Simply put, there is a general cognitive requirement of an IQ of around 115 to obtain a graduate degree. This means only 15.8% of the female population is generally capable of obtaining a graduate degree of significance.

This is not a hard limit, because variance is always present. But suffice to say, advising all women to obtain the level of education that we'd commonly associate with professional level (graduate degree\6 years or higher) is self-serving. As a majority of women who would enter these programs would fail them, this is statistically certain.

So now if we can ignore the UMC racket of pushing the child-free globetrotting interchangeable DINC lifestyle that only prostitutes sugarbabies and the intellectually blessed are privy to, it is in the interest of some 80%+ of women to properly situate themselves to have a good family life and to be a valuable wife.

The Female Happiness Paradox makes this clear as well.

If the UMC woman arrangement was stable from the male side, at TRP and MRP, we'd advocate the high beta program for men. But such a thing is shown to men en masse to be ineffective because women do not respond to comfortable lifestyles in the way that men expect and do not respect male job status (although they select long term mates as if it were true).

TL;DR : Listening to women makes men and women unhappy.

Women on the whole do seem to be incapable of the high level abstraction necessary to widely outline and conceive a response to this issue. I believe that this "blind spot" is part of the construction of the logic that houses the issues of feminism and women believing acting like men will make them happier.

Atlas has pointed out that historically, women did at some point understand this, but the overton window shifted, and women have now blinded themselves to this truth and are now in a state of gender dysphoric societally induced insanity, where every time someone gives them evidence that masculine lifestyles make women unhappy on the whole, they double down and insist that things should be more equal or outliers assert themselves as the arbiters of median women's opinions, despite studies repeatedly demonstrating against their reasoning.

Denmark blows this argument apart, where women divorce at even higher rates and take more gender typical jobs despite being the most egalitarian nation in the world.

This post is inspired by JamJam's claim that women need to "value themselves more than just baby makers and get educated" and Atlas's claim that women should obtain professional level careers.

Both of these claims ignore evidence that

  1. There are cognitive requirements to obtain that level of education and success that "elbow grease" will not be able to remedy.
  2. There is a finite number of men who make enough money or have enough status to be "higher than" these women (which is a significant risk factor in marriages)
  3. The female happiness paradox disputes this as a path to female happiness.
  4. Professional environments deal with this issue head on. Retaining female talent at this level is a problem that hasn't currently been sorted out, because most of these women leave their jobs to start families. If such an arrangement made them happy, they wouldn't leave their professional jobs.

I concur with widely held "sexist" opinions that most women will find happiness within the family home and reject the "UMC woman" argument as a lack of self awareness to their own affluence and ignorance to the degree of rarity of men within the strata that these women will compete for.

These women would claim that "female doctors are marrying male doctors." But there is not parity, and the direction in which one partner will be willing to "marry down" is almost entirely on the male side.

Which means that a significant number of these women will have to select suboptimal mates or remain single. And since we already know that women leave these jobs en masse, we know that their families make them happier than their job (since they could afford daycare).

And so, for the lucky women who can "do it all" and optimize their mate selection to the literal 1% man, they arrogantly promote a program that literally 9 out of 10 women will be unable to duplicate. I've not yet done the math beyond the first level of abstraction here, but I won't be surprised when it comes out that this is a program that actually fewer than 5% of woman are pulling off, if not 1%.

The men these women are describing are top 1% men. With graduate degrees, in shape, tall and "not red pill types." You can't do the math and not have that work out as a man you're competing for that is less than 5% of the male population.

And so, it is in a woman's best interest to hold a bachelors degree and compete for men with graduate degrees using traditional female methods, or an associates for bachelors etc. Essentially self imposing a ceiling on herself, to retain an optimized mate pool and not price herself out of the market.

More or less, putting herself out there and having an attractive body and personality while rigorously vetting romantic prospects to find a man that will be marriage material without increasing her romantic volatility by decreasing her ability to appreciate men who are masculine enough to succeed in the world, but not so masculine that they are the type of men that would beat, cheat and leave them by avoiding premarital sex.

To dispute this, is to dispute lifestyle inflation. To dispute this is to dispute evolution itself.

Women that understand this problem rightly contend that we're advocating that women "simply don't know any better" and stabilize with suboptimal males. To make sure the women "remain ignorant."

This is correct.

Because a woman who has had a taste of everything in life is left with only the microscopic strata of the upper tier of men to remain aroused.

Ultimately, boiled down to its essence, the debate is this.

Women have a smaller arousal window than men, and that window shrinks as they "experience life."

It is statistically impossible that women can rack up higher than median partner counts and still be aroused by their husbands en masse.

Or else, women would be positing that they are able to subvert evolution itself. That we as a species are able to decide what we're attracted to ultimately, that attraction is negotiable.

This outcome is evident in Japan, Denmark and other nations that are "ahead" of us in many of these outcomes.

So many women would claim "I'd rather be single" (Japan) or have children, leave their fathers and have the state function as the household (Denmark) while lagging male happiness and increasing divorce rates even higher (Female Happiness Paradox).

So ultimately, on the whole, these women are arguing that women en masse should become single mothers or cat ladies. While pointing to the intellection elite and upper strata of women that literally 80%+ (likely 90-95%+) of women would fail at replicating.

When instead, any median woman can get in shape, get almost any random degree worth anything, choose a first partner properly and score higher on individual happiness.

I posit that the anger and resentment modern women have for the women who choose this lifestyle is the female equivalent of "crabs in a bucket."

Not much different than men who have taken the high beta track resenting men who beat, cheat and leave women maintaining soft harems with little in the way of male status.

Instead, in these cases, these women chastise other women for not "being more than a baby maker." They are behaving like beta men, shaming alpha women, much in the same way that beta men try to shame alpha men for not having beta male credentials.

Despite evidence these women are happier and have deeper dating pools.

The last retort they'd have would be to cite that these UMC divorce less (ignoring the constraints that only a few women can obtain these lifestyles), to which the manosphere is so very privileged to know and understand exactly what these women are doing.

Which is so well known in society that the stay at home UMC woman cheating with the pool boy is a literal trope.

TL;DR : Women (and their arousal window) are the constraint on stable marriages and the solution is paradoxical, but they will double down anyways.

1st draft. So let's start with the tone deaf semantic debates.