When you go out to buy a product, your behavior is shaped by choice criteria, which in essence is what you use to select an option between alternatives. The choice criteria tend to change based on the product, what your need is and whether it is a high investment or low investment purchase. For instance, most of us would invest more brain power to ensure we make a good choice when we are buying a new car as opposed to getting lunch. Our choice criteria would obviously also change, in a car you may look for mileage, financing options, durability, repair costs, speed, and many others. Whereas for lunch many would simply wonder “is this a suitable quality food in the right amount for the money I am willing to spend”. On a more abstract level these can be broken down into product characteristics and product purpose. When you see “10 things women look for in a man” in some glossy magazine, this is essentially women setting up their perceived choice criteria in a ranking system. These are obviously not accurate and as I once heard said, these are the “in addition to” criteria rather than an exhaustive list.
When you ask yourself as a man, what your primary choice criteria are for finding a woman, you will inevitably decide whether you are looking for a car or a lunch, and your choice criteria will adapt based on the selection. If you are unsure, your choice criteria will be muddled and you will struggle with making a good decision. Which is often how men end up with “I was only going to bang her once, it turned into FWB, then suddenly I was married with 3 kids, how the hell did this happen?” in that they were not clear to themselves of what they were actually in the market for.
What happened to obfuscate the choice criteria for the gentleman above to end married to his lunch with little finger sandwiches to boot?
The bartering system of the SMP
The sexual market place works in a bartering system with obfuscated pricing and choice criteria precisely because this puts the negotiation in the hand of the one who controls whether there will be a coupling. To draw a parallel to how financial markets worked prior the legislation in the wake of the crash of 1928, and the depression, an information asymmetry existed where the seller inevitably had more information than the buyer and therefore could value a security more accurately. In the sexual market place, the buyer (the male) exists in a state of information asymmetry and negative market projections vs. the females perfect information and positive market projections.
This leads intrinsically to a wrongful valuation downwards for the male and upwards for the female. With the female in a more powerful bartering position, where the male wrongfully views himself as less valuable, it follows that he will limit his own choice criteria, and is more likely to accept a lower quality product. In the same manner a female holding a view of herself as highly valuable and thus is more likely to demand a higher quality product. This is in essence the nature hypergamous optimization for females, the optimization of maximum output for minimum input. This is why narcissism in men is such an effective trait for landing great deals, narcissism is the cure to self-perceived value errors on both sides of the equation.
To illustrate hypergamy in a graph, where we assume that males and females could be objectively valued and compared look at the following graphs:
From the graphs, you can see that a male valuation of self is lower than actual value, while the opposite is true for the female. As these perceptions cloud not only the valuation of self but also the self in comparison with others. From a perception of negotiating over a product, it is obvious that the person who perceives themselves as offering the better deal will be driving a harder bargain. Thus the female 5.5 who perceives herself as a 7, will be driving a harder bargain with the 10 male who perceives himself as 7. This ultimately leads to the male reducing his choice criteria, which in this case means lowers his standards down to a female 4, who will then have optimized her hypergamy by netting a man who is a full +3 on the SMV scale.
The role of female liberation and feminism
As some of you may have read, I have been writing a series on social justice warriors of which feminists are a central part. As I was doing research for this article I came across the various arguments for rejecting the traditional gender roles, beauty standards, behavioural standards and various other standards that society expect women to fulfill. As I was writing the preceding section of the article I found myself wondering what purpose these accomplish from the perspective of Gendernomics and sexual market value.
Analyzing the various gender roles, the female in a relationship offers certain labours into the relationship, in the traditional relationship this was among others cooking, cleaning, caretaking, nurturing, and raising children. The modern strong, independent woman on the other hand gets an education and chases a career. This is a change in the available choice criteria for men, leading to a lower supply of females who are happy to fill the traditional roles and a higher supply of females who are in essence embracing the traditionally male gender role. The effect will naturally be affected by the amount of men who create demand a woman who desires the traditional roles, and the amount of men who create demand for women of the newer variety. It does also put an additional performance burden on men, as they are still expected to remain in full time employment making more money than the female otherwise her hypergamy is not optimized, while it also requires him to share in the traditional female roles. Furthermore, the traditional male “chores” at home will still largely fall on him.
If we look at what has happened recently with the “fat shaming“, “body shaming” and various other issues that come from the Social Justice Warrior league, is that they seek to remove any expectations that males, other females or perception in aggregate has of how women should look. This gives women the liberty of looking as they please, in effect reducing the value of the physical product a man is in the market for, thus impacting male choice criteria.Furthermore, the removal of female behavioural standards by society as a whole, leads to a furthe reduction in male choice criteria.
The overall effect of the 3 points in aggregate is that the objective ranking standard we assumed into existence in the preceding section, now ends at an objective 6 for females rather than 10, however the perception remains at 10. This drastically reduces the female performance burden to reach the peak of sexual market place value, thus creating an even better deal and negotiating position for females.
Summary and conclusions
In the first section of this post I outlined how the relative valuations of males and females function and affect the bartering system that is the sexual market place. In this market place females self-perception is higher than their objective valuation and vice versa for males. Furthermore, the social movements of feminism and social justice are working to reduce the general standards that society and men use to gauge whether someone is a suitable partner in order to increase the gap between female actual and female self-perception. The best way to ensure that nobody can tell the difference between a 1 and a 10, is to muddy the standards to such a point that a 1 can easily appear as a 10 and vice versa.
The “sphere” writes a lot on the male performance burden, however, there is such a corresponding female burden as well, which traditionally manifested in the value the female created, in her beauty and in her fertility. However, with females now dominating University level education, females starting to make more money than their male counterparts, a fewer aspiring to traditional roles, the female desire has perhaps shifted, but have the male choice criteria? As I’ve outlined in this post, feminism and female liberation was ultimately about casting off what little remained off a female performance burden, in essence what made her a worthy investment for a male. As behavioural criteria disappear, more infidelity and divorce takes place, as does the expectation that she behave as an adult rather than as a child throwing tantrums. As standards of beauty decline more and more relationships will exist where the man simply is not attracted to the person he is sharing a bed with. Finally as the most important choice criteria of them all, the woman’s ability to give him children, raise his children and take care of his children are all gone, the higher the male performance burden will be.
The female choice-criteria are well known in the “sphere” thanks to research and field experiments by countless men over the past 15 – 20 years. The male choice criteria are also fairly well documented throughout history. Yes, they change a little bit, but there are no radical changes to my knowledge in recorded history of the values each sex appreciates in a partner. What is new is our modern world where opulence and security have created a situation where it is possible for females to reject all behavioral standards, beauty standards and performance standards without being shunned by a tribe and left in the wilderness. This has been accomplished by replacing the family patriarch with the government patriarch, who has taken over the duty of protection and provision for women. As Daddy Government does not have the same incentive to get his daughters married and thus relegate the performance burden to his son-in-law, Daddy Government does not require that his daughters maintain standards. This means that as women moved away from being directly cared for by a man, and towards being cared for by all men via the government, this meant freedom for women to do, act and be whatever they wanted. This manifests in a steadily declining female total quality, that translates into a steadily declining spiral of choice criteria for men, unless they adopt narcissism and adjust their mindset to deal with the new reality. You see, ultimately men let women get away with offering us an increasing amount of shitty deals by not demanding more.