Group Level Agendas And Best Interests
Explaining the sinister promotion of vices and the war against hypergamy
There is a certain concept I can’t quite put my finger on. I have scoured the internet for what it is called, but perhaps it has a more sophisticated sociological or psychological name that is hard to find. Something that probably has an esoteric term, but is as universal and realistic as man’s need for religion.
What I am referring to here, is the idea of group-level agendas or best interests. This may be an oversimplification, but please bear with me.
I posit a group-level agenda to be an idea, a construct, a call to action, a mandate, (or anything really), in which while it does not directly affect an individual’s life, the individual feels a dire responsibility to spread that agenda unto others for no reason other than the individual’s inclusion in a larger group that benefits from said agenda. Here are two examples that might shed more light on this abstract subject.
1. Group-level agendas based on gender
You may often hear some men go against the idea that women should desire men with resources. To them, a woman should not evaluate a potential mate based on tangible assets that he can provide, such as money, automobiles and other testaments to a wealthy lifestyle. Instead, it is more valuable if women look beyond these things.
Now, if the majority of men who spewed this doctrine were single, then it would be understandable. However, most men with strong beliefs about this idea already have women partners of their own. This begs the question — why is the partnership decision made by millions of women so paramount to a singular man who seemingly already has the woman of his dreams?
The visceral push for the agenda against “gold-diggers” is on a precarious tight rope, especially considering the fact that most men with an irrational fear of the money-grabbing claws of archetypical “Jezebel” do not have the resources that will attract her in the first place. Yet, they are fairly convinced that it is in women’s best interest to look beyond a man’s resources and solely focus on things like personality, integrity, kindness, and so on.
Given, these virtues are very valuable and fairly necessary in order for a relationship to stand on a solid foundation. But, to shame women who prioritize money before committing to a relationship is analogous to chastising them for something that is inherently biological.
If men who are currently in a relationship have nothing to lose if other women around them only decide to pair up in an upwardly mobile manner, then surely, the agenda against women practicing hypergamy should be non-existent.
Instead, the opposite is overwhelmingly true. Why is that? Is it in women’s best interest not to practice hypergamy? Some may argue that it is so because there are far fewer wealthy men to go around compared to decades ago. That may be true, but it is also important that we recognize that hypogamy, the opposite of hypergamy, is in men’s (perceived) best interest as well. Including men who are already in a relationship and those with minimal resources.
When most women in any given area do not prioritize wealth in picking a mate, men get a sense of abundance within which they can “relax” and feel at ease. This is part of the reason why campuses with predominantly female students have male students with commitment issues. There are too many fish in the sea. There is security in the knowledge that one can easily have their pick of any option that is available in case things go south.
2. Group-level agendas based on vices
Have you ever wondered why people are keen on persuading you to try out a harmful vice? Similar with the scenario explained above, there is a sinister sense of well-being sourced from shared misery. The Crabs in a Barrel syndrome is one theoretical framework that can be used to illustrate this idea.
Although one might argue that it feels good to dwell in a community in which you are not the only one practicing certain behaviors (such as smoking for example), that banner of collective solidarity may be a mask for the true agenda behind such persuasions, which is to keep everyone around us on an equal playing field, on our level, so that we don’t get “one-upped” or left behind by the larger group around us, on the basis of what we know deep down, is detrimental to our health.
Final thoughts
One theory that could possibly explain the human tendency to promote population-based agendas is our capacity for compartmentalization of self. We know that we exist in our unique oneness, yet we are also aware of our belonging to different groups in society. And even if we are not aware, the world brutally reminds you of that fact.
Putting people into categories is not a bad thing. It is human. The danger comes when we begin to ruthlessly dictate what persons within those categories should do, particularly if what we expect from them is something that would only realistically benefit our individual needs. That sounds, in its simplest form, like tyranny.
I am positive that there is a more technical term for the ideas that I am trying to convey here, so please do let me know if there is a phrase or theory that better encapsulates this issue. As always, stay kind and curious. 🖤
