A while ago I wrote an article about why wasting money is female status signalling. True to the old adage that time is money, wasting time is also female status signalling. With both, the underlying issue is that women engage in some kind of competition for resource depletion in order to undermine their competition. This may sound utterly bizarre, but I think the basic principle is that the most well-off women are keen on spending excess money in order to make other women deplete their resources. Thus, the alpha female in this example will look even better in comparison.
Female competition works much differently than male competition, and if you have not interacted with many women, you may be completely oblivious to it. There are well-known phenomena such as women encouraging others to slut it up, getting tattoos, or cutting their hair. In particular, older, married women can be seen giving horribly bad advice to younger women who could easily outcompete them in the sexual marketplace. They do not want their boyfriend or husband to fall for some young thot, and the best way to prevent that is, in addition from preventing their partner from ever meeting those women, is to make them look less attractive. This is not some kind of schizo thinking. You will find that some women have complete disdain for their supposed friend, but they spend time with them so that they can influence them and lead them towards making poor life decisions.
Women love to waste time. They think nothing of spending one or two hours chatting to one of their besties, and doing this every single day. Some women spend basically their entire spare time, and a good chunk of their working hours, on the phone, talking, texting, or clitting around on social media and dating apps. They also love to meet up their supposed friends for brunch or lunch or dinner. On top, they see great value in going on shopping sprees; among the wealthy in Europe, this means flying to Milan, Paris or London for a day — I met such women during my time in London. It is absolutely laughable.
All of the aforementioned activities are wholly frivolous. They are social events first and foremost, and those women want to be seen squandering their time. It is not as if they have particularly interesting conversation. Female conversations tend to center around the most mundane crap you can imagine. Similarly, it probably takes a particular kind of retardation to really think that you need to fly to a different city to buy expensive clothes, in particular if Daddy’s little thot is already living in London.
There is a clear status hierarchy among women: those women who have the busiest social lives, which is facilitated by having a lot of spare time, normally enjoy the highest status among their peers. This does not apply to women who prefer more solitary activities, like reading books, of course. In addition, there is a harsh social hierarchy among women that does not really exist among men. Upper-class women do not want to be seen with upper-middle-class women, for instance. In contrast, men are a lot more relaxed about this. For instance, I have had lunch with a small number of multimillionaires, some were coaching clients but most were work-related encounters, or supposedly informal meetings as part of a hiring process. This was never about any kind of status signaling. Obviously, I am nowhere near their level, but for one reason or another, those guys were interested in talking to me and those were very focused conversations. I do not think that women would do that. To them, there is a need for repeated interactions, i.e. biweekly lunches with the same group of people, and they use subtle methods to filter out women who are of a lower status. This can mean picking restaurants of a certain price category, or asking for commitments that Jane Doe who needs to work shifts will not be able to meet because the supposedly casual lunch meeting would not be done in 45 minutes. Instead, it would go on as long as possible, almost as if they want to see who will have to leave first.
The most extreme case I am aware of involves three women I know from my university days. After graduation, they occasionally posted pictures of meet-ups on social media, gushing over their besties. Their ritual was to semi-spontaneously meet up in different cities all over the globe for a weekend of shopping and partying. As you can imagine, this is only possible for women who do not really need to work because their family bankrolls them. Even if some chick pulls down solid six figures, she cannot engage in such antics as she will likely need to recover from a grueling 50-hour workweek. That group of women seemed to eventually have disbanded as they got hitched, which leads to the interesting phenomenon that women in relationships do not want to be friends with women who are single. Similarly, women with children prefer to be friends with other mothers.
Obviously, women who are not in a position that is as privileged as her peers will not be able to keep up the charade for long. Some chose to spend their time and money recklessly, just to keep up appearances, but this kind of behavior sooner or later catches up with them. In recent months, we have even seen women getting laid off from cushy non-tech jobs at tech companies because they were not doing any work — in the past, this was A-OK, thanks to endless money printing. Any rational man could have told those women that it was not a good idea for them to post videos of themselves doing virtually no work all day, besides “vibing” with their colleagues and drinking wine on tap at the Twitter HQ. However, this is not how those women viewed it. For them, not doing anything productive with their time symbolized extremely high status among their peers, and this is why they could not resist the temptation to broadcast to the world that they are getting paid six figures at some Big Tech corporation despite only working about two hours a week. By doing that, they signaled to the world that they are almost at the level of women who do not need to work at all.