Hypergamy. why 'good'men get left behind?

[Cookiesandough]

So I saw a meme that showed an article with the headline “ woman marries paramedic that saved her life” and beneath that someone captioned “hypergamy doesn’t care that you saved her life”. A bunch of people commented like, “too true.” It got me thinking, to what extent is it true?

Those who are not familiar with the term. This is a quote from the book Sexual Market Value by Chris Capetown : 

“Men’s instincts tend toward polygamy, women’s toward hypergamy. Hypergamy, for those who don’t know, is women’s congenital inclination to continually trade up in men. The word has Greek origins (hyper meaning ‘above’ and gamos meaning ‘marriage’) and originally referred to women’s tendency to “marry up”, but applies equally to non-matrimonial relationships.

Whereas all men have a natural urge to copulate with a great variety of women (because, in our evolutionary history, such behavior improved our chances of gene proliferation), women have a corresponding biological drive to have relations with the highest quality man they possible can (for the same reason) and to gain exclusive commitment from that man. Briefly put, men want a lot of women, women want one really great guy.”

A few other notes....

Some people argue that this is why women leave “good” guys — because they are looking for better guys. And the person that they fall for is the “best guy“ At least in their opinion and what that they can get.

And this is measured largely by social class background, income, and/or occupational prestige. 

Incidentally, a few people have pointed out that men also display some signs of hypergamy. They concede we do have a slight tendency to care about social status and $ in mating, but not to the extent that women do. Also, someone (the red pill sphere, surprise surprise) argued that physically unattractive women getting chosen for relationships over physically attractive  women because they are more likely to be faithful and good at cleaning.(?) falls under this umbrella.

***Calling all evo-psych friends or people who have some anecdotes or opinions on this ***

Here is mine: I don’t think this is true. I think a lot of people want to “date up” though, by whatever yardstick they measure that by. I think historically women had a better advantage when they “dated up. Oh and  I like to date a lot of different guys. So I guess I am polygamist in that way(???) but in a relationship I am monogamous.  However, when I look at my dating history,  I have tended to fall for guys in my assumed social strata or higher. But I feel like that’s not fair considering I’m an unemployed student.... So that’s basically everyone. ....

Edited March 26, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Spacing

[Fletch Lives]

Poppycock. People with integrity who love their partner are naturally monogamous.

[Happy Lemming]

5 minutes ago, Cookiesandough said:

women have a corresponding biological drive to have relations with the highest quality man they possible can...

Its not the highest quality man... its the man with the biggest wallet.

[UpgradeU_]

11 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Its not the highest quality man... its the man with the biggest wallet.

I don't think all women think this way. I'm a woman, and couldn't care less what someone earns. Personality and integrity is way more important.

[Happy Lemming]

6 minutes ago, UpgradeU_ said:

I don't think all women think this way.

No... not all.  Just 99.99%

Whenever a woman meets a new guy and she is talking to her girlfriend (bff) about this new guy; the very first question the bff asks is "What does he do for a living??"  The bff is then going to compare her boyfriend to her friend's new suitor.

Don't tell there won't be a different reaction if the guy is a Cardiologist vs. a plumbing apprentice.

 

 

[normal person]

17 minutes ago, Fletch Lives said:

Poppycock. People with integrity who love their partner are naturally monogamous.

I agree, but who those people love and why they love them are relevant follow up questions for this topic. 

14 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Its not the highest quality man... its the man with the biggest wallet.

You don't think there's any nuance to that? Could a big wallet not be indicative of high quality? Hard work, diligence, persistence, intelligence? I'm not saying some people don't fall into money for silly, illegal, or arbitrary reasons, but plenty of people earn it legitimately with actual God-honest hard work, skill, and determination. I'm not saying a small wallet is indicative of "low quality" either, there are plenty of honest, hard working people who can't get ahead no matter what they do due to circumstances, and plenty of people whose lives aren't where they want them to be because of laziness, ignorance, etc. But to suggest there isn't a noticeable cross section between quality and income/net worth seems like you're undermining a ton of people.

Good question, OP.

[Weezy1973]

So I’d say in general everybody tends towards hypergamy in a very loose sense. There’s a fairly recent study about “aspirational dating” which shows that both men and women tend to be most attracted to people that are slightly more attractive (have more options) than themselves.

That being said, the matching phenomenon shows that people end up in relationships with people of the same attractiveness level. So you could take this as a conflict, that each person “settled” for the best they could get, which ideally wasn’t exactly what they wanted. So this might create discord in the relationship.

In reality though, most people that are married don’t think they settled. They’re in love and very happy with their partner. Marriages, like every aspect of life, have inevitable ups and downs, but that’s not because either partner regrets their choice and thinks they settled.

And that being said, if one partner’s options increase beyond that of their partner during the marriage, this does tend to increase the chances of divorce. Classic examples being an overweight woman getting to a healthy weight and attracting more men, or a man going from a medical student to a doctor suddenly increasing his options.

And finally, none of this really comes into play, except perhaps in the abstract. In reality, the strongest forces by far in relationship success is a combination of our genetics and our upbringing. People in happy marriages tend to have been born into happy, healthy marriages. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Spacing

[Happy Lemming]

10 minutes ago, normal person said:

 Hard work, diligence, persistence, intelligence?

In my example a plumbing assistant will work hard, he can be persistent about going to work and learning his trade and he will have some intelligence.

But if he tries to compete with a cardiologist for a woman's affection, he doesn't stand a ghost of a chance...

[Weezy1973]

On 3/24/2021 at 12:59 PM, UpgradeU_ said:

I don't think all women think this way. I'm a woman, and couldn't care less what someone earns. Personality and integrity is way more important.

I’d also say this is a product of culture and not biology. For the vast part of human evolution / history men and women “produced” the same amount. Men going to work and women staying home is a very recent phenomenon so women prioritizing money made sense in that context. But that world has changed back to our natural state where (by and large) women and men make the same amount. And I suspect we’ll see a change  as cultural norms reflect this reality. I’m Gen X and I’d say it’s still prevalent in my generation, but I’m married to a millennial and she doesn’t care (she earns more than me). I suspect as more kids are raised by equal earning parents or where mom earns more than dad, this tendency to see earning money as “masculine” will dissipate.

In hunter/ gatherer societies men hunted and women gathered. The bulk of the food came from the gatherers. The myth that women want the prize hunter only came to be when physical labor became the main source of income in recent times. Now that we’ve moved to an info based economy, we’ll see the shift back to egalitarianism.

Edited March 26, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Spacing

[Weezy1973]

8 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

In my example a plumbing assistant will work hard, he can be persistent about going to work and learning his trade and he will have some intelligence.

But if he tries to compete with a cardiologist for a woman's affection, he doesn't stand a ghost of a chance...

If depends on the woman doesn’t it?

[Happy Lemming]

4 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

If depends on the woman doesn’t it?

Not in my experience... when I got dumped it was ALWAYS for a bigger wallet.

[normal person]

37 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

No... not all.  Just 99.99%

Whenever a woman meets a new guy and she is talking to her girlfriend (bff) about this new guy; the very first question the bff asks is "What does he do for a living??"  The bff is then going to compare her boyfriend to her friend's new suitor.

Don't tell there won't be a different reaction if the guy is a Cardiologist vs. a plumbing apprentice.

I don't think you're totally wrong... but do you think there's any validity in the assumption that it's incredibly difficult and requires extraordinary talent and intelligence to become a cardiologist? I'm not saying plumbers don't do difficult, challenging work, either. But I imagine in the grand scheme of things, it's much easier to become a plumber than it is to be a cardiologist. 

I was talking to one of the porters/doormen who works in my building a few weeks ago, he was commenting on/lamenting how he couldn't afford the cheapest studio apartment in our building. It's a nice building in Manhattan, walking distance to the park, subways, etc. Certainly not the nicest place in the city but an above average rent in a prime area. He's a great guy, and he works hard, but I don't know if he does much beyond cleaning, hauling trash, telling residents if they have packages, and checking in visitors. This is stuff just about anyone could do; manual labor. My wife and I had to fight to get into good schools, pass exams, beat out other candidates for highly sought after positions, etc. We had to do different, arguably more difficult things than him to be able to afford to live here at the market rate. He's a great guy but even if he's the best porter/doorman in the world, a ton of people could do his job to the level of quality necessary. I don't think anywhere near as many people could do mine or my wife's. I would love for the guy to be able to afford to live here, but I don't see how it'd be feasible with the current supply and demand of labor for our respective jobs in conjunction with the supply/demand of the housing market here. In the west, we live in a capitalist society where it's hard to separate someone's "quality" from their earning potential. There are terrible people who make mountains of money and there are angelic selfless, people who are destitute. It seems in today's society, you need some money or earning potential for the rest of your "quality" to be assessed seriously. 

[Trail Blazer]

8 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

In my example a plumbing assistant will work hard, he can be persistent about going to work and learning his trade and he will have some intelligence.

But if he tries to compete with a cardiologist for a woman's affection, he doesn't stand a ghost of a chance...

All things being equal, a woman would prefer her beau to be a cardiologist than a plumbing apprentice almost always.  

However, nothing is ever equal in the sense that you can identically replicate the two exact people, but put them in jobs on the opposite end of the spectrum.

One chose one career for a variety of reasons, the other chose the other career for totally different reasons.  Those reasons usually indicate a large variation in their upbringing, intelligence, determination, etc.

What two individuals do for a living is only one aspect of what makes them attractive.  Would the short, rotund cardiologist with horrible skin and bad breath compete with the pumber, Chad, with the ripped body, olive skin and perfect pearly whites?  No, he wouldn't.

Oh, and just on a side note, your example of a plumber wasn't the best because I know a dude who's a plumber, in fact he started his own business after completing his trade, now he earns a lot. 

Yet, his wife who's a journalist, has been with him since they were 19, when he was a measly apprentice earning a pittance.  When she was in college, she had no idea that he was going to end up being as successful as he is.  She just loved him for who he was at the time.

[Cookiesandough]

I want to throw in this thought. It’s believed that women have biology that also limits them from earning as much as men so “marrying up” ie hypergamy a benefits them slightly more.  Women do make more less than men on average still to this day. But that largely has to do with biology itself because women have to bear children( though most of them can work through a lot of pregnancy, having children often takes them out of commission). They often rear the children in our culture, especially when you have more or a daycare /nanny is too  costly.  So men take virtually no occupational hit from having children( ‘cept for you, stay at home dads. I salute you!) So many ( not all) women choose careers are often not ones that take the constant climbing that men choose. Things like teaching, where a long absence won’t be as difficult to bounce back from. Compared to something like tech, where absences would take a major hit.  So you see less female jobs’ and gates’ ( Some would say there are other reasons for that, but it’s good to see that many more women are going into it, just as an aside ) 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Cookiesandough

[Happy Lemming]

3 minutes ago, Trail Blazer said:

Oh, and just on a side note, your example of a plumber wasn't the best because I know a dude who's a plumber, in fact he started his own business after completing his trade, now he earns a lot. 

 

I'm aware that a plumber who owns his own business can do quite well.  That is why I used plumbing apprentice in my example.

[Weezy1973]

17 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Not in my experience... when I got dumped it was ALWAYS for a bigger wallet.

Is it possible that a “bigger wallet” might be correlated with other desirable traits? Reliability, dependability, intelligence, work ethic etc.? Also could be a source of shared values? Ex. Educated people tend to want have more in common with other educated people. I think determining that money is the main reason is probably wrong.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Weezy1973

[Trail Blazer]

13 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

Not in my experience... when I got dumped it was ALWAYS for a bigger wallet.

That sucks, but I think you're projecting.  

[Happy Lemming]

Just now, Trail Blazer said:

That sucks, but I think you're projecting.  

I'm not projecting... this has happened to countless guys, not just me.

[Happy Lemming]

2 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Is it possible that a “bigger wallet” might be correlated with other desirable traits? Reliability, dependability, work ethic etc.?

No... its about the money.

[normal person]

1 minute ago, Happy Lemming said:

No... its about the money.

So why not just be a cardiologist?

[Weezy1973]

4 minutes ago, Cookiesandough said:

 Women do make more less than men on average still to this day. 

Not really. The averages are thrown off by the extremes (ex. CEOs), but for the most part women and men make the same amount for the same job. And the trend, with women now outnumbering men in university by about a 3:2 margin, would be that soon the average woman will make more than men (I.e they’ll have higher paying jobs that require a university education). 

[Weezy1973]

3 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

No... its about the money.

In your opinion? Or do you have data that backs this up?

[Cookiesandough]

9 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Not really. The averages are thrown off by the extremes (ex. CEOs), but for the most part women and men make the same amount for the same job. And the trend, with women now outnumbering men in university by about a 3:2 margin, would be that soon the average woman will make more than men (I.e they’ll have higher paying jobs that require a university education). 

For the most part, but men do still make slightly more even adjusting for education,  abilities, and xp. 
 

Https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/gender-pay-gap-statistics/ ( Stats from BLS and pew but more up to date)  

 

but yes, the high earning jobs were what I was referring to with the benefit from hypergamy

Edited March 24, 2021 by Cookiesandough

[Happy Lemming]

7 minutes ago, normal person said:

So why not just be a cardiologist?

Some of us, have had parents that support higher education and give you a "leg up", some direction, some financial support, assistance, encouragement, etc. 

I did not...

[Trail Blazer]

4 minutes ago, Cookiesandough said:

I want to throw in this thought. It’s believed that women have biology that also limits them from earning as much as men so “marrying up” ie hypergamy a benefits them slightly more.  Women do make more less than men on average still to this day. But that largely has to do with biology itself because women have to bear children( though most of them can work through a lot of pregnancy, having children often takes them out of commission). They often rear the children in our culture. So men take virtually no occupational hit from having children, many ( not all) women choose careers are often not ones that take the constant climbing that men choose. Things like teaching, where a long absence won’t be as difficult to bounce back from. Compared to something like tech, where absences would take a major hit.  So you see less female jobs’ and gates’ ( Some would say there are other reasons for that, but it’s good to see that many more women are going into it, just as an aside ) 

It's quite simple, really. 

Men have been "providers" since the caveman days.  It's in our DNA that in order to attract a quality mate, or many of them, we need to show that we're resourceful, resilient and reliable.  

A caveman who manages to catch a deer or other gamely beast on a consistent level will be so much more attractive than the one who brings back some low-lying fruit he picked from a shrub.

Men know that a large component to what makes them attractive is their capacity to earn.  Men, on the other hand, are not nearly as attracted to a woman's earning potential. 

Both sexes like money.  However, I doubt many women like or respect men who don't have at least some decent job prospects. 

Whilst many men find it somewhat important that their woman has earning potential, most men would settle for their woman not earning a lot if she's hot AF and isn't a complete headcase.

Women can get away with not earning a lot, or if they're a mother, not working at all (I don't mean some white trash junkie with six kids to six different fathers, either) and society doesn't really judge. 

Men, on the other hand, get judged by society for what they do.  Earning potential is somewhat tied to their masculinity.  Bringing home that wildebeest says a lot about the man, as opposed to the one who managed to scavenge some carcas which may or may not still be edible.

Women are attracted to that and men know it.