re trying to understand how certain social environments operate, it’s useful to recognize the metrics many people seem to be using, whether consciously or unconsciously.

So if you find yourself being constantly disrespected or ignored, it's because you're probably at the bottom of the hierarchy. You can change yourself or find communities that don't operate on those games, or do nothing about it , its your life

[everyouseek]

How Have Women Always Been a 'Topic' in a Man's World?

If I asked a man this question, I have no idea what he'd say — he might just turn around and make me the topic instead. But I know exactly what a woman would say: nothing. Because when you are the topic, you lose all clarity; judgments pile up on you until you can no longer see yourself through the noise. So what do women do instead? They pick one of those judgments and wear it, like an ornament that was never theirs to begin with.

This happened to me in school, when senior boys started calling me "Mia Khalifa." At first I didn't think much of it — until the day I googled who she actually was. From then on, I became insecure about my body, especially whenever I looked in the mirror. I kept wondering why they had chosen that name for me, and somewhere in my head, I began to believe them. Someone told me it was because our specs looked alike, and I believed that too. I would stand in front of the mirror for hours, judging and criticizing the way I looked.

And just like me, most women end up believing whatever they're told, even when every clue points to the opposite.

Most women don't even recognize that this hierarchy exists — or at least, our mothers never did. We are not strangers to how our own mothers never stood up for themselves, yet quietly passed the same norms on to us: "Never raise your voice at your husband," "Keep your head down in front of elder men," and so on. In doing so, she becomes the unwitting enforcer of a second hierarchy — her own.

But there is a reason mothers pass this on to their daughters: their own mothers did the same to them, and theirs before that. As the generations continue, so does the hierarchy.

It would be unfair to blame men for everything, even though they have been the principal architects of this system, while women run a smaller version of their own. The religious and spiritual conditioning women were raised on taught them only one thing: to serve and obey.

Had they only had the power to break out of that cage, the system might have looked entirely different.

The real question is: why couldn't they? Why was it impossible to go against the norms?

Because for them, rebellion meant death came faster than rejection or exile ever could. None of them were Gandhi. So they swallowed the chaos, tied their misery into knots, and followed in the footsteps of their "comrades" — dictators in disguise.

Look into history — you don't even need to dig — and you'll find that nearly every invention and discovery is credited to men, far more than to women. Men have seized on that fact to question women's ability ever since. But a question only holds power when it has no answer, or when the person who could have answered it is dead. And those who might have answered are long dead — to sati, to dowry murders, to rape, to domestic violence, to being killed simply for rebelling.

So first you cut off our hands, then ask us to feed you. If women's perceived incompetence makes men feel more prestigious and deserving, so be it. But to women, men were never the competition — their power was.

There is a survey often cited, claiming that a group of men and women were sent to an island without basic resources. It concluded that none of the women could build a shelter or gather resources on their own, and that — out of sheer impatience — they ended up sharing tents with the men.

However factual this survey was claimed to be, plenty of men believed it and felt their dignity validated. Of course women couldn't build a house — and of course every claim about women having smaller brains or lower IQs than men must be true too.

But what if we tested that survey differently — asked the men to cook for everyone, four times a day, to everyone's exact preference, and listen silently to the complaints if it wasn't good enough; to babysit the children, wash and press everyone's clothes, clean the house twice a day, do the dishes after every single meal, polish their wives' shoes, keep their heads bowed at all times, take the blame for every mishap and every bad grade, and look after the in-laws — their medicines, their clothes, their every wish — for a year, or even just a month.

Most men would dodge that bet entirely, certain of their own superiority, because to them, this is simply a woman's job. But there will always be another group of men who'd take up the challenge — purely out of ego.

But sir, that is precisely your privilege. You wouldn't do these chores because survival depends on it — for you, it's a choice, an exercise of ego and free will. For women, doing the chores is the only option, because the alternative is death, disgrace, or shame. We don't have the privilege of choice.

Beyond all this, men have their own complaints too — stories of women murdering their husbands and stuffing their bodies into drums. These stories spread like spilled water, and now men say they're scared of marriage. Fair enough — when something brutal happens within your community, you start to believe it could happen to you too, and you stop feeling safe around the people who caused that fear in you. It's a complete circle. We don't doubt that men carry the same ego, the same hunger to reclaim power or superiority and override that fear — what's surprising is something else entirely. The moment this fear became real, men still found in it another opportunity to put women down: "Women put men in drums."

Since when did women acquiring the power to instill fear become anything but another loophole used against their own empowerment?

Men have the privilege of choosing what frightens them. Women, even in fear, are expected to be submissive — to lie down and "enjoy it," as the dictators would say.

To be honest, rape and harassment seem almost inevitable at this point. They come in so many forms that getting rid of one only makes room for another to take its place.

I wish women at least had the privilege of choosing who gets to rape them — so they could opt out of their own fathers and brothers.

It isn't always about rape or harassment — sometimes it's simply an inappropriate touch or stare. If a bikini is enough to provoke a man into rape, then surely women should have the same right: that an inappropriate touch or stare provokes them into murder. Would that be justified?

In this world, god is a man. And if we don't abide by his rules, we are killed, or we are raped.

I want every woman to choose wisely — to decide whether her fate will be as fragile as a mosquito's life, or as deliberate as a spider's.

Everything we need in this life seems to come at the cost of our consent — have you not realized that yet?

If your consent holds no value to them — if your ideology, your talents, your sacrifices mean nothing — then continuing to exist on their terms makes you a fool. Because if you cannot fight, you are only left to serve.

[owprinceministries]

The Gifts Of God Are Not For Titles of Hierarchy and Power

The following is not directed at any particular person or persons nor is it intended to injure hurt or indict any group of people, any particular religious denominational institution or entity. It is a commentary on 50 years of personal observation and research regarding the culture of religious Titles of hierarchy and Power and believer’s responses and treatment of them. These are some of the…

View On WordPress

[scuffnotes]

Top row is left is sector 3 next sector 2 next sector 1

Middle row is heaven 0 related sinless but no extra credit wanting all knowing of God to over achieve only if highly threatened

Bottom row saving greatest for last

Royal heaven

[aadhube]

Minor gripe about Res Vis in Book 2/Strength of the Few (light spoilers) is....

The fact that he's just a glorified errand runner, lmfao.

Dude's a fucking Sextus, a rank that often signifies an entire mayor or headsman administrator of a land, like Fadrique, and all he does is ferry messages back and forth between Senators.

Fuck, even when he becomes a motherfucking QUINTUS, a rank that even some Senators like his godsdamned father with a renowned family name are, he keeps running messages and occasionally chipping in with his opinions. He only really becomes useful to provide leaked info that Ostius gives him, and his rank only seems to get him a bit of an inroad with the Senators with absolutely no actual work done.

But at least that's better than Aequa, who becomes a Quintus right off the bat and then we are not told a single THING about what she does for work other than her apprenticing under some Aedile. Apprenticing in what?!?!? Which department is this Aedile (rank unknown) even in?!?!? Presumably it has something to do with the Censor, but what exactly?!?!? What did Aequa even think about all the Proscriptions that the government released to basically tell people to kill tens of thousands for their property? Being in Governance and working with the Censor, wouldn't she have seen or interacted with that line of work? After all, the Censor is likely the department with all the information on people and their property and land and belongings...