"Hypergamy" is a term borrowed from biology, I believe. It refers to a preference for mating *upward*: Men don't want girls they look up to (Pyjama Boy does, if he wants a girl at all, but he's defective). Girls are only attracted to men they look up to. They are *only* attracted to men they consider superior to themselves.
Yeah, yeah, men *fantasize* about 10s. And some fantasize about girl-power action hero fantasy characters. But basically all men can happily be in love for their whole lives with very ordinary women who they consider weaker than themselves. If a man thinks his wife is stronger than himself, every man and every woman (most especially his wife) thinks he's a pussy, defective. A loser.
A man is happy if he's the source of strength. A woman is happy if HE is the source of strength. She is *miserable* if *she* is the source of strength. That's hypergamy.
Women absolutely require that their man be emotionally and physically stronger than them, and dominant. Dominant in an effortless, casual way. If he's not smarter and higher earning too, he'd better be a hell of a charming SOB.
I know a female statistician married to a senior fireman. You know how women are about firemen. He's a level headed, responsible man who leads men, sound judgment, proven physically brave, a great father, and pre-selected to hell and back -- well out of her league by any sane standards. She's unhaaapy because she makes more money and he doesn't put her in her place. Silly bitch. She should be on her knees thanking God for letting her have this man in her life.
But he doesn't know how to put her in her place, and she makes more money.
That's hypergamy. Nothing to do with pre-selection. It's about relative "value", as women perceive it in their narrow little pea brains. That woman has an IQ nearly as high as mine and knows ten times more math -- and she's got the brains of a goldfish.
I was just thinking about the dominance thing the other day. I'm pretty funny, faster on my feet than most. I have a hell of an imagination. I can improvise the craziest shit. It takes all that every day to keep my girlfriend submissive, and she ain't in my league by half, on looks or anything else. Plus I earn twice what she does, and she knows it. Silly American bitch. Delusional.
If I've got to work to stay on top of this one, WTF is the average guy supposed to do? Nine hours hanging sheetrock or some shit and he's supposed to come home and effortlessly dominate an exchange of repartee with some angry fat skank? How about you boil the fucking spaghetti and shut your trap, Jumbo?
Maybe you MGTOW guys have a point. These dumb bitches are psychotic.For the record it looks like the term Hypergamy comes from the Social Sciences, according to Wikipedia (there's some contention between Evolutionary Psychology and Social Learning Theorists). It is very much worth reading what Wikipedia says about it - though keep in mind that Wikipedia is only the topmost fluff-and-bare-bones of any subject. We also need to keep in mind that anything to do with society and social sciences is open to observer bias and interpretation (including our own).
(I find it interesting that in India, the higher cost of arranging dowries for their daughters is causing some rural Indians to commit female infanticide in the form of aborting female fetuses. This makes me think back to the old times when men wanted SONS to help them on the farm, 'cause at least they were useful...)
(I also find it very interesting the feminist analysis/slant/propaganda HAH! They can say all they want that hypergamy must be analyzed in the context of a patriarchal system - doesn't mean that assertion is true. More on that later)
Definitely men would prefer a lower-attractiveness, less-hassle woman long-term. It's bad enough to be coming back from a hell day and then have to deal with someone who's decided to be Mz Bitch™ for the evening and night...you get no fuckin' rest. Which is their MO, if you're tired out you'll be more likely to give in and give Mz Bitch™ what she wants.
Totally correct about men and women being miserable if they think the man is the weaker of the couple. Yet it seems to happen all the time. Why the misery? It's social conditioning - the man should be the stronger, the woman the weaker. Yet, thanks to female machinations in society and laws: upon entering the marriage the man has no power, the woman has all the power. Instant reversal of all the power dynamics.
Further she will deliberately attempt to change her man into something weaker. Which is why so many men end up as hollow shells. Read my post on Personal Time and Space is Golden for Men - especially think about the bit in the middle regarding domestic abuse, flipped on it's head, if she were another man pulling that crazy nagging shit. On the whole, deliberately turning the man she loved into a nothing that she'd rather not waste spit upon is psychotic to an extreme.
So let's look at this harder. Women *say* that they want a man superior to them etc...yet their *actions* are a constant attempt to deliberately destroy that man. One of the things that we are so big on in the Manosphere, the PUA's and MGTOW's and MRA's alike, is a pragmatic rule of thumb: "When words and actions do not match, always believe actions."
By their actions these women are saying: "I want to destroy you."
Which action-message is pretty-much confirmed when we start looking at the statistics regarding common male-destructive situations involving: false rape accusations, false domestic violence accusations, and frivorce. Think about that, when you think about your constant struggle with being dominant over your self-stated bog-average and very-far-below-you girlfriend.
Let's look at your senior fireman. Strong, handsome, a leader - unfortunately his wife makes more money than he does. This makes him unhappy because as the highest money-earner, she's the one in control and he's not really able to put her in her place - which both situations likewise make her unhappy. Why might this be?
Once I read The Predatory Female and The Manipulated Man (both in the list of Worthwhile Books page up top) I realized three things:
1/ Women are parasites.
2/ Parasites are lazy.
3/ Women are therefore lazy.
And that is the root of so-called hypergamy.
Women are marrying up - to guys who make more money, or are of a higher social standing/caste than they are (which usually includes money) - because they can then slack off, pump out a couple kids, and be fucking lazy with the excuse of "looking after the children". (I remember that Terrence Popp put out a video about women pumping out kids every couple of years. Also look up the concept of baby-jail and women having whoopsies to deliberately trap men.)
This is why your fireman's wife is unhaaaapy. He's unhappy because he's been conditioned all his life that "the man brings in more than the woman", it's part of the social memes that we all run mentally. She's unhappy because she can't be a lazy cunt and slack off while bringing up kiddies - one of the easiest jobs out there, especially these days.
'Cause she's gotten used to a certain amount of dollars coming in, y'know, the lifestyle-thing and all to which she has become accustomed...she's not attracted entirely to the man above her, she's attracted to the potentially lazy life that he represents, and her current hubby just ain't cuttin' it on that front.
Recently I've been putting up the posts about interchangeable, and a couple of those posts are about society and relationships. The whole basis of those posts, the underpinning, is laziness taken to an extreme.
So let's have a thought-experiment. Let's suppose that you demonstrate the following:
1/ Paying cash for expensive things of quality (not crapple status items and electroshit hybrid cars, but *true* quality)
2/ Being quite happy with second-hand stuff that is cheap but serviceable
3/ Having absolutely no debt of any kind (no credit card, no car finance, no mortgage, no bank loan or overdraft)
4/ That you work only the required hours to do the above - by choice! - and absolutely refuse to work harder/longer
I know two guys in exactly this situation. One has a house of his own that he paid cash for and he never bothers with women. He never has. He got the money together by living with his parents until he was 29-ish, he's now pushing his 40's. He's basically invisible to women, plus being totally not interested.
The other guy is 27 and rents, probably will for life. Without fail, every time, the woman in his life eventually breaks it off - calls him a "loser" - and forgets he exists. Utterly dead to her. (I'm almost in this situation myself - while I like fucking women, they don't tend to stay long once they grasp how my mentality works - which is "buy to last a lifetime". I will not buy certain things more than once.)
Why does this happen to these guys?
Because they're not easy prey. Neither of them. The parasite cannot lure them into the debt-trap of buy-buy-buy, new-new-new, upgrade-upgrade-upgrade, must-keep-up-with-the-Joneses, etc for her benefit. She cannot leech off of them. Once that becomes clear she reverts to her default of laziness. Fuck it. All men are interchangeable. I'll go find another loser that I can wrap around my finger and turn into my slave.
It's also very interesting to note that those four things make up a good start to the ideal partner - for a man. You might call that the mythical NAWALT, which I have written about a couple of times.
The feminist slant on Wikipedia states:
Feminist analysis of hypergamy says the practice needs to be understood in the context of a patriarchial system: ...Yet when we flip it on it's head, when we look at it in the context of a matriarchal system where the women call the shots, where the women receive the benefits, and where the women are the ones in ultimate control - it looks a helluva lot like a parasite fastening onto a host, a slaveowner driving their slave to the ragged edge and an early grave.
No wonder they demand that it be examined in the context of a patriarchy, examining it in the context of a matriarchy makes them look like parasites and slaveowners.
But then, we already know that slavery is alive and well.
And now it is my Monday AM. Time to sleep, to give over the on-call to someone else later today, do my work, go to the gym, and finally go for a relaxing wander down the local beach. No woman earbashing me, no parasite leeching off me...a Man's heaven on earth...
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-infidelity.html - for your consideration
ReplyDeleteInteresting in it's way. Large numbers of single men destabilizing society - yes indeed, look at the middle-east. Men desperate for women will do anything, like people will do anything rather than starve to death. Thus we have Achmed the Suicide Bomber hoping for his 72 virgins in the next life. (Probably 72 guys.)
DeleteInfidelity - back on this post Paul Murray made the point that 4 years is long enough for a child to be weaned and not completely helpless any more. The author of that link makes a good case for why the cold-climes races seemed to be less-promiscuous: survival was so difficult that it was an advantage to restrain that natural impulse. (Coincidence that the northern races created most civilizations?)
I have often thought that the future might look something like this:
The Man has a home and job and things to make his life easier and more enjoyable. She lives in an apartment block with other women, communal, needs taken care of, minimal effort on her part.
He and a Woman become mutually attracted. She moves in, has his baby, etc. For 5 years he supports her and the child (food, clothing, a little luxury). After that she moves back to the dormitory, after having been sheltered and supported during her birthing years - the child goes into a dormitory creche.
He and/or she both find another partner, assuming either has an interest in having another child. Or not.
While unattached half of his effort goes to the state, providing for other unattached women and children. While attached he keeps 3/4 of his effort, since he has others to take care of.
No I do not expect this to happen. After all, it sounds suspiciously like what happened with Communism, and we know what a disaster that ended up as. It also looks pretty-much like the mess we're going down into.
Besides, women are never content. Like the old Arab saying: "Women want fried ice."
I like this saying; "In regards to women, treat them mean to keep them lean and keen. Any other way leads to certain doom." Wish I had heard this back when I was 13 years old. Even still, girls were antagonistic enough to me back then, I had no choice but to retaliate. So even the ones that behave well towards me, I can't help but look at them with a cynical eye of suspicion. It's like I'm being buttered up for a sucker punch so she can steal my wallet or whatever else I have in possession that she wants.
ReplyDeleteA saying that would have been very timely back at 10 years old.
DeleteYour cynicism born from experience is good. You are being buttered up for that sucker-punch, manipulation, crying-jags to twist up your emotions, etc.
"Girls are only attracted to men they look up to. They are *only* attracted to men they consider superior to themselves."
ReplyDelete^^^^ Yes, this in spades. Most if not all of the women who were attracted to me, I was way above their league just in terms of looks and fitness alone. Goddamn fatties with cute faces and skinny-fat butter face chicks are attracted to me like flies to shit. These are women I would not even consider fucking them while sober and these bitches have the fucking gall to think they deserve to be in my company. Only blue pill thirsty simps go for these cunts and like clockwork, they do. Sad thing is many of these men look like they could easily get better than the bitch they are currently with. I don't know man, the cognitive dissonance between blue pill simps and these lazy basic bitches is surreal like all us MGTOW are in the twilight zone.
"Definitely men would prefer a lower-attractiveness, less-hassle woman long-term."
I disagree with this. I think most men prefer the unicorn/highly attractive low maintenance; and besides, lower attractive bitches have proven time and again not to be any less of a hassle at all than their higher attractive sisters. But I get what you are saying, as long as the bitch is not just willing but eager to drop to her knees, spread her legs and worship the D, a man might consider keeping her for the long term. But if she gives anything less than that, she is out. Bitch is worthless.
Given that I've never had a 9+ in my life, I cannot comment. The girls that I considered 9+ were always delusional and insane. (But then, I'm pleasantly ugly at best.)
DeleteVery well put re her giving anything less than the maximum indicating that she's a worthless bitch to be kicked to the kerb.
I've never had 9+ in my life either. I think the best I have ever had was an 8 and that was with her make up on. I've never seen her without it on because she was/is a professional who I paid for up front, but I would wager she drops at least two or three points in attractiveness. Usually, the hottest looking girls I have ever seen in person were all wearing make up skillfully applied where they appear like porcelain dolls. At least with women who skillfully paint their faces, you know you're being lied to up front when you look at her. The women who go without paint appear more honest on the surface, but they lie in the usual other ways women are known for aka "look at me, I'm a good girl NAWALT."
Delete