Mirror
There is a Chinese idiom, 门当户对, that literally means “doorframes of equal heights”. The expression means that for a good romantic partnership, it’s important that both parties are generally equal in terms of status. A pragmatic piece of advice from the land of arranged marriages and no divorce. As I’ve grown older, I’ve realized that this is not only good prescriptive advice, but also descriptive of many good relationships. Taking it a step further, I’ve also realized that most people unconsciously act this way, unbeknownst to others. That is to say, it’s possible to tell a lot about someone’s self-perception and confidence by whom they chose to date.
Everyone has a different calculus on what equality entails. Some of the most common factors under consideration are looks, health, money, esteem, and intelligence. Even the classically predatory pairing of rich old man and young attractive lady can be healthy and fair if both parties perceive it as such: one didn’t buy the other, they just bring different things to the table. No one should be in a long-term relationship that is unequal. The insecurity that it engenders can ruin the relationship. But there are plenty of relationships that don’t seem equal. There are two things that the observer isn’t privy to. The first is what each party values. Perhaps the man values her intelligence and esteem more than her money and good looks. Perhaps she values his fitness and money over his height and educational pedigree. The even more hidden factor is how each person perceives themselves.
When courtship is just commencing, confidence has a large effect by this logic. It raises the bar for partners that a person will be willing to date, but it generally doesn’t increase the pool, since the minimum acceptable standards will usually increase as well. When someone who is otherwise attractive has a tough time with romantic relationships, people will say that low self-esteem or confidence are driving factors. Though the meaning here is that they are too scared to ask people out, the implication is that they are also asking the wrong people out, people who aren’t a good fit for them, because they have low self-esteem. It’s a step from the armchair psychologist prescription that some people believe that they aren’t worthy of love; they just believe they aren’t worthy of love from the right people.
People often hide what they value and present a veneer of confidence: Western cultural norms frequently demand this. Consequently, one can tell a lot about someone by their choice of partner. What traits do their partner most prominently possess? These are the ones that are important to this individual. Important are the traits they value at the expense of others: a penniless PhD, a rich realtor, vapid himbo, cold corporate climber. Then, how does the approximate value of their traits stack up against their partner’s? The answer to every “How did they get with them? What are they doing with them?” is invariably a mismatch of self-esteem and confidence. It’s no small wonder that comedians frequently date out of their perceived leagues. Thus, one can also tell how much someone values themselves, in addition to what they value, by looking at their partner.
Certain adjustments should be made to this calculus depending on gravity of relationship and duration of relationship. Some relationships mean less to the parties involved. This results in a greater variance between how someone sees themselves and how they see the other parties. People may be willing to date above or below their perceived standard because they don’t see the relationship as something that is meaningful or representative. Similarly, if the relationship has just started, differences in perceived value between the two parties are constantly changing as they learn more about one another, thus making it a less ideal indicator of self-perception than a longer-standing relationship.
Even if one takes patriarchal society and sexism into account, this still holds; unless no agency is ascribed to women, which is generally untrue in western society. Perhaps it’s the easiest when its calculated this way, because it doesn’t require accounting for different values and taste: if all the successful men with young beautiful wives were lined up against each other, and their was a ratio of how much they were worth against how conventionally beautiful their chosen partners were, it’d be possible to get a gauge of their self-worth, purely based on their partners. Likewise, if we take these women who have decided to evaluate their partner’s worth based on how economically competent they are, we can see how much they value themselves (or this measure of competency), by the sort of partner they’ve chosen (or have been willing to accept).
In a long-term relationship, respect for one’s partner is self-respect. It’s not only a matter of treating someone the way they should be treated, but also a logical progression from the above. If one’s partner reflects oneself, then respect for them would also be respect for oneself. By contrast, any denigration while remaining in said relationship begs the question: why not leave? Because they’re the best you can get? Because they’re a good match despite this flaw? Then why do you not respect them? If they had any self-respect, they’d just break up and find someone new, like a newly minted billionaire moving onto his second wife. As I see it, this is better even for the party that is left behind than to be constantly disrespected and mistreated in a relationship. How someone speaks about their partner is sometimes as telling about them as how their partner actually is.
Then, someone’s significant other is a great way to evaluate not only someone’s worth, but also self-perception and self-respect. Long-term romantic partnerships are generally formed on the basis of equal contribution: not to be unromantic, but some level of reciprocity is in the majority of relationships. It is also possible to divine someone’s self-perception through their partner: if they are with someone “out of their league”, then they have a relatively higher sense of confidence and ego, relative to their partner or peer. Through this though, it is also possible to tell what someone values: perhaps there are traits that they see as disproportionately important that they are selecting for in partners. Lastly, how someone treats their partner and allows them to be treated is a sign of how much they respect themselves, since their partners reflect how they see themselves.
Despite my cavalier attitude towards reducing someone to the sum of their qualities, this is not my intention. It’s just an alternative theory to why confident people tend to have partners that are out of their league. And a reminder that the next time someone speaks poorly about their partner, empathize with their partner not only for how disrespectful they’re being treated, but difficulties in dealing with someone with self-esteem issues.
