Contentious title? Perhaps so, but bear with me whilst I explain my reasoning.
When those in the Manosphere accuse Western women of being entitled, what do they mean? Essentially, they are accusing them of acting in a manner unbefitting their “true” level of value.
Very average looking women, who don’t dress well or look after their physiques, go around acting as if they were twice as attractive as they really are – diva-like behaviour, rudeness, flakiness, unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions, wanting privileged treatment, and so on.
Who then is the arbiter of this evaluation of someone’s true value, and therefore able to decide whether someone is acting above their station? Is value an absolute concept? Or is it subjective, according to the culture and society in which an individual resides?
If I believe my value is high, but no-one else does – are they all wrong? Or am I deluded?
Perhaps it doesn’t matter what you think your value “should” be – value is only relevant if other people around you believe you possess it.
Having made this deduction, it’s then clear to see that an average looking woman’s value in Western culture is exactly what she thinks it is. Men kiss her ass, tell her that she’s amazing, supplicate. The more above-average she is in her looks, the more she will encounter this behaviour. She can post up a profile on an online dating site, and receive 100s of emails every day, from thirsty men just desperate to get laid by any girl who isn’t completely physically repulsive.
Their behaviour then is not entitled in the least – it is exactly befitting the level of status which society is conferring upon them.
As men, we adhere more to the concept of “absolute” value – that is, regardless of culture or society, a person’s value should be viewed objectively based upon their physical attributes and accomplishments. Anyone acting above their station in this regard, in an entitled manner, is called out, and brought down to size. Women however, being inherently more social creatures, less rational and more emotive, do not operate on this model.
In an ideal world, the objective model is how things “should” operate, but we are being naive if we expect society and culture to play by the rules under which we think it should operate.
Value as an objective concept exists. One can most definitely make a concrete assessment of a woman’s beauty, or a man’s accomplishments, and critically evaluate their value. However, this is not the predominant model of value at work around us. In our current fem-centric society, the prevailing model is one of subjective value – namely that your value is precisely that which others deem it to be.
Understand this, and you understand that “entitled” women are merely doing what any other human being would do in the same situation, and acting in a manner according to their apparent status.
Human beings evolved in a social hierarchy, and we have built-in psychological mechanisms that grant us permission to act in a certain way when we believe our social status warrants it. Consider the confidence boost you feel when you are in good shape, or dressed well, or have a lot of money in the bank. We give ourselves permission to act in a more socially dominant manner, reinforced by feedback from those around us who confirm our elevated status by their behaviour towards us.
Much of this “privileged” behaviour is ugly, yes, but then human nature is ugly, and many men in positions of high status are no less ugly in their behaviour.
Since the model of subjective value is the one that is in force, the only way to change it, and impose the “true” objective model in its place, is to get through to the masses of modern men and tell them to stop pedestalising women, and encourage them to develop their masculinity and rely on concrete measures of value instead.
This, of course, is easier said than done, but I remain ever hopeful.