A new book on the increasing earning power of women in America provides a rather startling statistic. The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners is Transforming Sex, Love, and Family by Washington Post writer Liza Mundy promises:
Within a generation, more households will be supported by women than by men. In The Richer Sex, Liza Mundy takes us to the exciting frontier of this new economic order: she shows us why this flip is inevitable, what painful adjustments will have to be made along the way, and how both men and women will feel surprisingly liberated in the end.
According to the 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, nearly 40% of working wives outearn their husbands. That figure has been rising one percentage point every year since 1987. Mundy predicts that by 2025, more than half the primary breadwinners in America will be female. Here’s how Mundy believes that will look:
Women will have the bargaining power they need to usher in a new age of fairness, complete the revolution, and push us past the unhappy days of the so-called second shift, when so many men and women were mired in arguments over equity that always seemed to boil down to laundry and dishes.
[Men] will craft a broader definition of masculinity, one that includes domestication but also more time spent on manly pursuits: hunting, fishing, and extreme fitness. Women will come to accept the “breadwoman role” and choose spouses who exhibit “supportiveness (a glass of wine waiting at the end of the day, a chance to unburden), parenting skills, and domestic achievements.
Apparently, Mundy describes the cheerful male helpmeet greeting his frazzled wife with a glass of wine at the end of the day at least half a dozen times in the book. It sounds more like Mad Men in reverse than a plausible scenario for American married couples. I also find the reference to manly pursuits extremely patronizing and hypocritical – is this the enlightened version of the 1950s sewing circle?
For some time I’ve been writing about the ascent of the American female. 20-something women earn 117% what their male peers earn. 60% of college students are female. We finally have no choice but to confront the reality that has been decades in the making:
Feminism ushered in new opportunities for women at the expense of men.
That’s not a judgment, just a simple statement of fact. The pie didn’t get bigger, we’re just divvying it up differently, and women are getting the biggest share. In my view this reflects several key influences during the past 40 years:
- Affirmative Action programs for women in education and the workplace.
- Education reforms that favor female learning styles and behavior.
- A shaming of masculinity, forcing men to examine their changing role in society.
- The economy’s move away from sectors that primarily employ males, towards sectors that either favor females or are indifferent to gender.
A shift in power was inevitable. The economy did not expand as much as the size of the workforce did. I distinctly recall hearing an episode of Talk of the Nation on NPR back in September of 2010. The guests were Hanna Rosin, who had written The End of Men for Atlantic Magazine, and Guy Garcia, author of The Decline of Men.
Rosin’s position was clear. Her position was essentially that men are going to have to suck it up and get used to being the lesser sex.
The economy is becoming more amenable to women than it is to men, mostly because women are better educated and because the jobs that are growing are jobs that women tend to do…Another recent interesting study showed that women under 30 are – in 147 out of 150 cities – making more money than men under 30, and that is really amazing.
It does not seem like there’s any way back. Statistics about men doing more housework, doing more childcare – they still don’t do nearly as much as women – but that really is the plus side.
…I mean, the darker side is the kind of frustrated masculinity and men who end up in a situation with no outlet, no job, no identity to cling to. The positive way out, and I think the Time magazine story talked about this a little bit, is if you can somehow embrace the new role, which is slightly more equal, and not be threatened by it, then that’s the best possible solution.
Garcia accurately realized that men were not about to enthusiastically embrace opportunities as nursery school teachers:
So these trends are accelerating very quickly, and definitely what we’re seeing is what I call a fragmentation of male identity. Guys are not really sure who they’re supposed to be…Men’s incomes have been shrinking while women’s and other groups’ have been growing.
And meanwhile…the fact is, guys are still expected in some way to be the patriarch. They still feel bad if they can’t support a family.
…I don’t think society has even come close to saying, well, gee, if women are going to take over the roles that men used to have, now guys are free to be flight attendants and nurses and housewives – isn’t that great, guys? Well, you know, nine out of 10 guys are not so thrilled about that.
And I’ve talked to women who said, well, of course, why would they be happy? Those are the jobs we’re happy to escape now. So it’s not like, you know, trading apples for apples here. It’s really kind of a switching of roles, and nobody knows where it’s going.
Today, Mundy is predicting a new era of undisputed female supremacy, but I think she’s wrong about what women want, and what they’ll be willing to settle for in marriage. Generation Y women show no enthusiasm for embracing the “breadwoman” role:
Research by the Families and Work Institute found that 50% of Gen Y (men and women) place higher priority on family than work, 37% place the same priority on their work and family, and only 13% place higher priority on work than their family.
Writing last month in the Wall St. Journal, James Taranto called out Stephanie Coontz for similarly denying the very real factor of female hypergamy:
Most important, the problem that female education poses to marriage is a product of female, not male, mate preference–of what Coontz calls “the cultural ideal of hypergamy–that women must marry up.”
That is where Coontz goes badly wrong. Any evolutionary psychologist will tell you that female hypergamy–more broadly defined as the drive to mate with dominant males–is an animal instinct, not a product of human culture, which can only restrain or direct it.
Yesterday popular blogger and economist Tyler Cowen linked to the book and cited a European study that declares “the end of hypergamy is near.” It should be noted that the study looked at the willingness of women to marry men with less education than themselves, reflecting the usual academic definition of hypergamy. Cowen acknowledges this won’t satisfy “extreme hypergamy theorists” (heh).
According to our results, if current trends in education are to continue the end of hypergamy is near. This unprecedented scenario demonstrates the important implications that women’s education may have for the erosion of traditional patterns in assortative mating.
A second hypergamy study conducted by an economist at the University of Washington in 2006 also predicted that women are becoming more hypogamous, i.e. willing to “marry down,” at least when it comes to education.
It is commonly believed that women tend to marry more successful men, i.e., that there is “hypergamy” with respect to success, and that success hampers women’s marriage prospects. Using education as a proxy for success, I test these two hypotheses.
I find little evidence that the increased concentration of women at the top of the education distribution has led to a worsening of the marriage market prospects of more educated women. The marriage market accommodated the shift in part through a decline in hypergamy at the upper end of the education distribution.
On the other hand, it appears that the declining economic prospects of men at the bottom of the education distribution have rendered many below the threshold of marriageability. The likelihood of marriage for less educated men fell more than the likelihood of marriage for less educated women. There was no decline in hypergamy at this end of the spectrum; in fact, some measures indicate an increase in hypergamy for this group, as less educated women have increasingly been reaching upward in the education distribution for husbands, or opting out of marriage entirely.
How this plays out in the U.S. remains to be seen. Even Mundy has nagging doubts. Profiling Juan, a man who quit his job to care for kids while his wife Jessica works as a paralegal, Juan has taken to selling Avon to bring in extra money. ”They see me as the father,” Jessica told Mundy. ”Sometimes I fantasize about, like, leaving her,” Juan confesses, “because I want to feel more masculine again.”
Mundy also is disappointed in women, who she believes are lagging in adopting new gender roles. “Sometimes, if women have a husband who is lower key and happy at home, they feel like they haven’t landed the marriage partner they were supposed to land.” Mundy was amazed to hear how many “breadwomen” worried that their husbands felt emasculated by having to ask them for money. Mundy believes that men can’t just give up and opt out. “Nobody gets hot for a stay at home schlub.”
Mundy has little patience for naysayers:
I mean, how could it not be good for women to have more financial resources and to be more empowered? I mean, how could that be a bad thing?
Women, hang on to your fedoras. Men, don’t let go of your pillbox hats. It’s going to be a wild ride.
{ 759 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 6 »
Long time reader, first time poster here. It seems that if hypergamy is truly an evolved animal instinct, the only way it will truly end is for evolution to slowly flush it out of the system over the course of thousands of years. Changing societal norms may suppress the outward expressions of hypergamy, if women decide that some kind of husband is better than no husband at all – indeed, this may be the evolutionary selection pressure that could wipe hypergamy off the map – but I don’t see the hindbrain reprogramming itself in a handful of generations.
I think more earning power for women is a good for men:
1. Men are attracted to high-income women.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/15/why-men-are-attracted-to-high-earning-women/?iid=ec-article-mostpop2
It’s funny because we tend to think of male sexuality as hardwired, when in fact it is molded by society. Men today place far more value in a woman’s earning power than they did thirty years ago.
2. As masculinity becomes detached from breadwinning, men will be free to take the lower paying jobs they always wanted:
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/what-would-men-do-if-they-didnt-have-to-impre
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Welcome to indentured servitude, ladies. You will hate it as much as men. “I’m not haaaaapy” will take on a whole new world of meaning to you. Men at least are capable of handling the sacrifice it takes to get the job done.
But hey, if you need us to stay at home, do a couple piles of laundry, load the dishwasher, grocery shop and cook a few meals, schlep the kids around on beautiful days and help them with their homework, I think we’ll be able to manage. Oh, and once those divorce laws start favoring men (because we’ll be the primary caretakers), our older age will actually make us MORE attractive to the younger crowd of women just starting up the corporate ladder. Especially since we’ll already be ‘experienced’ at taking care of the homestead. You know, maybe Feminism isn’t so bad after all.
All kidding aside, staying at home and raising your kids is THE BEST JOB IN THE WORLD. STOP. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Making decisions for the benefit of your family infinitely beats making decisions for the good of a company. The reason women can’t appreciate it and envy men for their jobs is because “the grass is greener on the other side” and they felt that they were missing something. Well, now you got it. Enjoy it.
Foolish, but you reap what you sow.
@Juiced
The data demonstrates clearly that women have become less happy since 1970, while men’s happiness has stayed about the same. Gen Y women are saying up front they have no intention of “having it all.” There may be more women who choose career without kids in future, but the young women I know are getting great jobs that they fully plan to excel in until they have children. One girl in my focus group recently decided, after doing very well in pre-med as un undergrad, to become a nurse practitioner instead, because she doesn’t want to delay marriage and childbirth until her 30s.
I will say one thing though. Working crazy hours as a consultant was much easier than being a SAHM with two little kids. Every single night I fell into bed feeling like it had been moving day. It was physically and emotionally exhausting. I was 32 when I started, which was undoubtedly a factor.
@Susan, I’m not so sure either
In the UK, last I heard, 2 out of 3 employees of the state were female. This caused bleating that women were / would be made redundant faster than men. Well…duh! Sack 50% of the people, where 2/3 are female, you’re going to lose females 2 x faster than men (q.f. 80mph woman). That’s if the jobs are of equal worth, but they are not.
The reason I mention that is, when the state goes broke and large parts of the shirkforce are laid off…where’s the hammer going to hit hardest? Also it’s the men emptying the bins and doing the hard labour whilst the women do the paperwork – who would you lay off more of?
The UK has piled in middle managers / paper-pushers by the million under the last spendaholic government (majority of those new jobs given to women), just who gets the push first when you are forced to downsize? The people doing stuff (digging the coal / shovelling the gravel / driving the trucks)? The top management (choosing the redundancies)? or the paper pushing middle (yes, the office staff and who are they – no clues)?
This is going to be a wild ride. Fasten your seat-belts peoples…
Also, just what is a women’s studies degree ACTUALLY worth? Captain Capitalism isn’t impressed. So when the churnalists talk about the better qualified sex, just what qualifications do they really think matter?
I’d rather be a competent plumber than a master’s in women’s studies diversity coordinator (yes, these exist in the UK; people paid to make sure that the demographics are filled in the workforce – really).
In software engineering (OO – object oriented), when you break up an problem into roles (for the parts of the system to carry out), any role that involves the word ‘manager’ in its name invites deep scrutiny – what does it actually do for us? Let’s improve the design and lose that role.
I suggest that the same goes for ‘coordinator’ in human organisations, middle management etc – be nervous, be very, very nervous if this describes your job…
anyway, have a nice night, cheers
“I will say one thing though. Working crazy hours as a consultant was much easier than being a SAHM with two little kids. Every single night I fell into bed feeling like it had been moving day. It was physically and emotionally exhausting.”
My wife couldn’t keep up with the laundry, so I took responsibility of it. Dishes, too. This on top of a full time job. So believe me when I say that for a man, pounding out the laundry, hauling some groceries, and taking care of the dishes is a trivial matter.
Disciplining kids is also easy for men. Men are more physically imposing, so kids will tend to fall in line with a stern word. And since we all know men are typically more detached, the emotional exhaustion will not be there either. Office politics is significantly more draining.
Also, some linky goodness
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larissafaw/2011/11/11/why-millennial-women-are-burning-out-at-work-by-30/
http://www.the33tv.com/about/station/newsteam/kdaf-millennial-women-burning-out-by-age-30-some-experts-say-yes-20120110,0,2816372.story
How anybody takes till their mid twenties to leave academia and gets burned out by they turn 30 is a bit beyond me…but hey, if Forbes (that beacon of truth) says so(?)
A recession is when all the BS gets swept away, I wonder what will be left? If anything much is left…
Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily march with education. I used to live in a GM/UAW area. It was not uncommon for women with higher education; teachers, nurses, bookkeepers, to marry HS grads who “worked in the shop”. Because those guys made, relatively speaking, good money with fantastic benefits. Once the retirement hit “thirty and out”, you could look forward to a second, less onerous career beginning in your fifties. Do the math and come up with a current value for all that. Huge. Even more so for the skilled trades guys.
Additionally, these women would have pretty good benefits themselves if they worked for, say, the county or the schools, or a larger firm, and that allowed hubby to run his own (very) small business without needing health insurance.
Of course, the mismatch between education and income is not unknown, but when you have a market distortion by near monopolies–the Big Three and the UAW–it can get to be substantial.
Hypergamy isn’t going anywhere. Women will just evaluate their prospective mates on criteria other than earning prospects, criteria like, I dunno, game proficiency.
An entire generation of young boys is about to grow up (i) without masculine role models in the home, and (ii) convinced that the only way to attract women is to behave like a little sociopath.
Somehow I don’t see this ending well…
When Rosin describes a man with “no outlet, no job, no identity”, is she describing a husband? The context suggests she is. That man will never marry. Despite all this glib bullshit ( ie social “science” prattle which is simply someone one’s instinct/prejudice propped up with meaningless statistics and “Looney Tunes” graphs), I do not think we’ll make this shift of role reversal in a generation. Listen to Juan; he tells it from the heart. One thing women never get is their attempts to ameliorate how a guy feels in this situation comes off a condescending, patronizing and, in its worse manifestation, emasculating. Plus work roles are much much more than that. If she’s a professional and he isn’t, he’s going to feel it every time he’s around her peers trust me to God on that one. This heretofore has been so rare that I’ve never given it much thought, but men play the sort of head games women do. “Oh, you’re a stay at home mom; how nice? (This said by a she-devil litigator and translates as “You lazy torpid cow; I change the world while you sat at home with a baby sucking on each tit, shoving bon bons down your gullett and watching mindless tv in bovine-like detachment”). “Oh, you do finish carpentry work( when you can find it); interesting.” (This said by a balls-on-his-forehead stock broker and translates as “Why don’t you go out and check my tires if you can read the pressure tabs correctly; maybe I’ll tip you a 5 spot and it will spare me having to say anything more to you beyond ‘No, I don’t think we have Keystone Light here tonight.’”) Ok, we could make it to the Shangri-la; but let’s remember though this template was set in the Stone Age.
BTW ‘shirkforce’ is my intellect-you-all property. License fees can be arranged.
Im very career minded, but from what Ive observed, a lot of women dont seem to be. Even in college, it seems like a lot of girls are going through the motions because they feel like they have to or that its supposed to be fuflilling. It seems like a lot of girls, even in their early 20s are thinking about settlin down and having kids. I dont think they realize that there arent enough higher earning men to go around. Im with gudenuf, its gonna be a lot of very unhappy women in the future and I quite honestly wouldnt be surprised if in the next couple of generations things start to go back to how they were before. I dont think women will even need to be forced into either. I think theyll choose it. This is why I love feminists. They lack long term thinking. Heres to empowerment!
@ Stark
You said a mouthful O My Brother! (ref “A Clockwork Orange”)
@Tony
well hopefully they’ll just turn herbivore / grass-eater like in Japan (as opposed to thug). They look at the deal offered to them by society and say “no thanks” and go their own way. You can’t shame people that don’t care what you think of them*…Japanese demographics are horrible.
“Where have all the good men gone? We need their taxes”.
*in case there is any doubt – I don’t blame them at all. MGTOW
You can throw a ball up in the air, it will come down. You can’t defy the law of gravity forever. I think hypergamy is a little more flexible, but in the end, there’s always gonna be a pull.
As far as women running the economy, women can be in charge till the oil needs to be changed. Or a war needs to be fought. Or something. There is a lot going on in the world that doesn’t bode well for women. (Economic collapse, muslim demographics, men deciding that getting married is a suckers game). They can do this while there is peace and prosperity, but once the barbarians are at the gate, they will need men again, and then its back in the kitchen.
There’s a lot of things we do today because we have it too easy.
@Just1X
Thanks for those links, they look very useful.
What galls me most is that these women think this is a good development. This is insane! We’re ignoring the fact that women are the ones who give birth. Many women doing super well in their 20s step right off the track when they have a kid. I only know a couple of women who have been happy doing the high flying career thing. I know several doing it and miserable. And I know a bunch of women who decided to spend some time at home. The only househusband I know is a real estate developer, and always worked from home while the kids were in school. I’m sure he made more than his wife, even though she had the 9 to 5.
I just don’t think women are going to want to sign up for this, even if they have the chance. Since they’re getting more education, we’ll have a deficit of qualified professionals over the age of 30.
@Munson
+1
We need more males chiming in on this. James Taranto can’t do it alone. William Bennet is an oaf. Can we at least get David Brooks on board?
1. Men don’t have babies.
2. Women are hypergamous (and I’m talking about actual, biological hypergamy…you know, the kind female giraffes, bonobos and squirrels are equally subject to). Marrying for financial prospect is NOT hypergamy.
Get used to a continuous, downward economic spiral. Women are taking over the ship, and it’s name is The Titanic.
Welcome to The Suck, girrrrrls.
Fighting the last war.
@ Susan
Can we at least get David Brooks on board?
I thought you said male.
@Charm,
a lot of men have found out that (child care matters aside), cooking and cleaning isn’t a full time job any more (maybe it was 70+ years ago). Automation makes it a cinch, assuming they value a spotless home all that much anyway.
So now when snookums wants to get married and stay home…are you sure that men are willing to go back to the 50s with them?
Marriage 1.0 (up to the 50s. Man works till he dies, woman stays home and keeps home) was replaced by the current no fault divorce marriage 2.0 (I really hope that this is dying off – opinions vary). I don’t think that we’ll be going back to v1.0, and I don’t know what marriage 3.0 might look like. Shacking up (LTR) vs hooking up?
All kinds of stuff is going to be shaken up, we are leaving Kansas…
So, while the assorted freaks of the MSM have to grudgingly integrate the word “hypergamy” in their vocabulary, they go right ahead and try to twist it into some laughable “cultural ideal”?
Calling a pragmatic choice between being a cat spinster and marrying some chump without a college degree “hypogamy” is just women arguing in endless denial about the reality of their reptilian instincts.
Hint: Your reptilian brain is all about genetics and not really that much about college degrees…
It’s becoming rather comical. Reminds me of Eddie Izzard’s sketch of “cake or death”. Just replace “death” with “introspection”, and you can have a good laugh at all those hamsters on speed.
Now, now Petruchio, I saw saw the Desi gravatar. I also saw you on Dalrock today.
I thought that you’d gone?
What gives?
@ Just1x
and I don’t know what marriage 3.0 might look like.
I would guess it will just be permanent shack ups. If one is religious, one needs to get married. The Bible does not require the state to be a party, so smart believers will eventually learn to forgo the marriage license. She is less likely to leave when the cash and prizes are gone. There is that pesky common law marriage though.
For non-religious, why the hell do they need to get married?
You’re looking better though, you’re now so last century as opposed to 16th-17th century?
@just1X
Oh I know. This is why I hate when SAHMs lament how hard it is. Ugh….until recently women did the shit everyday witn zero modern appliances. I also dont undersan how you can be a SAHM and not be homeschooling as well. I dont get it. Just not enough time in their busy days I guess. Oh the plight of the modern SAHM. I dont think Its for me, but if I did it, Id be a SAH God. Lol. Im very all or nothing and Id strive to do the best job possible.
“There is that pesky common law marriage though.”
oh yes, indeed.
“For non-religious, why the hell do they need to get married?”
You’re preaching to the choir.
Not sure where that leaves society?
Somebody needs to:
Give the grass-eaters a deal that they want to take, and I said ‘want’, no shaming with BS like man-boys – it won’t work anyway. The current deal is clearly not good enough.
Remove the penalties for commitment (the male penalties, not sure if there are any female ones).
Get women to reward good behaviour in beta men, stop encouraging bad-boy behaviour which encourages Game.
Hypergamy is wired, but the studies are only measuring it by “traditional” factors, like income, education, career status and so on. This misunderstands hypergamy. Hypergamy is simply women being attracted to the best men they can get as a means of uplifting their own status. In a world where men outearn women, this will mean, to some degree, men who earn the most. In a world where women outearn men, this will mean, to some degree, men who are the best looking/buffest and who have the best Game — boytoys akin to the wives of mad men, being judged by their looks and penises and sex appeal through Game. It’s still hypergamy, because in that system a woman’s status will still be raised by marrying a hot boytoy, just like a man’s status was raised by marrying a trophy wife.
I am not convinced that women will, in fact, mate this way, however. Of course, on the “margins”, they will — nurses with firefighters or contractors is not an uncommon match today — as was noted rightly above, hypergamy isn’t always about education levels. But at the *highest* levels, where women are professional careerists, like lawyers, business execs, and the like, you will probably see more women opting out of marrying firemen and policemen, and opting for single motherhood. Some in this crowd will opt to marry the “educated, artsy underachiever”, like men who are artists and writers and so on (unsuccessful, mind you … successful male artists and writers are swimming in women), but a goodly number will want a male peer (or near peer) or will, themselves, opt out.
Rosin is missing a much larger point. One of the reasons men married to begin with is it gave them a purpose to take care of a female. It fulfilled a psychological need I think is built into the male psyche.
Take away the “caring for” aspect and men will cease to marry at all — as they’re starting to do now. Or they’ll find an end-run around this, and marry the cleaning lady.
@Charm
“homeschooling”
ah, now you’re raising a good point. If ‘I’ wanted kids, that issue might change things (if finances allowed).
It remains to be seen whether female marital satisfaction won’t suffer as a result of this trend in “marrying down.” Sadly, I’m not optimistic. Susan, in the above you reference an article by Stephanie Coontz. In that article hides this little gem:
Bingo. This will yet become a more widespread problem. (And declines in female happiness like those we’ve seen over the last 40 years as per the GSS will likely yet continue). Put simply: a culture can legislate “equalism” through such mechanisms as, say, affirmative action in education. However, it can’t legislate away millions of years of female psychological evolution.
No. Instead, we’ll see this lowered level of female happiness and lower satisfaction with the mate-worthiness of men manifest itself in other ways. For example, I suspect we’ll begin to hear calls in books and opinion pieces. These opinions–from both men and women–will recognize the declining mate prospects for educated women, the lower numbers of similarly ambitious or educated, mate-worthy males. However, the prescription will be for such men to simply “man up”, become more educated (in spite of biases in affirmative action admissions) and magically become more mate-worthy. …Oh wait! Have these “man-up” articles and books already come out? Ooops! My bad.
“I also find the reference to manly pursuits extremely patronizing and hypocritical…”
I believe you are projecting. I would welcome the opportunity to pursue activities like hunting and fishing, as I believe many men would. Learning survival skills is a reward unto itself. And out beats video games.
Staying at home sounds better and better every day.
“Staying at home sounds better and better every day.”
I’ll say, just how many of these sugar-mommies are available?
I could just ‘lay back and think of England’
A question arises; What do Americans think of when they ‘lay back’?
Where did the women go?
Story of my life – FML
good night all
There’s a middle ground between working sixty-hour weeks at a high status corporate job and staying at home to raise children full time. Two adults at a moderately paced job can still have enough time to raise children, particularly if they use their extra cash to outsource some domestic work. Plus, parents spend too much time with their kids anyways. Read Bryan Caplan for details.
@Juiced
I’m not saying men wouldn’t enjoy manly pursuits. What I’m saying is that pursuing female interests while at home full-time was something the feminists denigrated. The domestic arts became shameful. Now those same women want to turn around and suggest that men take up hobbies to keep life interesting while they’re caring for kids. When are they supposed to go hunting and fishing? While the kids are napping?
Maybe not quite on topic, but when Brendan talked about “men who are the best looking” and “hot boytoy,” and I saw these images, I had to share:
http://i.imgur.com/Q5U1L.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xClq4.jpg
England.
Actually, what’s really going to happen is guys like Don from Mad Men will have a soft harem going at work. It’s not even a question as to how women will react to that attractive alpha at work. All it’s going to take it having her shlub of a husband as her for money on the wrong day and the thought will be, “I wonder what Don is doing for lunch today?”
Not even in my blue pill days would I believe that crap Mundy is shoveling.
@Days of Broken Arrows: Great point. …Or such men may just “check out” and become less productive overall. As F. Roger Devlin put it in a recent book review,
The thing is, what Mundy, Rosin and others fail to grasp is that such changes on the part of women won’t occur in a vacuum. The assumption seems to be that in the face of the changing roles of women, men will either remain content, men will highly value such female accomplishments, or if and when men must undergo “painful adjustments” [Rosin], they’ll do so in ways that are entirely pleasing and supportive of women. Nothing could be further from the truth.
@Susan #38
how depressing!
I always loved the coast south of Monterey (the SF one), I drove it once – gorgeous. If I were American, there’d be lots of patriotic places to perambulate mentally, whilst in the sack.
BTW did you see that Petruchio and ‘good old’ Desididlisilli are one and the same? His gravatar came up as Desi’s sour old puss then changed and went up market after the next refresh. Paul ‘Newman’ I believe.
I thought that we’d all let him down and he gave his regrets and goodbyes? (not to me personally though – I cried myself to sleep that night, my security blankie was all damp.)
” I dont think Its for me, but if I did it, Id be a SAH God. Lol. Im very all or nothing and Id strive to do the best job possible.”
Jaz71
I don’t know whether to laugh hysterically or cry at that. being a SAHM is certainly not for everyone, but that one statement tells me you would be miserable beyond belief. Appears you would expect yourself to maintain a pristine home, perfectly home cooked meals, laundry always done, and perfectly happy kids.
I generally find your comments pretty well thought out, but that one was just plain judgemental and ignorant. Walk a few miles in a sahm’s shoes, you will find it’s not all loungeing on couches and bon-bons.
Two words – Blue Valentine
@Susan
“When are they supposed to go hunting and fishing? While the kids are napping?”
Strap little fucker to back, hunt big furry thing with spear. Rah, rah me caveman.
I hate fishing, most boring thing I’ve ever done.
—————————————————————-
Now as for this SAHD nonsense. FUCK THAT. Hell I’m not even letting my fiance be a SAHM. Absolute nonsense. If you can’t throw the laundry in, load the dishwasher and then sweep-mop in under 2 hours at least two major organs better be ruptured, damaged or in advanced stages of decomposition. (And yes, I’ve done it. While single-ish and working. Not fun but far from impossible.)
We made a deal, when they start school she either works or comes to be my secretary (as she does now). But theres no way shes staying at home and fucking off all day.
However, I could also find myself a breadwinner so that I can get superjacked and feed her grapes and write odes to her never-ending generosity.
Yah, No, not happening.
Last,
lets remember ladies in gentleman. This is something I learned in undergrad,
Social Studies.
Lets all say it together,
Social Studies.
Lets leave science to the big kids shall we.
P.S If biology is under control I’m gonna start liking fat chicks now.
Will men quietly become submissive married helpmeets to women? Probably not.
When I look back on my desire to get married, it was entwined with children and providing. Marriage meant children at some point, and to me, that meant having a stable job somewhere with a future to provide for them. FIRST. Without tangible job prospects, I highly doubt I would have been interested in marriage.
I think our incentives here in the USA mean that men are going to drop out. Further, women really wont like us as Tsing Loh-style “kitchen bitches”.
I’m really glad I can provide for my family of 5 on one income.
I dont believe for a moment that hypergamy is an instinct – it is merely a rational strategy that women have had to adopt in response to specific social and economic conditions.
People need to remember that Evolutionary Psychology is an attempt to explain observed phenomena with reference to our evolutionary past. In other words, it proves nothing, nor is it meant to, it is merely meant to provide plausible explanations for what we observe humans doing.
Now, it makes perfect sense to explain the observed fact of female hypergamy by saying it is a response to female social inequality, and not an *instinct*.
Our culture is rife with anecdotes of women marrying the rich, high status guy, but hooking up with the good looking, studly, low status menial – clear examples that marrying *up* is a rational calculation, and has nothing to do with sexual preference. This is an implicit cultural recognition that hypergamy is a strategy, and not an *instinct*.
I have too many male friends who are poor and low-status, but good looking and charming, and who get sex with the hottest women on a regular basis, to believe that hypergamy is anything but a rational strategy that women have pursued in the past, and the furthest thing possible from a timeless sexual preference of women.
The truth is that as longer as lingering cultural stereotypes make women feel faintly ashamed at marrying *below* them, they wont be entirely comfortable doing so, even though they could care less themselves and certainly dont feel any sexual imperative to marry *up*. Cultural norms change slowly, but they are changing, and very soon women wont feel the slightest twinge of shame at marrying the studly, good-looking guy who earns less than them and has no particular status.
And I think this is great. I am male and have absolutely no desire or motivation to bust my ass to win some kind of pointless and illusory social status that men in the past thought was essential to their ability to get a girl.
Hey, if women want to bust ass and work really hard for some imagined gain in *status*, more power to them – I will be hiking, camping, reading, and snowboarding while they work, and will be waiting with that glass of wine – quite cheerfully – when they get back
Seems to me this is not exactly female *emancipation*, but what do I know.
These studies on hypergamy intentionally ignore two very important aspects of men that impact hypergamy:
1) Male Height -easily quantifiable – everyone hates hearing this but every other date I go the girl says “I don’t date guys under x’x” (changes from city to city)” Yes, game can help one overcome this, but it’s a steep slope one must always climb and always be on guard.
2) Male Social Dominance – maybe quantifiable through facebook, but even that is a big if
There are cities like Toronto and Copenhagen where some combination of height and social dominance is simply required for men to find mates.
Some of us have read thru the comments from the original posting. There are some good ones about the difference between the sexual market place and the marriage market place.
It is the size of that difference that may prove most problematic. Here is the reason I question the pairing of career moms and SAH herbiverous kitchen-bitchs . She cannot sustain any sexual desire for that kind of guy and men in general will become all too aware of this. Hence, the male inclination to committ to such a marriage evaporates (unless he just needs the money.)
The sexual market place is a different place than the marriage market place.
!
Two possibilities here:
1) Human nature rewires itself overnight;
2) The rest of society starts to look more and more like the college/blue city <35 SMP.
I know which outcome I'm betting on.
As this trend continues, I wish I could buy stock on companies that sold "Where are all the decent men?????" screeds. Demand for that product is going to skyrocket.
Suggesting something so unlikely such as the “End of hypergamy” sounds more like a social construct that favours the feminine imperative. It’s more like saying: Hey guys, the girls will soon start noticing you instead of those bad boys. The effect? Beta males start to worry less giving way to alphas, who are truly the ones women want. The changes in the job market don’t imply an imminent change in such hard-wired evolutionary strategy in females. Women starting settling for less? Would men settle for older fat irritating bad-behavioured women given that an hypothetical scarcity of hot young babes?
I don’t know where this comment will fit in but reading all this stuff is depressing when I’m living it and pretty happy. I’m 39 divorced with a 2.5 yr old. I have a doctorate my own business work from home and do everything, my boy goes to “school” a few hours a week while I do some jogging but never in day care. My ex did not finish college and never made as much as I did but I honestly did not care about that. The problem was him feeling bad about it ect. Now I know I wouldn’t be happy with someone that had no interests outside the marriage ie a job or career but the amount of money was never an issue and I was always happy that my income would cover everything and he could get a job he liked ect that didn’t keep him away from home all the time. My job averages 20 hours a week so I have plenty of time for hobbies with and without my son and clean the house ect. housework is not a big deal if it is you need to declutter or something. But him feeling not good enough and me saying the money didn’t matter was not helpful. Maybe I failed in my ability to make him feel like “the man” but I got divorced and now have more money but no man…. I really like a man for all the normal day to day things and nothing to do with money so people need to prioritize. Women value a sense of safety and security… that’s why they are making more because they can and they can take care of these themselves but you need a man to really feel cared for and cherished. A man needs to be successful in something or else he just won’t have the self esteem needed for a strong woman or the woman will feel taken advantage of. I can’t say I’m lonely but I do miss having a man around and I’m not into the whole casual sex thing before relationship so I will probably be manless for awhile but I wouldn’t change how I did things and I’m glad I can spend as much time with my son as I do which would not have been possible 10 years ago. Women have more power now and men should not be scared by it. Its to be shared in the family not used to belittle anyone.
@Charm
“This is why I love feminists. Spot on!
They lack long term thinking. Heres to empowerment!” It’s not long term thinking so much as critical thinking and independent thinking. Those women who are going through the motions doing what they have been told is what they need to do or should be doing. They drank the cool aid without thinking does this work for me. Essentially feminism replaced the perceived tyranny of the past with it’s own tyranny and thought police and the sheeple followed without question. Then the sunk cost i.e. too invested to quit fallacy urges them forward like lemmings off the cliff until it is too late or they make a desperate move and retreat.
Hypergamy is not dead yet there are far too many women over invested in the sunk cost fallacy who are too afraid to think for themselves. Men are benefiting from the women desperate to express their “freedom and feminist empowerment.
Hypergamy is wired, but the studies are only
measuring it by “traditional” factors, like
income, education, career status and so on.
This misunderstands hypergamy.
Hypergamy is simply women being attracted
to the best men they can get as a means of
uplifting their own status. In a world where
men outearn women, this will mean, to some
degree, men who earn the most. In a world
where women outearn men, this will mean,
to some degree, men who are the best
looking/buffest and who have the best Game
—boytoys akin to the wives of mad men,
being judged by their looks and penises and
sex appeal through Game.
Brendan,
Absolutely!!!!
To focus on educational status, career, and earnings level as the only or even main focal point of female hypergamy is so off the mark to be laughable. Not to mention that looking at marriage to evaluate female hypergamy blurs the line between the lover/provider dichotomy
I’m a textbook example. I’ve got a MBA in finance. I was actually making 40K= as an engineer back in the late 90s. Anyways, through the winds of fate I found myself in 2005 at the age of 31 unemployed from professional work, living with my parents, and working as a bouncer. It left A LOT of time for the gym so I literally was in perfect physical shape, plus i had plenty of free time to study Game. I was never more successful or attractive to women than that window of time in my life. Ironically, bouncing at what was a hot club at the time actually gave me a weird sort of status since I worked the door so I was perceived as connected. If I were single, I actually think I’d be more successful under that set of conditions compared to now where I work at a Fortune 500 company in a professional analyst position making top quartile income. Female hypergamy is extremely complex and nuanced and comes in a variety of preferences. But to focus it on career and earnings misses the mark. The woman married to the surgeon might be the samw woman fucking her sculpted personal trainer making $15 a session. Which one really satisfies her hypergamy?
When I was pregnant with my first child my husband lost his job so I was the sole wage earner. For the first few months he took care of the baby while I worked.
He found taking care of a baby so demanding and draining he couldn’t get anything else done around the house. When he finally got a job I became a SAHM. He’s always had great appreciation for what I do and never considers my job easy or slacking off but he’s so much happier with our roles now.
@Stargate Girl
So wait, youre judge me for being judgemental? Okay. I think we just detrrmined that with all the modern conveniences, being a SAHM is quite a bit easier than it used to be. With that being said, its much easier especially if the kids are schooled outside the home. And I dont need to walk in anyones shoes since I spent a few years in my early teenage years caring for my younger cousins and siblings while our parent did drugs and neglected us. So being a SAHM is a luxury plain and simple since reproducing is a choice while working to earn a living isnt. So I have a hard time seeing how staying at home with kids you chose to have in first world america is this amazingly difficult task. So if I did choose to have children and decided to stay at home with them Id dominate it. Its in my nature to master everything I do since I believe that having and caring for kids is a big deal and Id give it everything I had.
Our culture is rife with anecdotes of women marrying the rich, high status guy, ***but hooking up with the good looking, studly, low status menial**** – clear examples that marrying *up* is a rational calculation, and has nothing to do with sexual preference. This is an implicit cultural recognition that hypergamy is a strategy, and not an *instinct*. ***I have too many male friends who are poor and low-status, but good looking and charming, and who get sex with the hottest women on a regular basis****, to believe that hypergamy is anything but a rational strategy that women have pursued in the past, and the furthest thing possible from a timeless sexual preference of women.
Greg, what you are describing here is in fact hypergamy in action. See my previous comment. The key takeaway is that “status” is subjective and contextual. Again, I’d argue amongst certain crowds I was actually higher status as the bouncer working the door than I am not as the senior level analyst with his very own cubicle and stapler. The problem is the “professionals” withe “credentials” who conduct “academic” studies start with flawed assumptions.
@Mike C
Its not their fault. They took social studies, without bias they wouldn’t have a field to work in.
jennister
Roissy could not have said it better.
Articles on women angry about men opting out in 5…4…3…2…
And right on time, here comes the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-belkin/men-opting-out_b_1375355.html
There won’t be a man shortage because the “soft harem” will become socially acceptable. Hell, it already is on college campuses.
Because of hypergamy, there will be a provider shortage. Birthrates? Down, way down. Down so much that governments will start paying couples to have kids. It’s already happening in towns in Italy (one of the lowest birthrates in Europe) while Japan is desperate to address this demographic calamity.
Watch for this social trend: stories and news coverage championing the benefits of marrying a man who is not as educated.
True, Mike, but I find that very unappealing.
I don’t want to be a boytoy (well I am out of that demo anyway), but I think it is demeaning for men to do that.
Feminists hated that role for women. Men should not accept this role for ourselves. Buffing and sexing up ourselves to be sexy for women demeans our entire sex. It is a role reversal to becoming Stepford Husbands. A very bad path.
@Just1X
This seems to be a recurring theme. People make a dramatic exit than come back around for some HUS lovin.
UGH! I had a movie hangover for weeks after seeing that. Whenever a girl starts telling me about the crush she has on a ne’er do well pretty boy, I utter those two words.
True, Mike, but I find that very unappealing.
I hear ya. Here’s the thing…do you
1. Adapt yourself to the system or 2. Try to change the system
And I think that comes down to whether one leans more toward pragmatism or idealism. And this question reaches far beyond the SMP. Its the question a person has to face in career and other areas of life. When I was a teenager and college aged I was a big video gamer, and one of the things about video games is EVERY ONE had that cheat/glitch. It was just a matter of finding it, and you were unstoppable. In Madden 92, you could play the with the 49ers, take control of Charles Haley and literally sack the quarterback every time. It worked great. I wasn’t going to reprogram the game to fix that “cheat”. Of course, one has to overlay that thinking with a sense of morality, ethics, and personal mission/priorities.
@Mike C
Socioeconomic status is a huge factor. And there is a provider attraction cue – it’s a definite part of the weighted formula of female sexual attraction. Bucks matter, as do ambition, drive, etc.. Not for a ONS, but for dating it’s a definite consideration. It all depends on how you define “success with women.”
So we should go with unqualified amateurs instead? Tyler Cowen’s “extreme hypergamy theorists” reference was to Roissy, btw.
Look, I obviously don’t subscribe to the hypergamy denial view. But the term was actually invented, I believe, by academics, and co-opted by Gamers. They might just as easily have said, “Chicks digging jerks.”
What galls me most is that these women think this is a good development.
What is the point of drinking the Kool-Aid if you aren’t going to say that it tastes good.
I also dont undersan how you can be a SAHM and not be homeschooling as well.
Charm, you are looking very pretty tonight.
@Private Man
Yeah, you could say hypergamy is a problem coming and going. Hypergamy led to the loss of assortative mating and the SMP we see today, after the Sexual Revolution. That produced decreasing numbers of men who are effectively marriageable. So there is a provider shortage now. Whether women continue to choose marriage, including to men who earn less and have fewer credentials, remains to be seen.
Agree totally on birthrates, they’re going way down. Italy and Japan are the canaries.
IDK, I’m getting the sense that feminists are viewing men as entirely disposable. I honestly never thought it would come to this, but Mundy sounds like men should just shut up and become house slaves. All the while singing (still!) about female empowerment.
No matter how much feminists try to sell this, it’s not going to work, because women don’t want it. The question is, will women rise up and refuse to go along? I think it’s possible many will step off the career track and let their husbands take the lead. Of course, this applies to the most educated in our society – they’re the ones who continue to marry in big numbers.
I think it will also be interesting to see what women choose to do in the next generation. Today, as Mike C notes, a woman can be married to a surgeon and have an affair with her trainer. Moving forward, there will be fewer male surgeons. The female surgeon may choose to have sex with her trainer, but she’s unlikely to marry him.
All of this suggests a sharply declining marriage rate, even for the folks who still marry in big numbers.
The end of hypergamy won’t really occur because there is too much at stake for the beautiful and hot women. A lot (not all) hot or beautiful women have nothing going for them besides their looks. Why? Because they don’t need to, they can stand and look pretty and they could have some guys buying them dinner, taking them places, another to have sex with, another to bawl emotions.
What the increasing wage and breadwinning statistics show is that more of the less desirable women making an impact of on the marketplace…(of course you will find exceptions but look at most women who are either feminists or in a typically “men’s career ladder”. They don’t look pretty). The ones who will marry these women will be betas (and as you already showed us they are really emasculated).
So a huge sexual marketplace shift is not going to happen. We are going to have more uglier women marrying beta men become more commonplace. The alpha men will still get the hot girls and the hot girls will still get the alpha men. It’s just going to make the market even tighter for men AND women. The greater beta men won’t be able to game a hot girl like he can now and the more homely girls won’t be able to get an alpha to commit and will have to settle for the betas. And Hypergamy won’t end.
I could be wrong but I don’t see any super long term consequences occurring. Whenever the pendelum swings one direction from equilibrium it will always swing back with full force… Just make sure you are on the uptick.
Socioeconomic status is a huge factor. And there is a provider attraction cue – it’s a definite part of the weighted formula of female sexual attraction.
I’m not sure on this. I’d really like to see some concrete evidence that the provider cue is part of instinctual attraction instead of just a component of rational self-interest. There is nothing wrong with the latter at all, but there is a big difference between the pussy getting wet versus a logical, thought process “He has qualities that would make a good lifelong mate”.
It all depends on how to define “success with women.”
This is easy. Being the guy the woman WANTS to fuck. Just as “success with men” would be being the woman men WANT to commit to.
So we should go with unqualified amateurs instead?
Not saying that, but my experience in the financial markets has led me to be skeptical of academic studies. The entire University of Chicago business school finance is basically founded on a steaming pile of total horseshit (efficient markets and rational expectations). A bunch of guys won prizes for papers that really are only useful for toilet paper in describing the ***REAL-WORLD*** functioning of economies and financial markets. My only point is one should never instinctually give higher credibility to a study based solely on pedigree.
But the term was actually invented, I believe, by academics, and co-opted by Gamers.
Perhaps, but the term hypergamy has picked up a colloquial meaning in the “Game” community. I suppose one could call it something else. The observable phenonemon would not change whatever you call it.
@ Susan
“So we should go with unqualified amateurs instead? Tyler Cowen’s “extreme hypergamy theorists” reference was to Roissy, btw.”
Thats not the point. The problem is that social scientists start with the perception that “education is better”. Why? Because their educated, its human nature to assume we’re the shit.
But, is their any observable evidence that this is the case.
Yes their is. Fat rich dude with arm candy exists.
However lets look at stud vs. rich and see whats more effective.
Personal experience says stud > rich. However thats my personal experience. Yours differs. Mike C’s is in line with mine.
No one has presented anything more than anecdotal evidence at this point to sugest educated men are more likely to be both a) married, b) their wife lights shit on fire shes so hot.
I’d argue theirs far more important things for a man than provider ability in terms of getting (and if he wants to, maintaining) relationships with women.
To list a few:
Height
“The greater reproductive success of taller men is attested to by studies indicating that taller men are more likely to be married and to have more children”
Looks (not including height)
Social dominance (its possible to be a rich panzy)
etc.
@Susan
“IDK, I’m getting the sense that feminists are viewing men as entirely disposable. I honestly never thought it would come to this, but Mundy sounds like men should just shut up and become house slaves. All the while singing (still!) about female empowerment. ”
Don’t worry not possible.
Even if they eliminated men and tried to combine human genes it wouldn’t work.
Egg + Egg = embryo, no placenta
Sperm + Sperm = placenta, no embryo
(In mice if I remember correctly.)
I’ve got to say it…the whole notion that women will have greater earning power because they have “college degrees” is absolute nonsense.
There are “degrees”, and there are “professional degrees”. The former gets you a bushel of debt and a job at Starbucks. The latter gets you a starting salary north of $60k/year, with the potential to go to $90K+ within five or six years.
Guess which kind of degree the feminists get?
@Mike C
Yes, it’s the difference between short- and long-term mating. The post is about assessing the future of long-term mating, which is what supports and maintains society.
But for the purposes of this discussion that’s not relevant. Unless women will marry the men they want to fuck in the short-term. For long-term mating, there are indeed many considerations that don’t necessarily soak the panties, though they might.
Just like men want to have sex with sluts but don’t marry them, women may want to fuck bouncers but don’t marry them. The fact that they’ll even get with the bouncer for a ONS is a direct result of women “having sex like men.”
I hear ya. Here’s the thing…do you
1. Adapt yourself to the system or 2. Try to change the system
The third choice is opting out of the system.
The system is a dominatrix currently. A small percent of men can successfully best the femDOM. But otherwise they/we are fucked.
Opting out is a great choice if you are older,like me (mid 40s). That is the point.
@Lokland
And if a lawyer and a bartender both have those qualities, which guy will the educated woman marry? That’s the question. If there are no lawyers available who meet these criteria, will she stay single? Marry a less attractive lawyer? Marry the hot bartender? I’d say the odds of the first two are up for grabs – the third is a remote possibility.
@Lokland
I know it’s not possible on a bio level, but they’ve been pretty successful in marginalizing men, and instead of saying, “Oops, we went too far, our men are not thriving” they’re saying, “We’re almost there ladies!”
Therein lies the problem. Most women want to sleep with the bouncers and marry them, but the bouncers don’t want to marry them.
By bouncers, I mean alpha males. Most women want an alpha male that is also nice and caring to them. Those characteristics often don’t coincide with one another. At that point, women usually decide to either marry a beta male, operate in a soft harem for an alpha male, or remain alone.
One thing I know is that this situation is going to become worse before it gets any better.
@Mike M
I’ve read that the lopsided ratio on college campuses reflects a steady number of male STEM majors – no decrease – and an increased number of female humanities majors.
I’m not sure how to square that with the data that women are outearning men, and that 40% of wives make more than their husbands. I would like to see this data broken out by education level. We don’t know that 40% of college educated wives are making more than their college educated husbands for example – I doubt they are. There may be enormous discrepancies re employment and earnings for those with less education. That’s the population with sky high OOW births and low marriage rates.
Mike C, this sounds like when a certain someone says *alpha is whatever a woman likes*, except with you it is *hypergamy is whatever a woman does*.
In a word, no. Both the word alpha and the word hypergamy must have clear meanings if we can talk about them at all and measure if they are important to women. And in fact hypergamy has a very clear and precise definition, which does not include good looks or charm. Its not the researchers who got it wrong, but you who does not understand what the term means. Hint – hypergamy is not *anything* women prefer in a man. So sorry, but a woman preferring good looks and charm to wealth, access to resources, or social position is a very clear indication that hypergamy is not a primary motivation for women.
Now, obviously women desire positive qualities in their men, but not all positive qualities qualify as hypergamy. So you cannot take just any positive male quality – like good looks – and claim that women liking it is a sign of hypergamy. Hypergamy refers specifically to social status – i.e., narrowly defined as access to resources plus power over other people. It seems to me that you are defining hypergamy as women wanting ANY good quality in a man, which is absurd. If hypergamy means everything then it means nothing.
Moreover, this article is quite explicit that it is referring to social status in terms of wealth and jobs.
I really do not understand the desire of some people to take words with well defined, clear meanings like alpha and hypergamy – which exist to make make clear separations between classes of phenomena for the purposes of discussion – and use these words as an inclusive label for all classes of phenomena! Or rather, I understand only too well, sadly, why some people wish to obliterate important distinctions that are vital to having a productive discussion, but I do not approve of it.
Susan, I don’t disagree, but parameters matter.
Which guy is more attractive to the 20 year old girl: Bouncer or Cubicle-and-Stapler?
Which guy is more attractive to the 30 year old girl: Bouncer or Cubicle-and-Stapler?
Which girl is more likely to be hot/fertile/not-overweight, 20 year old girl or 30 year old girl?
All of those authors and economists who think that the issue will be convincing “successful” girls to marry under-educated guys is approaching the problem from the wrong direction.
They have approach anxiety.
Oh boy, I strongly disagree. Status does include social dominance, but has always included the prospect of upward mobility and earnings potential. Women are attracted to dominance because it implies the man has access to vital resources and a strong network of allies. Dominance without resources is strictly for “fun.”
Jennister: “I have a doctorate my own business work from home and do everything, my boy goes to “school” a few hours a week while I do some jogging but never in day care.”
I’m a nice guy, generally, but cannot let this one stand unchallenged.
You have a Ph.D., but can barely string together a coherent sentence with correct grammar.
What is this doctorate in, and where did you get it?
Precisely. Most men who possess these will be dominant in their demeanor. Dominance is just a proxy for what is signals. Dominance is not the objective, it’s the means.
@Ramble
I think some women are Bouncer Girls, and others are Cubicle ——> Corner Office Girls, and it has little to do with age. It has everything to do with SES and background.
Similarly, I have never seen a single slim 20 yo become a fat 30 yo. The vast majority of people keep the same body type over time. This is probably also related to SES.
There are no circles in which a bouncer is a socially dominant male. He has very little power and little access to resources. You got to be kidding me if you think the power to let people into clubs is seen as a massive amount of power by women, even club rats, more important than the power wielded by say, a high powered attorney, politician, or banker. THAT is social dominance.
Sure, the slut may want entry to the club, but she is not confusing that temporary and very minor power with real social dominance and power. The slut may even give the bouncer a blow job to secure regular entry to the club, but again, that is just another form of prostitution. It is amazing to me that people think evolution designed women to be such poor custodians of their own self-interest as to not be able to understand what real social power is.
That bankers, politicians, and other men with genuine, real, and massive social dominance are not conspicuous for being most desired by the ladies, it is pretty clear evidence that women are not sexually turned on by social dominance.
And why would they be? Evolution took place well before there was a modern capitalist society where an assertive personality could win you access to resources. It is very difficult for most people to understand, but we evolved to thrive in conditions very unlike what exist today. The qualities needed for success in a modern capitalistic society would have been utterly irrelevant in our ancestral past. In our evolutionary past, pretty much the ONLY thing that would win you access to resources were physical qualities, like athleticism, height, etc – so it should not be at all surprising that a steadily mounting stack of studies is showing that the ONLY factors that affect female sexual arousal are physical, and that personality only plays a role in non-sexual long term mating strategies.
So even if it were true that women get wet for bouncers, which I doubt, it would be evidence that women are NOT primarily motivated by social dominance or power, as bouncers have VERY little of both.
@ Susan Walsh
I know it has always included the prospect of upward mobility and earnings potential, but I feel like there has been a shift in the importance for those things in the most recent decades.
Most women no longer need men to provide for them financially. How valued can something be if what is offered is no longer necessary? Most women have the financial aspect of their lives covered. What can men offer that she cannot readily provide for herself? Those are the things that will be valued.
Dominance
Brute strength and protection
Sex
Affection
Masculinity
I feel like a good chunk of today’s up and coming women place more value on the aforementioned traits than provider traits. It makes the most sense. If I am making my own money, why would I need or value a man who can only offer me more money above anything else? For me, I’d rather date an intelligent masculine male who will throw me over his shoulder and lead me to the bedroom than a man who can only offer me his wallet.
@Sassy
You just contradicted yourself there. Intelligence is a cue for provider. The qualities you described above can all be found in a man with severe cognitive deficits. Or a thug. There are women who seek those men as partners, but they’re low status themselves.
I will agree that very few women will go for a man who has only a wallet to offer, though their numbers increase with the size of the wallet, e.g. Ellen Barkin and Ron Perelman.
Yes, but in my experience, good looking guys with charm (not especially dominant in demeanor) who have zero status get tons of hot girls, so women cant be all that turned on by access to resources and power.
Plus, why would women have evolved to rely on easily faked proxies when it would be relatively easy to check and see if the real thing is there? Women who would have relied on proxies would probably have been weeded out of the gene pool as women with much more stringent screening mechanisms would have had a survival advantage. Which is consonant with my personal experience – when a woman is after your social status and wealth, she does not sleep with you until she is damn sure you have them. She is not actually attracted to you and will make sure she is not making a sacrifice for nothing.
And men with genuine dominance often do very poorly with the ladies. No, I am afraid the notion that women are sexually attracted to dominant men does not hold up very well. Moreover, researchers have been searching for such a link for some time now, and have been unable to find it. Only physical attributes seem to matter.
Further, it is a bit of a myth that men with genuine power and wealth are dominant in demeanor – if you have ever met large numbers of such men, in social life unrelated to their work they are often quite gentle and humble. Often they will go out of their way to underplay their high social status and seem kind, humble, and ordinary. Most often their ruthless, dominant side is only apparent in their work, not their social relations.
Guys who are noticeably *dominant* in demeanor are more often than not indicating a lack of social status and position – i.e they have something to PROVE. Guys who have nothing to prove – because they HAVE it – are rarely conspicuously *dominant*.
What everything I am saying amounts to is essentially that the well-observed phenomenon of women preferring dominant and socially powerful men has nothing to do with sexual attraction – but has been, up till now, a rational strategic calculation of women in response to social conditions. Women have always gotten their sexual gratification elsewhere, not from the powerful, dominant men, but from the men with the best genetic stock (i.e best physical attributes).
Now that is society is changing, women will be freed to pursue sexual bliss unhampered by strategic social considerations. I think that is a win for everyone and a much more rational way to order a society.
“You just contradicted yourself there. Intelligence is a cue for provider.”
Not true. Robert Downey Jr (or his characters, at least) is an example of an intelligent, suave jerk.
When I was at a friend’s birthday party, I overheard a woman talking about how she was such a sucker for smart jerks. But just one or the other wouldn’t do, the man had to be both. I thought she was kind of cute and I asked my friend about her. She thought we would make a good match. So I asked her out on FB (she had already left and I didn’t have any other contact info).
She didn’t respond for a week. So I wrote back to her saying that I was appalled at how rude she would be to leave me hanging for a week. She wrote back immediately saying sorry. Then I slipped into beta mode and said it was okay. That’s when she stopped talking to me, again.
@ Susan Walsh
I’m not attracted to intelligence because it signals a man’s ability to provide. Intelligence in a man is an added bonus, for me. It’s not because I think he can provide for me better. It’s simply because I’m usually not bored to tears talking with intelligent men.
I really could care less if a man was able to provide for me financially. I already do that myself. I place more value on the other aforementioned traits. Being the “provider” doesn’t cut the mustard for most women these days. I’m not surprised by it. It’s simple supply and demand. Offering financial support doesn’t sway women nearly as much as it used to. Since the demand for it has gone down, the value for other things has gone up in its place.
I think some women are Bouncer Girls, and others are Cubicle ——> Corner Office Girls, and it has little to do with age. It has everything to do with SES and background.
I dunno. Sure, some girls in the upper class will completely avoid the bouncer, but he will, in general, do much better with the 20 year olds than the 30 year olds.
Similarly, I have never seen a single slim 20 yo become a fat 30 yo. The vast majority of people keep the same body type over time. This is probably also related to SES.
You also live in Brookline where the percentage of overweight people is considerable lower than average (and the per capita income and education levels are considerable higher…and the divorce rate lower and the …you get the idea)
I have seen plenty of girls gain, about, 2-5 lbs per year throughout their late 20′s and early 30s.
@Susan
“Intelligence is a cue for provider.”
No its not stop being ridculous.
Smart and small didn’t take down the mammoth. And if it did it was because whatever he built was handed to the obscenely large guy.
And taking down the mammoth was the only provider cue, that and sharing with her. Being a banker in primordial Earth was not symbolic of the ability to provide. If anything all the other cavemen would think you were nuts for trying to store their twigs and sea-shells and then charge interest.
Greg,
its a loss for the other 3.5 billion guys on the planet. Duh.
As for effectiveness, good luck. The organization of society required dropping what your prescribing.
@Susan
“I know it’s not possible on a bio level, but they’ve been pretty successful in marginalizing men, and instead of saying, “Oops, we went too far, our men are not thriving” they’re saying, “We’re almost there ladies!”
Yup. No argument,
However they have yet to launch a full scale invasion into the STEM field. Thats where most of the money is now anyway, mostly the T portion. When 9 in 10 engineers have a vagina then the fems can think their almost there.
This was my thought process on the intelligence issue. Intelligence did help people to stay alive in ancient times, but it had to be coupled with brute masculine strength. Without the balance of those two things, the odds of survival were pretty slim.
Intelligence, in and of itself, is not a provider cue, in my opinion. It might help, but it doesn’t guarantee that a man is capable of providing for me. I’d rather have a mix of brawn and brain instead of just intelligence.
Lokland, you underestimate human potential.
Why is mankind the most dominant mammal on the planet? We can be easily outrun by cheetahs, devoured by lions, hunted by sharks, alligators, etc. In nearly every environment we are subject to prey. So why is it that the human race has exploded and brought the world to submission?
Because we learned to manipulate our environment. Instead of being subject to the harsh whims of Nature, we devised tools and methods to manipulate our environment to acquiesce to our own imperatives. That is why today, children can laugh and point at a fearsome polar bear behind a glass wall, instead of treating it as a threat.
So, the large guy may be able to take down the mammoth by sheer brute force. But it’s probably the smaller smart guy who was able to continue to take down a whole pack of woolly mammoths over the years, through clever hunting. All of that is just speculation though. Because regardless of individual strengths of Big Brutus and Small Sam, it was the huge, smart guy who was the tribe’s resident Sex God.
Lokland, its just a rearangement.
In the past, the best women went to the men with the most wealth and social power. Today, the best women choose across a much wider field based on looks and genetic compatibility.
So the best women still go to a small percentage of men, just different men. Who knows, it might lead to a revitalization of our species.
But it is just a rearrangement. As for the rest of the women and the rest of the men, they will always have each other. It is a complete myth that most women only go for the tope 20 percent or so of best men. I personally know men in that top 20%, and let me tell you, they are extremely selective and would not themselves be caught dead with anything less than the best women- EVEN for one night stands. The idea that the best men will lower standards for one night stands is based on a complete logical error – by definition, the top man has tons of access to top shelf women, he simply does not NEED to settle. Ever. It is the LESS attractive man who needs to lower his standards for a ONS, not a man from the top 20%.
It is a complete myth and misunderstanding of the reality of a top 20% man to think that he needs to occasionally settle for lesser women, which women then refuse to settle for anything less than a top man, having once tasted it accidentally. In reality most women never have a chance at a top man even for a ONS (nor are women so absurdly irrational as have no conception of their own mate value. It almost amuses how willing some men are to believe that evolution designed women to be such horrible custodians of their own genetic self-interest) This idea is just an elaborate rationalization used by some men to explain their own lack of success.
It’s definitely not a guarantee, but it is a big marker of potential.
@Brenden and Mike C –
Steel on target.
@Greg:
You brought up instinct vs. strategy a lot in your post.
Why is the distinction so important?
I submit to you that it’s practically impossible to differentiate the two in the present context. I don’t think it matters much, either.
Tortuous Analogy*:
Say you’re sitting in a windowless room in a 1 gravity field. There are no experiments you can perform that would tell you conclusively if the room was on Earth, or actually on a spaceship accelerating at 1g. Falling down is gonna hurt in both cases.
I’m not being snarky or anything here, I genuinely seek knowledge. Why does it matter, especially in the context we’re talking about?
*Please don’t call effing Amnesty International on me again.
Right, so if women are choosing the best men to mate with is that why Autism is the highest ever? Seems to me they are choosing the poorest men to mate with. Or are they of poor breeding stock themselves? Could it be years of BC and hormones has not only made them genetic nightmares to their offspring, but also rapidly becoming mentally unstable as well?
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2012-03-29/CDC-Autism-is-more-common-than-previously-thought/53856542/1
SayWhaat March 29, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Intelligence, in and of itself, is not a provider cue, in my opinion. It might help, but it doesn’t guarantee that a man is capable of providing for me.
It’s definitely not a guarantee, but it is a big marker of potential.
But she herself shows how low her own intelligence is with that remark. Women by and far are becoming stupid because their monetary status has replaced their ability to seek out qualities which should be on top of theior list. Intelligence is one. Those who have it might not have the brute strength to overcome Goliath but if he breaks into my house, my little friends will greet him with a bang. Over and over again until he comes crumbling down. Is that my own strength at play or the intelligence to think ahead and protect myself?
Jim, did you even see my comment at 97?
I say intelligence is not a guarantee because I once dated a guy who, despite being very intelligent, seems to have started a descent into drugs and other hedonistic pleasures.
Intelligence is only as valuable as what you do with it. The same can be said for strength, character, or any other skill you choose to hone.
@ Jennister #52 and Cheerful #17
Jennister, everything you wrote is exactly why this whole role-reversal thing will take a long time. You told him the “money didn’t matter”; adding feminine solace, even innocently, made him feel worse, as it would any man(your guy was a real man; I think in the circumstances he was confused, which prevented him from becoming a better one). Men don’t want succor; they want success (as you put it “men need to be successful”). There will NOT be any rewriting of these rules. A man MUST feel like a man; that was built into our DNA when we were just a theoretical construct of pre-amphibian molecular juices swimming in the primordial ooze. The discussion here treats “education”, and by that I mean college education, as if it was a series of classes at Vic’s Auto Repair. It is not. If you have an education, and your husband does not, the difference shows up in a million ineffable ways. I have been around very very intelligent people, exceptional at their jobs, but without post secondary education, and they were limited, they did not have the exposure that allowed them to expand beyond the specific intellectual requirements of their job. Your issues seem to be more about money; note I haven’t even mentioned it.I am addressing this fantasy that a woman with a B.A. (or higher)can marry a high school graduate plumber. Yeah, it happens. Men bite dogs too.
All this crap I read above, and hear, about these professional women (your generation and the next) settling in with men of substantially less academic achievement is nothing more than feminists and crypto-feminists relishing the final touches of Western Male Comeuppance, where men trade in their balls and accept their status as vassals to their female superiors. Listen to your dear old Uncle Tom now-no, move closer-closer-there-AIN’T GONNA’ FUCKING HAPPEN NO FUCK IN WAY COPULATING PIGS WILL FLY OUT OF THE ORIFICES OF EVERY SINGLE FUCKING MAN ALIVE BEFORE IT FUCKING DOES!!!!!!!!!
In case I was too delicate, allow me to be more precise. Men are described as less emotional as women. That is not true. We may lack the full array of emotional responses women have, but ours, while fewer, are very intense. Sort of like in grade school when you girls show up with the 182 assorted crayons, shade after shade, each one pencil perfect tipped and stayed that way all year, while us boys had the pathetic 9 pack, each one instantly worn round, the paper then pealed back, as we listlessly attempted to draw something cognizable. Well, one of our few colors (emotions) is black. We do not play games we can’t win, and we don’t make a fuss about it. In all the articles about high educated women “settling” for lower educated men, have you read one word coming from the male perspective? No, and you won’t. The phrase “taking your marbles and going home” didn’t originate with girls. Guys see the implications inherent in the situation and move on. The last thing they’ll ever do is breathe a word of it,touching as it does on the essential core of their manhood. This 60/40 college split is just the beginning.
You hear that rattling sound ladies? That’s what marbles sound like, in a bag , tucked away by a guy who’s given up.
Uncle Tom told ya’.
@ Jim
You must be new here.
When did I say that I don’t seek intelligence in a man? Wasn’t I the one who wrote this:
What I’m saying is that women today don’t value the title of “provider” nearly as much as we did in the past. We like traits for a whole slew of reasons other than that they may signal the ability to provide. I like intelligent men because they are the most interesting to talk to, not because they may be able to provide me with more resources.
@ SayWhaat
Do you know if Jim was referring to you or me with his asinine comment?
“It is a complete myth and misunderstanding of the reality of a top 20% man to think that he needs to occasionally settle for lesser women, which women then refuse to settle for anything less than a top man, having once tasted it accidentally. In reality most women never have a chance at a top man even for a ONS (nor are women so absurdly irrational as have no conception of their own mate value.”
@Greg
I have to disagree. Though it’s true that most women will not be able to attract the top dogs, that doesn’t mean they will settle for betas. As one HUS commenter duly noted, such women become “carousal watchers”, sitting celibately on the sidelines with the hope that an alpha will one day sweep them off their feet. Beta males lose (unless they have cash).
I say intelligence is not a guarantee because I once dated a guy who, despite being very intelligent, seems to have started a descent into drugs and other hedonistic pleasures.
He wasn’t intelligent.
What I’m saying is that women today don’t value the title of “provider” nearly as much as we did in the past.
Sure you do but his name is Uncle Sam and all the goodies he PROVIDES for you.
@ Jim
Um, how is Uncle Sam providing for me?
If you think I’m on government programs, for whatever reason that may be, the answer is no.
The problem is that social scientists start with the perception that “education is better”. Why? Because their educated, its human nature to assume we’re the shit.
Exactly, it is pure projection. They consider themselves higher status because of their education, so the default assumption is education must be a component of status. The hindbrain might not give two shits about educational achievement. Now maybe it is some component, but you are exactly right to note it is an example of a biased premise.
Let me add stuff like quotas, grants, free contraception, abortion, health care, Planned Parenthood, WIC, EBT, student loans, free housing, free tuition, jobs in non-profits, all this is being PROVIDED to you. Oh you value providers but you just don’t value that in individuals because the collective is there to provide for you. But for how long? Hypergamy is gone in a sense because the government stepped in and ensured that women aren’t relying upon it. Yet their jobs, their health, and their well being is by are far being subsidized and therefore provided to them.
Sassy I didn’t say you were on government programs but without them around to PROVIDE ASSISTANCE in all areas for a lot of women, then this conversation would not even be taking place.
There are no circles in which a bouncer is a socially dominant male. He has very little power and little access to resources. You got to be kidding me if you think the power to let people into clubs is seen as a massive amount of power by women, even club rats, more important than the power wielded by say, a high powered attorney, politician, or banker. THAT is social dominance.
Greg, I bounced with a guy who was the #1 guy in a bunch of social circles. Sure, if I took him to an upscale art gallery show, he wouldn’t have any social dominance,but I would go out with the guy and just observe the social dominance. Truth is, alot of this quickly gets into just a bunch of theoretical postulating from people who never been outside their SES. Sure, someone of lower SES might not have status in higher SES circles, but they can still be numero uno in their particular segment. I could tell you about the “high status” guys with the cash that some girls see as “tools” to get a bunch of free drinks while they end up fucking the “low status” guys instead of the guy that is “socially dominant” in your eyes. I’ll say it again, STATUS AND DOMINANCE is contextual.
Uh……okay. If you think so, so be it.
At this point, I honestly have no clue what stance you are even arguing for.
Greg said:
There are no circles in which a bouncer is a socially dominant male. He has very little power and little access to resources. You got to be kidding me if you think the power to let people into clubs is seen as a massive amount of power by women, even club rats, more important than the power wielded by say, a high powered attorney, politician, or banker. THAT is social dominance.
______________________
You are very, very wrong here. Dangerously wrong, if you act on this hypothesis in certain ways.
I, too, was a bouncer for several years. I finished that “career” at a high-end hot spot, one where yuppies (and even a few politicians) liked to be seen.
The bouncer is the guy all the lawyers want to be “in” with. He’s the guy who knows where the after parties are, the names of the girls, and the guy who can keep the lawyer from being embarrassed/getting his ass kicked.
The bouncer knows all the regulars, and a good one will get to be buddies with each. After they get their first drink, all the regulars will wander over to catch up with the bouncer, and see what’s cracka-lackin’ this weekend. Even the lawyers and bankers.
Social proof is easier for the bouncer in his bar than for almost anyone.
As for dominance – in that bar/club, what the bouncer says, goes. Smart yuppies know this, or they learn the painful way. If I didn’t want you in my bar, your ass was out. If you argue too much, I’d put my hands on you.
Go ahead, call the cops. I see them every weekend and I never press charges unless they want me to. Most of them are former military, just like me. I let them in to my bar when they’re off, and I make sure they drink for free. Those cops are my buddies – they owe me and they know it.
Sue me, and I’ll swear on the Holy Bible I saw you doing a line of blow off an erect cock in the Men’s Room, and removed you in accordance with club policy.
That is a tremendous amount of power. It’s very situational, granted, but it does make the ladies tingle – even some nice ones.
@Dogsquate, the point I am making is do women pursue socially powerful men for purposes of sexual satisfaction or material benefit? All the evidence points towards material benefit, and the question is quite relevant to whether the social changes we are seeing – of women earning more and rising socially – will result in massive female sexual dissatisfaction, or merely the withering away of the age-old female practice of hypergamy, which is in fact what seems to be happening.
Social changes in the past 100 years have led to the fading away of many social practices once thought to be timeless, and female hypergamy seems to be one of them.
That is why it is very hard to decide if something you observe about human behavior is something timeless, or just a strategy – for instance, is violence an instinct, or just a strategy some people adopt in response to specific conditions? I have my opinion, but debate rages on this issue, and it is vitally important.
@Kirk – The concept of beta as applied to humans does not seem to me to have much meaning or content, nor am I aware of any studies that show women to be sexually aroused by personality traits. In fact all the studies I know show women to be aroused by non-fakeable physical traits like athelticism, facial symmetry, etc.
But to address your larger point. Since most women will never actually get *swept off their feet* by an alpha, then those genes which would have made women wait for such a non-event would have been weeded out of the population, as such women would fail to reproduce. So it makes little sense that evolution would have selected for genes that made women remain celibate unless an extremely rare and unlikely event would take place. Women who would have been much better at balancing the available men against their desire for superior genetic stock with the males ability and desire to invest in his offspring, would have been most likely to reproduce.
What you are positing is a situation where women pursuing an extremely bad reproductive strategy become the dominant type – unlikely, to put it mildly.
@ Mike C and Dogsquat
RE: Bouncers
I agree with you both 100%. Status and dominance are in the eyes of the beholder. It is also situational/locational. A bouncer is one of the top dogs at a night spot. A lawyer is a top dog in its own respective environment. Just because someone has high occupational status or money does not mean that person will be the top dog in all situations/locations.
So bouncers have the power to let ppl in a (single) club or kick them out.
Yet women are supposed to be such terrible guardians of their own genetic interest that this is supposed to be more important to them than having real access to large amounts of resources and the type of power that will really help her and her offspring be protected and succeed in society. And a race of such retarded women is supposed to have been able to successfully pass on its genes throughout the generations.
I dont know where you guys have studied evolution – maybe at a Christian college in the South? And I really want some of what you are smoking – sounds like some real quality stuff.
@Sassy –
The average bouncer also gets more phone numbers from attractive women every weekend than Samuel A. Alito, Jr. gets in a year.
Mike C,
The kind of social status where hypergamy comes into play is the kind where the male has power and access to resources that can help a female and her offspring survive and succeed. The fact that a bouncer is held in high regard by a small group of peers means nothing in terms of female hypergamy. Even women in his small social circle live in a wider society where they know this bouncer does not have the kind of social status that would help her genetic interests, when compared with other men in the wider community.
Local status is nothing if that community is part of a larger community. It only matters if that community is isolated and the woman has no access to other men from the wider community.
Now, I am not disagreeing with you that some women are hot for bouncers – sure they are. But it is in SPITE of their extremely low social status. Which is partly my point – social status does NOT make women hot for men. Its irrelevant. I agree many women view genuinely powerful and wealthy men as suckers they will lead on while banging bouncer types on the side – sure, for some women, this is what they do. But this also supports my point that what turns women on is NOT genuine power and genuine high status.
Have you ever heard of cuckoldry?
The best circumstances for producing children, in the ancient past, was to have sufficient tangible resources and superior genetic quality. If a woman was able to sequester a man to provide resources for her, but wanted better gene quality, she would cuckold him with a man who had a better genetic makeup. It satisfied both criteria, which was to acquire resources and to get high quality sperm.
Women of the past weren’t retarded. They were opportunistic. They got the resources and the genetic quality that they desired.
How does the concept of cuckoldry tie into your beliefs about evolutionary biology?
Greg said:
the point I am making is do women pursue socially powerful men for purposes of sexual satisfaction or material benefit?
____________________________
You’re painting with an awfully broad brush.
Can’t you imagine that the group “Women” has individuals that do both, either, neither, or other?
Sassy, you are exactly right. But that is exactly my point. Women pursue social status as a strategy to gain resources, not because they are attracted to these men sexually. Then they bang studly guys on the side (maybe even bouncers, for some women, at any rate). But today, this kind of two-pronged path is no longer needed for women. They can get their own resources and make choices in men based wholly on non-hypergamous considerations.
@Doughsquat, the thing about evolution is that it tends to weed out the genes that lead one to unsuccessful mating strategies. Those genes simply dont get passed on.
Okay. I see where you are coming from now.
We are basically in agreement, but we differ in our definitions of hypergamy considerably. I don’t think hypergamy only deals with resources. I believe it is far more complex than that.
I do believe that hypergamy manifests itself in a woman’s desire to have a mate who is of high status. The environments, locations, and criteria of which each woman wants their man to have high status differs from woman to woman. I also believe hypergamy manifests itself in the tendency for women to judge the comparative hierarchical standings of men against other males on desired traits.
“educated, artsy underachiever”,
You forgot misunderstood, that is the excuse for his lack of success
As this trend continues, I wish I could buy stock on companies that sold “Where are all the decent men?????” screeds. Demand for that product is going to skyrocket.
I will be investing in cat food, single mother products and services and empowered women that need not men fiction books.
Because of hypergamy, there will be a provider shortage. Birthrates? Down, way down. Down so much that governments will start paying couples to have kids. It’s already happening in towns in Italy (one of the lowest birthrates in Europe) while Japan is desperate to address this demographic calamity.
Yes I read that certain towns had to close their schools because they didn’t have enough children to educate. But again I think this will be localized conservative states seem to be surviving this very well Hope and BB swear for this places being more male and family friendly. So my guess is that we will have NYC and big urban places falling for this while Utah and the likes will be steadily growing. Now will men emigrate in mass to this states living the feminists in their “utopia” time will tell.
So even if it were true that women get wet for bouncers, which I doubt, it would be evidence that women are NOT primarily motivated by social dominance or power, as bouncers have VERY little of both.
As the guys had been explaining to you hypergamy is the cue of dominance in an specific environment. So for the party girl and the people that likes clubs the bouncer looks like an earthly God. But for the ones that don’t care he is just a guy, you need to remember that women are a mobile gender being given away in marriage, or taken as spoils of war since ancient times they needed to adapt quickly to get the best mate they could get in any context so it makes sense that their hypergamy is influenced by environment.
If I am making my own money, why would I need or value a man who can only offer me more money above anything else?
Would you pick a man as a boyfriend that you know will spent your money to be able to keep with your tastes in restaurants and entertainment?
What Sassy6519 is saying is that what’s happened in the African-American community will now happen in the white community.
Because African-American women were able to “marry” the state and receive additional benefits (education, training) they stopped looking to men as providers. Instead, they chose based on some of the characteristics sassy mentions — like “brute strength and protection.”
Viola! We got thug culture, since men found style, not substance, was the way to snare these women. This is already developing in the white community with the PUAs as the white (and lite) version of thugs.
It’s funny such women are mentioning “bouncers” as the ideal of today’s man when their moms were looking to marry doctors or accountants. That says something — females, despite their education — are devolving and will devolve the species in much the way African-American women and their choices caused their community to degenerate in just a few generations.
@ Anacaona
No, but I don’t need a Rockefeller either. What I’m saying is that I don’t need a guy who makes more money than I do. He doesn’t have to support me, but he should be able to support himself. Making an exorbitant amount of money would be a bonus, but it’s not a necessity.
No, but I don’t need a Rockefeller either.
Didn’t you said that you saw a guy swiping a Centurion card and your panties literately exploded?
What I’m saying is that I don’t need a guy who makes more money than I do. He doesn’t have to support me, but he should be able to support himself. Making an exorbitant amount of money would be a bonus, but it’s not a necessity.
Well that is the difference many men don’t mind having a woman to share their money with as long as she is feminine, loyal and reasonable (not a spent drift). That is a provider’s cue.
It seems like women have all the support groups. Now, they have another notch on their belt. I bet it makes them feel good to know there are men available to eat their scraps. You came a long way baby.
Hypergamy will not end. The decline of marriage continues. Women are getting more desperate with their spinster status. Yet we are telling now to try to date lesser men as if these arrangements will work. Maybe it will convince some women to change their ways, but not all. The hard sell is the men who might try out the arrangement and leave it out of frustration and suffocation. No man wants to marry his mother. He wants to be the head of his household.
What I see happening is the marriage minded men will date continue to date lower status women. There is strong evidence that men will seek out these women far and wide. The marriageable men will have jobs to support their wife and children. This won’t change.
I do see that women’s education will be downplayed in society. More women graduates doesn’t mean they are necessarily intelligent. It means they got a piece a paper. They are lacking in the hard sciences and math. What’s the value of women who can’t confidently do a spreadsheet or understand technical information? Soon, there will be a new category of unemployable graduates… lawyers, teachers, and liberal arts majors. People will hire based on experience rather than a piece of paper.
I wish this social engineering will stop. It is pure delusion to suggest society will continue to advance to the benefit of women. Men are not such amenable creatures who will fall in line when commanded. They will go elsewhere to get their needs met.
“What I’m saying is that I don’t need a guy who makes more money than I do. He doesn’t have to support me, but he should be able to support himself. ”
How does this work in real life? I have no clue.
@ Anacaona
Yes, I did. There are two key things that you should know about that.
1. I said I don’t need a Rockefeller. I never said I didn’t want or wouldn’t mind having one. If a man makes a lot of money, it’s an added bonus, but it’s not a necessity.
2. The guy who paid for dinner with his Centurion card was very good looking. When he whipped the card out, the added bonus effect kicked in and my loins did burst into flames. I liked him because he was physically attractive and he seemed like a nice guy. Once I found out that he was loaded, it was the icing on the cake. Had he not been attractive from the get go, I wouldn’t have been enthused about the money. I once had this old male lawyer attempt to make me his sugar baby, and I couldn’t run away from that guy fast enough.
@Sassy
The added bonus is the cue. Ask any man if he sees a hottie that seems nice if she having a big card makes any difference in the boner.
The older man was probably more unattractive that he was rich, we are not saying that an ugly man with money will make any woman wet but that a man that shows economic independence is more attractive to a woman all things being equal than a man that doesn’t even the bouncer boy doesn’t dress in rags to keep the image, peacocking is an important part of game for a reason. This doesn’t happen the other way around with men.
I can’t speak for all millennial girls, but I’ve never considered being a SAHM an option. It sounds nice. On nice days I look outside my office window and think, “just another 40 years and I can go out and enjoy that sunshine and the museum on a Tuesday and late breakfasts with good coffee instead of breakroom mudwater.”. Aah someday. Keeping house is a piece of cake if you don’t have to work 40 hours a week on top of it.
Seriously though, I think you’re confusing higher education with making money. There are baristas with multiple degrees but Bill Gates is a college drop out. My generation was encouraged to go to college just for the sake of going while the school system scrapped all the useful electives like wood shop. It’s just a matter of time before that shit hits the fan. I predict that in 20 years, it’s the plumbers that will be bringing in the most cash.
@ Jonny
Picture this.
If I hypothetically made $40,000 a year, people who believe that hypergamy relates to monetary resources would say that I would only be attracted to men who make more than that. Personally, I don’t find this to be true. In that situation, I would be happy dating a man who made equal or less than that, to a certain extent (anywhere below $30,000 would be iffy). What matters most to me is that he is able to responsibly take care of himself on whatever income he has. It all depends on the woman, of course.
Anacaona: “Ask any man if he sees a hottie that seems nice if she having a big card makes any difference in the boner. [...] This doesn’t happen the other way around with men.”
Have you tried it?
I once had a woman buy me a $45 meal at a restaurant. (A king’s ransom when you’re making $6/hr in college.) On another occasion she took me to a club and bought me shots all night. As a man, I can say that having a woman spoil you feels amazing.
@Lokland
I can already hear my professors weep, for having to lower standards so dramatically in order to allow in “common people”.
@Tom / Mr Munson
“The phrase “taking your marbles and going home” didn’t originate with girls. Guys see the implications inherent in the situation and move on.”
YES
This is the herbivore / grass-eater thing.
Society says to many non-alpha men (1-3 mandatory, 4+ it’s up to her, not you):
1) go get educated / trained
2) work your arse off to get a house / car / money in the bank
3) when you get to 30-40 you get to be picked by a fugly who has spent 10-15 years on the carousel. She finally realises that she can’t get an alpha, so she’s ready to settle – you lucky beta, you.
4) 5-10 years, a few kids (hopefully yours) and it’s time to cash in the marriage for cash and prizes
5) you get to spend the next 15-20 years working your arse of to pay chilimony. Maybe you get to see the kids, maybe not. Maybe you get gaoled for failure to pay when you lose your job => on release can’t get a new job => gaol (rinse and repeat).
SO…when young guys look at this deal that they’re offered and say “Hell NO, I’ll be in the basement with my mates, x-box, beer etc.”
They are making a rational decision; they don’t like the deal, they don’t do the deal.
“Where have all the good men gone?” LMAO
calling them man-boys etc is not going to work (nor should it).
@Sassy
All well and good (I believe you), but if/when the baby rabies cuts in?
That’s when his on-going ability to support you and the kidz becomes more important.
It’s also when daddy-state can step in with healthcare, social security etc.
A lot of women can only choose to be single moms because they effectively marry daddy-state, the ultimate provider. The fact that daddy-state exists by taxing the hell out of everyone else, a detail, mere detail.
But if the tax base drops in a recession, or because men drop out, what then?
This is the other reason that the tard-cons are upset with man-boiz (beyond princesses asking where all the good men are), they need the tax base of beta-herbs.
The herbivore thing may sound amusing, but it has massive implications if it becomes widespread in society.
hxxp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-generation-xx-1704155.html
“About one third of the Japanese workforce is now casual or part-time, and confidence in the future is at rock bottom. For many young men, the post-war dream of lifetime employment, home and family, with all the sacrifices it entailed, is fading. In response, some have turned their energies elsewhere, toward the once feminised sphere of consumption – or away from life altogether.”
hxxp://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/the-zeta-contract/
“According to reporting from macleans.ca: “Just as they {“…soushoku dansi—translated to “grass-eating boys” or, more commonly, “herbivores.”} disdain old-fashioned alpha males, they scoff at the status-conscious consumerism of their parents’ generation. Grass-eating boys aren’t big spenders and they don’t take flashy vacations. They are close to their mothers, prefer platonic relationships with female friends, are attentive to their appearance and have fewer career ambitions. A subsidiary of Dentsu, Japan’s largest advertising agency, estimates that 60 per cent of men in their 20s consider themselves grass-eaters.” [1]
A facile reading of this phenomenon might conclude that these are feminized men, but this would be to entirely miss the point. Japan’s grass eaters have evaluated the traditionally allowed male role of worker drone, and disposable human, and rejected it entirely to pursue their own quality of life.
The grass eaters are effectively tanking Japan’s economy, which, like all nation states, runs on the burned out corpses of “real men”.”
(hxxp://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/09/the-grass-eating-boys-of-japan/)
@Greg
We already have that, and it’s only been a win for the men with the best genetic stock. When women pursue sexual bliss they’re targeting men who will not offer commitment. Regardless of changes in society, most women still want that.
Your approach would eliminate marriage and family in time.
@Ramble
I’m sure that’s true. He is definitely not going to be viewed as marriage material.
20 – 50 pounds! I may live in Brookline, but it borders on the city. Obviously, I have no way of tracking the weight gain of strangers, but it’s not like I would say 20 year olds are slim, and 30 year olds are fat.
@Lokland
This is why I believe that STEM guys (especially T as you said) are going to enjoy a boost in status in the next generation. Obviously, for this to be true, women have to value what successful T guys have – and I believe they do.
@Greg
I’m curious about how you developed your views. Obviously, you know they’re heretical from a Game perspective.
@Jim
I don’t know why autism has increased so much, but Simon Baron-Cohen, an expert on the subject calls it “extreme male brain” and believes it has to do with prenatal exposure to testosterone. Which may very well speak to the genetic characteristics of either parent.
@Sassy
Our brains, including our sexual attraction triggers, have not changed in 100,000 years. At all. So while women may make decisions about marriage based on contemporary societal trends, that does not translate into who they find “hot.”
This is all covered in The Evolution of Desire. I’ll dig up the relevant passages.
@Mike C
I’m sorry, but that’s a ludicrous statement. The concept of hypergamy, often defined as “marrying up” came about through an enormous body of research observing and studying assortative mating. Women tend to marry men with more education than themselves and men do the reverse. The only time this doesn’t happen is when the gender education gap disappears. Then women will marry men of equal education (as they largely do now). Ultimately, the question is whether they will marry men of less education, and whether men of less education will want to marry them.
The idea of the world’s largest government funding studies to reward the projection of academic elites is silly.
@Munson
Agreed. That one quote from Juan, who fantasizes about leaving his provider wife, was the most important quote in the whole post.
It clearly is, and by definition it depends on the audience. You seem to be assuming that every AMOG will do equally well with every woman. There’s an AMOG among the Theoretical Physics PhD candidates at MIT. Obviously, relative status and dominance is not the whole story.
Funny true story. A girl in one of my focus groups had a bouncer confiscate her fake ID when she was 20. He was a real hardass about it – she begged him to no avail. He then quietly said, “Meet me at the back door in 20 minutes.” She showed up and he pulled a stack of IDs out of his pocket larger than a deck of cards. He found hers. He held it up and said “Write your real number on my hand and I’ll give it back.” She thought it was a super sexy move, but screened his calls until they stopped. Was she, a teacher, really going to start dating a guy who works every night? How was she going to incorporate him into her crowd? He would have been a good fling, but she wasn’t looking for a casual sex experience.
It’s stunning how intelligent, well-educated people can be capable of such naive and ignorant ideas. It reminds me of a story I wrote as a teenager–one of my only forays into sci-fi. A species of plant mutates and develops the ability to think and reason. The plants become so smart that they figure out how to become mobile. They pull themselves out of the ground and go running to take over the world. Soon enough, all but one die–none of them realized that their lives were sustained by being rooted in the ground.
Sometimes I feel like intelligent people uproot themselves like that. I feel like that’s the case here.
Definitely.
She may observe them but male hierarchy is determined by males. Women simply observe and respond to that.
Yup. The context is key.
1 2 3 … 6 »
{ 2 trackbacks }