There is no marketplace for individuals. There are only other individuals. SMV is especially stupid because most women can’t attract “men in general” and those that can attract large amounts of public favorable attention are not available to “men in general” in the first place. MMV is a little less stupid, but only if you have an actual ethnic and/or religious community serving as your pool of options. If you don’t have that, you’re not in anything resembling an economist’s marketplace. In a tight-knit community, there can be a market of sorts for marriage, but even then, you don’t have “marriage-minded men in general” if you’re the average woman. You have a handful of prospects that can be sorted through relatively quickly without frittering up all your baby-having time.
In the world where super nerdy people misuse economic terms, though, it’s really about one-to-one. You just need one guy or one girl and once you realize that, things get a whole lot easier even in this atomized, deracinated world where people yap about marketplaces and street values or whatever. One of the ways you know the whole SMV/MMV thing is stupid is that people using it can’t even be coherent in their examples. A typical example is underwear models or some other looks-trading category of woman having a “high SMV but low MMV”. If you are desirable enough in charisma and presentation and raw natural good looks to trade on them for a modeling contract, your MMV is whatever the bleep you want it to be. That’s just reality. Reality doesn’t have a red-pill bias. Conversely, women don’t have a “high MMV but a low SMV”, as far as that one goes either.
I need to dig up the anonymous pamphlets Fascinating Womanhood
ripped off was based on. Because they were written by someone who recognized all the way back in the 1920s or so that things were less community-oriented for women and that the idea of a preselected pool for women to pick a husband from was increasingly not available to average women. So it was about how to be the best kind of woman you could be to attract That One Guy. There was a recognition that most women can’t attract men in general, but they can be appealing to a couple now and again. This is not really a marketplace view of female attractiveness. But it was the view of a pamphleteer trying to help young women starting to live alone in the big city keep their virtue until they could get married, however long that might be. Apparently this is not what Fascinating Womanhood is about, which I guess means I should look into it one of these days and find out where the divergence lies. From what I understand the pamphlets were plenty popular themselves.
I find the whole market-fixation to come from the same ridiculous place as libertarianism and lust for free markets and all that other right-liberal junk so many conservatives are in love with instead of faith, family and country. It also leads to seriously terrible advice given to women of all ages.
TLDR; LOLOLOL at the idea that SMV and MMV diverge for women or that a woman who can figure out how to command a room’s attention can’t get married (spoiler alert: most do).