As [...] I wonder what it means that I don't [...].

Generally, when someone says that majority of A do X, but you are A and don't do X, here are some possible explanations:

• the statistics is simply wrong;
• the statistics is correct about the majority, but you as an individual are an exception, and possibly so are some of your friends (this similarity could have contributed to you being friends);
• the statistics is correct about the majority, but within it a minority is an exception, and you belong to this minority, and possibly so do some of your friends;
• you are wrong, you are actually doing X, but you rationalize that it's something else.

Also from the outside, if someone else is saying this, don't forget:

• publication bias -- people who don't fit the statistics are more like to write about it then those who fit are likely to write "me too" (in communities that value independence).

Specifically for this topic, think also about the difference between maximizers and satisficers. If you read that "females value X", you may automatically translate it as "females are X-maximizers", and then observe that you are not. But even then you could still be an X-satisficer; you could have a treshold of "status + class + spending", where people below this treshold just don't catch your attention, and from the pool above this treshold you select using different criteria. Thus it may seem that "status + class + spending" are not part of your criteria, but they simply make your first filter, and then you consciously focus on your personal second filter.

(Simple example: You are consciously selecting for funny guys, not rich ones. However, you would never give a homeless guy an opportunity to show you how funny he is. Therefore you are effectively selecting for funny and non-homeless guys; you just don't think about the second part too much. For less obvious example, replace "homeless" with "not having (signals of) university education" or "not living in an expensive city".)