Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Independent Women

Howiestern

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
2,871
Reaction score
2,851
Age
44
Here’s the list transformed for a DEPENDENT WOMAN:

1.Things will go fast. (She can’t control her emotions, ends up doing things she will later regret). She’ll use sechs for love every time.
2.She will tell you ever thing about her day. (Puke, I don’t really care).
3.She won’t be able to do anything with out you she is so dependent. (Geez I have a life too, she should to).
4.She’ll lay down and defer to you all the time. (Screams low self esteem, weakness).
5.She’ll want to be in your space all the time.
6.na
7.She’ll let you in right away. She wants to be validated. She has an agenda that you don’t know about yet.
8.na
9.She’ll be indirect(hiding motive, keeps you wondering what she is after).
10.na
11.She is super interested. (because she has nothing else going on in her life).
12.na
13.she’s scared(will use you for strength to feel better about herself).
14. She’ll be passionate(to try and win you over because she is after something)
15. na
16. she’ll be unforgettable(you will remember her for her crazy ways)

You want to talk about red flags? I see far more with this type.

I’ll bet that most of your cluster B’s are dependent personalities!
 
Last edited:

ubercat

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,494
Reaction score
2,029
Location
Australia
Reminds me of the Billy Joel lyric
" I don't need clever conversation... I never want to try that hard".
 

Augustus_McCrae

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
866
Reaction score
921
The 16 bullet points independent girl list sounds like a pain in the azz.

-Augustus-
 

Roober

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
2,052
The 16 bullet points independent girl list sounds like a pain in the azz.

-Augustus-
Definitely requires patience... and it's their arrogance and unwillingness to change which will likely cause them to end up alone. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 

image

"If you love women, you must read the SoSuave Guide to Women. It's fantastic!"

sodbuster

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
2,580
Reaction score
367
Age
61
Location
South Dakota
well young lady @BeExcellent, you've already won that one. This site doesn't update ages and I don't care enough to update my age. I'm 57..... if you can shut it down at 50, you win. I guess I COULD retire, if I wanted to live on 25k a year. Doesn't appeal to me. In 2 years, I'll be out of debt, and hopefully out of a land deal that will free up cash to put into something with a higher velocity....
 

BeExcellent

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
4,118
Age
51
Well @sodbuster touche. Hope the land deal works out well. I know how it can be to get momentum going & wish you all the best!
 

BeExcellent

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
4,118
Age
51
The assumptions projections and insults tossed around by certain people who shall remain unnamed are on display for anyone to read.

They have utterly no bearing or truth in my life and writing them here doesn't change that.

It merely displays the perspective of that individual, and the deep investment in a rigidly binary belief that is threatened by a differing opinion and an alternate truth.

Life is fluid, dynamic; all behaviors occur on a continuum. One's perspective is colored by one's place on the continuum.
 

SkrooU

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
245
Reaction score
162
Age
82
OK back to the questions posed by @Augustus_McCrae

Over time and through 2 more children the relationship became more and more toxic because he didn't like being a house husband and I didn't like being the breadwinner, but I was not going to quit because he wasn't prepared to carry the financial burdens of the family. So I was resentful and losing more and more respect for him. Looking back we should have hired childcare and my ex should never have exited the workforce.
It is very clear from your words that a man's resources are important to you. Now, is it the most important to you? No. And I never said it was. Nor did I say that all women are the same when it comes to resources. You have some insightful posts and are obviously passionate about what you write since it is descriptive, detailed, etc. And that is respectable, as is your success in business and other life endeavors. But you're just not being honest when you make bold statements claiming that a man's resources are not important to you. There is nothing wrong with you having a standard about a man's resources. There is obviously a threshold for you. It appears that you, like most women, prefer your man to earn at least as much or close to what you earn. So why not just say something along those lines?
 

BeExcellent

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
4,118
Age
51
There is obviously a threshold for you. It appears that you, like most women, prefer your man to earn at least as much or close to what you earn.
Perhaps what we have here is difference in definition. I define "resources" as financial means. That is all.

If you or others define "resources" by other criteria then it gets muddy. If resources to you or others means someone of my equivalent caliber then yes it's important. But that is not how most of the threads refer to "resources" or there would be equivalent definitions for women providing resources and provisions for a man...and there aren't.

There IS a threshold for a man's level of success and accomplishment in order for him to merit my time (which is valuable).
For my own requirements in a relationship I've been clear about this on many occasions.

Where I make a distinction is about need. I do not "need" a man for his resources because I have my own financial abilities and means and I DO NOT expect a man to spend a dime on myself or my children for education, healthcare, wardrobe, food, private school, etc. I have my bases covered.

I find men love this about me.

What I do expect is for a man to have an equivalent level or accomplishment or higher (so I can relate to him and respect him as the leader of me personally were I to get into a relationship.) I have also said that if he is more accomplished that is great because I can then learn from him, learn from his life experience - I think that would be cool.

Having come from a situation where I had to be the leader, the decision maker and breadwinner for the family for more than 10 years (because the man did not/could not fill his leadership role) I can tell you the upside down dynamic lead to the demise of my marriage. Unfortunate but that's what happened.

I love my ex husband and I always will. I just know he is not cut out to lead me - I am 20 years ahead of him in the personal development process even though he is older than I. Because of that I am dismissive of many things he says because I have more experience and ambition, as well as more success and self discipline. I do not have a nickel worth of quit within me, because had *I* quit - everything would have come crashing down.

He had the luxury to be lazy because I was unwilling to let things fail. After a while I got angry about the laziness, just as many men here have dealt with lazy wives. I was simply lucky in the outcome. My ex acknowledged he hadn't pulled his weight so I didn't get hit with a ton of bricks in court.

Most of the discussion here at SS that goes on about women seeking "resources" comes from a place of men not wanting to have to be financially responsible for another adult. From fear of the many women seeking a man to take care of them and their children, from a place of women seeking a man (and trading off sex even) to provide for them financially. That is an entirely different thing than my own personal situation.

No man is ever going to have to be financially responsible for me or mine. And I am not going to get into a spot where I ever have to be responsible for a man (like I was with my ex husband - and continue to be, frankly) ever again. So you bet your right arm any man I date better have his sh!t together or he will not get the time of day from me as far as dating goes.

That is NOT resource seeking for the NEED of resources or provisioning etc. etc. the way men here toss it around.

So no, I don't need resources in the way most of the guys here keep thinking/saying/trying to infer I do. I don't. End of story.

I mean if anything I am going to have a gnarly pre-nump to protect MY assets if I ever were to re-marry...but even gnarly pre-numps can get set aside. So I'd rather not get remarried. The financial risk to me is far too great. That makes me essentially resource independent. I can't for the life of me figure out why that is so hard to comprehend...unless one has drunk the kool-aid to the point where one's viewpoint is completely inflexible.

I have the freedom to select a man based on sex appeal, attractiveness and intellect if he is within my peer group. I expect to select from a group of men who are at least equivalent to my level of accomplishment in life. I have worked very hard and sacrificed to be where I am. If someone I date isn't in the same league as me they are never going to understand me and I am never going to understand them.

Water seeks its own level. My stance is that I have no desire to remarry or enter any legally binding domestic contract with a man ever again. Therefore I am NOT resource seeking.

In fact I do not operate from a "need" based platform at all. If I happen to meet a man who ticks the boxes, that is great, but that is gravy. As I've said before I love me and I love my life and I have a lot to offer. So I maintain the stance that I am NOT resource seeking.

Which makes me independent by definition, and coming at male/female dynamics from a different perspective than many/most women. So if that doesn't compute to some, its fine. None of this affects my own personal life or truth. I share here so men have the benefit of a viewpoint they may not see very often.
 
Last edited:

BeTheChange

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 28, 2015
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
1,137
Okay, time to get real. You are divorced for fvck sake.

Reading your posts is like reading a fairy tale.

Your particular idea of an 'independent woman' is a prude, low-interest woman filtering hard for a provider. And you think men should accept that frame...why?

Because it suits your needs.

@BeTheChange is 100% right. Your frame is that women are the prize. That these women are somehow 'rare'. And yet I have gamed 3 of them in the last 4 months. You are chatting nonsense, because you have no experience.

If you want to catch a fish, ask the fisherman - not the fish.
Divorced and nearing fifty. Sorry, but if we're being honest, most would agree that those two criterias alone disqualify the vast majority of women from being considered "high quality".

I think BE means well but you're bang on here. A lot of her comments in this thread have been questionable at best. I can almost hear a Beyonce soundtrack in there somewhere.

Most older, accomplished men with any semblance of game are not going after the Hillary Clintons of the world. They are banging their daughters instead.

There used to be this understanding that as far as dating is concerned female advice to men should be taken with a grain of salt. Alas, such advice seems to have been forgotten in this new generation of sosuavers.
 
Last edited:

Howiestern

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
2,871
Reaction score
2,851
Age
44
I’ve always seen this forum as an exchange of thoughts/opinions/ideas/advice and tried my best to appreciate viewpoints different than mine even though I might not have agreed with them. What makes this forum so great are the various perspectives that get shared. There is no need to belittle someone because they see something different than you. Use it as an opportunity to open your eyes and learn. There is always more than one way to accomplish any given goal. There is no one size fits all. What works in your 20’s may or may not work in your 30’s or 40’s. And what YOU want from the opposite sechs will change as you go thru life. The requirements to achieve what you are looking for may also change.

Getting upset and putting someone down because they don’t agree with you shows a lack of personal growth, emotional control, and maturity. But keep rolling thru life that way and see how far you get.

@BeExcellent simply offers her perspective. Take it or leave it. If you are in your 20’s or 30’s you likely won’t relate to her. She isn’t afraid to share her story and expose herself knowing beforehand that she is a likely target. She stays confident,cool, keeps her emotions in check. She answers whatever questions come her way. That’s more alpha than most men on here. She never feels the need to put anybody down. She’s a professional in every aspect. I have no doubt by the way she conducts herself that she is successful at whatever she puts her mind to and I can totally relate to why she wants the man she does and it has nothing to do with her acquiring his $$$$$. It’s the same reason I started this thread about strong/independent women. Put her down all you want, but that woman is strong enough to get whatever the hell she wants and will find a man that isn’t intimidated by her strength and accomplishments. She’s not one to settle.
 

Tenacity

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
4,005
Reaction score
2,207
Divorced and nearing fifty. Sorry, but if we're being honest, most would agree that those two criterias alone disqualify the vast majority of women from being considered "high quality".
I wonder who the "MOST" are that BeTheChange is referring to? Perhaps in his mind, "MOST" people in society represent the one-dimensional, anonymous, toxic, bitter, Manosphere guys on this forum who sit around all day talking about how they are going their own way.....yet.....still can't seem to stop talking shyt about how bad women are every 5 seconds?

BeExcellent says she has either a 7 figure net worth or close to it, has a ton of professional experience in real estate along with other arenas, she looks pretty good for her age, and she's making SO MUCH MONEY that she can pay for not just her kids, but her mooching a.ss ex-husband.

But THIS woman is supposed "low quality"......while broke, lazy, fat, anonymous, toxic, bitter, Manosphere guys are high quality? Mind you these are the same guys who call Brad Pitt "beta male", while calling themselves the Ultra Alpha-Male. Somebody please make THAT make sense.


I think BE means well but you're bang on here.
On HERE she might be "bang"........but this is a fvcking mental hospital. So any SANE person would be BANG in a room full of insane, extreme, one-dimensional, anonymous, bitter, "dudes".

I personally take it as a badge of honor to be so hated on here by you extreme fvck-tards lol, that means I must be a decent, stand-up, honest, individual. It's like being a Conservative, you know you are a fvcking Conservative when most Liberals hate you lol.

There used to be this understanding that as far as dating is concerned female advice to men should be taken with a grain of salt.
I am not going to dispute whether or not the world is round with women and white-knights. A thankless task.
Look how WEAK these guys arguments are? They can't refute the individual points and arguments that are presented, so instead....like any typical religious cult worshipper....they just call the person the equivalent of "the devil" to discredit their "character".

Because make no bones about it, these "names" that they call folks who disagree with them...like beta male, beta fag.got, white knights, etc., those are just tactics used to TRY to discredit the messenger because they can't discredit the message.

BeExcellent has more LIFE experience in her left pinky toe, then both of you anonymous, one-dimensional, extreme, FAKE-MGTOW chest thumpers have in your entire body. In addition, BeExcellent has a higher NET WORTH than both of you COMBINED X 3.

I think if any sane, rational, and logicaI person wanted to get any type of life advice, they would rather listen to BeExcellent than Beavis and Butt-Head.:up:
 

SkrooU

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
245
Reaction score
162
Age
82
Perhaps what we have here is difference in definition. I define "resources" as financial means. That is all.

If you or others define "resources" by other criteria then it gets muddy. If resources to you or others means someone of my equivalent caliber then yes it's important. But that is not how most of the threads refer to "resources" or there would be equivalent definitions for women providing resources and provisions for a man...and there aren't.

There IS a threshold for a man's level of success and accomplishment in order for him to merit my time (which is valuable).
For my own requirements in a relationship I've been clear about this on many occasions.

Where I make a distinction is about need. I do not "need" a man for his resources because I have my own financial abilities and means and I DO NOT expect a man to spend a dime on myself or my children for education, healthcare, wardrobe, food, private school, etc. I have my bases covered.

I find men love this about me.

What I do expect is for a man to have an equivalent level or accomplishment or higher (so I can relate to him and respect him as the leader of me personally were I to get into a relationship.) I have also said that if he is more accomplished that is great because I can then learn from him, learn from his life experience - I think that would be cool.

Having come from a situation where I had to be the leader, the decision maker and breadwinner for the family for more than 10 years (because the man did not/could not fill his leadership role) I can tell you the upside down dynamic lead to the demise of my marriage. Unfortunate but that's what happened.

I love my ex husband and I always will. I just know he is not cut out to lead me - I am 20 years ahead of him in the personal development process even though he is older than I. Because of that I am dismissive of many things he says because I have more experience and ambition, as well as more success and self discipline. I do not have a nickel worth of quit within me, because had *I* quit - everything would have come crashing down.

He had the luxury to be lazy because I was unwilling to let things fail. After a while I got angry about the laziness, just as many men here have dealt with lazy wives. I was simply lucky in the outcome. My ex acknowledged he hadn't pulled his weight so I didn't get hit with a ton of bricks in court.

Most of the discussion here at SS that goes on about women seeking "resources" comes from a place of men not wanting to have to be financially responsible for another adult. From fear of the many women seeking a man to take care of them and their children, from a place of women seeking a man (and trading off sex even) to provide for them financially. That is an entirely different thing than my own personal situation.

No man is ever going to have to be financially responsible for me or mine. And I am not going to get into a spot where I ever have to be responsible for a man (like I was with my ex husband - and continue to be, frankly) ever again. So you bet your right arm any man I date better have his sh!t together or he will not get the time of day from me as far as dating goes.

That is NOT resource seeking for the NEED of resources or provisioning etc. etc. the way men here toss it around.

So no, I don't need resources in the way most of the guys here keep thinking/saying/trying to infer I do. I don't. End of story.

I mean if anything I am going to have a gnarly pre-nump to protect MY assets if I ever were to re-marry...but even gnarly pre-numps can get set aside. So I'd rather not get remarried. The financial risk to me is far too great. That makes me essentially resource independent. I can't for the life of me figure out why that is so hard to comprehend...unless one has drunk the kool-aid to the point where one's viewpoint is completely inflexible.

I have the freedom to select a man based on sex appeal, attractiveness and intellect if he is within my peer group. I expect to select from a group of men who are at least equivalent to my level of accomplishment in life. I have worked very hard and sacrificed to be where I am. If someone I date isn't in the same league as me they are never going to understand me and I am never going to understand them.

Water seeks its own level. My stance is that I have no desire to remarry or enter any legally binding domestic contract with a man ever again. Therefore I am NOT resource seeking.

In fact I do not operate from a "need" based platform at all. If I happen to meet a man who ticks the boxes, that is great, but that is gravy. As I've said before I love me and I love my life and I have a lot to offer. So I maintain the stance that I am NOT resource seeking.

Which makes me independent by definition, and coming at male/female dynamics from a different perspective than many/most women. So if that doesn't compute to some, its fine. None of this affects my own personal life or truth. I share here so men have the benefit of a viewpoint they may not see very often.
Yes, I was referring to money. Your posts basically reflect what I believe to be the modus operandi of most women -- it's hypergamy. You will only marry up, and you are attracted to men who have a frame that exudes leadership qualities. You may neither want nor need a man's financial resources, but you simultaneously do not respect a man who cannot fulfill the role of provider. Your posts make this very clear. I'm not going to pass any judgment on whether this is right or wrong. We all prioritize our values differently for different reasons.

I understand why you responded to the original poster. And the message you have been trying to give men is a good one - the one about seeking a path of personal growth and seeking women who do the same. Men should stay clear from women who just seek to extract money and sperm and emotional energy. A woman who has life goals and is successful on her own is much less likely to do that. However, the female brain is hardwired for hypergamy. Most men are going to fight an uphill battle when dating women who outearn them by a large margin. As you said, BeExcellent, water seeks its own level.
 

image

Put away your credit card.

You can now read our detailed guide to women and dating for free - Right Here!

guru1000

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
5,489
Reaction score
4,440
BE, good for you. You have a good head on your shoulders. If you're interested in partnering on any R/E deals in the tri-state area, shoot me a PM.
 

BeExcellent

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
4,118
Age
51
you are attracted to men who have a frame that exudes leadership qualities
This is true. However this is not "hypergamy". Hypergamy comes from the Indian caste system. A woman is hypergamic if she married up to a different caste level.

Let's discuss your belief system where you state you believe hypergamy to be a woman's modus operandi. I appreciate that your intent is not to pass judgement at all - it's just your belief system, I think the belief system is where some men struggle with a woman like myself.

Also, this is long. For that I apologize.


To apply that in a more broad sense, to say I'm hypergamic if I earn 200K and he earns 275K is honestly not true in the real sense of the word nor its original meaning. If I was a waitress marrying a millionaire then yes, I would agree on the hypergamy argument.

To marry someone who is my same level or same caliber or above empirically as far as income goes is not hypergamic if you are both in the same social class. Hypergamy is moving up the social class system. Kate Middleton (who I think is a lovely woman and a good feminine role model) is hypergamic by the definition of moving up in social class.

But to say that me expecting leadership qualities is hypergamic is just throwing a term at something where it doesn't fit.

Add to the mix that the natural order of things (from a reproductive standpoint, a Biblical standpoint, a historical standpoint) is that the man should be the leader of a marriage and that the woman should defer to and assist the man, and we have a dichotomy here that comes from application of the term "hypergamy" in too broad a sense. This creates a disconnect. That disconnect is as follows:

"Women are hypergamous...but many men don't want/fear/are suspect of a hypergamous woman."

"Women should defer so men can lead them (but note how a very broad definition of hypergamy interferes with this premise) and so a man must be capable of leading his particular woman."

Both lines of thought conclude that women are hypergamous; therefore women who seek a man's leadership are hypergamous.

It is a fixation on an overly broad definition (an inaccurate definition I would suggest) of the term hypergamy.

See how these two lines of thought compete and conflict with each other? This creates a cognitive dissonance on the forum that can be seen in various threads from time to time. It creates a level of distrust.

I think of it more like military rank. If I'm a 2 star general I might confer with other 2 star generals but I take orders from a 4 star general. That is the way of things. If I'm a major I take orders from either a 2 star general or a 4 star general. If I'm a 4 star general, I CONFER with other 4 star generals, I do NOT take orders from a major or a 2 star general, but I take orders from the commander in chief. One can rise in rank in the military and in life. As you rise in rank your place in the hierarchy changes and so do those whom you lead and those to whom you defer.

As to me, nevermind that I don't care about getting married, so hypergamy (marrying up in social class) as far as I am concerned personally doesn't apply, and second of all I am already moving in social circles that are at my caliber etc. so it's a red herring argument regarding me personally. I think some people, not necessarily @SkrooU use the term loosely and as a means to justify their own shortcomings in the sexual marketplace.

I mean the man I see currently was originally married into an extremely wealthy family of greater means than he has. And his own family was well off. Was he hypergamic? Was he opportunistic? I know another man who married a woman from a wealthy family who is unhappy sexually but he stays with his wife because to get divorced would remove many of his clients and business people and ruin his reputation. He is dependent in a way on his father-in-law. Is this hypergamic? Opportunistic?

We all know that people (not just women) are drawn toward money and power and influence. I've seen many men marry for (family) money. These men most often end up unhappy because they do not wield the power in the relationship, rather the wife or the wife's family (most typically the father-in-law) does. But in these cases the man sacrifices himself in a way for his children to be of the family and be legitimately from that class, or that family, or that money. Both the men I am thinking of knew the woman they were planning to marry wasn't the right match before the wedding. They got married anyway. Was that the right thing to do? I don't know.

The course this thread has taken is actually kind of interesting. The whole question is who are these women, how are they different from the generalized woman; how is their behavior different from the generalized behavioral framework men assume to be operationally true with regard to women? The generalizations men make here often do not apply to me or women like me. I represent a minority in the marketplace. Again this is the rationale behind the post at the outset, which is what everything comes back to. That is, who are women that are outliers from the paradigm many men; most men operate from?

The whole premise of this thread is that there is a part of the dating market that doesn't fall completely in line with how men expect women to behave in male/female relations and how to recognize and understand differences specific to this part and how to relate to this minority (who are generally more not less desirable as a group).

The problem is that some men have a rigid belief system for whatever reason and therefore have difficulty acknowledging any behavior beyond the generalizations. So rather than expand one's perspective, some men want to cram the outliers into a compartment where they don't go. Expand your thinking. Be fluid as @guru1000 always encourages men to do.
 
Last edited:

Tenacity

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
4,005
Reaction score
2,207
However this is not "hypergamy". Hypergamy comes from the Indian caste system. A woman is hypergamic if she married up to a different caste level.

To apply that in a more broad sense, to say I'm hypergamic if I earn 200K and he earns 275K is honestly not true in the real sense of the word nor its original meaning. If I was a waitress marrying a millionaire then yes, I would agree on the hypergamy argument.

To marry someone who is my same level or same caliber or above empirically as far as income goes is not hypergamic if you are both in the same social class. Hypergamy is moving up the social class system.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

This is the exact same argument I was trying to tell Poon King, BeTheChange, and the rest of their extreme "women are all X" group, and it's that they are literally changing the definition of hypergamy.

Check out these posts from my discussion with them. You would have to scroll through the bickering though. I just got tired of arguing back and forth with these dudes, but check out BeTheChange's response to me in the posts below and watch how he's LITERALLY changing the definition of hypergamy:

Post #174

Post #177
 

SkrooU

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
245
Reaction score
162
Age
82
This is true. However this is not "hypergamy". Hypergamy comes from the Indian caste system. A woman is hypergamic if she married up to a different caste level.

Let's discuss your belief system where you state you believe hypergamy to be a woman's modus operandi. I appreciate that your intent is not to pass judgement at all - it's just your belief system, I think the belief system is where some men struggle with a woman like myself.

Also, this is long. For that I apologize.


To apply that in a more broad sense, to say I'm hypergamic if I earn 200K and he earns 275K is honestly not true in the real sense of the word nor its original meaning. If I was a waitress marrying a millionaire then yes, I would agree on the hypergamy argument.

To marry someone who is my same level or same caliber or above empirically as far as income goes is not hypergamic if you are both in the same social class. Hypergamy is moving up the social class system. Kate Middleton (who I think is a lovely woman and a good feminine role model) is hypergamic by the definition of moving up in social class.

But to say that me expecting leadership qualities is hypergamic is just throwing a term at something where it doesn't fit.

Add to the mix that the natural order of things (from a reproductive standpoint, a Biblical standpoint, a historical standpoint) is that the man should be the leader of a marriage and that the woman should defer to and assist the man, and we have a dichotomy here that comes from application of the term "hypergamy" in too broad a sense. This creates a disconnect. That disconnect is as follows:

"Women are hypergamous...but many men don't want/fear/are suspect of a hypergamous woman."

"Women should defer so men can lead them (but note how a very broad definition of hypergamy interferes with this premise) and so a man must be capable of leading his particular woman."

Both lines of thought conclude that women are hypergamous; therefore women who seek a man's leadership are hypergamous.

It is a fixation on an overly broad definition (an inaccurate definition I would suggest) of the term hypergamy.

See how these two lines of thought compete and conflict with each other? This creates a cognitive dissonance on the forum that can be seen in various threads from time to time. It creates a level of distrust.

I think of it more like military rank. If I'm a 2 star general I might confer with other 2 star generals but I take orders from a 4 star general. That is the way of things. If I'm a major I take orders from either a 2 star general or a 4 star general. If I'm a 4 star general, I CONFER with other 4 star generals, I do NOT take orders from a major or a 2 star general, but I take orders from the commander in chief. One can rise in rank in the military and in life. As you rise in rank your place in the hierarchy changes and so do those whom you lead and those to whom you defer.

As to me, nevermind that I don't care about getting married, so hypergamy (marrying up in social class) as far as I am concerned personally doesn't apply, and second of all I am already moving in social circles that are at my caliber etc. so it's a red herring argument regarding me personally. I think some people, not necessarily @SkrooU use the term loosely and as a means to justify their own shortcomings in the sexual marketplace.

I mean the man I see currently was originally married into an extremely wealthy family of greater means than he has. And his own family was well off. Was he hypergamic? Was he opportunistic? I know another man who married a woman from a wealthy family who is unhappy sexually but he stays with his wife because to get divorced would remove many of his clients and business people and ruin his reputation. He is dependent in a way on his father-in-law. Is this hypergamic? Opportunistic?

We all know that people (not just women) are drawn toward money and power and influence. I've seen many men marry for (family) money. These men most often end up unhappy because they do not wield the power in the relationship, rather the wife or the wife's family (most typically the father-in-law) does. But in these cases the man sacrifices himself in a way for his children to be of the family and be legitimately from that class, or that family, or that money. Both the men I am thinking of knew the woman they were planning to marry wasn't the right match before the wedding. They got married anyway. Was that the right thing to do? I don't know.

The course this thread has taken is actually kind of interesting. The whole question is who are these women, how are they different from the generalized woman; how is their behavior different from the generalized behavioral framework men assume to be operationally true with regard to women? The generalizations men make here often do not apply to me or women like me. I represent a minority in the marketplace. Again this is the rationale behind the post at the outset, which is what everything comes back to. That is, who are women that are outliers from the paradigm many men; most men operate from?

The whole premise of this thread is that there is a part of the dating market that doesn't fall completely in line with how men expect women to behave in male/female relations and how to recognize and understand differences specific to this part and how to relate to this minority (who are generally more not less desirable as a group).

The problem is that some men have a rigid belief system for whatever reason and therefore have difficulty acknowledging any behavior beyond the generalizations. So rather than expand one's perspective, some men want to cram the outliers into a compartment where they don't go. Expand your thinking. Be fluid as @guru1000 always encourages men to do.
Yes, many words on here are used loosely. I'm not going to get into specifics about where the term hypergamy came from and the Indian caste system and then force myself to apply it so strictly. Most men on here just use the term to explain the tendency for women to not get into relationships with men who they see as being "beneath them", whether it's social status or income. I don't mean to suggest that women are so shallow as to dump a man if he makes $75k/yr and she makes 80K/yr. You have said yourself that you don't want to get married and be responsible for another adult. And you don't want to be the breadwinner. I'm pretty sure that if you met a man you developed strong feelings for, and he was filthy rich, you'd have no problems marrying him. That was what I meant by saying you're hypergamous. But I highly doubt you would marry him strictly for his money. You are blessed to be in a situation where you can be as choosy as want to be, within limits, because you very self reliant. As for the leadership qualities you and other women seek, there is still a link to hypergamy in the context which I use the term. The reason I say this is because a man who leads is a better candidate for attaining power, wealth, and higher status. With these things, a woman feels more security. So we can say it's just a personality trait that women seek simply for attraction, but in actuality it's the reason for the attraction to that trait that makes it a hypergamous instinct. There is also just the general relief from not having to date the man who can't keep his life together and has no direction. As men, we too don't like the burden that comes with women who are like this.
 

Tenacity

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
4,005
Reaction score
2,207
Yes, many words on here are used loosely. I'm not going to get into specifics about where the term hypergamy came from and the Indian caste system and then force myself to apply it so strictly.
Well, let me ask you a question?

If the dictionary definition of a word states one specific, strict, meaning.....how is it that this word can be completely and utterly changed based on whomever is seeking to use the word for their own narrative?

For example, Black Lives Matter did this to the word "racism", where the dictionary definition of racism states that to be racist, it means you discriminate or are prejudice against another race of people because you believe your race is better. Basically, a black guy who hates a white guy because he's white, is racist. A white guy who hates a black guy because he's black, is racist.

But Black Lives Matter completely and utterly changed this definition because the narrative they want to push is that only white people are racist, and that black people can never be racist. Thus, to push this narrative, they have RE-DEFINED the definition of racism to be a group who has significant power/resources, and who has the power to hold down other groups. This new definition allows black people to be as racist as they can (based on the real definition) and get away with it.

Now I'm going to post you four links from Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, Webster, and Free Dictionary, all defining hypergamy based on the specific definition from the Indian culture.....which is the specific ACT of a woman dating, marrying, fvcking, etc. a man of a HIGHER SOCIAL CLASS than herself. Higher social class means the guy has more money, more power, and more influence than she does.

Hypergamy - Wikipedia

Hypergamy - Dictionary.com

Hypergamy - Webster

Hypergamy - Free Dictionary


Most men on here just use the term to explain the tendency for women to not get into relationships with men who they see as being "beneath them", whether it's social status or income.
Okay, but they are using the term inaccurately.

BeTheChange specifically, if you review the links I posted from the Poon King thread, he specifically stated that women choose men based on their own personal value judgment....whatever that might be...and that in and of itself is the practice of hypergamy.

That's what he said and that's what his MGTOW, extreme, "we all hate women", group of followers patted him on the back for saying.

But that definition is WRONG if we are going based on the traditional, dictionary, definition.

My theory is that most women are not practicing hypergamy (marrying or dating UP) because they want to either run the show so they date down deliberately, or in the case of black women where many times the black woman is making more money than most of the men she encounters....she dates down because she has no other choice.

I said in the Poon King thread and I will restate it here, the only women today still practicing hypergamy are predominately white women mainly in the upper middle to higher classes.
 
Top