Greedy Goblin

Thursday, May 11, 2017

The Kate Upton effect

I wrote two years ago that "one earner + one homemaker" relationship is more productive than the feminist, "equal" two earners. Now I have scientific proof: The researchers took male professional sport players from Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey where individual performance has clear standards of measurement, and found that if they are dating a celebrity woman, their performance greatly drops. They named it Kate Upton effect:
Pre-Dating to Dating
Dating to Married
Dating to After
Pre-Dating to After
Unless we assume they were virgins before they dated a reality star or supermodel, we must assume that it's not dating a woman, but dating a woman with a career of her own damaged their performance. Considering that these guys make millions of dollars for a season, losing 16 or 25% performance has a significant GDP damage effect.

What would be really interesting is to evaluate the performance (likes received = advertising power, shows done, number of visitors on shows) of their celebrity girlfriends in the same period. I wouldn't be surprised if we would see a similar loss of performance. The reason for performance loss is not the loss of patriarchal order, but a gender-neutral loss of support. A high performing professional, having a stressed life obviously performs better next to a partner who supports him/her full time than next to another high performer who has to be in another city and barely have time for relationship and also stressed.

Feminist cry their heart out because of the pay gap and how women are "blocked" from top jobs. But science shows that there is no significant difference in salary and progress of men and childless women. The statistics of women is "ruined" by mothers who "obviously" can't keep up with the hours of a man. The solution is not the feminist nonsense of "equal parenting", as it just dooms fathers to be equally unfit for high performing jobs. Anything but focusing on your career damages it, as it is shown by the loss of performance of professional players. The solution for women who aspire for careers is to find supportive men who not only stay at home with the children but create a home and give all the emotional and physical support one needs to shine.

Before you'd say "no man would take on that role", I'd remind you about the "betas", men who identify as not masculine and openly expressing their distress or resignation to the possibility of never finding a woman. And indeed, within patriarchal standards, they are unfit for finding one. However them and high performing woman would be a perfect match. I doubt if there is a single "beta" who wouldn't trade ranting on forums from mom's basement for living with a 10 years older, healthy, slim and rich woman. The obstacles before this paradise where everyone finds his/her role according to ambitions and abilities are the feminists and their crazy obsession with equality. People are not equal. Someone capable to design a spaceship is not equal to someone capable only to do menial tasks. They shouldn't bear equal share of homemaking, the second should do all of it and in return be properly paid from the stellar salary of the first.


Anonymous said...

Unless we assume they were virgins before they dated a reality star or supermodel, we must assume that it's not dating a woman, but dating a woman with a career of her own damaged their performance.

Why would we assume that? The data set is quite small and all of the people involved are well-known celebrities. Maybe there's another factor at work, like added stress on the man who's now having to deal with more drama from dating a famous woman.

Anonymous said...

> feminists and their crazy obsession with equality

You're miscontruing feminism here. Feminists aren't obsessed with equality of *outcome*. We don't demand that the husband squirt out 50% of the breastmilk to feed the infant, nor that the husband and wife eat exactly as many calories at the dinner table. We recognize that there are differences in physiology and brain chemistry, which will create disparities in peoples' aptitude for (and interest in) various tasks.

Feminists are happy to see everyone find their role according to ambition and ability - exactly as you suggested. We simply insist that this process contain as few artificial barriers as possible. If a talented young woman gets dissuaded from pursuing math, that's a problem. If a talented young man gets teased and belittled for his interest in ballet, that's a problem.

Let's pretend that we live in an enlightened post-scarcity Star Trek world. If there are more men working on starship engines and more women serving as doctors then that's okay! So long as everyone is free to follow their ambitions, feminists aren't going to complain about the lack of a perfect 50-50 ratio.

Anonymous said...

That is not possible not because of feminists insisting on equality, or because "no man would take that job", but because of an even more deep and primordial instinct:

Gevlon said...

@Anon: there is always stress when you deal with someone who has her own agenda. Famous women are extreme forms of high performers.

@Next anon: yet feminists are writing countless articles about the pay gap and about how they are underrepresented in various fields. Just open recent newspapers and the No1 liberal problem with the TrumpCare is that the lawmakers behind Trump in the Rose Garden were males.

@Next anon: I didn't find anything contradicting in that video. All I've seen that high performing women don't find their house-husbands sexy. So what, they'll cheat on him, just like high performing men are always cheating on their housewives (who are also not deemed sexy after the age of 30).

Shalcker said...

I happened to read great blog on this stuff before (with more supporting scientific data), and it aligns with your reasoning:

Anonymous said...

"I doubt if there is a single "beta" who wouldn't trade ranting on forums from mom's basement for living with a 10 years older, healthy, slim and rich woman."

True, but that kind of woman would never settle for a basement dweller beta.
Woman always aim for an highest standart than theirs, never lower. Men on the contrary have no problem settling for an equal or lower standart woman.

That's why high quality, high paid women have such an hard time finding partners.

Gevlon said...

@Anon: factually not true. The celebrity news are full of celebrity women dating backup dancers and such. Sure, there will be dumb women who aim for the impossible. Their problem.

maxim said...

I'd say it is absolutely necessary for a man to have a passion which he is great at in order to be attractive to great women. That passion can be taking care of a woman he loves (and this is the ideal scenario if he were to make a couple with a power lady), but it can also be anything else, as long as the passion is genuine and is helped by a genuinely good performance and the chosen area.
Basement dwellers are basement dwellers because they rarely act on their passions and when they do, they don't perform well.

Gevlon said...

@Maxim: only very few people are capable of forming their own passion. Most people find their passion through socially or officially created platforms. For example many men experience patriotism trough joining the army of their homeland - which they can do because there is a national army. I'm sure that if we'd live in perfectly pacifist societies, most of them would never come up with the idea to form an army. In these societies these patriots could easily be aimless basement dwellers.

So it's probable that many men who now wanders aimlessly on forums would both excel and be passionate about being a stay-at-home dad if they were aware of the option and had access to training (book, forums) and ways to sign up (specific dating sites).

Anonymous said...

yes today we don't have a pay gap anymore because the damage was already done in long history decades ago when wages suddenly did stagnate not for women but for everyone. employers hired women like meth. and we don't seem to care as to why and when (hint 70s). they don't negotiate aggressively and are too agreeable. killing the mulah for everyone involved. because if jane does the same shit as jack for less ... why pay jack more. something the feminist don't want to see and employers will not say. And jack becomes a beta without enough money to support a bitch + children. what can possibly go wrong

women seek partners upwards the dominance hierarchy. men downwards. a 29yo women usually brings something to the table only a until then battle hardened relationship over a decade maybe is a good foundation for, for her to feel supported enough for kids. yes they usually want a baby asap.

so what does a healthy, physically attractive, highly intelligent and very successful carer women want in their mid 30s? A man she can't seem to find that will support her, because ... babies.
don't take it from an Anon. lookup psychoanalysis people, this is common no matter what those miserable feminists say.

max fertile women are usually attractive, they don't have to do anything just be healthy and young. men that young are usually worthless. they get more attractive 25+ more so if status symbols somewhat show alpha status and wealth etc.

dating site statistics are a godsend.

don't get me wrong. women have complicated lifes. feminists don't help them in absolutly no shape or form. because patriarchy. but the multifucked system as we now have .. has many facets of responibility usually found in oneself.

Anonymous said...

I think your assumption is likely wrong. Getting married and being monogamous is correlated with lower levels of free testosterone. Also the added cortisol as a result of the stress of dating a celebrity will reduce your ability to utilize testosterone. All of this has huge implications for sports performance.

I think you need another professional group to prove your point.

Anonymous said...

Looks like we are about to enter red pill territory.

the obligatory link to the graph:

Anonymous said...

Looks like we are about to enter red pill territory.

yep. Btw, the red pill documentary a very good documentary! Made me look up all sorts of things and statistics.

Slawomir Chmielewski said...

@Anon Feminist:
You say one thing, your feminist friends everywhere do completely different. They don't want equality, they want privileges and affirmative action. They aren't the fringe, you are. #KillAllMen?

This is highly improbable. High-status women won't have babies with low-status men. What's more, a stay-at-home dad is a divorced dad in most cases once the kid reaches school age.
There are some famous women dating non-famous men. True. Those men, however, are either very, very rich or very, very attractive.

Phelps said...

The female drive for hypergamy dooms your solution from the start, the same way that "just educate the M&S" is doomed because of the nature of M&S.

Gevlon said...

@Phelbs: this is like saying "the male drive for polygamy dooms marriage from the start"

It's factually true. Most men cheat on their wives and their marriage falls apart. But some can overcome their drives and have a happy family life. I have no doubt that most women will just be sipping margaritas with their single female friends babbling about how [rich and successful] men are all just using her. But some will overcome this and live happily ever after. EVERYTHING you do, you do for the few who listen and think. The M&S is doomed anyway.

Unknown said...

I wonder what the spread is there. How many married high performing men are actually monogamous vs how many cheat/have some sort of arrangement with the wife. My intuition is that the higher you go on the performance chart, the more men are in the latter group. I also wonder what the stats would look like in the gender reversed situation.

Phelps said...

The difference between polygamy and hypergamy is that the denied polygamist doesn't hate his wife for denying him other women, and more importantly, doesn't see her value destroyed by it.

Women with a lower-status mate don't just stop loving him, they actively start hating him. Lustless marriages have been the norm through history, but marriages where one partner sees the other as a failure have never worked.

Gevlon said...

@Phelps: actually sexist men sees women as failures and lowly. Yet they don't live in celibacy. Math is a bitch. As women get higher and higher, hypergamy becomes more and more impossible. So she has to either live alone, or make a compromise.

Phelps said...

Lowly and failures aren't the same.

As for higher status women, they are higher status because they habitually reject compromise, and therefore end up alone.

Neil said...

"one tailed t test" "75 data points" "subjectively think they’re famous enough" "People, E! News, Us Weekly and Perez Hilton websites [as sources]" "Scientific research".

One of these things does not belong. They also didn't explore how dating low skill/social capital women affected performance, so they really only showed that [male] athletes perform worse when dating. I agree it would be v interesting to measure the women's performance pre and post dating, but without that data you cannot conclude that two worker households perform worse than one worker one nurturer houses, as the worker may increase his partners productivity.
"The researchers" are dumbo Econ undergrads who, like most econ undergraduates in the US, are too stupid to think of a real `final project' so they just wrote about sports. I'm actually a little surprised you cite this as a valid source, generally you do better than this. If you happen to find any reliable data please do share.

Anonymous said...

Oh god, please spare us garbage alt-right anti-feminism. It's quite embarrassing. "Beta" males are not a real thing.

Gevlon said...

@Anon: as long as there are men identifying as "beta", it's a thing.