I think you’re thinking of “high/low-value.” Regardless, hateful people will often try to wrap their ideology in terminology designed to mimic academic or scientific writing in order to appear logical or disspassionate. The red pill use of “hypergamy” is another common example.
I’m wouldn’t interpret that word choice in terms of intrinsic human value, I would interpret it as a facet of class warfare. Mate selection isn’t even the only way in which social status screws men over; we don’t send rich people’s sons to the front lines of the wars they start either. Actually now that I think about it I wonder if those things are related; the bourgeoisie playbook has always heavily featured using masculinity as a way to push men towards violence for their own benefit. It used to be killing people in other countries, and now it’s shifted more towards keeping people scared to step out of line in their homelands (although it’s always been at least a little bit of both, and moves in waves). They need us to want to kill each other in some way or other, this is just one facet of that strategy. I forget who it was recently that actually said (a little too publicly) that if they don’t get us all back under control soon they’ll never be able to send us to war again.
It’s an academic term used in anthropology circles, studying primitive, ancient, or even non-human social structures.
In ape or chimpanzee social groups, high-status individuals (male or female) may have more mating opportunities, be able to eat first, insist on the best spots to sit, whatever. The specific benefits can vary from culture to culture, species to species.
It doesn’t mean low-status individuals are shunned at all. They’re still part of the group. But for whatever reason, they aren’t given as much trust, opportunity, or maybe respect, as others in the group.
In our modern social world, it would be the correct scientific or academic term for people who are unable to attract a sexual partner, or make many friends, or build much “social capital”, for any of several possible reasons.
People who have a job, or even a career, but wouldn’t be considered for management, would also be considered low-status in that context.
Is this correct terminology? It really sounds just like that misandrist Femcel shit that you would occasionally see on reddit communities like WGTOW.
I think you’re thinking of “high/low-value.” Regardless, hateful people will often try to wrap their ideology in terminology designed to mimic academic or scientific writing in order to appear logical or disspassionate. The red pill use of “hypergamy” is another common example.
I’m wouldn’t interpret that word choice in terms of intrinsic human value, I would interpret it as a facet of class warfare. Mate selection isn’t even the only way in which social status screws men over; we don’t send rich people’s sons to the front lines of the wars they start either. Actually now that I think about it I wonder if those things are related; the bourgeoisie playbook has always heavily featured using masculinity as a way to push men towards violence for their own benefit. It used to be killing people in other countries, and now it’s shifted more towards keeping people scared to step out of line in their homelands (although it’s always been at least a little bit of both, and moves in waves). They need us to want to kill each other in some way or other, this is just one facet of that strategy. I forget who it was recently that actually said (a little too publicly) that if they don’t get us all back under control soon they’ll never be able to send us to war again.
It’s an academic term used in anthropology circles, studying primitive, ancient, or even non-human social structures.
In ape or chimpanzee social groups, high-status individuals (male or female) may have more mating opportunities, be able to eat first, insist on the best spots to sit, whatever. The specific benefits can vary from culture to culture, species to species.
It doesn’t mean low-status individuals are shunned at all. They’re still part of the group. But for whatever reason, they aren’t given as much trust, opportunity, or maybe respect, as others in the group.
In our modern social world, it would be the correct scientific or academic term for people who are unable to attract a sexual partner, or make many friends, or build much “social capital”, for any of several possible reasons.
People who have a job, or even a career, but wouldn’t be considered for management, would also be considered low-status in that context.
In short, yes. It’s the correct terminology.
What is WGTOW?
Women Going Their Own Way if I had to guess.
No, that would be WGTOWIIHTG.