Reference: https://ibb.co/NYHBc3z

The above is a thread posted by a high ranking member of a female-only sub. In case it needs to be said, don't go looking for the original, unless you want to get banned. It serves as almost a stereotypical play-by-play of the hamster spinning that wheel, a textbook example of proto-WAATGM material just inches away from demanding where the good men are, or further than that, that all men are scum and relationships worthless.

Read through that post, and then a second time. You will likely pick up much yourself of what I'm going to lay down here, but it serves to be thorough, so I'll go through this a bit at a time.

Leveling up does not bring you more options as a woman - and that's OKAY, Because leveling up brings you better options instead.

Right out of the gate we have post-rationalization going full force. What's somewhat refreshing about this attempt to cope with worsening circumstances is that it stands as evidence that this woman understands that her dating pool is shrinking because of her career. It's acknowledgement that the available men whom she is willing to seriously date gets smaller as she "levels up," and you'll see that this user is doing the same sort of career-building cheerleading that the writer of Sex and the City did. A writer who now regrets focusing on her career, but let's not get distracted by anecdotes.

In high school and college, when I was a just a wee little non-threatening Pickme, I had men falling all over themselves to commit to me. I had three boyfriends (who seemed to revel in trying to keep me small and domesticated) propose to me before I even graduated college. All of which were summarily rejected.

Notice the tone here. In neutral language, pretty much everyone would see this as a huge advantage, and perhaps even be jealous of her (assuming it's the truth; we'll pretend it is for the sake of argument). However, she writes this as if boys stumbling over each other to be with her is a negative, that her young naive self who was getting tons of attention was a bad thing, and that her collegiate self who rejected them all was a strong and inspiring choice. She is attempting to frame something positive getting thrown out the window as a wise decision and that she's now better for it.

As I grew more successful, better looking, more polished, more independent, and less willing to shrink myself and my accomplishments to appeal to men, I started getting called "high maintenance" and "bitchy" by men who couldn’t dream of keeping up with me.

There isn't much I really need to say here, is there? You already know the story. You know that's precisely what she is now, and that as she "bettered herself," she priced herself out of the market but also began being insufferable to your average man. She was progressively placing herself into a box labeled "better than you," which wasn't helped by her great start in highschool with the guys tripping over themselves to get to her. She's building this narrative that it's all the fault of men (of course) and that she was some soft victim who is now a hardened feminist wise to the nasty intentions of males everywhere, a strong soldier in the war of romance. It's almost pitiable.

The amount of men who were interested in me for anything beyond casual bullshit plummeted.

And here we have a wonderful pillar of the conversation. Why is this? Why did men quickly become less prone to dates and marriage proposals? She would have you believe it lies on the shoulders of the men alone. Just name it, name anything: insecurity, jealousy, afraid of commitment, can't handle strong women, whatever is convenient. It isn't remotely possible, according to Professor Hamster, the arbiter of all wisdom, that men simply didn't want to tolerate her shit. But wait, she gives us the list herself:

But I began to notice the men who were unwilling to date me were - at best - commitment-phobic, avoidant, mildly narcissistic, and low-effort. LVM instinctually run screaming from women who expect reciprocity and effort. Let them!

Ah yes, any man who wanted nothing to do with committing to her were Low Value Men. If they were Real Men, they would not be afraid of a strong independent woman. She's the reasonable one who is simply asking for reciprocity and effort, she's the grounded and down-to-earth type, it's all the men who are the problem. If a man gets kicked out of 100 bars, it's just because those bar owners are some kind of -ist or have some sort of -phobia, the guy can't possibly be the issue.

I used to think "I bring all of this great stuff to the equation! I'm in the top 1% of income for my age. I'm funny and interesting to talk to. I have great hobbies and tons of skills. I'm beautiful and well-dressed. And I'm only getting better. Any man should feel lucky to be with me - especially now! What gives??"

And as per usual, we see the woman come within reach of something pivotal. This is a great question to ask, but with the hamster, you can get any answer you like. Do you think she ever asked this question to any of the many men who wanted her? No, they wouldn't know what they were talking about, they wouldn't understand the struggle, they were all Low Value and would simply blame her instead of telling her the Truth with a capital T. The hamster is on a wheel, but that wheel spins in a bubble, and nary a needle will be suffered to approach the bubble's edge. Instead she asked the hamster, and the hamster told her what she wanted to hear, and she's convinced herself that it's the Truth. Rather than genuinely asking "what gives?" and inquiring people who knew (they were, after all, the ones not interested in commitment) she presumes to faux-psychoanalyze them and concoct convenient psychological contrivances for how everyone but her is the problem. Two feet from the edge, and they fail to reach out and grasp the answer.

Also, notice the "especially now" part; this woman has been brainwashed to think and act like a man. "Especially now that I've built my career and I make amazing money, guys everywhere should want me!" That isn't how it works. This woman was lied to. There were women before her who believed the same thing and lied to her face, encouraging her to focus on career and strength and independence...and now here she is. A lone signpost, standing in a windswept desert, pointing other young women down the same path, because she can't bear to come to terms with the Truth. And the cycle continues.

LVM won't want to commit to you because they don't want an equal - they want someone they can feel superior to. They want the spotlight to always be on them in their shitty, miserable little "relationship." They have a pathological need to be perceived as "better." You being a HVW is a direct threat to their ability to appear like an "alpha" so they can maintain their grand delusion of being the one "in control." I say good riddance!

And there we have it, the narrative is complete. She's a strong independent woman who intimidates men who are afraid of commitment and of her strength. The pool of men available to her, and of whom she'd be willing to date, is now much smaller and she knows this, but they're better quality, she says. However, notice that that topic started and ended with the thread title and first sentence. The entire rest of the post doesn't deal with the pool of great available men, it's rationalization of why all the men who rejected her -- and that's precisely what it was, rejection of commitment to her -- are the idiots, with all their pathologies, and she's an incredible prize they just can't deal with in all their weakness. They just want and need some female to control, and if they can't have that, then they aren't interested in you! It's just so simple, imagine how many generations of women could have been saved if only they had understood this one simple tip.

The entire post is a coping mechanism to justify her preformed conclusion that she's done everything right and she cannot be the issue. An age-old subject on WAATGM, one that's been retread and reaffirmed with who knows how many Tinder posts, yet here we are again with a fresh cookie-cutter perspective made only a few days ago. The mutual backpatting and affirmation in that thread is off the charts, as you'd expect, which only serves to reinforce the bubble, exactly as intended. Feminine Imperative Uber Alles, as it goes.

In a way it's sad to see. This is a woman who writes something like this to convince herself, primarily, and the echo chamber secondarily, that she isn't at fault for her relationship woes. She's a walking stereotype of the WAATGM sidebar: she openly admits to having had her chances, and she forwent those to focus on "leveling up." Now that she's done that, she spends her time on a female-only sub, insisting that the men who don't want her are Low Value and encouraging other women to follow in her footsteps, that the shrunken pool of men available to her are "better" and High Value. How convenient.

We're men. We are well aware that men would absolutely love to have a successful, beautiful woman, especially one full of great qualities. If she were such a woman, she wouldn't craft rationalization narratives dripping with vitriol. She wouldn't suddenly have men going from proposing marriage to only being interested in "casual bullshit." She most definitely would not be on that subreddit. Successful, beautiful women with great qualities essentially never have guys stop tripping over themselves to get them...not unless such great qualities have faded, and you no longer have a successful, beautiful woman with great qualities. You just have a successful one. And men, as this person has discovered, are not attracted to a woman's career or bank account.