shewannahangwahtn
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2026
- Posts
- 348
- Reputation
- 255
this isn't my take, but i'd love to hear how people debate him because i personally have nothing to say.
Statistically its prevelence (hypergamy) is negligible but there is accuracy in the observation that women are incentivized to partner with men who are deemed "higher value" to them societally, but this is not evidence of some inherent shallowness rather than an attribute of patriarchy. Its a very obvious remnant of women historically being seen as extensions of / property of men. All of modern dating exists with this historical context. Women's value as individuals has historically been measured by their value as potential partners, while mens value as potential partners was measured by their value as individuals. This has an effect on societal standards of desirability, and skews women's average desirability to be higher than mens. If you were to scale a range of all women and all men by desirability and pair them by their equivalent on the opposite genders scale, the vast majority of women will be "higher value" than their male counterparts. A woman who is 80th percentile in desirability amongst women is going to be a generally more desirable human than a man who is 80th percentile in desirability amongst man. This was never an issue before because of women being made to be dependent on men, so the average man, despite being lower in desirability, was assumed to be an equal match "deserving" of the average woman. A woman pursuing a man of equal desirability to her is considered better than she deserves.
The only reason for hypergamy outrage now is because many things that used to be crutches for mens lack of desirability are no longer gatekept from women, because they are matters of individual success, enabling women to choose more freely without being having to settle due to dependency on men.
Statistically its prevelence (hypergamy) is negligible but there is accuracy in the observation that women are incentivized to partner with men who are deemed "higher value" to them societally, but this is not evidence of some inherent shallowness rather than an attribute of patriarchy. Its a very obvious remnant of women historically being seen as extensions of / property of men. All of modern dating exists with this historical context. Women's value as individuals has historically been measured by their value as potential partners, while mens value as potential partners was measured by their value as individuals. This has an effect on societal standards of desirability, and skews women's average desirability to be higher than mens. If you were to scale a range of all women and all men by desirability and pair them by their equivalent on the opposite genders scale, the vast majority of women will be "higher value" than their male counterparts. A woman who is 80th percentile in desirability amongst women is going to be a generally more desirable human than a man who is 80th percentile in desirability amongst man. This was never an issue before because of women being made to be dependent on men, so the average man, despite being lower in desirability, was assumed to be an equal match "deserving" of the average woman. A woman pursuing a man of equal desirability to her is considered better than she deserves.
The only reason for hypergamy outrage now is because many things that used to be crutches for mens lack of desirability are no longer gatekept from women, because they are matters of individual success, enabling women to choose more freely without being having to settle due to dependency on men.
