Beauty & high Value: women have it easy in the West. Is it fair?
Hello Lucio,
I find your content to be awesome. Thanks for it.
I would love to know your views on this two points:
Whose Interest Does Marriage Serve?
In one of your articles, I read something like "marriage was invented to control girls", but I also read some time ago somewhere that it was invented to protect women. I guess it can be both, but anyway, it's curious that, at least in developed countries, it's girls usually who seem to be way more interested on it than guys (maybe in underdeveloped countries it's the opposite).
Any thoughts about this?
Being a high-quality woman today is too easy (high-quality man is hard)
This is the big one for me, cause I started to read about the toxicity of feminism like a year ago, and got a little too much into the red-pillish AWALT mindset.
Now I'm getting to a less biased pov and trying to ignore the feminist rage (wich is all over the place here in Spain), but there's a thought that keeps coming to my mind and makes me a little bitter sometimes.
The headline of the idea could be: "In developed countries, women are overrated and/or can have an easier life".
What I mean is that, being a high-quality male requires much more investment, time, effort and work in a developed country, compared to the natural environment were our brains and instincts were wired.
Also male's main advantage (superior body strength) isn't too useful to gain power or sexual value, and abusing it is easily punishable by law.
On the contrary, being a top woman, or at least a woman with a high chance to survive and acquire wealth, can be sometimes a matter of little more than the beauty you were born with. And also the female "relationships specialization" or superiority can be extensively used for legitimate profit, and a lot of times abused without a chance of being punished by law or anybody (I'm referring to paternity fraud, marring and dumping for alimony or citizenship, etc).
In a natural environment, the female "physical weakness" and the easier access for males to the top (Smaller groups. Resources and status way easier and faster to obtain) would compensate for that, but in a developed country, I feel (and I wish I'm wrong) that there's an imbalance.
In sum, being a woman in the woods is so dangerous, being a man more advantageous than in a city. / Being a high quality girl in a city can take little more than genetical luck, being a hot guy can take time, effort, skills and maybe genes too.
I guess it's a narrow idea and I'm missing important points, that's why I wrote it here hoping for your view on the matter.
So what do you think about it?
Thanks man!
First of all, let me point out what I see in your mindset that is inclining you towards resentment.
And it's this:
"Us" & "Them" Mindset
The idea that you're a man and, as such, belong to this group of "men", which stands somewhat in contrast to that other group of "women".
When we group ourselves, in many people, there is a natural tendency to make ingroup-outgroup category.
The next step, in some people, is to start viewing that that outgroup as the enemy.
That's the root cause of much the toxicity in the Red Pill: we're men, this is "us", and they're women, that's "them".
The "us" naturally tends to become good and positive, the "them" becomes worse and worse and, at the extremes, sub-human.
Fixed Pie Mindset: Their Win Is My Loss (But, Is It?)
How do I see that at the moment you might still have this "us VS them" mindset?
You talk about "women doing better" and "hoping that's not the case". That's right there is the sign of "us VS them", where a good thing for them means a bad outcome for "us".
That's another cause of Red Pill toxicity: the idea that a win for "them" must mean a loss for "us" (fixed pie mindset, in negotiation).
Who cares if they're doing better than in ancient times?
Actually, if they are, good for them.
Men are doing better too, much better. Good for them too.
Try Out Healthy Individualism Instead
I have a draft ready of what will be an important article for the philosophy that this website espouses.
It's on individual freedoms, personal power, and groups. Most of all, the dangers of too strongly identifying with this or that group.
Anyway, in brief, how to contrast that mindset?
First of all, you're a man, yes.
But that doesn't mean that you must take up arms for your group of belonging, or keeping stock of your reference group as if anything happening at the group level is happening at your individual level.
Because, well, you are also part of a million other random possible groups. You might also be a Spaniard, European, white, right-wing, homo sapiens, etc. etc.
I know, it's harder today not feeling a strong sense of belonging when annoying feminists bust our balls on "women" as if it were a monolithic group, but you can't let that shit drag you down.
That sectarian and tribalist mindset, and you want to be above that.
Second, realize that there is no real "what's good for us men" and "what's good for them women".
What's good or not good in the sexual marketplace has much less to do with your gender than with your personal situation.
For example, take monogamy.
Is it good for men?
Yes, it's great for average men, so they can get a mate. But it's bad for top men because they can't (officially) get more mates.
As you can see, it's not about men/women, but it's much more about the individual men and women and their specific place in the SMP.
I have a couple of articles coming up on the sexual marketplace.
Now, to quickly answer your questions:
Marriage: She Monopolizes His Resources - But He Monopolizes her Reproductive System
This a "quick and dirty" answer, and very general.
From a genetical point of view, on average, marriage is mostly good for women if the couple already has an ongoing sexual relationship and is going to have children, because it officializes the bond and helps secure male help and resources.
In the old days of no sex before marriage, marriage was a boon for average and lower than average men as that meant continual sexual access to a woman and the monopolization of her reproductive system for years to come.
Furthermore, marriage signals to the world that the woman is taken and (seemingly) happy with him if she decided to agree to marry him, and it extended much "controlling rights" to the man, both cultural and, sometimes, legally (the "control argument").
High quality men instead tend to lose with marriage, purely from a genetical and power point of view.
Today legal systems have changed the rules heavily.
Very broadly, I agree that some countries might have gone too far in seeking to protect women and children and that men with lots of assets should be careful in many Western countries.
But I'm not an expert of legal systems.
Being a high-quality woman is easier... But men are more empowered
To be brief: yes, reaching a high sexual market value for a woman can be "easier" if the lady wins the genetical lottery.
That's because women are judged on a smaller set of criteria and, within those criteria, "beauty" features more prominently than it does for men.
But I absolutely don't see that as an advantage for women.
Even the female winners of the genetical lottery are forced to wait around for a high-quality man to approach her, date her, and be willing to invest in her.
And will he?
Hopefully so. Because, at the very top, men have more dating power than women and they might choose to play the field instead of committing.
And of course, what about the majority of women who haven't won the genetical lottery?
A man instead has much more freedom of shaping his own destiny.
What you refer to as "much work" for men is also what makes men much freer.
A man can buck the trend of genetical lottery by climbing power hierarchies and acquiring status and resources.
A man can even buck old age with an abundance of resources.
You talk about strength not being as useful today as it was back in the savanna.
Well, you're right.
But modern men have much more effective tools to acquire status and resources in the modern world: drive, ambition, industriousness and "type S brain".
You talk about "having to work hard".
Yes, you're right.
But you are not forced, either.
Most men will find a girl anyway, without having to work crazy hard on themselves and their lives.
But if he wants, he can take strides with his life.
That freedom is liberating.
And empowering.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback
I'm not the original guest who asked the question but thanks Lucio, this was really helpful for me as well
Very interesting! I've been going through my own past and seeing where I showed value (and lack of value) and observing other men and women too, and I've been wondering among these lines. I agree that men's value in general is much more dynamic, having at times attracted whole groups of women with ease, and at other times being only mildly attractive at best; the only difference being what I projected and the frame I came from in that moment. The cool thing about being a man is that there are many routes to success with women - whereas, like you said, women's options are much more limited, but also much more accessible and established.
I won't deny that women, as a whole, have some major advantages: for starters, the ability to have others come to you is a very powerful ability, not only in the sexual marketplace, but life in general. Having pre-established value, like someone being born into money, is very useful, especially if it is built on and invested wisely. Having a society, general conduct, and legal system that goes out of its way to support you, shield you from danger and promote opportunity for you is inestimably valuable. Many Manosphere authors say living life as a woman, especially a Western woman, is living life on 'Easy Mode', and they're not entirely wrong; but the downsides are terrible as well.
Like Lucio said, a woman has much less freedom than a man. She has to wait for a man to approach her and invest in her. Men, conversely, can much more readily choose when to approach - and eject. He can master his mind and choose where to distribute attention, and how much; he can choose degree of investment even before the first interaction. A woman has largely preset value that she has to defend; a man starts with less value (in general) but is far more capable of building it up, and has many more routes to do so. A woman has to guard constantly against depreciation; a hard-working man's value only grows with age.
A woman's power grows proportionally with her attractiveness - a moderately prettier woman has moderately better mates and opportunities. A man's power starts much lower, but grows exponentially; a large increase in one area (such as physical fitness or money) or a low-to-moderate increase in several areas yields results out of proportion to the investment involved. There are many stories of men who cultivated one big thing, or just got their shit together over a few months, who, combined with knowledge of women, ended up sleeping with many attractive women and/or entered a fulfilling long-term relationship with a high-quality woman.
This exponential curve, cultivated with time and hard work, is our greatest advantage. Go into a place with women somewhat more confident, somewhat more attractive, or otherwise showing some other desirable quality to a moderately more degree, and you will often see greatly increased attraction - especially if you're already coming from an attractive foundation. One woman looking at you can easily become ten; a curious look becomes a gaze or even stare of lust and/or challenge; a before attracted but resisting woman becomes another of same or higher quality who is much more welcoming to you. And this benefits from the positive feedback loop too; growth begets growth, attraction begets attraction, and one positive and attractive trait follows another.
Of course, this isn't meant to be a point of vain pride - hard work is still required. And the exponential curve can work downwards as well. Every blessing carries a curse, and vice versa. But we are not nearly as helpless as many radicalized groups, both preaching men-first and women-first, would want us to believe. The game can be learned, and it can be won. And it can even be won together, if one so desires.
Spot on, Kellvo, spot on!
If I may add one more note: when you usually see long-standing patterns that have been going on for millennia and all over the world, usually it means that both parties gain with it and that "the team is bigger than the sum of its parts".
Marriage has been "invented" recently, but looking at marriage as a Western custom is misleading.
Marriage is nothing but the officialization of pair bonding, which has been going on for a long time.
And this is what men gain with pair-bonding (taken straight from "Dating Power Dynamics):
- Some higher quality women demand it
Some women might require investment and proof of love and commitment before consenting to sex or to continued sexual access (the latter being more common today in the West, see "qui pro quod games").
Sure, she might roll in the hay with one guy, but might demand wining and dining for long term dating from another.
And it’s true that she might demand commitment from a guy whom she perceives less sexy than the lover she might sleep with. But from the guy point of view it still makes sense to provide and commit because, that way, he can monopolize a higher quality female.
Basically, women’s demands made it costly for men to pursue a short-term dating strategy only.
- Increasing the odds of paternity
Focusing on short-term dating only is not very likely to produce children because it takes many sexual intercourses to conceive.
Especially in our evolutionary past sleeping around without getting into a more stable relationship was probably not such an effective strategy since the groups were much smaller.
Men who committed and got constant sexual access to a woman increased their odds of paternity.
- Increasing the odds of children’s survival
Children are more likely to survive with a father.
This has become especially true since we started developing such huge brains and it took years for children to become independent. That has likely tipped the scale for men in making continued investment a good genetical return on investment.
- Increasing the odds of children’s mating success
Children are more likely to be successful in the dating market if there is a father who helps them develop (and accrue resources).
This is especially true in case of sons, who benefit the most from a father figure and who benefit the most if the father can help them accrue resources with knowledge, direct transfers, and inheritance.
Lo and behold, men are less likely to divorce when they have sons instead of daughters.
- Increased social status and social network
If you’re single you might have missed on the “social status” boost that married men get.
Just think of this: how many single presidents have been running your country in the last decades?
Chances are that most of them were married.
A married man can also leverage a larger network of people and the extended family, both of which can be helpful.
Of course, this is not to say "get married", and not even to say "get into a relationship", and I've been single most of life.
But it provides more clarity on "who benefits from marriage and/or pair-bonding".
At least from a genetic and evolutionary point of view, before divorce law introduced a new powerful variable.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback