Pinchbeck-Diggers, Or How Middle Class Women Conflate Wallet Size with Dominance and are Perenially Disappointed

There has to be a fundamental reason why so many middle class women are choosing men who seem for all intents and purposes to be ideal husband material only to be consistently unhappy and disappointed.  Why do so many women become so disillusioned sexually with the perfectly good “provider” types that they find?  Many blame it on the current philosophical zeitgeist or feminism or the cock carousel, but I’ve come to the conclusion that something else has happened to short-circuit what is really the perfectly rational process by which women are choosing their husbands.

The problem is that women are choosing beta providers based on the explicit ability to earn money in TODAY’S feminized workplace and not by the BIOLOGICAL MARKERS of a “provider” we evolved to discern.  Humans didn’t always provide for their families en masse with earned MONEY, but with the ability to provide actual food obtained either by dint of hard physical labor growing the food or violent hunting and slaughter.  In hunter-gatherer tribes, where men hunt communally, success at the hunt depended on being able to work with OTHER MEN, and one’s share is often determined by a complex web of obligations and status derived from one’s place in the hierarchy of Men. When men switched to indoor work for pay, the workplace emulated this male power dynamic–social dominance, obligation leveraging and status seeking. 

In the world of most work today its more likely a man got into a DECENT earning position (not necessarily super high, but high enough to financially support a family) NOT by being socially dominant or physically adept but by being a “team player” who is able to go along to get along, particularly those able to mesh well with FEMALE co-workers and higher-ups. By looking at modern wallet size instead of the more primitive traits of dominance and physicality women are simply relying upon the wrong metric. 

Let’s call it “Hypergamy Error”–a type of cultural synecdoche by which women mistake ONE of a set of markers for “optimal mate” for the total package her attraction system requires.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Pinchbeck-Diggers, Or How Middle Class Women Conflate Wallet Size with Dominance and are Perenially Disappointed

  1. Diego Sigma says:

    … but dana, isn’t it natural for the criteria for hypergamic-selection to shift basis from place to place as the environment calls for, as human society evolves?

    are you saying then that all biological markers for attraction are fixed? and fixed using alpha markers from our hunter-gatherer days?

    i would rather look at what you called “errors” as ‘pains of transitions’. the forces governing the evolution of our brains aren’t keeping pace with the evolution of society. the way society is headed, the beta-provider setup is going to be the norm. in an alpha-beta dichotomy, this will eventually mean, traditional hunter-gatherer alpha markers will be pushed back to ever lower levels of importance as the evolution of the female mate selection shifts more and more towards the new criteria.

    a lot of species has been driven extinct by outrageous female mate selection preferences. maybe humans are headed towards that direction.

    • Tupac Chopra says:

      yoou’ve got it backwards. societal push towards SWPL progressiveness means women will be urged to choose limp-wristed team-players. women are so herd-like in their obsequious worship of social norms, but their ancient hind-brain atraction to masculine alpha-markers will not have caught up with this recent cultural development. this means there will be an ever-increasing contingent of “right thinking” idealistic males in sexless marriages (at best), or a disconcerting group of males who are shut out completely for not possessing the material wealth to secure a goldigger, but neither Game-savvy enough to get pussy.

      This growing contingent will either be sated in a vortex of video games and porn in their apartments and condos, or they will go gay.

      There will be much more GAY in the world because of this unstable condition betwixt primitive female hypergamy and the exponential growth of technological productivity, to say nothing of the cultural memes urging women to select for SWPL type males.

      • Diego Sigma says:

        and i agree, TC … but only in as much as agreeing to what you said based on the observable realities we see today, in the context of the present and the near-present, evolutionarily speaking.

        evolution is a slow process. my thesis states that female mate selection criteria will change (or, in the process of changing) and the tingle will shift from responding to alpha markers applicable from days-gone-by to responding to alpha markers more suited to today’s modern world. the shift will be gradual and will probably take a few thousand years or so to complete. maybe in the year 4000, provided that we continue on the same path, the qualities of the nerdy cast of the big bang theory (the tv show) will signify the top-tier qualities of manhood.

        it all boils down to the hind-brain, i guess. is the reptile trainable? or will the reptile always be the reptile no matter what … my faith in the evolutionary process says it is. but i admit, i haven’t seen nor heard of any reptile performing at a circus … i’m always ready to change my mind given a convincing enough argument.

  2. dana says:

    i am totally willing to say its a transition period rather than an error–but at the beginning of such a choice shift it would certainly at least have the effect and appearance of an error.

    i am not a biologist–im basing this observation on other areas ive noted this sort of mistaken synechdoche–the most obvious one being mistaking the “democracy” aspect of liberal democracies as the ingredient of successful socieities and pinning all hopes of reform in the middle east on that

  3. TheSarcasmKid says:

    I am of the belief that the majority of women will marry the first swinging dick that will propose to her. They do so out of combination of bizarre fears and social standards;
    “He might be the last one to ever propose to me!”
    “If I don’t marry soon I’ll be called a Spinster!”
    “My mom really wants grandchildren, so I guess I’ll settle!”

    I don’t think it’s necessarily the women’s fault either. The human mind can’t just conjure up these peculiar ideologies without precedent. Women get these ridiculous notions based on years and years of “Women must marry and bare children!” being branded into their minds. Be it by an overzealous mother or the various forms of media that portray women as submissive housewives that belong in the kitchen.

    The minority subset of heterosexual women that don’t subscribe to that primitive social conviction and actually wait to marry on their own terms aren’t immune to divorce either, however.

    I believe that divorce rates amongst the middle class have risen in direct proportion to the negative stigma of said divorce decreasing – and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Who’s to say women were happier back in the times where they chose their mate based on the biological markers of a “provider”? Though it’s impossible to deduce now, I’m going to venture to guess that the same percentage of them were just as dissatisfied in the past as they are today – They just didn’t have the luxury of divorce. The negative connotations associated with the word “divorce” have dissipated so much in the last century it’s staggering.
    And I don’t think there’s going to be some magical overhaul of the female mindset anytime soon.
    At least not until science comes up with some secret formula to lifelong happiness with a spouse. And I’m not talking about those bullshit surveys on Random Dating Site X. I’m talking about an intricate algorithm to determine the ideal mate using every nuance of our personality, genealogy and phsycial prowess. (Which I’d make a safe bet is on the horizon.)

  4. OneSTDV says:

    “Wallet Size”: Reminds of this great Seinfeld clip (if you haven’t noticed I LOVE that show):

    • dana says:

      better not like it too much, one, or they’ll be calling you a jewy jewy jew jew 😉

      • Gorbachev says:

        Yeah. I already get called that, and I haven’t told anyone how much I loved Seinfeld.

        I had my Mulva episode, too.

      • OneSTDV says:

        I actually don’t see Seinfeld as a “Jewish” show. It doesn’t hit you over the head with the Jewy stuff – though Jerry’s parents and uncle can be quite annoying. I tend to just not watch the episodes where they’re featured prominently.

        Plus, it’s so anti-PC.

  5. B Lode says:

    This is a topic I find very interesting but my thought railroad turns into a trainwreck whenever I see “alpha” or “beta” applied to humans. We really don’t have the same social structure as dogs. Using dog ethology as a metaphor for human psychology means everyone is using the same words for different things.

    I suppose this article could have been saying something like “Women are too quick to be attracted to mercenary, materialistic men with wishy-washy personalities when they would be much happier with independent masculine types even if the latter don’t make as much money.” In that case I would largely agree. But I wouldn’t know, because no one else uses “beta” to mean mercenary or materialistic. They certainly don’t use it to mean bourgeois. Everyone else seems to think that betas allow themselves to be walked on so much that they never get their salaries raised to the point where the could be considered middle class, or something. Most people seem to think of alphas as habitual (not psychotic) sadists who would just love to be married to anyone with zero expectations of decent behavior on their part.

    But then, my most honest sentences on this topic end with “… or something” because I don’t really know what people mean by this stuff. “Aggressive and insouciant” doesn’t mean the same as “masculine and autonomous”, so let’s not use the same word on double duty. By the same token “obsequious and forgettable” doesn’t mean the same as “ambitious and mercenary.”

    • dana says:

      ok you either didn’t understand or i wasnt clear. im saying wallet size was ONCE a proper indicia of the ACTUAL biological traits females seek in a mate, but that the wallet has become divorced from those traits by the feminized workplace. so now we have the spectacle of men with feminine traits gaining sufficiently man-sized wallets to attract nesting women who are still programmed to see wallet as wired to MASCULINE traits and being disappointed when the men are submissive and not go-getters

  6. B Lode says:

    Okay. That is clearer. (Just because you’re interesting doesn’t mean your lines of thought are going to be easy for me to follow.)

    So it’s something like:
    Corporate ladder-climbers use a lot of sycophantic behavior, bootlicking, what have you, to get a fat wallet. The important thing isn’t (if I’m reading you right) that this behavior is evil, just that behavior is largely a habit, and habits don’t admit of boundaries. So these guys bring home their bootlicking and find that it doesn’t make their marriages function.

    For example, they should succeed in the home / with the wife by being spontaneous, assertive, relaxed, while the “succeed” on the job / with the boss with flattery, predictability, sugar-coated mumbo jumbo, etc.

    (One manner of speech I think could kill any marital discussion is “organizational development” type speech, with lots of paradigms and shifting and metaphorical boxes and corporate gobbledygook.)

    If that’s what you’re getting at, good point. It’s an aspect I hadn’t thought of. I mainly just think about sex. 🙂

  7. Gorbachev says:


    This might be going on. What appears to be success now is largely a female-feminine kind of success. Once were the days when the man would dance his dance to show you how much better than other men he was, and how physically keen he could be.

  8. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Still Playing Catch-Up Edition (NSFW)

  9. nothingbutthetruth says:

    Kind of agree. But although I am an antifeminist and I have written lots of posts trashing feminism, I don’t think feminism is to blame in this case.

    Stone Age societies lasted more than 90% of the history of humanity and, therefore, since biological changes are slow, we are biologically adapted to this kind of societies.

    Since they were nomadic societies, there was no way to accumulate wealth. Since men were group hunters, the men with more testosterone (aggressive, macho men who were able to impose their leadership to other men) were those who got the biggest shares of meat. For a woman, it was worth to be a sexual partner of these guys. It was the best way to have meat for you and your children.

    This is why most women are attracted to alpha types (assertive and confident men, with high levels of testosterone including bad boys). This is something not rational, something that comes from the guts.

    But societies changed after the invention of agriculture. The wealthiest men are not the same than in the Stone Age. A guy like Bill Gates would have starved in a nomadic society based on strength and physical dominance. This is not a recent phenomenom: has thousands of years.

    So women are programmed to look for the alpha men, although they are not the best guys to raise a family. This is called “the gina tingle”.

    In the past, “the grandma effect” was the way to tame this destructing “gina tingle”. Grandmas (and other relatives) encouraged young girls to select partners based on good husband qualities instead of sexual attraction. Moreover, since sex before marriage was forbidden, women have nobody to compare their husband. Their husband was the first and last sexual partner and they bonded with him out of sex and companionship.

    Now, with women being taught to follow their hearts, they have sex with alphas during their 20s. When the biological clock is ticking, during their 30s, they look for a beta provider type to settle down. But, having experienced the joy of having an alpha, marrying a beta is dull and, after the novelty wears off, women are dissatisfied and some of them divorce to find more attractive partners.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s