This is the third and final installment of my series on “deconstructing the Manosphere”.
Of all of the idiotic Manosphere tenets, the metaphor of “women hitting the wall” is the most ludicrous and hypocritical.
As I mentioned in the first two entries of this series, the Manosphere is made up losers who suffer from aggrieved entitlement due to their insecurities and perceived loss of male hegemony in western society.
Firstly, what is “the wall”…?
According to sexual market value theory (or SMV theory, discussed in Part I), female sexuality has a limited shelf life.
A woman who is 25 years old or older is generally considered a less attractive (and less valuable) mating prospect than a woman aged 18-24 due to the loss of fertility (and physical attractiveness) starting after age 25.
According to the Manosphere, a woman out of her teens and early twenties has either already hit the metaphorical “wall”, or is approaching impact.
The Manosphere is replete with “before and after” photos of female celebrities who were once considered the epitome of female beauty, but are now considered haggardly undesirable. According to the Manosphere, that is.
I could literally post enough of these pictures to fill up a New York City phone book, but I think the two examples above are sufficient enough to illustrate the point.
I think it is fairly easy to deconstruct why the notion of “women hitting the wall” is more than a little silly and very shallow.
Daryl Hannah is now 59 years old and Kathleen Turner is 65. I don’t care how well you take care of yourself, or how good your genetic stock is, or even what your ethnicity or gender is, you are not going to look the same at 65, 55, or even 45 as you did at 25 or even at 35.
To be fair, a woman’s stock-in-trade, especially in the entertainment or modeling industries, is her physical attractiveness, which is generally tied to her youth.
The beauty product industry, the fitness industry, and the media exploit the insecurity that most women have regarding their pulchritude. This in turn generates the cultural conditioning that drive women to attach more value to that pulchritude than they should.
The obsessive need for many women to preserve the physical attractiveness of their youth drives a multi-billion dollar industry ranging from Mary Kay and Olay to HBO, Facebook, and Instagram.
To say that women tend to place as much or greater value on female physical attractiveness than men tend to is an understatement. This is why women celebrate and exalt the female celebrities who project the illusion of ageless, youthful beauty.
Given that fact that Stone is 62 and Anniston is 51, these women appear to be aging well. I think this speaks more to these women as individuals than it does to any collective narrative about timeless beauty that the media proffers.
CAVEAT: never fully trust celebrity photos used to illustrate “ageless beauty”
That said, the heart of my rebuttal concerning “the wall” is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and beauty has no expiration date.
Wise people and deep thinkers do not subscribe to the kind of shallowness that suggests that physical beauty is the only measure of a woman’s value.
One valid point the Manosphere makes is that many young, beautiful, and fertile women tend to think that they can leverage their pulchritude in exchange for receiving tangible value and benefits in perpetuity.
Because of this, many women squander their youth partying and enjoying the constant male attention they get from puberty until the beginning of their middle age years.
By the time they realize there is more to life and they want to settle down, they wind up having to choose between settling for lesser men than they could have had in their youthful years or being single for the rest of their lives.
Generally speaking, women will often go to great lengths to preserve and extend the euphoria the attention they received in their younger years gave to them. Men (in general) do much the same on many levels with regard to loss of youthful vigor and physical prowess and that leads to the crux of my point…
The denizens of the Manosphere overvalue male wealth and resource accumulation (and their control of the same) as a coping mechanism for male insecurities with regard to aging. Women (in general) tend to value a man’s ability to support her and any children she may have as much or more than his physical attractiveness.
Many men also tend to value a woman’s physical attractiveness over her ability to accumulate wealth and resources or her accomplishments (college education, career, income, etc.). Some men even place a woman’s looks over her ability to be a good homemaker and mother.
It seems natural to conclude that overvaluing male wealth and resources is a great way to keep women in line.
According to Manosphere thinking that is…
The truth is that physical attractiveness, like wealth and resource accumulation, has no wall. These things morph over time. Different people place value on different things as they age.
There are very attractive and sexy older women who are accomplished and have considerable value beyond beauty and fertility. The wise and intelligent men of real value and means tend to find and marry these women.
Just like a younger man will eventually trade in some of his physical strength, vitality, and good looks for wisdom and wealth, younger women (if they are wise) will trade in their youthful pulchritude and fertility at its height to become a mother and a wife.
They will gain the security a good man provides. A man who is on his purpose in life and who appreciates a good, quality woman for who she is and not just on what she looks like now or how she will look in 10 or 20 years hence.
Of course, intelligent people don’t attach too much value to any one aspect of a potential mate. This is the fallacy of the Manosphere tenet of “women hitting the wall”.
There is more to a woman than her physical beauty and more to a man than his wallet. Shallow people never learn this salient lesson.
Of course, many denizens of the Manosphere have already hit their own metaphorical wall as most of them are not the men of means they purport themselves to be in online forums and YouTube videos.
Most of these so-called men are just bitter, jaded, bums. Even the Manosphere denizens that actually have wealth and resources tend to be insecure men suffering from aggrieved entitlement on some level.
It’s a classic case of psychological projection and it is pretty sad to witness.
-The Rational Ram
4 thoughts on “Deconstructing The Manosphere (Part III): “Women Hitting The Wall””
“ A woman who is 25 years old or older is generally considered a less attractive (and less valuable) mating prospect than a woman aged 18-24 due to the loss of fertility (and physical attractiveness) starting after age 25.”
You clearly fail biology. Women do not lose fertility at 25. That won’t happen until several years from now. https://youtu.be/g9ryP0UyO5U Second of all there is little to no difference in the looks of a women mid to late 20s and a women 18-24. I seen google image women in their early twenties and they look not that differently from women over 25 but under 30. I haven’t done women over 35. Depending on the sources some say we start to lose collegen after 20 or 25 or 30. It depends on the study. Also you should’ve look up when those fertility starts to decline in females because none said 25. If any said 25 then it is a very small amount.
Just ignore this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh sorry my bad I thought you believe that women aren’t fertile by 25
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. I’m railing against that kind of idiocy, I don’t support it.