Blog reader “Whatthe” left a very good comment on how women love men and why they love them the way they do. He fleshed out his thoughts very well so I only replicate his comment below without further remarks:
Women love objectively. This means that they go for objective, concrete, measurable things when they’re trying to find a guy, or other object. This is probably related to the fact that they can’t theorize/generalize, and possibly why they suck at computer science, chess, and math.
Why do women choose objective standards? They need concrete, measurable standards because it helps them defer to the herd for decisions. If they were to interpret things subjectively, they would not rely on others to decide whether or not something is good/bad. Instead, they need some type of value system given to them. Simply put, objectivity is a crutch they use because they are incapable of (or because they wish to escape?) individualism. For example, other women and society can just tell them that they need 6 feet, 6 figures, and 6 inches, and they will blindly accept it.
Because they use objective standards, they have nothing personal binding them to their choices. Their partners are just a shopping list of objective facts that they picked out, and therefore they are able to move on quickly if they have to. They’re literally just going from one collection of boxes to check off to the next. The irony here is that although men are disposable to women in this way, it is actually women who should be disposable/replaceable, since they are basically by and large very similar to each other.
If you ask 10 randomly sampled men about their hobbies/personalities/careers, you will probably pick up a lot more variance than if you similarly sampled 10 women.
Conversely, men love subjectively. The same thing could have a different subjective meaning from man to man. This is because we can see the abstract meaning behind things in a non-calculating, individualistic way. This is why less of us defer to the herd for decisions, and are therefore not the meme gender.
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.
Really great stuff, thanks for sharing!
I don’t disagree about a woman’s natural deference to the herd, but I think part of their generally accepted desirable traits comes from the fact they mainly view men as tools. When a handyman wants a hammer he’ll want it to be sturdy, big enough to drive nails, and with a claw to remove nails. Sure, there may be minor differences in personal preference between each carpenter as one may prefer a lighter tool etc. but at the end of the day the same traits that make a tool desirable will be pretty consistent throughout all carpenters.
So if you’re a woman shopping for a specific tool to provide resources (6 figures), good genetics for offspring (6 feet), and pleasure (6 inches), there’s already a pretty good template of what you have in mind.
Thanks. Had another insight about this:
It’s all about leverage, and women’s mistaken belief that they will always hold the upper hand.
Because women love objectively and men love subjectively, men start their love lives with a huge disadvantage when compared to women. Their first few relationships/crushes hold immense personal value to them, and this could be why you see some attractive guys with much less attractive women.
Women start off and continue to value men much less than the other way around, and it is for this reason that women have no qualms about yanking men around by their dicks. Generally, they do not fear losing the guy as much as the guy fears losing the girl. This gives them a lot of leverage to work with, and their bad behavior is therefore incentivized by their lack of apprehension.
This is lent credence to by the fact that, given similar upbringings, women to whom bad things have happened are generally much more understanding, willing to stick around, reasonable, and less fickle than those who have a positive (solipsistic) worldview. They have experienced the harshness of life and know the value of a dependable significant other in times of crisis.
There’s a saying by some guy (Benjamin Franklin?) that I’m going to butcher:
“There are 2 things that you can trust in life. Cold hard cash……and a woman in old age.”
It’s the ultimate irony that nowadays, by the time most women realize what’s really important in life, nobody wants them anymore. If only they had better guidance.
Then, it follows that men should only get into relationships when they have leverage on their side. They have to care less about the relationship than the woman, and have more to offer than her, or else it is doomed right from the start.
The girl could be a really good person and have all of the right qualities (virgin, good education, good-looking, good family, nice attitude, etc). However, human (and especially female) nature is such that we tend to look down on those who are below us (objectively). The girl will never respect the guy that she’s with unless he has the upper hand. So, as little as women care about men, we have to care even less about them in order to have a successful relationship. We have to be both objectively scare in their eyes, and more willing to discard them than they are us.
Respect is commanded through objective facts such as money, social ranking, and dominant physical characteristics, as well as things like intelligence and skills. Unless you have at least some of these and are also aware of your own value, be prepared to be treated like shit by everyone, not just women.
Yep, that’s why I stopped dating completely up until I’m set in life. If she is not replaceable you’re done.
I think a similar conclusion was reached by some former boss of mine. I work in a very macho environment (Road construction and maintenance), and although most of the women these guys hook up with are less than lookers, I think this particular old guy hit the nail on the head when he told me that she’s the one who has to be in love (such as she’s capable of) and not you for the relationship to work. Sure, you have to like her personality, her paternal skills and her looks, but she has to like you even more. Being a lovesick puppy for a man should be left behind in adolescence, he said.
Thanks for interesting contribution to the discussion, Whatthe!
I find it interesting that our culture frowns upon the notion of transactional relationships and by extension, romantic partners being disposable. This leads to people behaving uncongruently: on one hand we ridicule prostitution, gold digging, kissing superior’s ass, crab mentality or even forming friendships with the goal of increasing each others social ranking (I don’t think this has its own meme but lets call it brothers-in-arms of sorts). On the other hand people behave exactly in the way they nominally reject: women fall in love with men who have resources, everyone despises the low status guy and is super nice to the powerful people even if they are corrupt and your peers are likely to sabotage you if it advances their own self-interest.
I disagree with small part of your comment, namely the idea that men love subjectively. We also have a preference for attractive face, tits, ass and feminine behavior. Only difference is that most men begin with much lower sexual market value and receive much less validation from the opposite gender and are more willling to compromise.
It seems to me that humans are basically just monkeys with potential to become more if we apply ourselves to introspection and self-development guided by practical philosophy or religion. Indeed because such “enlighted” people are rare it is therefore best to view most relationships as transactional and throw away the facade of “being a nice person” which is just a remnant of Christian ethos in techno-barbarian society.
We don’t disagree here, Skepdick. All I’m saying is there is a subjective element to a man’s interest in both hobbies and relationships. This is why men can explore topics to unfathomable depths, be creative, and become extremely attached and loyal to others.
Most women are not even capable of having personal interests, let alone deep, unwavering human connections. All of their hobbies and relationships can be swapped for others because they’re all the same to them. The only bond they may have that has any meaning is with their children.
It’s as if they’re built to do routine tasks. They just do rote work and enjoy it because they don’t have any connection with their work in the first place, and it’s easy.
Here’s some bro-science. Aren’t women’s brains smaller than men’s? Maybe the extra grey matter in our brains causes men to form deeper emotional connections and have more RAM for creative tasks.
Men are able to focus better, which could be used to explain all kinds of behavioral differences and preferences.
“Here’s some bro-science. Aren’t women’s brains smaller than men’s? Maybe the extra grey matter in our brains causes men to form deeper emotional connections and have more RAM for creative tasks.”
According to that logic, whales must rule humans. Yet, it’s more like the other way round.
Brain size alone doesn’t explain it.
Male and female brains are structured differently, which explains why men develop deep interests and prefer things, i.e. concrete or abstract objects, over people. Women normally don’t have deep interests and are much more strongly drawn to people than things.
You basically just described the concept of dread game. It’s truly the only way a marriage can be successful from a man’s point of view.
Didn’t know there was a term for it, thanks!
Sucks that women (and men) don’t have it in themselves naturally to be good people lol.
That’s why freedom in relationships is just pure nonsense. There are no positives for anyone. Just broken relationships, families, poor people and single moms.
Dread game, or why there exists such thing as a pimp, or why there are so many women who keep hanging on to abusive guys to the point where, when they’ve finally had enough, it comes across rather like “crying wolf”.
a) Shopping men according to a long list isn’t love. It’s usually the difference between a “good catch” on paper and a man women are attracted to. “I should love him, he ticks all the boxes.” versus “He makes me crazy.”
b) Love is a dangerous word as it can mean many things. 1) sexual attraction, 2) friendship, 3) the kind of trust that comes from relying on each other (and being reliable) for years 4) mutual respect.
c) There is a tendency among women to assume an everlasting abundance of good men. To be clear: Women assume by and large good men are available in droves and they individually will have no problem in getting one. Therefore only the best of the best will suffice.
d) Women by and large assume they are both a prize to be won and the judges of the efforts of their suitors. To be even more clear they assume they are in complete control and at the same time in no control. Relationships “happen” to women. Love “happens” to women. But they reject men they deem unfit. Therefore women by and large don’t see dating as mutual test for a future relationship/marriage but as a contest to win their affection.
c)+d)=e) If a woman has a problem in dating it is therefore framed as: I need more men to screen! or Where have all the good men gone? Men in this world view are morons entering the stage at the left and exiting on the right.
f) There is a tendency to excuse women’s shitty behavior with EP psycho babble. I would be sad if this would gain traction here.
I view attempts to describe female behavior via evolutionary psychology not as an attempt to excuse or justify it but to explain it.