For those who are familiar with SJWs (social justice warriors) and their means of persuasion you will without a doubt have become familiar with “The narrative” that seems to drive both the media, the social media and the general conversation around an event or events. From a writing perspective, the narrative serves to link together disparate events into consistent and congruent story in order to entertain or inform the reader. For instance, if we take the story of “The Little Red Riding Hood” the facts are as follows: Continue reading
As an observer of Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) for a while now, I’ve noticed certain patterns, mainly that there is a distinct lack of universality and logical consistency to the movement. To explain in brief, universality means that on an abstract level, the moral status of an act, a statement or a thought are to be applied universally to a population. For instance, if it is wrong for men to hit women, then it is also wrong for women to hit men. If it is wrong for white people to be racist, it is also wrong for people of color. If it is wrong for white people to be anti-Semitic then it is also wrong for Arabs to be anti-Semitic. Continue reading
Economics is normally divided into micro and macro economics. Micro-economics is sometimes referred to as business economics, which deals with business and industry specific economics such as business strategy, marketing or financing. Whereas macro-economics usually deals with national and international economic factors such as GDP, international trade and import/export. Both sections have founding principles in common, but they differ in field of application rather than in principle. For instance, debt for a country and debt for a corporation have many of the same effects. For instance, a corporation can borrow against future income, so can a country, as debt becomes a large portion of financing, paying them becomes a limit to future investment.
In the sexual market place, each man and woman can be thought of as a single corporation. Both aim to maximize their income through a series of moves that I’ve spoken about before in the gendernomics series. The major difference comes in that the female corporation is experiencing an asset bubble, while the male corporation has to build its value one step at a time.
I did some statistics based on OKcupid data  :
From this statistic, you can see that the male demand for women, tends to be focused in the age demographic of 20 – 25 from the time a man is 20 years old until he is 50 years old. This means that women ages 20 – 25 will always be objects of high demand. If you compare to the female graph:
Here we can see that the age of the male a woman finds attractive is relative to her own age, in essence ranging from men who are 1 – 3 years older for women in their early 20s, to men who are a few years younger for women in their 40s – 50s. This results in certain implications for both men and woman when approaching the sexual market place and wanting to maximize their profits.
Regardless of the end goal of being a participant in the sexual market place (the relationship vs casual sex likert scale) it clearly shows that each gender has clear demographic preferences in the opposite sex. The good news for women is that they will experience being in very high demand from 20 – 25, but will rapidly see a decline in demand for them as they near 30. The good news for men is that there is still a demand for them as they reach their 50s.
However, from a strategic perspective it has implications for each genders ideal maximization curve in the SMP as outlined by the SMV curve:
As we read from this graph, female value peaks in their their twenties due to that being the natural maximum of their nature given value, namely beauty and fertility. This when taken in conjunction with the male demand graph, this is also where they are in demand from the largest possible amount of buyers. Male value peaks in their early to late 30s, where they still retain most of their nature given fertility and youthful strength, but have also had time to develop status and wealth. Men in this age bracket are more suited to competing with younger men with better health, due to having more status and wealth, but still young enough to beat out older men with more status and wealth but worse health.
From a marketing perspective, men tend to approach it through gaining status and wealth, women through beauty and fertility, however, there are variants on the competitive strategies that each gender will use. Rollo Tomassi wrote an article on gamer girls  that outlines what is arguably a niche strategy, wherein a woman will seek out a community that she faces less competition and thus leverages a higher than average sexual market value, though catering to a very niche demographic. In the same note, many men attempt to employ similar niche strategies, such as being a beta orbiter, in essence trying to fly under the radar by keeping their intentions concealed. Male feminists are a great example of a niche strategy where they are attempting to appeal to a niche segment of women, through distancing themselves from “those damn men“. In essence, trying to drive up their SMV through increasing rarity.
From the perspective of the Miles and Snow strategies, the woman is engaging in what is referred to as an analyzer strategy, where she is seeking out market opportunities in niches ignored by the defenders. The defenders in this case, would be the women who are 8 – 10 in the measuring system, and who a majority of men tend to gravitate towards. The man on the other hand, is engaging in a reactor strategy, where having been rejected by the mainstream he reacts to the rejection by attempting to satisfy whatever he perceives as a market opportunity. The final strategy is embodied by what has been referred to as “Day Game” by the PUA community. Where a small group of men, seeing that competition in traditional sexual market place exchanges are crowded, decide to adopt a prospector strategy attempting to seek out new market opportunities in less crowded venues.
The Macro Perspective
Those of you who are familiar with economics, will undoubtedly be aware that the macro affects the micro. For instance, the current drastic dip in oil price, creates market reactions that go beyond companies with a high exposure towards oil directly. It creates reactions in currency markets, in international exchange rates and many other things.
In the same vein, the macro perspective in gendernomics, affects the micro. For instance, the sexual revolution and the feminist movement, is a macro occurrence that greatly affected the sexual marketplace and continues to do so today. By “liberating” female sexuality, it affected the supply and demand curves of sex, causing them to shift resulting in the price of sex going down for men. However, it also increased the male performance burden, due to females being by nature hypergamous. Since females marry up, a woman with few career prospects and few means of supporting herself, would marry up to a blue collar worker earning an average salary. However, a female CEO, would have much fewer options for marrying up. This results in that the former would have no problem finding a satisfactory mate, while the latter will be dipping her foot into a much smaller dating pool.
Movements such as the “fat acceptance” movement, and the movement against “body shaming” are doing so in order to lower a female performance burden, but creates the consequence that if more women coalesce around the 3 – 4 SMV on the scale, it shifts the scale, giving relatively more power to a a subsection of women, who are above the median. It also creates a situation for men, where the majority of men are left with a decision between two unwelcome choices, unattractive women, or an increased performance burden. As I outlined in my essay on how men compete, we as a gender compete by raising the performance burden on ourselves, which by extension raises the performance burden of all other men. The result of these two in unison is that men increase their performance burden, women decrease theirs, thus resulting in men offering a progressively better “deal” to women.
In essence, the sexual market place on a macro level is a zero-sum game where a gain for females results in an increase in male performance burden, whereas a gain for men, does not affect the female performance burden. This is due to the nature of hypergamy meaning that a woman has to marry up in some manner in order to be satisfied. The core of the argument is that as females gain benefits in society that affects male performance burden negatively (it becomes larger) whereas as when males gain ground relative to females it decreases the performance burden.
Summary and conclusions
The macro and micro of gendernomics shows that while macro dictates the total level of male performance burden as a result of shifting positions in power between the genders, this affects the competitive ability of each male and female corporation on the micro level. This results in that males have faced increasing burdens of performance over the past 50 years since the sexual revolution, whereas women have faced increasingly lower burdens of performance, to the point where any burden of performance on women are now largely removed.
The consequence of this shift is showing itself in multiple facets of our society, most prominently in the form of movements such as MGTOW, and Herbivore men. However, also in the prevalence of “where have all the good men gone” articles, that is the cry of hypergamy gone wrong. In essence, female positions relative to males have increased so much that a significant proportion of women cannot find suitable mates that satisfy their hypergamic needs. This creates an inefficiency in the sexual market place that ultimately creates an advantage for men who are willing to take on the increasing performance burden, who gain access to large amounts of sexual market value. However, it also creates a catch .22 for women, where they experience the same supply of men, but largely consisting of men who do not satisfy their hypergamic urge. In essence, the supply of men is there, but the female buyers facing starvation are not willing to eat SPAM just yet.
The male corporation is built from the ground up, a man is born worthless and his preference for expending time decides to what level, and how rapidly he can build his sexual market value. His goal is to expand and gradually take over more market share. The female corporation comes into the sexual market place highly valued, yet with little to speak of as earnings, so over time she consumes her owner’s equity, or in this case her sexual market value. Thus, her goal is to find someone who is willing to purchase her prior to having to file for Chapter 11.
I recently launched a Patreon page where I will be posting additional content every month for those who support me and I will do a Google Hangout for the highest tier Patrons (limited to 10 people).
I’ve also had some requests for consults, which I’ve declined up until now, but due to demand I’ve chosen to open up for doing some consults on request. For details please check out my Consulting and Patreon Page
1. “I used to be wild but I’m not anymore”
What it used to mean: “I go out once in a while and dance with my friends and I will occasionally have a beer”
What it means now: Back in the day, I had a wild time, I banged all kinds of men in all kinds of dirty ways, but you get missionary, because I’m a good girl now.
2. “I’m curvy”
What it used to mean: I have a body like Sofia Vergara or Sofia Loren.
What it means now: I have a body like Sofia Vergara or Sofia Loren if they gained 200 – 300 lbs. A synonym would be BBW. Continue reading
Stoicism and Machiavellianism are both philosophies that are very much about power in their essence. When Nicollo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” he wrote it as a gift to his lord, a gift of knowledge gleamed from observing history, and distilling patterns into essence. I do not really know what was Seneca’s motivation behind writing “Letters“, whether he did it for himself or for others. Perhaps it was as “Ethics” by Spinoza, a thinly clad rejection of religious oppression, perhaps like Paine’s “Common Sense” it was a call to action to the peasantry to rise up against their oppressors, or perhaps it was like quite a few of my writings Continue reading
I’ve spoken at length about the virtues of capitalism before on this blog and on twitter, yet it does have some downsides that are often downplayed. This is not to say that competition and merit are poor judges of how well capital has been allocated, however it is to say that many of the milestones that lay ahead of humanity are ultimately long-term investments that do not look good on shareholder reports. On the other hand, it also requires diverting money from consumption to investment for a long period of time in order to finance research and development of knowledge that will pay dividends in decades or perhaps centuries.
This is perhaps why technological development appears to shoot ahead in times of war, as most of us are willing to sacrifice in order to obtain reasonable security. Throughout history there is a history of the more technological nation winning the conflict, therefore investing heavily in scientific research in a time of war makes sense. On the other hand, in times of relative peace, people tend to be less open to spending billions on technological development that they may not see the benefits of, and would rather have lower taxes, more entitlements and higher consumption.
Basic macro economic theory tells us that money can be used in 3 ways, investment, savings and consumption. This is just as correct for a single person as it is for a country. For years advisers have been telling people to “pay yourself first“, which is a way of saying save and invest before you consume. The difference between investments and savings is that the goal of an investment is to ensure future income, whereas saving removes the money from circulation and save it for a rainy day. Continue reading
Solipsism exists in various strength of formulation. The word itself comes from the Latin “Solus” meaning alone, and “ipse” meaning “self“, the position of this philosophy is that one’s own mind is the only thing one can be certain of exists. As an epistemological position, it posits that everything outside of ones own mind is unsure, in terms of metaphysics it can go so far as to say that the outside world and other minds does not exist. The best known formulation from a solipsist philosopher is perhaps Descartes “I think, therefore I am”. From this perspective, it is perhaps the rejection of empiricism, and to some extent the embrace of reason as the guiding force. However, where it becomes interesting is in the acceptance of logic as a guidance for thought. Continue reading
The whole model of human cognition is interesting from the perspective of modelling something. The whole concept behind a model, be it financial, technical, structural or other forms is to represent something that exists in reality in a different way. A financial model may represent different outcomes mixing macro and micro economics to form scenarios of “what if” allowing your to play with various premises and conclusions and see the results.
The funny thing about the model of human cognition is that there are about 160 biases that behavioral economists talk about when trying to fit the model of “homo economicus” with observed behavior. Economics was always big on making conditions that would make it seem more science and less art, I suppose that has to do with the positivist and quantitative bias within the field. However, if you need a 163 exceptions in order to make your model fit, you do not have a model, you have data points that you need to find a fitting model for. Its a classic example of starting with a conclusion and finding a set of premises that work. Continue reading
The last 200 – 300 years have been characterized by a trend from the science of economics. Around the time when Adam Smith wrote the wealth of nations, it was specialization, rather than having each person make what they needed, they should become specialists at making one thing, and trade with other specialists. As time went on and the effect of the steam engine made the industrial revolution possible, it became scale economies, a trend that persists as central to many companies today. The 1960s and 70s were in many ways the age of “scientific management” and management fads such as “Total Quality Management” and “The Balanced Scorecard“. I suppose that in hindsight, the transition from a focus on producing a quality product, predictable operations, and little change, by way of management fads, was the introduction to the age of the marketer.
My reasoning behind this post is simple, as I was watching the recent episode of Silicon Valley, I saw once more the meeting between sales, administration and engineering within a business. These are the three parts of a business that can make or break it, but they are in fundamental conflict. While sales always want to sell the most, preferably in the easiest way possible, administration often view the company’s market value as its product, whereas engineers tend to be focused on the raison d’etre of a company, namely what it actually produces. Those who work in tech or production, will undoubtedly be aware of the problem with over-engineering, in that many engineers are perfectionists who, if left to their own devices may never decide to release the product to the public because it is not perfect, whereas sales and administration would rather release a product before it is finished if it will lead to commissions and market value. This made me think of various products I have purchased throughout the years, computers that last 8 years vs computers that break after 2.5, shoes that last a month vs shoes that last for years. Continue reading
So, in the early 1900s, the lives of your average homo sapiens sapiens was fairly similar to how it had been for the preceding thousand or more years. Yes, technology had made it so that rather than work the fields, people worked in factories, rather than live spread out in rural areas and many had started moving to cities where more jobs could be found. Still, most human beings were living similar cycles to their parents of childhood, and then adulthood.
The average marriage and child-birth happened in the early twenties, for many women even earlier. They were married to their husband, who was the head of the household and the main wage earner. Taking care of a house was a full-time job, where floors had to be scrubbed by hand, in some cases using sand or other materials. Water had to be picked up at public pumps or springs, then carried back to the house and heated over a wood stove, which, made chopping and carrying wood a major prerequisite for being able to heat water, and cook food. Clothes were cleaned either in a river, or by heating up enough water to clean them by hand.
So, a stay at home mother, had much work to do in the house in the early 1900s. The father on the other hand, most likely worked 6 to 7 days per week, up to 12 – 15 hours pr day, to put food on the table. This was similar to both rural and urban families. The male children from the age when they were able to contribute either worked in factories, selling papers or working the fields. The female children started helping their mother out in the house from an early age preparing food and cleaning.
Prior to the industrial revolution, and the growth of factories, most rural boys grew up working with their father, possibly grandfather, uncles, and other men in the fields. This acted both as male bonding, but also as the education of the young boys in the ways of men. The girls would be assisting their mothers in the house, bonding and learning how to become a good wife. Continue reading