Why LESS quality women? How is it possible (read inside)?

[lux7]

Chase always says that there are more high quality women than men.

Then in this article he says (https://www.girlschase.com/content/why-d ... en-step-up):

"That’s because there are far fewer top caliber males than there are top caliber females (since the “ceiling” for women isn’t as high and women mostly cluster closer to the safe middle..."

If women cluster around the middle, shouldn't be a given that there are MORE men who are "higher up" and hence, at least partially, higher quality, than women?
Indeed, how many high level execs or CEO who are women? Very very few...

 

[Franco]

luc,

I think the issue here is that you're attempting to place men and women on the same scale. The "top caliber women" are actually still below the top caliber men because, in the end, the top caliber men can successfully take home multiple top caliber women (while the same can't be said for top caliber women doing the same with men -- although there might be a handful that are good at it).

Anyway, among their OWN scale, the ratio of top caliber women to mediocre/sub-par women is much better. You'll find a lot more attractive, intelligent, interesting, and sexy women in the top tier of their own echelon, and there's almost an even number of them as there are unattractive, less intelligent, and uninteresting women. With men, it's completely different.

The top tier men probably make up only about 5% of all men, while there are MANY men (probably around 70% or so) that are at the bottom tier of the above-listed traits. So while the top 5% may clean up with all of the top caliber women, there are still many more men who can only scrape by with barely getting lower quality (bottom 50%) of women.

Does this make sense?

- Franco

 

[NarrowJ]

"High level execs and CEO" does not put a woman at the top of anything. This is a feminist-inspired error based on the false and projected assumption that men and women are the same, desire the same things, and respect the same traits. We don't at all. A top tier man has many things going for him--looks, status, money, charisma, power, dominance, fitness, etc. This is why there are so few and they are so valued. A top tier woman possesses visual and hormonal fertility cues, or fakes them appropriately, to attract more and higher quality men than her competitors. Utterly different scales and no amount of social justice protests will ever have an impact on biology.

This is a pretty damn solid explanation of it.

And to the OP, as you can see in the bolded portions it is much more difficult for men to become "top tier" than it is for women. Which, is why you see the "top tier" for women being roughly 10% of them (all they need is a kicking body, dress well and wear their makeup right) whereas for men that number is probably closer to 1%, simply because it's much more difficult to become a charismatic master of social arts, keep your body in top physical form and you're probably juggling a full time job in there somewhere as well.

So yeah, much much easier for women to be "top tier", which is why there's so many of them in comparison to top tier men.


J.J.

 

[lux7]

Ja, I wanted to put a note on the "CEO/exec" part saying it isn't a one to one reflection of "quality" but just an indicator.

Still an indicator though as it does show a few things about her: she's more likely to be driven, motivated and intelligent and was able to adapt to a place -the workplace- that is more male-oriented.
If she hasn't lost her femininity, that's quite something (that's a huge if though).

Honestly guys -JJ and Drexel- I don't understand why you are saying it only takes beauty for a woman to be "top quality". Many of Chase's article on this same website underline that though beauty is more important in women than men, there's more than just beauty even for women. And that's on top of anecdotal evidence of course: I guess chances are you do have met some attractive girls you wouldn't want to have a LTR with.. ?

 

[Franco]

luc,

Honestly guys -JJ and Drexel- I don't understand why you are saying it only takes beauty for a woman to be "top quality". Many of Chase's article on this same website underline that though beauty is more important in women than men, there's more than just beauty even for women. And that's on top of anecdotal evidence of course: I guess chances are you do have met some attractive girls you wouldn't want to have a LTR with.. ?

What every guy wants can differ, but you'll generally find that "top tier" men have all the qualities listed (intelligence, charisma, physically fit, etc.) and the women they are with do not necessarily have the same, although they exceedingly excel in the areas that matter the most (which are looks, personality, and charisma generally -- intelligence plays a backseat here since it's a "selective" attractive trait whereas the former qualities are "necessary" attractive traits to most top tier men, anyway).

For me, I actually find intelligence to be a very middling trait. The girl has to have enough intelligence to understand my sarcasm/wit and run with it or throw it back at me, but she doesn't need to have "book intelligence" and be a book worm who can name every muscle and bone in the body. Her being able to name every bone/muscle in the body, for example, may not make her any more attractive to me (and I consider myself more of a "top tier" runner with men at this point), but it might be attractive to other guys. It's a personal preference, whereas a girl's actual physical features (curvy body that is fit with an attractive face) is pretty much a common necessity among all men who have top tier options, including myself.

You'll actually find that most of the girls who are with the highest caliber men have actually gone the route of "maxing out" the necessary traits (physical features such as fake boobs and a small waist) as opposed to trying to get a "broad" range of traits but not maxing out their potential in any of them. Preference plays a role here, but generally women that the majority of men consider to be top tier have at least put a heavy amount of their time into maxing out their physical features and their personality and, in turn, the women hope they can attract top tier men who will fill the provider role and pay the bills.

- Franco

 

[Estate]

Chase always says that there are more high quality women than men.

Then in this article he says (https://www.girlschase.com/content/why-d ... en-step-up):

"That’s because there are far fewer top caliber males than there are top caliber females (since the “ceiling” for women isn’t as high and women mostly cluster closer to the safe middle..."

If women cluster around the middle, shouldn't be a given that there are MORE men who are "higher up" and hence, at least partially, higher quality, than women?
Indeed, how many high level execs or CEO who are women? Very very few...

It really comes down to what you deem to be "quality".

Sure, lots of men have high paying jobs, etc... but does that make them top quality guys? I feel like more guys with this "status" tend to use the status or the money to project a certain image. A lot of it comes from insecurites elsewhere, they can often be dickish. Many are out of shape, un-stylish, not really nice people.
I know that's a wild generalization, but it's quite often true.

Traditionally men try to "up their value" with things like wealth, status, education, things they own, etc...
Whereas in the Girls Chase universe, the top quality man does not necessarily rely on these things. He is a good guy at his core. He takes care of himself, he likes people, he is personable, a good conversationalist, can relate to and attract almost anyone.

How many men really work on themselves in this regard?

Women can be accused of the same at times, but at least younger single women do put a lot of effort into their presentation, social life, how they appear to others to be well liked. I feel that's a good argument as to why there tends to be more "truely quality" women than men willing to really improve themselves at their core.

 

[lux7]

It really comes down to what you deem to be "quality".

Sure, lots of men have high paying jobs, etc... but does that make them top quality guys? I feel like more guys with this "status" tend to use the status or the money to project a certain image. A lot of it comes from insecurites elsewhere, they can often be dickish. Many are out of shape, un-stylish, not really nice people.
I know that's a wild generalization, but it's quite often true.

Traditionally men try to "up their value" with things like wealth, status, education, things they own, etc...
Whereas in the Girls Chase universe, the top quality man does not necessarily rely on these things. He is a good guy at his core. He takes care of himself, he likes people, he is personable, a good conversationalist, can relate to and attract almost anyone.

How many men really work on themselves in this regard?

Women can be accused of the same at times, but at least younger single women do put a lot of effort into their presentation, social life, how they appear to others to be well liked. I feel that's a good argument as to why there tends to be more "truely quality" women than men willing to really improve themselves at their core.

True, that women tend to "work harder" on their appearances/looks and tend to more versed in socializing is a good explanation of why there might be more high quality women.

But that's for the average.

When we're talking "upper echelons", if it's like Chase says, that women tend to cluster more around the "safe middle", that also means that are much fewer very high quality women than high quality men simply because men are scattered all over the board.