Socioeconomic hypergamy relative to the woman - theory -

[Hoodie]

So I have this theory that hypergamy doesn't only work by men's status in relation to other men,
but also in relation to her.

Think about before 1960 when the nuclear family still existed, and women stayed loyal to their man for life.

If you look at the dynamic, the man was dominant to her and above her, despite him being of similar status to other men.

What I think mattered most is that he was above her and dominant to her.
That's what I believe ultimately attracts women, not just him being above other men, altho that might be a bonus, but not the main driver.

And look at the landscape today: Women are similar or above men in socioeconomic status.
Regardless of what game you pull on her, if she knows she's at the same level or even above you in socioeconomic status,
how can she respect you and "follow" you, if all she sees you as is some entertainer that's on her level?

Altho I agree you can't attract women by money alone, I think by sheer observation that you are higher than her socio economically (You're richer than her, stronger than her, have connections, confident, all that jazz), makes it so she subconsciously view you as above her and dominant to her.
And I think this is the key that matters the most.

So since we can't force women back to "the kitchen" so they are below us, which apparently is what they are attracted to, we all know this and have seen this, altho they say otherwise, their actions always confirm this.
Then it means that it's on us as men to outcompete women socioeconomically, which means that the only way out of this for us, is to get richer than them, stronger, everything.

They wanted or were forced to enter the workforce, due to economic reasons, this created a dynamic where they are equal to us socioeconomically, which turns them off, because they're only attracted to men that dominate and are above them, so it's on us to do what we have to do to rise above them socioeconomically and in strength. Which we know means that we have to go an alternative route in order to accomplish this.
Cause the normal route today leaves you on equal footing as women, and they're not attracted to that, by the looks of it.
(More and more being single, childless and resentful of men).


What do you guys think, does this theory make sense, considering what you've observed of women and the state of society right now?

 

[jhonny9546]

Your thread simply leads one to think that if a woman perceives you as "inferior" in some way, then she thinks she can do better.

Thinking she can do better can mean different things at different stages of her life, but very often it translates into monkeybranching, or rather, leaving a man for another man.

It doesn't seem like bad reasoning, and I follow the fact that I see LTR that have continued over time because the woman is afraid of losing something, while those that ended or lasted short were because the woman wasn't afraid of losing that something, which is valuable to her.

Now, whether that "something" is a factor of superior status, money, or jus related on how a man position himself to other men out there, I can't say, but it was certainly a characteristic that a specific man possessed, and one she found in no other.

What I perceived from the outside, from the outside, was always that a slightly arrogant, angry man was feared, while a calm, assertive one wasn't respected.
So the former's relationships tended to last a long time, while the latter got divorced in his 40s, or before.

Going back to the point: what and how women find that "something" relevant, and want to keep that for a long time, must be discussed

 

[Hoodie]

Your thread simply leads one to think that if a woman perceives you as "inferior" in some way, then she thinks she can do better.

Thinking she can do better can mean different things at different stages of her life, but very often it translates into monkeybranching, or rather, leaving a man for another man.

It doesn't seem like bad reasoning, and I follow the fact that I see LTR that have continued over time because the woman is afraid of losing something, while those that ended or lasted short were because the woman wasn't afraid of losing that something, which is valuable to her.

Now, whether that "something" is a factor of superior status, money, or jus related on how a man position himself to other men out there, I can't say, but it was certainly a characteristic that a specific man possessed, and one she found in no other.

What I perceived from the outside, from the outside, was always that a slightly arrogant, angry man was feared, while a calm, assertive one wasn't respected.
So the former's relationships tended to last a long time, while the latter got divorced in his 40s, or before.

Going back to the point: what and how women find that "something" relevant, and want to keep that for a long time, must be discussed

Regarding your reply, I think the unanswered question to why women stayed loyal before 1960: Was it because she was attracted to her man due to him being above her in status, or was it simply because she didn't have any other option than to be with him, regardless of attraction, due to not having a job she could rely on, instead of her man?

 

[Hoodie]

One big unanswered question here is this:
When women weren't forced to work, because her man could provide for her with one income per household, was she loyal and attracted to him, because he was above her socieconomically, dominant in relation to her. Or was she loyal simply because she had no job she could rely on and were therefore forced to be loyal regardless of whether she was attracted to him or not?

I.e:
Did she stay because she was attracted by the simple fact he was above her and dominant to her?
Or because she had no other means of survival, so necessity?

Cause if it's the second option, then this theory kind of falls apart, and being above her socioeconomically isn't enough to maintain longterm attraction.

And I'm not sure how we can confirm what option is the right one, or perhaps it's simply a combination of both.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out here in the broader picture of things is this:

If the majority of men find a way to rise above women socioeconomically, will the majority of men have women that are loyal to them?
Or would women still choose from the top 5% of those men, because they don't need to rely on men for survival (Due to having a job).

I guess I'm just trying to figure out what the future will look like. And if there's a solution to the situation we're currently in, that works on a societal level, or if we're just fked, and the majority of men will retreat into video games and what not when they realise their odds of being a top 5% becomes increasingly slim, and if this trajectory continues, what prevents women selecting only for the top 1% in the future or even 0.1%? If that's the only thing that's driving their selection?

 

[Manure Spherian]

Then it means that it's on us as men to outcompete women socioeconomically, which means that the only way out of this for us, is to get richer than them, stronger, everything.

An individual man can attract a woman similar or lower in status now. Most men cannot get rich. “Just be a corporate lawyer.” “Just be a surgeon.” “Start a business.”
Also what you discussed wasn’t a matter of only status, but enforced monogamy, NOT serial monogamy or pseudo polygamy, which is what we have now. In REAL monogamy women’s choices are limited to ONE man! That’s actually what strengthened men’s positions. Also family vetting.

 

[Hoodie]

An individual man can attract a woman similar or lower in status now. Most men cannot get rich.

Temporary attraction is one thing, but longterm attraction and loyalty is a whole nother ball game.
And the temporary attraction is more like entertainment for her, once it runs dry and another entertainer that's better comes along, she's gone.
Also the attributes that attracts her, are the same attributes that would make it easy for that man to climb the hierarchy.
If she realises that the odds of that happening are low, and you've accepted your place as below her status, her respect for you vanishes and she's gone.

 

[BaronOfHair]

@Hoodie "So since we can't force women back to "the kitchen" so they are below us..."

They've never been "forced" to do anything by us as a COLLECTIVE... Chicks are ultimately going to do what they want, just as they have no guarantee that we'll never cheat on them or become abusive in some way. Those who fail to make peace with there being no guarantees in life is in for a lifetime of misery

-This whole notion of hypergamy is a gross oversimplification... The wives of wimpy yet financially loaded yet geeky businessmen run off with tatted up ex-cons, who possess a virile edge, quite frequently

 

[Hoodie]

@Hoodie "So since we can't force women back to "the kitchen" so they are below us..."

They've never been "forced" to do anything by us as a COLLECTIVE... Chicks are ultimately going to do what they want. Any fella who fails to make peace with that is in for a lifetime of misery

-This whole notion of hypergamy is a gross oversimplification... The wives of wimpy yet financially loaded yet geeky businessmen run off with tatted up ex-cons, who possess a virile edge, quite frequently

They are forced to work, because the average man with an average salary today can't pay for his gf so that she doesn't need to work.
Women joined the work force mainly because they had to, because prices started rising, not because of feminism told them to.
And that's the exact moment the nuclear family disappeared. The nuclear family was based around a single income household. Not because of religion or traditional values.
But because the economic situation enabled the average man to pay for a whole family including his wife, with one income.

 

[BaronOfHair]

They are forced to work...

They don't HAVE to do that, any more than any of us HAVE to get out of bed in the morning. We all deliberately decide to do such things

 

[Hoodie]

They don't HAVE to do that, any more than any of us HAVE to get out of bed in the morning. We all deliberately decide to do such things

You know what I mean, for survival they have to do it.
Before 1960, they could survive without doing it, because the man's income covered her needs and their children.

 

[Hoodie]

@Hoodie "So since we can't force women back to "the kitchen" so they are below us..."

They've never been "forced" to do anything by us as a COLLECTIVE... Chicks are ultimately going to do what they want, just as they have no guarantee that we'll never cheat on them or become abusive in some way. Those who fail to make peace with there being no guarantees in life is in for a lifetime of misery

-This whole notion of hypergamy is a gross oversimplification... The wives of wimpy yet financially loaded yet geeky businessmen run off with tatted up ex-cons, who possess a virile edge, quite frequently

So what you suggest is that having a higher socioeconomic status in relation to her, doesn't really matter to women.
They are mostly attracted to men with higher status and potential in relation to other men and the attributes that comes with that?

 

[BaronOfHair]

You know what I mean, for survival they have to do it

No, they can lay in bed each morning, not get up and around, soil themselves, and eventually EMS would break down the door and haul them off to a psych ward. Where they'd get force fed by orderlies making less than minimum wage, UNTIL they start chowing down on that grub voluntairly and participating in treatment

No one HAS to do anything... We're all making choices

 

[RangerMIke]

It's not just women; all human beings are subject to Maslow's priority of need. In an uncivilized society, things like self-esteem and self-actualization take a back seat to survival, comfort, and minimal levels of happiness. We are always looking for things that make our life better.... whatever we believe that might be, dictated by our life experiences.

The only thing different between the genders is what generally average sane men, or women, have different needs. But no size fits everyone.

The best way to understand this is to do an honest self-assessment. For me, I am obsessed with my personal wealth... I spend every day tracking the daily value of my investments and property... I take this obsession to the next level by projecting what I believe my wealth and dividend will be two years out. This is a result of the fact that I watched my father struggle with money in his retirement years. My next obsession is my kids, this is mostly because my father struggled with money mostly because I had a dysfunctional brother that always needed his help. Anything that gets in the way of my money and kids takes a back seat. It is these two things that get in the way of any long-term relationship I might pursue.

Many women I date come with a ruck sack full of problems, financial mess... with kids that have a significant amount of emotional baggage. They are looking for a White Knight to save them and need more than I am willing to give.

Trying to figure out what motivates any woman you might date is harder than self-assessment, but not impossible if you open your eyes and pay attention to her behavior... then you have to have the balls to dump her if she demands more than you are willing and able to give.

We live in a society where basic needs are met, so what many look for is self-esteem and self-actualization. If the person you are with have these higher needs that runs in contrast to what you want... well... that isn't going to work long term.

 

[Hoodie]

No, they can lay in bed each morning, not get up and around, soil themselves, and eventually EMS would break down the door and haul them off to a psych ward. Where they'd get force fed by orderlies making less than minimum wage, UNTIL they start chowing down on that grub voluntairly and participating in treatment

No one HAS to do anything... We're all making choices

My proposition is what you have to do in order to have functioning life with what you want.

 

[BaronOfHair]

So what you suggest is that having a higher socioeconomic status in relation to her, doesn't really matter to women

I'm saying that "status" is more multidimensional and context dependent than we typically recognize. A first-rate software engineer ceases to be high statuus/Alpha/High Value, the moment he steps out of his office, no matter how much dough he's pulling down

 

[Hoodie]

I'm saying that "status" is more multidimensional and context dependent than we typically recognize. A first-rate software engineer ceases to be high statuus/Alpha/High Value, the moment he steps out of his office, no matter how much dough he's pulling down

I agree, and I don't think this is enough on it's own, but I do think it's important. Cause I just feel that women in general will look down on a man that makes less than her.
So personally I think it's necessary along with all other important attributes.
But honestly I have no idea where all this is going, currently it's a mess.
I feel everything is setting up for people to embracing technology instead of this mess, and what that would lead to? I don't know.
Artificial babies and stuff?

I feel like either things will collapse and women need to depend on men again.
Or because technology makes it so that doesn't happen, then we're entering into a very strange world, and this is just the beginning of it.

 

[BaronOfHair]

My proposition is what you have to do in order to have functioning life with what you want.

And I'm saying no one has to do anything... Folks standing on street corners, begging for change, are ultimately still "functioning". To your overall point though:

Having a few bucks in your pocket CAN, potentially, increase a fella's attractiveness... Not just to women, but EVERYONE. Our current POTUS appeals to his personality cult via regularly pointing out how much more money he allegedly possess, compared to his adversaries and critics

From the late 10s-today, we've been slapping the Latinate label "hypergamy" on that fact of life, then pretending there's much more to be said on this subject

 

[Manure Spherian]

And the temporary attraction is more like entertainment for her, once it runs dry and another entertainer that's better comes along, she's gone.

Then don't choose a woman like this.

And the temporary attraction is more like entertainment for her, once it runs dry and another entertainer that's better comes along, she's gone.

Yes. Roger Devlin calls this rotating polyandry. Rollo calls it monkey branching. Women in the West are "free" to do this now, even no-fault divorce a man and collect monetary support after she leaves him.

Also the attributes that attracts her, are the same attributes that would make it easy for that man to climb the hierarchy.
If she realises that the odds of that happening are low, and you've accepted your place as below her status, her respect for you vanishes and she's gone.

By this logic we should not be with women.

 

[Hoodie]

Then don't choose a woman like this.

Yes. Roger Devlin calls this rotating polyandry. Rollo calls it monkey branching. Women in the West are "free" to do this now, even no-fault divorce a man and collect monetary support after she leaves him.

By this logic we should not be with women.

I think what all this is point to is this simple fact:
What women and men desire, by necessity excludes the majority.

I also think that points to the fact that if everyone is to get what they want, only the virtual world, AI robots that become almost indistingishable from what's real, is the only way everyone can get what their biology desire.

And all the dysfunction and chaos we're witnessing right now, probably are just transitioning "pains" to that future.

Because think about it.

If women want the top guy, that's also exclusive to her or gives her drama, whatever, that ticks of her hypergamous box.

And men desire to be that top guy that all women want to be with and all men want to be.

That reality intrinsically entails others being below you.

The only way that's possible at scale, is through AI and maybe virtual things that becomes so good that it's indestinguishable from reality.

Cause otherwise, frustration is doomed to persist in a world where everyone wants something that by default requires other's not to get, for you to have it. For both men and women.

 

[Lauel]

They don't HAVE to do that, any more than any of us HAVE to get out of bed in the morning. We all deliberately decide to do such things

Not many understand this until they come out of feminist propaganda that: If not forced, or not alienated from the choice of working for family/being a housewife then women will choose it majority of the times than working out there. Being drafted in military without your consent, thrown in a war fighting for some big nose guys, or being worked to death in some manual labor field.

Similar reasoning I think was given by Feminists that women are forced to pick literature, sociology and house studies kind of subjects. Then you take a look at Nordic societies which are gender equal, or closest we can get to them, and these societies have women who out of freedom of choice still don't pick STEM field.