12 ms·

Female hypergamy has existed as a sexual strategy since the dawn of humanity. Why would it suddenly cause all this change? I think you're getting the cart befor

Female hypergamy has existed as a sexual strategy since the dawn of humanity. Why would it suddenly cause all this change? I think you're getting the cart before the horse. A lack of dependence on men has caused an increase in the expression of hypergamy strategies not the other way around. Female employment is the result of central bankers targeting full employment, which lead to inflation, which has lead to globalization[1] to escape labor cost inflation, which will again lead to inflation and of course automation is the only answer. Capitalism rewards those with leverage and automation is the ultimate leverage (beyond capital itself). [1]: Political Apects of Full Employment, Michale Kalecki, Political Quartly 1943 http://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf http://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf

yummyfajitas 10y ago
As the paper I cite shows, what changed is that women are entering the workforce and finding better jobs than men. I think we are saying the same thing.
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  I follow you. I take issue with "Female hypergamy is probably the real issue here.". That strategy isn't the problem. It's a constant in the equation. As far as men are concerned it might as well be Planck's constant. From a purely biological approach you should be more concerned about things that give the opposite sex a more competitive edge not declare that they should cease to be competitive.
  - dgudkov 10y ago
    The stability of the strategy can be the problem. If the strategy assumes increased attractiveness of males with higher relative income, then the higher the female income becomes the fewer men fall into the higher relative income category which boosts hypergamy even more. Therefore a constant hypergamy strategy coupled with growing female income lead to increasingly less effective dating market for both male and female sides of it. To resolve the problem either the female income should decrease (which women don't want to do), or the strategy should change (which women can't do). Otherwise we're heading into a fundamental social crisis.
    - ryanmarsh 10y ago
      Oh people are going to be unhappy that's for sure. I'm looking forward to the day when progressive minded people decide they liked things better the old fashioned way.
    - nyargh 10y ago
      Only works if you don't treat women like chattel and remove the financial disincentive to end abusive relationships. Enter MRA crybabies re: alimony, child support, etc.
      - ryanmarsh 10y ago
        You obviously are not a divorced male with children. The alimony and child support laws were laid down in an era where there was an almost insurmountable financial disincentive to leave an abusive relationship. Therefore the courts purposefully favor the woman. Divorce is unfair by design. However circumstances have changed so men have some right to complain now. Two things could change this, the advent of male birth control, and men realizing that legal marriage is an unfair contract. The former would give men outsized control over when to have a baby and that choice can be made without signaling intent (less obvious than a condom). This is the advantage a woman has now. She can choose when to have a baby without signaling intent, and can even change her mind after the fact. The latter gives a man no reason to marry a woman much less the beloved mother of his children except to appease her nagging. As female agency increases males will be less and less willing to risk the exposure of legal marriage and children when they will be left footing the bill. A hypergamous wife (AWALT) with equal or more agency than you is a risky proposition.
        sanderjd 10y ago
        Sorry for the meta-comment, but just in case you're interested: I think all the jargon used in this thread is unhelpful to your argument. That I've read this whole thread and still can't quite figure out what "hypergamy" is from context, or exactly how it is "the real problem" signals to me that I'm an outsider of whatever community it is that talks casually about this stuff in these terms. That's probably fine if you're just trying to preach to your choir, but if you would rather not be ignored by someone like me looking in on an unfamiliar situation with curiosity, it isn't very effective.
  - blackbagboys 10y ago
    That wouldn't allow him to blame women, though.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I didn't declare that anyone should cease to be competitive. I simply pointed out that the proximate cause of the problem is a decrease relative to women, not any absolute decrease in position as the parent post claimed.
idiot_stick 10y ago
>Female employment is the result of central bankers targeting full employment, which lead to inflation 1. Your citation says: "It follows that if the government intervention aims at achieving full employment but stops short of increasing effective demand over the full employment mark, there is no need to be afraid of inflation." 2. Inflation levels were through the roof long before the Fed Reserve Act established full employment as a mandate.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
I dunno. I think that at least globalization - as in the easily agreed on definition of globalization - is declining. After all, the various China seas seem to be becoming a Chinese lake, if we can project the construction of sand islands some. Automation is both already in full sway and at the same time, the remaining things to be automated seem out of reach - not of the technologists, but of the leadership class. But we can't give the techies status enough to do it right :) It is also anything but clear that automation should displace labor necessarily, at least over a long enough time line. "Inflation is, everywhere, a monetary phenomenon." - Milton Friedman. I don't think that what Conservatives call "the destruction of the nuclear family" is the goal, but that the models in use don't work to keep Dad jobs available. The nuclear family will most likely evolve out anyway, because we can't even hit low (2%) Fed growth targets. At any rate, Dean Baker, "Rigged", yadda yadda.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791012 and marked it off-topic.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

As the paper I cite shows, what changed is that women are entering the workforce and finding better jobs than men. I think we are saying the same thing.

ryanmarsh 10y ago
I follow you. I take issue with "Female hypergamy is probably the real issue here.". That strategy isn't the problem. It's a constant in the equation. As far as men are concerned it might as well be Planck's constant. From a purely biological approach you should be more concerned about things that give the opposite sex a more competitive edge not declare that they should cease to be competitive.
- dgudkov 10y ago
  The stability of the strategy can be the problem. If the strategy assumes increased attractiveness of males with higher relative income, then the higher the female income becomes the fewer men fall into the higher relative income category which boosts hypergamy even more. Therefore a constant hypergamy strategy coupled with growing female income lead to increasingly less effective dating market for both male and female sides of it. To resolve the problem either the female income should decrease (which women don't want to do), or the strategy should change (which women can't do). Otherwise we're heading into a fundamental social crisis.
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    Oh people are going to be unhappy that's for sure. I'm looking forward to the day when progressive minded people decide they liked things better the old fashioned way.
  - nyargh 10y ago
    Only works if you don't treat women like chattel and remove the financial disincentive to end abusive relationships. Enter MRA crybabies re: alimony, child support, etc.
    - ryanmarsh 10y ago
      You obviously are not a divorced male with children. The alimony and child support laws were laid down in an era where there was an almost insurmountable financial disincentive to leave an abusive relationship. Therefore the courts purposefully favor the woman. Divorce is unfair by design. However circumstances have changed so men have some right to complain now. Two things could change this, the advent of male birth control, and men realizing that legal marriage is an unfair contract. The former would give men outsized control over when to have a baby and that choice can be made without signaling intent (less obvious than a condom). This is the advantage a woman has now. She can choose when to have a baby without signaling intent, and can even change her mind after the fact. The latter gives a man no reason to marry a woman much less the beloved mother of his children except to appease her nagging. As female agency increases males will be less and less willing to risk the exposure of legal marriage and children when they will be left footing the bill. A hypergamous wife (AWALT) with equal or more agency than you is a risky proposition.
      - sanderjd 10y ago
        Sorry for the meta-comment, but just in case you're interested: I think all the jargon used in this thread is unhelpful to your argument. That I've read this whole thread and still can't quite figure out what "hypergamy" is from context, or exactly how it is "the real problem" signals to me that I'm an outsider of whatever community it is that talks casually about this stuff in these terms. That's probably fine if you're just trying to preach to your choir, but if you would rather not be ignored by someone like me looking in on an unfamiliar situation with curiosity, it isn't very effective.
- blackbagboys 10y ago
  That wouldn't allow him to blame women, though.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I didn't declare that anyone should cease to be competitive. I simply pointed out that the proximate cause of the problem is a decrease relative to women, not any absolute decrease in position as the parent post claimed.

idiot_stick 10y ago

>Female employment is the result of central bankers targeting full employment, which lead to inflation 1. Your citation says: "It follows that if the government intervention aims at achieving full employment but stops short of increasing effective demand over the full employment mark, there is no need to be afraid of inflation." 2. Inflation levels were through the roof long before the Fed Reserve Act established full employment as a mandate.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

I dunno. I think that at least globalization - as in the easily agreed on definition of globalization - is declining. After all, the various China seas seem to be becoming a Chinese lake, if we can project the construction of sand islands some. Automation is both already in full sway and at the same time, the remaining things to be automated seem out of reach - not of the technologists, but of the leadership class. But we can't give the techies status enough to do it right :) It is also anything but clear that automation should displace labor necessarily, at least over a long enough time line. "Inflation is, everywhere, a monetary phenomenon." - Milton Friedman. I don't think that what Conservatives call "the destruction of the nuclear family" is the goal, but that the models in use don't work to keep Dad jobs available. The nuclear family will most likely evolve out anyway, because we can't even hit low (2%) Fed growth targets. At any rate, Dean Baker, "Rigged", yadda yadda.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791012 and marked it off-topic.