[deadeye]

I'll play this out...

Every human is equally valuable in the moral sense.

But value is subjective when we are talking about relationships and we can only generalize about this value.

High income women are more valuable to low income men.

High income men already have money. They value other attributes.

And this is the paradox successful women can face. Their success doesn’t attract the mates they desire, quite the opposite. And worse, they were never told that. They were told the opposite.

[sapphicsnail]

I've been told men are intimidated by successful women my whole life. Women aren't being tricked into having careers.

The whole framing of "women are only valuable for their personal assets" only makes sense from the perspective of a certain kind of man. My whole point is that this is entirely subjective. People talk about it like it's the natural state of things but it's a cultural belief.

[alexashka]

> My whole point is that this is entirely subjective

No.

This 'entirely subjective' perspective only makes sense from a certain kind of human. I call them below 130 IQ human personally.

[deadeye]

Successful men are not intimidated by successful women, they just don't desire them (for their success)...in general.

The intimidation comes into play when men are put at an income disadvantage. Women also don't find men who make less than them desirable (in general). So it's a double wammy.

A single mutli-millionaire guy is not going to be impressed by a woman who works 50 hrs a week and makes $400k.

He would rather someone available to take care of his needs while he can take care of the financial needs.

This is the opposite of what successful females want.

[alexashka]

> A single mutli-millionaire guy is not going to be impressed by a woman who works 50 hrs a week and makes $400k

Sure he's impressed.

People date/marry people from their caste/social circle. You want your partner to fit smoothly into your existing life which means having a similar upbringing and career trajectory.

The work vs take care of needs is a false dichotomy. The person that'll 'take care of your needs' is the person you are on the same page with - assuming you're looking for a long term partnership, rather than the equivalent of a prostitute.

[mothballed]

Sounds nice, now imagine the dynamics are in rural Nigeria and 10-15% of kids shit themselves to death or die of malaria before they reach adulthood. Your parents are looking at some men and some are rich, others are thoughtful, others are both. Having a funny thoughtful man is nice but first and foremost you want good water and food so your kids aren't shitting themselves to death before they reach adulthood like what happened to 1/7th of your family. Probably going to want a man that can provide for you and buy nice clean food and one of the cleaner wells / bottled water sources more than you want someone in the same equally positioned caste that 'just gets you' or makes you laugh or whatever. Also nice if he's a bit powerful so that the next time the cattle raids happen, his 10 cousins show up with their muskets or machetes. If polygamy is allowed in this region, you might even prefer to be the second wife of that rich/powerful man over being the first wife of someone in your own caste.

The data in general shows women exhibit relative hypergamy. This makes sense as they have a higher reproductive cost and investment at the time of birth, and probably even thereafter.