Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Understanding Hypergamy


Seems like a lot of folks have been discussing hypergamy on their blogs as of late.

I'm rather busy as of late (hence my really sporadic and infrequent posting), so I'm not going to offer the usual linkage to all the good folks that have been writing on the topic...rest assured, you need only look at my blogroll to see the various angles that have been up for discussion by such luminaries as Dalrock, Deansdale, Chuck, Athol et al. Much of the debate has been dealing with men who appear to be angry, upset or think of female hypergamy as some sort of defect.

I've already done a bit of ruminating on this topic awhile back, but I think I'd like to repost some of the commentary that was left on that particular post, as I think it contributes some good points for this topic: It's All About Hypergamy

Mating strategies of men and women are nothing more than the reproductive biological imperative: Women are instinctually attracted to male dominance and men are instinctually attracted to female fertility.

It really is that simple.

But let's break it down into even more basic terms:

Men getting angry about women's hypergamous nature is the same thing as women who get angry that "Men only like thin supermodels with big boobs."

May as well get upset at the sun for rising in the East every morning.

Now are you gonna keep raging at the things for which you have no control over...

...or are you going to use this knowledge to your own advantage?

Because that is really what "GAME" is all about. That former case of STD that has now been cleansed from the blogosphere, Tallyrand, left the following insightful comment on my previous post:

Game is accepting the truth about what men and women find attractive.

Rejecting it, is equivalent to rejecting the idea that men find young, healthy, blemish free women with symmetrical faces attractive.

You can reject the truth, but it doesn't leave you any better off doing so.

Following Talley's excellent point was a rather good comment by Anonymous (yes, that same Anonymous who seems to post comments on every single blog on the Inter webs...)

I think your emphasis on hypergamy is the right start. Game starts on the presumption that it has a valid understanding of what is attractive to women, and it's not just guess-work, theorizing, moralizing or vain hope. It's empirical (ie based on experiment), and as such is closer to science. I think its observations are sound, in that they accord with my own experience of the world. Women are indeed drawn to confident men with an air of authority about them, and the more social smarts a man can broadcast, the more attractive women will find him (most women anyhow - some women will immediately dislike such a man because they will rightfully believe they don't have a chance of snagging him).

Women are 'running game' as soon as they uncap the lip-stick, or go on yet another diet. They've correctly understood that the appearance of fertility is what attracts a man, and that youth, good physical build and symmetry of features (which is what beauty is) are the best indicators of fertility. The most attractive women also know how to be submissive in demeanor, in order that the man gets his opportunity to shine in what she expects of him - taking charge (this is the so-called feminine mystique).

Not every man needs game though, just as not every women needs make-up, exercise and dieting. They're rare though. Some people are so damn attractive that they are better off down-playing rather than upgrading themselves, so that someone will at least think they have a chance with them.

Funny thing is, we don't condemn women for reading our basic attraction psychology correctly and trying to exploit it - we even encourage it.

So I've come around to the game proponents point of view thus far, after initially being resistant. However, had game been presented in this way to me, I don't think I would have had any objection to it. It's not its observations, or even its application of those observations that are causing the rift between so many men. It's the command that is carried under the breath of so many game proponents: "get with game, or you're a lesser man - being attractive to women is all that matters."

Agreed Anonymous, great point. But understanding Hypergamy has far more implications than simply figuring out "Game" and how to get married or get laid.

As long-time Roissy commenter, Doug1 pointed out:

From the overall social point of view, one of the big downsides of female hypergamy is that the type of male psychosocial dominance that women are attracted to if their hypergamy isn’t strongly culturally shaped and constrained, isn’t by any means always socially recognized male leadership and status, but rather often rough bad boy or even thuggish violence.

BINGO! That is PRECISELY the knowledge of female sexuality that the social engineers utilized when they created the brainwashing programs to institute the feminist zeitgeist we are all now subjugated by.

Knowing the reality of female hypergamy is precisely why the feminist activists pushed the concept of "equality."

A Man who is Equal to a Woman, is a Man that Woman will not find attractive.

This knowledge is the keystone behind almost every legislative action, every government program, and every cultural message transmitted through the mass media outlets and educational institutions.

The cultural marxists that promulgated the feminist movement were quite explicit in stating their goals: they wanted to destroy the nuclear family to re-shape society to create their collectivist utopia. By promoting the feminist orthodoxy of "equality," they used their knowledge of the female's hypergamous instincts to create a society of people who are far more prone to fall into relationship dysfunction, leading to the rise in divorces and the decline of marriages.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I guess they have won then?

Gunn said...

Hypergamy on its own is not a problem; as noted, its a basic biological fact.

Its a problem in today's western societies for two reasons:

i. states unfairly subsidize women at the expense of men, which serves to lower mens' sexual market value whilst inflating womens'

ii. equality has been implemented with a view to equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. This further lowers mens smv whilst raising womens' as it acts to hinder otherwise capable men from being afforded higher status within society

As has been noted by various authors, in today's world men living at the fringes of society (criminals, thugs) are attractive to women for primal reasons, but the main reason women are able to act on their impulses is the safety net they are given by feminist/marxist states.

DeShay said...

I think this is the first time I've ever read a clear explanation of hypergamy, so thank you.

I have known women who trashed marriages to good men by running around with men who were clearly not much of a catch. It didn't make sense to me to call it hypergamy when the man she left her husband for was an unemployed, abusive jerk.

Now that you have explained that hypergamy has very little to do with the actual quality of the man, but rather the dominance she perceives that he exudes, it makes sense.

Am I reading your post correctly?

Dalrock said...

Great explanation. I've coined the term choice addiction for another behavior which seems to be lumped in (rightly or wrongly) with hypergamy. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that it is catching on, at least in the comment section of my own blog. As DeShay notes above the itch to re-choose is often disconnected from any real opportunity to trade up.

The only other thing I would add is it is one thing to acknowledge the power of human psychology. This is undeniable. However, many take this to extremes and tend to presume that people (especially women) lack free will.

Recognizing instinct/subconscious thoughts allows us to among other things make more rational choices. Acknowledging the monkey brain is one thing. Giving in and throwing your own poo is something else entirely.

dalrock said...

Also, thanks so much for the kind reference!

Anonymous said...

Keoni (HL),

This is off-topic (and probably too personal), but I am curious.

When you visualize possible futures (in all of which, unavoidably, some will cope and succeed better than others), are you seeing as "your people" those who are of your race, or those who are of your philosophy and actions?

If this is something that you have thought about in depth, please explain.

Keoni Galt said...

Can't really identify by race, since I have about 7 different ethnicities. "My people" is those friends and family for whom I have trusting, familial relations with.

Gil said...

Indeed. Why should "nice guys" think women should be attracted to them at all? Sure women don't mind be "just friends" but surely "nice guys" know women are also quite happy to be friends with homosexual men. If "nice guys" think that the difference between them and Alpha males is minimal and women shouldn't discriminate then why shouldn't "nice guys" chase unattractive women? Such women will argue that the differences between them and Alpha females is minimal too. "Nice guys" who can't see why women adore Brad Pitt have the same social blindness as women who wonder why men drool over Angelina Jolie.

Gerard said...

"A Man who is Equal to a Woman, is a Man that Woman will not find attractive."

Golden.