Okay, looking how so-called MGTOW’s get all but-assed hurt when someone dares question “libertarianism” in a similar fashion to how a so-called feminist loses her shit when someone questions her religious belief in patriarchy, well I suppose some red pill motherfucker is going to lose his shit for offering an alternative to his precious hypergamy…
…and now that I’ve given a trigger warning, or was it a pre-emptive fuck you….
Okay, first things first….
A single man is often told to “stay in his league.” By feminist’s and man-o-spherians alike. Well, if two groups that hate each other agree, it must be right, right?
First of all, this begs the issue, what exactly is a league? How the fuck does one know one is in someone else’s league? Is this a sports team thing? Seriously, how does one know…
Now, let’s use an analogy,applying to jobs-and I must be one evillle objectifying weirdo to compare meeting womyn to applying to jobs but here goes…
Let’s say there is one job that pays $10.50 per hour and involves hard physical labor and then there is another job that pays $16.25 per hour and one should have a degree.
It would seem it would be easier to get the first job, right? Less barriers to entry and a lower payscale would make it seem that the second job has their pick of candidates.
Okay, let’s say there are two women, both 23 and let’s assume single because they are on a dating site after all. Let’s say one is a bit overweight and what a PUA would call a 5.5 or 6. Let’s say another is slim and what a PUA would call an 8 or an 8.5. If a man is to message both of these women, which is most likely to reply? One with a market based, or “league” based mentality would say the 6 is more likely to reply back. One with this mentality is likely to say the 6 gets less messages, therefore, being less desirable is more likely to answer back….
Let’s go back to the jobs analogy. If the man is unemployed and applies to both jobs, which is he more likely to get called back to an interview? If we look upon things with a one-dimensional market mentality, we would expect that the man is more likely to be called back for the $10 an hour job.
But is this empirically the case?
Let’s say the man on the dating site hears back from the 8 but not the 6. How could this happen? Did he just have a huge stroke of luck? Perhaps, both the 6 and the 8 get enough messages that they can be picky. Perhaps, regardless of the number of messages, the 6 is waiting for a man whose profile picture she likes and is over 6 ft tall. Perhaps, this man is 5’9 and didn’t lie on the profile. The 6 merely passed him by. The 8 might merely prefer a man taller than her, she is 5’4 and after surpassing this height,she looks for other things. Perhaps she liked the man’s taste in music or his European fashion sense. If the man in this example is able to arrange a date with the 8, she might share what she liked about his profile or he might be able to find out with a question or two. Likely, he will never find the reasons why the 6 passed him by….
Back to the jobs analogy…
The man applies for the 10 buck and the 16 buck job. Let’s say the 10 buck an hour job passes the man by but the 16 buck job calls him in for an interview. Perhaps the $10 an hour job is waiting for bigger guys with stronger backs because they think smaller guys will have more difficulty with the job and be more likely to quit. Maybe the $16 an hour job reveals in the interview that while the applicant doesn’t have a degree, the applicant has taken relevant coursework. Perhaps the coursework is so relevant that it trumps a degree as most degree holders don’t have the relevant coursework.
Okay, now these are both made up examples….
Maybe not indicators of the real world, and I suppose someone would say even if both examples played out somewhere, we’d have to study it and say does this play out over and over again, creating a measurable trend?
In the wikipedia definition of hypergamy, it states that women marry men who are wealthier or of a higher status….
A feminist will tell you that is patriarchy in action. An MRA will tell you a man has to shackle himself to a role he might despise to be a desirable partner. I’m not here to dispute the wiki definition of hypergamy nor to wrangle with feminists or MRA’s on their cherished dogma. But I do believe that what red pillers describe may be based on some anectdotal evidence but not empirical evidence. There is empirical evidence showing that many men are unable to find partners though. In fact there are more unmarried/never married men than women.
pt. 2 coming if I feel like it…