From Wikipedia on herd immunity,
Herd immunity or herd effect, also called community immunity, describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease. The greater the proportion of individuals who are resistant, the smaller the probability that a susceptible individual will come into contact with an infectious individual.
In days past when young girls were more regularly taught the basics of being a good wife and mother, there was a measure of the “herd immunity” effect with respect to them going feral. And by feral it is meant that they are using their natural inclinations to guide them in decision making. Often these natural inclinations only benefited them (if at all) in the short term, but that is the topic for another post. Of concern here is the amount upon which other women isolated women who used feral approaches (e.g. slutting around). They did so in order to immunize the herd, to try to make sure others did not catch the disease, and that everybody knew who had caught the disease. Furthermore it punished the offender and it made it clear that they “were not like that” (and hopefully they were not).
A modern day example of this happened in my hometown. A woman who I graduated with married young, had children, built a big house, and eventually went back to school. As soon as she graduated, she dumped her husband and grabbed the house and kids. It was all so blatantly obvious that the older women that made up the local thrift shop charity shunned her. Of course, these were the older women, and their shunning had little effect, as they were small in numbers. In effect, herd immunity was lost.
Now back to the second aspect of this blurb, the information part. A woman can evaluate most of the aspects of a potential suitor rather easily. Of course, there is the appearance stuff, but also his assets, income and future prospects are there in full view. Character flaws are often readily seen, as they are often related to his assets, income and future prospects. In the courting process, the man is expected to take the lead, and his character comes forth through this process.
With women, it is different. There often is an issue with respect to information about her and the man not being able to obtain it. Of course, a man can see her physical appearance, but that is about all that he can be sure of. Women can often keep “issues” and “their past” hidden, at least for a short period of time. For example, she might have had a succession of jobs where she left because of the problem that her “bat-shit craziness” eventually came out. But since she is a woman, a sequence of low status jobs does not raise any flags. A man with such a problem would not have good assets, income and future prospects. I leave it to the reader to consider the myriad of ways that women can hide features, and where a man cannot.
This information asymmetry problem was somewhat ameliorated in the olden days by the shunning of women with character issues. The community as a whole probably knew the situation with individual women, and this shunning provided men with useful information that helped to balance the asymmetry.
Now consider the modern man. He no longer has this source of information about prospective women. And obtaining this information through painstaking effort in the courting process is both difficult and fraught with error. Men now normally assume that individual women have significant character flaws until proven otherwise. This perhaps is as big a factor as any in men going MGTOW. They do realize that there are good women out there, but the cost of obtaining the information is just too high. In effect, they quarantine the entire herd.