It's actually not fair, is it? I didn't win the genetic lottery so I'm not allowed sex.
The myth or narrative of meritocracy plays a vital role in maintaining faith in the sexual market, particularly in its current form. Here's why:
1. Legitimizing Inequality. Meritocracy suggests that success is based on talent and effort. This makes dating inequality seem justifiable -- if people believe that the sexually active men got way they are through hard work and ability, then inequality is perceived as fair. Without this belief, the vast disparities might provoke more resistance or calls for redistribution. If people believe that those who are successful in sex "earned" it, then rejection or loneliness is seen as a personal shortcoming rather than a systemic issue.
2. Motivation and Compliance. If people believe that they can improve their position through hard work, they are more likely to buy into the system and strive within it, even if statistically the odds are stacked against them. This belief encourages productivity, ambition, consumerism, and social stability.
3. Obscuring Structural Barriers. The idea of meritocracy can obscure the role of systemic advantages -- like inherited neurotypicality, good looks, and social networks. If everyone is assumed to start on a level playing field, structural critiques of the dating scene lose some of their rhetorical force.
4. Self-Blame and Reduced Solidarity. When people fail in a supposed meritocracy, they may blame themselves rather than the system. This can reduce political mobilization or solidarity among disadvantaged groups, as they internalize failure instead of recognizing broader systemic problems.
In short, pretending we live in a meritocracy is a kind of ideological glue -- not essential to the sexual market per se, but very useful in maintaining public confidence in a deeply unequal system.
1. Legitimizing Inequality. Meritocracy suggests that success is based on talent and effort. This makes dating inequality seem justifiable -- if people believe that the sexually active men got way they are through hard work and ability, then inequality is perceived as fair. Without this belief, the vast disparities might provoke more resistance or calls for redistribution. If people believe that those who are successful in sex "earned" it, then rejection or loneliness is seen as a personal shortcoming rather than a systemic issue.
2. Motivation and Compliance. If people believe that they can improve their position through hard work, they are more likely to buy into the system and strive within it, even if statistically the odds are stacked against them. This belief encourages productivity, ambition, consumerism, and social stability.
3. Obscuring Structural Barriers. The idea of meritocracy can obscure the role of systemic advantages -- like inherited neurotypicality, good looks, and social networks. If everyone is assumed to start on a level playing field, structural critiques of the dating scene lose some of their rhetorical force.
4. Self-Blame and Reduced Solidarity. When people fail in a supposed meritocracy, they may blame themselves rather than the system. This can reduce political mobilization or solidarity among disadvantaged groups, as they internalize failure instead of recognizing broader systemic problems.
In short, pretending we live in a meritocracy is a kind of ideological glue -- not essential to the sexual market per se, but very useful in maintaining public confidence in a deeply unequal system.