Below I am posting a thread I made on the old forums about a concept called Actual Value (AV) and how it differs from Sexual Market Value (SMV). I believe this distinction may form an important cornerstone in the definition of MGTOW and how our worldview differs from both the mainstream and PUA.
--
One thing I enjoy about debating non-MGTOWs is it forces me to think more deeply about concepts. As such, I've developed a distinction which I think answers a fair number of questions I've had since becoming MGTOW. For background, the debate went like this:
PUA:SMV (Sexual Market Value) is an important reality in life. Girls want the best guys.
Jagr:Who defines SMV of a male?
P:Well.....women do....
J: Do you trust modern women, being the way they are, with their arbitrary criteria to be able to accurately define SMV in a way that measures a man's true worth?
P:Well, women want to be with the best possible guy.
J:They do? Then why do Leroy and Cletus have 10 kids a piece. They've never had jobs and have a 6th grade education. Are they the best?
In the past, SMV and AV overlapped; due to new Female Mate Selection criteria (thanks to feminism), Not so Much Anymore
What struck me from this discussion is society's default use of SMV as a means of measuring men. Sexual Market Value. The background for all this is that feminism unchained the Hamster. The Hamster is a woman's outdated animal instincts that were chained by society for her benefit and society's.
Social sanctions were put in place to ensure women used rational mate selection criteria. In those days, when family was often involved in approving the mate, men with what I will define as Actual Value (AV) were the only ones approved.I will define this in greater detail.
But with feminism, women were told they needed no external guidance. So now the Hamster uses ridiculous mental shortcuts (created a LONG time ago when men co-existed with sabretooth tigers) that identify traits with no real value -- but they accept them unquestioningly and chase them to their own detriment (aggression, dominance, cockiness, height - and its symbols such as tattoos).
The problem with using SMV as often as we do is that 50+ years ago, there was high intersection between SMV and AV. In fact, you might say the two were largely overlapping. Marrying a dirtbag would ruin your family's name for good. You just didn't"elope". The term elope doesn't truly exist anymore because there is no societal/family approval process for the most part. In other words, there is no one to determine if a suitor has any AV.
The upshot is that SMV was a good predictor of AV in the past, because of these standards and checks. Today it is not. But we still mistakenly conflate the two. Today, by doing so, we put a man's worth in the hands of the delirious twat, infected by feminism. Someone who considers men who peacock with a feather boa as High Sexual MarketValue, as desirable, as "high status". Women drool over a"player" with a full-sleeve tattoo. Does that trait have any objective value or make a man a good partner?
Alpha or Beta?
The biggest confusion from these two very different standards are the use of the terms Alpha and Beta. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have contributed a great deal to the economy and are CEOS and geniuses.When we instinctively give value based on SMV, we could consider these men Betas. Same with Nobel Prize Winners.Using the warped measuring stick of Alpha and Beta, these men don't measure up. The waiter with a coke habit however is an Alpha.
What concerns me is that, if Red Pill goes the wrong way, taking it could mean that all now live DOWN to the standards of the newly constituted SMV of the modern woman. "Winning" means choosing only fashionable interests/hobbies, taking vacations only to places that look good on Facebook, focusing time on wardrobe and peacocking rather than meaningful pursuits (or even things we enjoy).
When someone asks Alpha and Beta, it is fine if only in the context of SMV and women. A fair response would be-"Those are terms that refer to a man's standing with women. The real question is- what is the person's Actual Value".
Actual Value
I propose that rather than obsessing about "high status" males as defined by women, we concern ourselves with "high value" people. What is ActualValue? Traits that objectively make for a good person leading a meaningful life; actual ability, actual traits of good character.
Let's start with the most basic- character: a fundamentally decent human being. Honest. Trustworthy. Strong. Resilient. Resourceful. These are traits of someone who is a good friend, a good worker, a good person all around to know. Then there are abilities- someone whois intelligent, has practical skills, a sense of humor.
Finally,there are what he does- activities, interests, his job. A guy could be tall, loud, and aggressively boss other people around and have high SMV- but he could be a total fuck-up at life as well. The difference could be as basic as a guy who can Talk a good Game versus a guy who actually Lives a Good Life.
SMV and AV are becoming Inversely Proportional
The interesting thing is that SMV is becoming inversely proportional to AV. A guy like Kevin Federline is preferred to a guy with ActualValue. In my view, if someone is a "player", given women's modern selection criteria, more likely the guy is a dirtbag.
Now there are cases where men can have high SMV and AV, but that seems to be increasingly rare, especially because a woman's selection criteria prevents it. If you have a full-sleeve tattoo, you're not headed for the corner office.If you have a drug problem or criminal past, McDonald's may not even hire you.
If you spent nights chasing tail, those are nights you can never have back to pursue a new business. In fact, not only are you less likely to be successful, you are less likely to be an interesting person. I've noticed that guys with high SMV just so happen to be doing things that they can boast about to women. Women love DJs. Most DJs just play music (sorry to all those who may DJ out there). But to women, it's the most special thing you can do. Now, lots of alphas and PUA wanna-be alphas DJ in their spare time.
The problem is that as women rely on the Hamster more and more,you become a product of the Hamster- if you want to be in their world. And because their criteria is so fucked up, it will shape your life in odd ways.
To this end, I think it would be useful to discuss men in terms of High Value and not 'status' terms (alpha, beta). The true question is- are we talking about a High Value person or a Low Value person?
Their success with women is besides the point. To me, one aim ofMGTOW is to get men to focus on Actual Value, not Sexual Market Value. That's what living your own life means.
Players, PUAs, etc. may think they are "living their life on their own terms" but they are not; by making courting the modern twat a key objective in their lives, they consciously and unconsciously choose a life that emphasizes beliefs, attitudes, and activities built around courting the Hamster.