5 ms·

Hypergamy in women is driven at the sociological level by the gender differences themselves. That is, the more of an economic advantage men have over women, the

Hypergamy in women is driven at the sociological level by the gender differences themselves. That is, the more of an economic advantage men have over women, the more women tend to want to marry up. As the playing field levels, more empowered women are more willing to date lower class men. Which... makes sense. People take the easiest route available to them to improve their lives. Complaining about the current state of things is largely complaining that men are slowly losing their long standing advantage and privileged position. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612441004 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612441004 > No matter what you tell yourself, men and women compliment each other for a functional society, and we have disrupted that. > The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Society is different therefore society is a disaster. Got it.

Jerrrry 4y ago
> As the playing field levels, more empowered women are more willing to date lower class men. turns out, instinctual preferences may outpower the "free market", only time will tell. It isn't looking that way though - else we would see equalizing by now in partner selection. Instead, we have a more disproportionate amount of men being left partnerless, as is the problem the article, and many a census sentiment are leaning. >Complaining about the current state of things is largely complaining that men are slowly losing their long standing advantage and privileged position. >privileged just because a hierarchy exists doesn't mean it is advantageous to those on top. the more complex the hierarchy, the worse change is for those on top. But if you consider mindless drone office work to be empowering, then women would be more satisfied with their careers, which doesn't seem to be the case, "stereotypically"/statistically. It also just plays into the thesis that men are being displaced. In the current environment, men cannot replace women, but women can almost replace men. That turns our societal norms into predicaments.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > turns out, instinctual preferences may outpower the "free market", only time will tell. It isn't looking that way though - else we would see equalizing by now in partner selection. We do see this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421994/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421994/ in addition to my previous link which looks at multiple country at a single time. Women are marrying lower status men more and more frequently. > the more complex the hierarchy, the worse change is for those on top. Because they can fall to the level of an unattractive woman 50 years prior? ___ India is a terrible example of generalized outcomes. It has a large gender imbalance and this whole dowry bullshit.
  - Jerrrry 4y ago
    Thanks for the link, but it is specifically comparing _education_ levels, which has been strongly leaning towards more women, for various factors: such as, men are more interested in trades (partly economic, but also instinctual) and STEM, and most "education" now has been diluted to appeal to women; there are more creative, feminine studies now than 50 years ago. >> the more complex the hierarchy, the worse change is for those on top. >Because they can fall to the level of an unattractive woman 50 years prior? Yes. unattractive woman 50 years ago still had plenty of men to choose from - most men didn't procreate, although the levels weren't as drastic today. Now, unattractive men cannot convince the same ladies to "swing down", which is why there is an all time high of unchilded women at menopause age. >India is a terrible example of generalized outcomes. It has a large gender imbalance and this whole dowry bullshit. I want to agree, but, it _is_ the oldest civilization on the planet, and it is the in the most immediate dire population/ecologic/economic stress. I think something can be gleaned, and not placed at the hand of outdated cultural alone.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      > Thanks for the link, but it is specifically comparing _education_ levels, which has been strongly leaning towards more women, for various factors: such as, men are more interested in trades (partly economic, but also instinctual) and STEM, and most "education" now has been diluted to appeal to women; there are more creative, feminine studies now than 50 years ago. The study is illustrating the groups in which women broadly have more educational attainment than men, women are more likely to marry down. Including highlighting several subgroups where the majority of women are marrying down, and thus implying that the majority of men are marrying up. Your arguments here try to diminish the meaningfulness of this metric. Which I think is dumb because it's clearly at least a good proxy measurement for women gaining some form of social power, but suppose you were correct and it's a meaningless metric. Then what's driving the high prevalence of women marrying down? Because they are. This is observed data. Women in these groups are marrying down. The idea that hypergamy is instinctive female behavior does not hold up to scrutiny against sociological studies.
      - 4y ago
P_I_Staker 4y ago
> "Complaining about the current state of things is largely complaining that men are slowly losing their long standing advantage and privileged position." This may be a popular talking point, but there's more to it than that. Mainly men can't assume the role of caretaker and gain the same level of respect and protection that housewives get; at least that's the perception, but while it may be exaggerated, there seems to be some truth in this. Also, the fact that men and women just tend to look for different things in a partner. I agree that some of this "displacement" OP mentioned is exactly what you're talking about, but there's more to it than that. In addition to men not feeling comfortable being caretakers, women tend to prefer men that make more. Men don't care, or can even prefer women that make less than them. I don't agree with OP and think he's been a bit reductionist, btw. It seems that people always jump to say we've just evened the playing field, but it's never going to be even if men and women want different things, and behave drastically differently.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  It'll change. The nuclear family is a recent sociological invention. Hardly a human standard.
  - Jerrrry 4y ago
    >recent heavy lifting there. Tribal polyamorous families were good when we gathered and hunted. With the rise of agriculture and population density, came familial norms that were better accommodating to all the members of the society, namely women, who would fight over partner selection, to enforce monogamy, which is better....for the children, it turns out.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      The nuclear family is a post agriculture invention. The norm for farming families, which were the majority of families for the past thousand or so years, was to have your whole family in one house, with grandparents doing most of the child watching. The nuclear family only became normative in the 50's in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family

Jerrrry 4y ago

> As the playing field levels, more empowered women are more willing to date lower class men. turns out, instinctual preferences may outpower the "free market", only time will tell. It isn't looking that way though - else we would see equalizing by now in partner selection. Instead, we have a more disproportionate amount of men being left partnerless, as is the problem the article, and many a census sentiment are leaning. >Complaining about the current state of things is largely complaining that men are slowly losing their long standing advantage and privileged position. >privileged just because a hierarchy exists doesn't mean it is advantageous to those on top. the more complex the hierarchy, the worse change is for those on top. But if you consider mindless drone office work to be empowering, then women would be more satisfied with their careers, which doesn't seem to be the case, "stereotypically"/statistically. It also just plays into the thesis that men are being displaced. In the current environment, men cannot replace women, but women can almost replace men. That turns our societal norms into predicaments.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> turns out, instinctual preferences may outpower the "free market", only time will tell. It isn't looking that way though - else we would see equalizing by now in partner selection. We do see this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421994/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421994/ in addition to my previous link which looks at multiple country at a single time. Women are marrying lower status men more and more frequently. > the more complex the hierarchy, the worse change is for those on top. Because they can fall to the level of an unattractive woman 50 years prior? ___ India is a terrible example of generalized outcomes. It has a large gender imbalance and this whole dowry bullshit.
- Jerrrry 4y ago
  Thanks for the link, but it is specifically comparing _education_ levels, which has been strongly leaning towards more women, for various factors: such as, men are more interested in trades (partly economic, but also instinctual) and STEM, and most "education" now has been diluted to appeal to women; there are more creative, feminine studies now than 50 years ago. >> the more complex the hierarchy, the worse change is for those on top. >Because they can fall to the level of an unattractive woman 50 years prior? Yes. unattractive woman 50 years ago still had plenty of men to choose from - most men didn't procreate, although the levels weren't as drastic today. Now, unattractive men cannot convince the same ladies to "swing down", which is why there is an all time high of unchilded women at menopause age. >India is a terrible example of generalized outcomes. It has a large gender imbalance and this whole dowry bullshit. I want to agree, but, it _is_ the oldest civilization on the planet, and it is the in the most immediate dire population/ecologic/economic stress. I think something can be gleaned, and not placed at the hand of outdated cultural alone.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    > Thanks for the link, but it is specifically comparing _education_ levels, which has been strongly leaning towards more women, for various factors: such as, men are more interested in trades (partly economic, but also instinctual) and STEM, and most "education" now has been diluted to appeal to women; there are more creative, feminine studies now than 50 years ago. The study is illustrating the groups in which women broadly have more educational attainment than men, women are more likely to marry down. Including highlighting several subgroups where the majority of women are marrying down, and thus implying that the majority of men are marrying up. Your arguments here try to diminish the meaningfulness of this metric. Which I think is dumb because it's clearly at least a good proxy measurement for women gaining some form of social power, but suppose you were correct and it's a meaningless metric. Then what's driving the high prevalence of women marrying down? Because they are. This is observed data. Women in these groups are marrying down. The idea that hypergamy is instinctive female behavior does not hold up to scrutiny against sociological studies.
    - 4y ago

P_I_Staker 4y ago

> "Complaining about the current state of things is largely complaining that men are slowly losing their long standing advantage and privileged position." This may be a popular talking point, but there's more to it than that. Mainly men can't assume the role of caretaker and gain the same level of respect and protection that housewives get; at least that's the perception, but while it may be exaggerated, there seems to be some truth in this. Also, the fact that men and women just tend to look for different things in a partner. I agree that some of this "displacement" OP mentioned is exactly what you're talking about, but there's more to it than that. In addition to men not feeling comfortable being caretakers, women tend to prefer men that make more. Men don't care, or can even prefer women that make less than them. I don't agree with OP and think he's been a bit reductionist, btw. It seems that people always jump to say we've just evened the playing field, but it's never going to be even if men and women want different things, and behave drastically differently.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
It'll change. The nuclear family is a recent sociological invention. Hardly a human standard.
- Jerrrry 4y ago
  >recent heavy lifting there. Tribal polyamorous families were good when we gathered and hunted. With the rise of agriculture and population density, came familial norms that were better accommodating to all the members of the society, namely women, who would fight over partner selection, to enforce monogamy, which is better....for the children, it turns out.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    The nuclear family is a post agriculture invention. The norm for farming families, which were the majority of families for the past thousand or so years, was to have your whole family in one house, with grandparents doing most of the child watching. The nuclear family only became normative in the 50's in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family