Here is the series so far:
Part 1 — Hypergamy is a Myth
Part 2 — Hypergamy Note
Part 3 — Luck
Part 4 — Reasons for Divorce
Part 5 — A Case Study on Marriage (Intermission)
Part 6 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 1)
Part 7 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 2)
Today we will discuss:
Part 8 — Wants and Choices
In “A Note on Hypergamy” I wrote how one reader got what he should have gotten, and that ultimately most men end up getting what they “want.” Not as much happens by pure chance as might be assumed.
Notice that I put “want” in quotation marks. If he were me, he’d be married with kids. But he’s not me, he’s himself. He loves a certain culture and certain music. He loves the outdoors. He lives on the left coast. He’s his own man. He isn’t married because he is who he is. Any man who is comfortable with who he is is already getting what he “wants.” If he “wanted” something different, he would have chosen something different! He got where he was by his own choices.
He got there by his own choices, and he knows it. Now, lest anyone think that I’m picking on men or one man in particular, the same applies just as much to women:
Overall, I truly believe the ones who are going to get hurt in the long run are women. And I don’t say that out of spite or glee, but sadness. Because once their eggs dry up and their beauty fades…man, just go to Tiktok. So many ladies are trying to warn you.
When you see that video…you can’t help but feel sorry for them, knowing full well that they brought it upon themselves by the choices they made. And that’s the point.
Now, let’s discuss the rest here:
Derek responded to the “hypergamy” stuff from yesterday and the day before. He agrees that Jason is getting what the market has decided he should get. He complains about my use of the word “deserve”.
1) According to Derek’s logic, Jason is alone because the market has decided that’s what he gets. Or, if one prefers, the market has decided that solitude and no mate is what Jason deserves. The market decides what everyone “deserves”.
There is no moral component to this. It was simply a choice of words. You can call it “deserve” or “fate” or “market forces” or “judgment”. The mechanisms and results are the same. There are some men and women who don’t get matched up because the market has decided that’s what they should get and that’s what their “worths” are. Ergo, they’re getting what they deserve- what the market has decided they deserve.
2) Derek says he doesn’t know if it’s the “proper” outcome for Jason. Well, according to his logic and market forces (which I agree with), it is the “proper” outcome as well as the “probable” and “logical” outcome. It is proper, because the market has decided it is proper.
3) Derek says the market is just what happens, not what “should” happen. That’s quite a different story from what he told yesterday in which he chided men for not accepting that they “got exactly what they should have gotten” (his words). Which is it? Should they get these things? Or should they not? Make up your mind.
4) Yes, men are getting what they “should’ have gotten – and they were and are fine with it. Men accept it and forge ahead.
This is more-or-less accurate and we’ve already mostly discussed where I diverge from this.
The word proper generally implies a moral evaluation of what is right or wrong. I don’t like to say that an outcome was proper, because I can’t—as an outsider—effectively evaluate such things. I can say is that the outcome was probable or expected (“should happen” or “should have gotten”); a logical result.
Unlike many others, I’m not interested in passing judgments. In the world of ideas, that would be an ad hominem.
Jason could be getting what he deserves as a punishment from God, or he could be getting what he deserves purely as a result of his own choices made by his free will. Or some combination. Or some other explanation.
I’d have to be God to know. So, I’m not going to sit in judgment. That’s not my place, and it isn’t the job of anyone else in the peanut gallery either.
Women are getting what they “should” have gotten too. Women are getting what the market has decided they “deserve” and are worth. And women are not fine with it. Women don’t accept it. They grouse and bitch and complain about it and destroy everything around them precisely because they won’t accept what the market has declared their worth and value to be and they won’t accept the pairings they expressly agreed to.
I think the video above expresses that women are reaping what they sowed. Their choices naturally led to the results they are experiencing. It’s a logical cause and effect.
Do they deserve it? Are they to blame? Are others? I would say both yes and no: it is impossible to generalize what applies to individuals.
5) Men do not expect the market to be fair. We accept that it is not. All we expect and demand (and we are right to expect and demand it) is that the women who we pair with (who expressly AGREED to those pairings as an expression of their worth and value) accept those unfairnesses as well.
It has been estimated that around 5% to 10% of new brides are virgins.[1] Even adjusting those who lost their virginity to the person they eventually wedded—and saying nothing about whether then men were virgins—a sizable majority of relationships are adulterous. It is nearly impossible to speak of what is “fair” in such a fundamentally illicit environment. Fair could only occur if most of those marriages never took place. Fair would be lifetime celibacy for ~90% of the population. Any claim to fairness is waived when one commits adultery, consent and agreement notwithstanding. It is only by the grace of God—not fairness—that any adulterous union results in a positive outcome.
We could, perhaps, speak of what is fair for a rare pair of God-honoring virgins, but we can’t speak of what is fair to the generic (or average) men and women, as the commenter is doing here. The entire premise needs to be reframed before any further related discussion can occur.
If men have to accept that they “got what they should have gotten” and what the “market has decided they deserve”, then women must accept similar principles applied to them.
I would say that men must accept reality: they can’t live in a fantasy world of wishful thinking. Don’t wallow in the past, but take action.
As for what women must do, this blog is masculine-oriented. Go visit Lori Alexander’s blog, or one of the blogs of the Ladies’ Auxilliary, if that is your concern.
This is consistent with Derek’s “peaceful submission” relationship model in which he claims that men and women are equal and have to “submit” to and “love” each other, particularly when the women involved agreed to their pairings. That model either applies to everyone equally, or it does not. Women are fully bound to that every bit as much as men are. If men have to operate in that model with a woman they assortatively paired with; then women must operate within that as well.
Pseudonymous Commenter is continuing to get things wrong by invertedly misattributing claims to me, despite two failed attempts to correct him.[2] It is not my relationship model, as the model’s maker clearly expressed upon its formulation[3] and again[2] later. Moreover, that model is presumably based on luck or chance,[4] which as we saw in “Is Staying Married A Matter Of Luck?” does not reflect either my viewpoint or reality.
6) I also have a “high view of agency”. Men are fully responsible. So are women. I don’t agree with any notion that women aren’t fully responsible for accepting their fates, just as men are for accepting theirs. Again – peaceful submission demands that women accept who they got paired up with and cooperate. Each individual woman is fully responsible for that. A man cannot make her do that except to hold her accountable for that.
Women are agentic. Women are responsible. Women are fully accountable for their conduct, including their acceptance of what the market has decided they “deserve”.
I talk about agency below.
Which brings me to
7) Men are not “blaming” or casting women in the role of “villain”. Men are pointing out RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY. Women are responsible to accept what the market has decided they deserve. And they are accountable to the men the market has put them with. When women engage in hypergamy, they are looking to escape the market’s judgment and they won’t accept what they “deserve”. In doing so, women are being irresponsible and unaccountable. And men should not accept that conduct. Women’s conduct in this regard bespeaks deficient character.
Hold up here. This is a truly astounding statement. I almost find it hard to believe that the commenter actually said this. There is a serious problem with the claim that men are not blaming women but are merely pointing out responsibility. Here is what the word blame means:
Blame, verb: assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.
Blame, noun: responsibility for a fault or wrong.
Pointing out responsibility is the dictionary definition of blaming. Now, I will grant that the above is not necessarily a moral judgment, as with this definition…
Blame, noun: an expression of disapproval or reproach.
…but no one can conclude that this commenter is not making a disapproving moral judgment about women’s behaviors. Indeed, he states right here that women have a “deficient character.” It is perfectly clear.
By contrast, when I have spoken of men getting what they “want” or “should get,” I have been careful to assign blame only in the amoral first sense and not in the moral second sense. In fact, I agree with old Manosphere writer Keoni Galt that these things are amoral.
Moreover, in a currently unpublished article—where I responded to questions that surfdumb asked—I said that men should—as leaders do—take responsibility, command, and agency even when they are not to blame:
Thus, my view of agency is higher than Commenter’s, because I don’t care to assign blame—to take a moral stance—I only care that the proponent of Christian patriarchy acts in accordance with his stated beliefs. The men in the ‘sphere who promote such views should live by them (or else repudiate them).
If a man believes that his patriarchal domain is assigned to him by God and that he is responsible to God for the result of his marriage, then it’s irrelevant to him whether or not she is to blame (in either sense). Here is what Paul said:
Nowhere does Paul give a man a pass simply because his wife is to blame. A divorced man can’t be an overseer.
Paul puts a man’s household and marital status entirely on him, without respect to whether or not any failings are his wife’s fault. So if a man also believes that God established this as part of the natural order, how could he possibly refuse to take complete responsibility?
I find the generic public repudiation of women outside of the home and church—by men who claim that their public declarations are not part of the official church or the body of Christ proper—to reduce a man’s agency.
8) Men are not driving any of this. Women are. As I said – men are fine with this. It’s women who are not. Men accept this. It’s women who will not accept it. And women are fully personally responsible for that.
I’ve already explained why this is factually incorrect in earlier writings. But let’s try another approach.
I believe the commenter might be viewing divorce primarily as a first-order effect. So, if women file for divorce, they are responsible for the divorce—a first-order effect. But, in many cases, first-order effects are overly simplistic explanations that discount second- and third-order effects.
Consider the recent wildfires in California (here). Many leftist politicians came out and criticized the insurance companies for leaving the state, blaming them for not covering the burnt properties. The lack of home insurance coverage was the first-order explanation. But the second-order explanation was that the voters of California had passed a proposition against insurance companies being able to make a profit, thus forcing them to leave the state.
The first-order explanation was simplistic and did not intuitively assign blame to the actual responsible party: the voters themselves. Voters voted in the very rules that ultimately harmed themselves.[5] They got the outcome that they literally voted for, what they wanted to happen.
I’ve spent a lot of time discussing second- and third-order explanations for divorce (and “hypergamy”) and why blanket statements like “men are not driving this” and “women are fully responsible” are wrong. But I can do nothing about the persistence of the simplistic first-order explanations behind them. Hopefully pointing out this problem is enough.
9) The problems in this current market are that men are not attractive enough. Women are not attractive enough for the men which the market has decided they cannot have. Women’s refusal to accept this indicates deficient character.
This would be a good time to watch this YouTube video…
…that I found in Rock Kitaro’s article (that I linked to above).
The simple fact is that the ratio of men-to-women on dating apps is about 2:1. The first-order effect of this supply-and-demand imbalance accounts for a majority of the problems in the current market. The second-order effects account for most of the remaining imbalance. Moreover, since dating app data shows that both men and women are highly selective, it is not clear that attractiveness has much impact at all on dating outcomes. Considering how important online dating is…
…there is very little evidence to support Commenter’s claim. In any case, if selectivity is a deficiency on the character of women, then the widespread measured selectivity of men condemns them as a group as well. But, frankly, it’s silly to condemn a person’s character because of amoral supply-and-demand dynamics or because of long-established intrasexual and intersexual competition practices.
This is not to say that men are of impeccable character. Far from it. Men’s character defects are not what is driving this phenomenon. It’s women’s character defects that are. That is not blame or casting aspersions or accusing women of villainy. It is simply a hard cold fact – women by and large lack the character to accept the men the market has decided they should have and who they chose. Are there some women who have that character? Sure. But mostly, women just don’t have that character. If they did, they would not be trying to defeat the market by having sex with more attractive men than who will commit. If they did, they would not try to make their husbands’ lives miserable. If they did, they would not blow up their marriages because of “unhappiness” or “dissatisfaction”.
The problem is not men. The problem here, THIS problem under discussion here, is on women. Not men. This is about women’s deficient character and THEIR failure to accept what the market has decreed they should get. Or, if you prefer, “what the market has decided they DESERVE.”
We’ve already discussed the problems with this thesis at length, so I won’t repeat what I’ve already said. If you’ve read what I’ve written, you already know how I would directly respond to this. So, rather than copy and paste what I’ve already written, I’m just going to put comment here for the record…. and leave this, umm, cold hard definition from Webster’s dictionary:
cast aspersions, formal idiom — to say harsh critical things about someone or someone’s character
Note: if you find that I’ve missed something, feel free to ask me to clarify in the comment section below.
I doubt Derek will respond to any of this because candidly I don’t think he understands this issue at all. But I guess we’ll see.
That’s very interesting. Speaking candidly, that statement might threaten the likelihood of the 99% or the 95%.
Footnotes
[1] Per this study from 2016 using data from 2002 to 2013:
Aside from religion, race and family of origin accounted for the largest portion of the sexual partners/divorce relationship. Caucasian and African American women had similar premarital sexual behavior, but Latinas and members of the “Other” population group had notably fewer sex partners and lower divorce rates than either whites or blacks. Similarly, people who grew up without both parents had more partners and divorced more
[2] The second misattribution occurred here:
Derek’s “Peaceful Unity” model is not “headship / submission”. It is “submission / submission”. Everyone submits to everyone. Husband submits to his wife by loving her. Wife submits to her husband by “respecting” (but never, never “obeying” or “submitting to” or “being subject to”) him.
It was followed up with this correction:
The difference between Headship and my concept of Peaceful Unity is…
…
That’s how I see Derek. He and his wife are too close to see each other clearly. I say this to his honor, but as you described above, it doesn’t help his exegesis of scripture.
Of course, this is all conjecture and best guesstimation, because we cannot observe Derek’s marriage first-hand. Derek has written tomes on his views of marriage but he is rather tight-lipped when it comes to talking about his own marriage. But from what I can tell, I believe Derek has a marriage that fits my description of the Peaceful Unity model (not to be confused with his own descriptions of marriage); that is, he has an agentic, spiritually mature, obedient, submissive wife, which frees him up to write a compendium of apologetics on his concept of “mutual submission” (which many of us here believe is errant, as Thedeti satirized above).
Casual readers should note that Derek’s descriptions of marriage are not at all like my descriptions of the Peaceful Unity model or our other writings on Headship. I kindly ask that readers not confuse the two.
[3] Here is the origin of the Peaceful Unity model.
The Peaceful Unity model is my own construction intended to describe Derek’s concept of marriage which also corresponds to DeepStrength’s model. Living Entity” is my own description of how I imagine Ramsey experiences his marriage. I presume this Living Entity is the Holy Spirit. I believe that the presence of this Living Entity / Holy Spirit is the central element of what I have called the Peaceful Unity model. These are not his own words, but I’m hoping it resonates with him.
Later I wrote this about the Peaceful Unity Model:
…and…
…and other Red Pill models, the primary concern with models, procedures, rules, and other abstractions is related to positivist leftism, which is tends towards being anti-Christian.
I have no model to offer anyone. To the extent that I have anything to offer, it is Christ and the Word of God.
You can see what else I’ve written about the model here.
[4]
The “Peaceful Unity” model sounds like “two people who hit the compatibility jackpot and are perfectly in sync on the things that really matter to them.”
It’s not really a “model” because it is mostly blind luck.
Yes, it is not a selectable option at present, but seems to happen only by chance, as EoS said. However, I believe the Peaceful Unity model is God’s will for every marriage (whether or not they have actually found it), so I will stick to this point.
[5] The same thing happened with the “we ran out of water to fight the fires” problem.
Derek,
There is one thing i want to get straight with Pseudonymous Commenter, Derek knows you are the main standard bearer=repersenitive of the miserably married MEN in the Dalrockian manosphere as i ,once told you at SF around May 2021, remember?
Similar to Ben Bernake being shorthand/represents/ symbolizes all the banker, corporate, churchian marriage, and Governmental fraud back in the old days of the Roisstosphere/manosphere?
Or on a more positive and hopeful note like how GBFM represents/ symbolizes all the classical polymathic MEN of old(some of whom still roam the earth it appears yes?).
This one is for you, Pseudonymous Commenter bro😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tlJVLl6KHk
Every Man ~ Casting Crowns ~ lyric video
I’m the man with all I’ve ever wanted
All the toys and playing games
I am the one who pours your coffee
Corner booth each Saturday
I am your daughter’s favourite teacher
I am your defense lawyer in your criminal trialzlolzzlollzzz(this was included to honor Pseudonymous Commenter)
I’m the leader of the band
I sit behind you in the bleachers
I am every man
I’m the coach of every winning team
And still a loser in my mind
I am the soldier in the airport
Facing giants one more time
I am the woman shamed and haunted
By the cry of unborn life
And every broken man
Nervous child, lonely wife
Is there hope for every man?
A solid place where we can stand
In this dry and weary land
Is there hope for every man?
Is there love that never dies?
Is there peace in troubled times?
Someone help me understand
Is there hope for every man?
It seems there’s just so many roads to travel
It’s hard to tell where they will lead
My life is scarred, my dreams unravelled
Now I am scared to take the lead
If I could find someone to follow
Who knows my pain and feels the way
The uncertainty of my tomorrow
The guilt and pain of yesterday
Is there hope for every man?
A solid place where we can stand
In this dry and weary land
Is there hope for every man?
Is there love that never dies?
Is there peace in troubled times?
Someone help me understand
Is there hope for every man?
There is hope for every man
A solid place where we can stand
In this dry and weary land
There is hope for every man
There is love that never dies
There is peace in troubled times
Will we help them understand
Jesus is hope for every man
There is hope for every man
A solid place where we can stand
In this dry and weary land
There is hope for every man
There is love that never dies
There is peace in troubled times
Will we help them understand
Jesus is hope for every man
So remember when you think ”From a quick review of stats (because I know little Derek is here fisking and fact checking everything I write despite the fact that he says he doesn’t care about what I say and that he won’t respond to what I say anymore):” he is only honoring you as WE all do here as the main standard bearer=repersenitive/shorthand/symbol of the miserably married MEN in the Dalrockian manosphere(and beyond it to it seems.
Your are the reason business picked up at Spawnys in August/September after your falling out with the Radix Fdem version of SF(for crying out loud too) as Jack and Oscar started preaching ”lots of unicorns out there bros of ye become a linesMAN or something”, you as well as i, Derek and MOD know that isn’t TRUE).
Nothing more, Nothing less brah.
That’s very interesting. Speaking candidly, that statement might threaten the likelihood of the 99% or the 95%.
That’s why i said it Derek😉😊😎😇
What is this, Professor?
From a quick review of stats (because I know little Derek is here fisking and fact checking everything I write despite the fact that he says he doesn’t care about what I say and that he won’t respond to what I say anymore)”
Did the Commenter write that?
How many times do I have to tell him he is wrong about what he “knows” before he will get it and stop repeating the same error over-and-over again? He keeps speaking out of sheer ignorance. As I said before (which remains true):
If they choose to read and respond to what I write, there is a very good chance I will not see it.
…or this:
I have not been going there to read the things he (or anyone else there) is writing.
The fact is, despite copious clues, he still doesn’t understand the dynamics at play. He’s ignorant, but speaks as if he knows what he is talking about, passing moral judgments and making slanderous accusations. It is the hallmark of someone who isn’t even trying to find the truth. This is the point I keep making over-and-over again.
It’s not about being 100% right all the time, it’s about the willful failure to even try to find the truth. I’ve corrected him so many times now that I’m starting to lose count, but each time he ignores what I say and just keeps mouthing off about it.
Checking my browser history, only time I visited anything written at SS this month (i.e. since I resumed posting after the cooldown) was to screenshot these comments (here, here, and here) for citation purposes. The rest of the accesses are to comments from back in February, mostly the thirteen links that are shown here (from this article):
Perhaps I’ve missed one or two others, but I’ve done just what I said I would do. I have not yet even caught up with the original backlog.
So, don’t blame me for the Commenter’s propensity to jump to false conclusions.
(Now if those clues are not enough for him to figure out his error, I don’t know what will be)
———————————————————————
As for fisking and fact-checking, remember what he wrote a week or two ago?
“Address that, Derek”
…and…
“You still have not responded to my main points”
…and…
“I doubt Derek will response to any of this…”
…and then there are the very many questions posed to me. I’m still going through those original comments! I’m sure I’ve probably missed dozens more written since then.
———————————————————————
Wait, a quick review of what stats?
Wait, a quick review of what stats?
Mormon divorce statistics, like from here i guess:
https://mormonr.org/qnas/0uQ4aB/latter_day_saint_marriage_and_divorce_statistics
2024[11]
“We sent out 80,000 postcards to Latter-day Saints in the U.S. Here’s what we learned,” Deseret News, January 31, 2024
The divorce rate for temple marriages is 3 times lower than the national divorce rate.
2024[12]
“Applying Moral Foundations Theory to current and former Latter-day Saints,” Deseret News, February 16, 2024
20% of former Latter-day Saints are married to believing members of the Church.
30% of former Latter-day Saints are married to other former Latter-day Saints.
Former Latter-day Saints are twice as likely to have been divorced than Latter-day Saints.
Former Latter-day Saints are more than four times less likely to have had their marriages sealed in the temple compared with current Latter-day Saints.
Maybe Pseudonymous Commenter thinks you’re in cahoots with Boxer(who was a former Mormon) like Jack thought in 2019-like most did with GBFM being in cahoots with Roissy=Heartiste, even though GBFM preached a life of being a classic polymath, being bound by honor for life, and being a Christian while Roissy=Heartiste preached game, always being on the hunt for poon and being a hedonistic agnostic(which better described the many married and divorced MEN reading his blog than even Roissy=Heartiste, let alone GBFM!)
That doesn’t make any sense.
If the Christian Red Pillowsphere was truly concerned about frivolous divorce above any other concern, it would have long since converted to Mormonism, Plain Folk Anabaptism, or Islam, where such things are much rarer.
I’ve never seen the Commenter advocate any of those three things. In fact, we’ve seen the opposite:
So why cite Mormon stats? To what end?
Boxer is probably the only ethnic Mormon I’ve ever known. But, Boxer has vanished, seemingly forever, and with him the Mormon perspective. As far as I know, I’m the only one left with access to his original site:
Speaking of Boxer, the comment section here is a classic that involves certain commenters and the topics we’ve been discussing.
Interesting thread.
I’m a big believer in young marriage. We were still in college when we married, and I lived with his parents for the first year. Which wasn’t easy, to say the least. I mentioned this at Jack’s on that last thread and apparently this is was poor character on my part somehow. But it seems to have worked a lot better than the high fiving all-about-the-meet-cutes-bros experiences.
Liz,
And you should be!
The belief that young marriage is bad is widespread. It’s difficult to get people to accept that the surface-level, first-order interpretations of age-of-marriage data are often the inverse of reality. They just don’t realize how confounded that statistic is (or even what statistical confounding is in the first place).
It only took me nearly seven years to finally write an article that touched on why young marriage is good. But, as you can see from my comment section under my article and the comment sections at Boxer’s blog, the “young marriage is good” idea hasn’t gained any traction in the Dalrockian Manosphere…. so far.
It’s a shame, because telling men to wait—rather than to prepare for marriage ASAP and to move quickly to find someone—is one of the surest ways to ensure that young men will run out the clock on finding a mate.
The irony is that the Manosphere understands how “The Wall” applies to women, but it just completely disregards the analogous phenomenon that applies to its purported primary audience: men.
Peace,
DR
I am of the opinion children learn more by example than lecture.
Hopefully this will result in good relationships for our sons, since we have a very long good relationship together.
So far so good it seems (knock on wood). Might have another daughter in law soon (she just turned 20, her grandparents are her example and they have been together since high school…both professionals, he was a surgeon and she a lawyer, both went to school after marriage and they are both famous in their respective fields…he was my surgeon with the leg lengthening procedure, incidentally. Very small crazy world. If you believe in coincidences at least, which I don’t).
Interesting. My daughter had her limb lengthening done in Florida at the Paley Center by this team of doctors—which includes the renowned Dr. Paley—though lengthening with external (or internal now) fixators is not uncommon elsewhere. I just don’t run into many other people in the wild who have had the procedure!
“though lengthening with external (or internal now) fixators is not uncommon.”
It was very uncommon when I had my surgery in my teens (1989).
He was one of the first to perform the surgery and they only did 50 of the procedures a year in the state of Florida. He brought it over from Italy (Verona, IIRC) which might be how my parents heard about it first (mom bring Italian).
I don’t know. The cases back then had to be extreme and they didn’t perform the procedure on adults yet.
We met up with them in late December in Park City, it was pretty cool to see my surgeon after all these years (of course I can’t remember him and he can’t remember me, I just knew the name).
Huh! We may be connected in a way that I would never have expected. My daughter has had a TSF on multiple occasions. It was apparently invented around 1990 in Memphis, Tennessee. These days it looks like this:
The belief that young marriage is bad is widespread. It’s difficult to get people to accept that the surface-level, first-order interpretations of age-of-marriage data are often the inverse of reality. They just don’t realize how confounded that statistic is (or even what statistical confounding is in the first place).
It only took me nearly seven years to finally write an article that touched on why young marriage is good. But, as you can see from my comment section under my article and the comment sections at Boxer’s blog, the “young marriage is good” idea hasn’t gained any traction in the Dalrockian Manosphere…. so far.
It’s a shame, because telling men to wait—rather than to prepare for marriage ASAP and to move quickly to find someone—is one of the surest ways to ensure that young men will run out the clock on finding a mate.
Could it have anything to do with the manosphere mainly being a place for divorced and married MEN to complain about their ”choices” Derek?
Most of these MEN didn’t grow up as more or less stereotypical ”girls are icky”(reinforced by parents to keep the sexes segregated in public schools mainly and then later they wonder ” Why is little Johnny g@y or having so much trouble with girls or women?”)like was said by the Beaver on Leave it to beaver or Dennis on the Dennis the Menace early 1960s show?
O r worse ”girls are from heaven” nonsense that pseudonym commenter says he was told?
i on the other hand was more neutral or really agnostic on girls. Which is why i neither was against them nor constantly chasing after them.
Unlike this self-described feminist who is against the manosphere nihilistic misogyny she sees here:
https://zawn.substack.com/p/how-manosphere-and-red-pill-ideologies
How manosphere and red pill ideologies doom men to loneliness and unhappy relationships
Red pillers set men up for miserable, sexless relationships with women who hate them.
Feminists like me talk a lot about how the manosphere encourages men to abuse women. But to the men indoctrinated into this cult, this isn’t a reason to avoid red pillers, Andrew Tate, and their unfuckable ilk. These dudes want access to sex and women, and they definitely don’t want to be with feminists, so they’re unlikely to believe what we tell them.
The truth, though, is that manosphere ideology constrains men’s access to women, to sex, to quality relationships, and to hopeful futures. It’s nihilistic misogyny, not feminism, ruining men’s lives.
The typical manosphere loser believes that relationships exist for women to do all of the emotional and physical labor, and for men to earn the money. They see sex as something men are owed, not something men need to be good at, and certainly not something for women’s enjoyment. Women are primarily physical objects and tools to them, not people, which removes their ability to be supportive partners in challenging times. Their misogyny is immediately apparent to women with self-esteem or experience with men.
This limits these men to a small group of women—those who are young, with low self-esteem (and often the trauma and mental health challenges that accompany it), and with few career ambitions. These characteristics make them more likely to center and be dependent on men, and to have few interests and support outside of the relationship.
Manosphere influencers idealize these relationships. The woman is in her feminine energy. The man is in his masculine energy. It’s laughable bullshit to believe that two people socialized into different ways of being and vastly divergent needs will be able to make a relationship work, but logic never stopped any misogynist from living his best and most foolish life.
So what really happens when people are strongly in their [completely BS , totally made up] masculine and feminine energies in a relationship?
Some of that does make sense though, huh?
This limits these men to a small group of women—those who are young, with low self-esteem (and often the trauma and mental health challenges that accompany it), and with few career ambitions. ”
this part doesn’t make sense, especially” the young ” part, when most manosphere guys are too scared to talk to anyone outside of the online manosphere in fear of being ”criticized or discredited.”
“Boys are lied to”.
Whew.
Sure am glad girls are never lied to growing up.
Well…if they are the poor results are of course their own fault because (unlike boys) they know everything at birth. Also, they know nothing.
That about covers it.
Should men not mention the ways in which boys are lied to because girls are lied to also?
In what ways are girls lied to about boys? Seriously asking. I might ask my wife this question.
No, they should definitely mention the ways boys are lied to.
Per women…All of feminism lies to women, for starters.
Feminism has been the prevailing paradigm for generations.
Usually the same people who lie to boys are the ones lying to girls.
Girls too learn via experience and what they are told. No one is born with this knowledge.
Just about everyone is lied to during the process of growing up, in one way or another.
Yes it can be destructive, we see it every day. People making obviously stupid choices. And often the dumbest ones are due to some terrible experience in young life and/or they were lied to.
Liz,
This is why arranged marriage have been the standard feature of most societies, because marriage needs to occur before the participants are old enough, experienced enough, and knowledgeable enough to make a proper decision on their own. It’s actually pretty impressive that we do as well as we do without arranged marriages or the social structures to support them.
Peace,
DR
I think I heard a lot of the same lies deti did. You hear that girls love “sweet” guys. Guys who bring them flowers and open doors for them and are gentlemen who don’t push for a physical relationship. I literally did not think sexual thoughts about the girls I liked.
Then you see girls you like who pick guys who punch them in the stomach, cheat on them, pump and dump them and then spread embarassing details about their bodies, and guys that try to get their friends in on the action with the girl and guys that roll the girls hair up in a car window and drive off (this happened to a girl that I went out on a few dates with – we didn’t have any “chemistry” but the other guy did have “chemistry” with her), etc. This happened a bunch with girls that I was personally friends with (in high school and college) so this isn’t just me cherry picking the worst cases in the whole school.
I just might be some sort of weird outlier experience wise.
I think I heard a lot of the same lies deti did. You hear that girls love “sweet” guys. Guys who bring them flowers and open doors for them and are gentlemen who don’t push for a physical relationship.
LIES?But this woman says this CAM:”Women like the chase. Specially in their young teenage years. Girls like a relationship to be dramatic, full of drama, chasing and heartbreaks. I will admit with all honesty and with no doubt that I was one of those girls. But what did I get out of these mean guys other than tears, stress and lowering my self-respect for them? Nothing. Trust me, I was one of these girls who believed that a guy is worth it if he’s mean and charming. But heartbreak after heartbreak, I learned and matured alot. The last guy really hurt me that I promised myself that this is the last time I give it my all to someone who does not deserve it.”
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-some-girls-like-sweet-guys
Profile photo for Mirella Harvy
Mirella Harvy
Lives in Newark, NJAuthor has 54 answers and 1.3M answer views7y
Originally Answered: Do women hate nice guys?
I saw this question and I immediately had the urge to answer it to make it clear once and for all.
Alot of men and women ask this question very frequently and alot of people will tell you yes, women do hate nice guys. Let me tell you why they’re wrong.
I’m curently in a relationship with the nicest guy you can possibly meet. I’ve been in old relationships with the meanest, hottest and sexiest men on earth that weren’t nice at all but had all the looks and charm. Now let me tell you what I learned from my own personal experience.
Women like the chase. Specially in their young teenage years. Girls like a relationship to be dramatic, full of drama, chasing and heartbreaks. I will admit with all honesty and with no doubt that I was one of those girls. But what did I get out of these mean guys other than tears, stress and lowering my self-respect for them? Nothing. Trust me, I was one of these girls who believed that a guy is worth it if he’s mean and charming. But heartbreak after heartbreak, I learned and matured alot. The last guy really hurt me that I promised myself that this is the last time I give it my all to someone who does not deserve it.
Then I met Mr. Nice. At first, I’ll admit it was weird. It was a total shift in my life from being treated badly to being treated like a princess and guess what? At first I felt uncomfortable. I asked myself daily what did deserve to have such a nice guy who treats me this well?
What’s worse is that my friends used to brainwash me to believe that his kindness will make me unable to love him and that he’ll push me away with all the flowers and gifts he bought me. At first, I listened to them but day after day, I realized something very crucial. That he’s the one person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.
Day after day, I saw how amazing of a person he is that I started to fall in love with him. I realized how good his heart his and this motivated me even more to fight for our relationship till the end. He gave me his all, and I couldn’t ask for more.
What I realized is that women might like mean, charming hot guys on the short term, but will that guy be able to deliver on the long term? Will they be able to live a happy life later on? I want more women to realize this before it’s too late. Before they get married to someone they’re madly in love with. Stop thinking with your heart only. Think with your brain, the heart will follow. Be with someone that will always treat you like you’re worth it. Be with someone who appreciates your existence and who would never ever do something to hurt you.
And to any nice man reading this: Please stay the way you are and I promise you that soon enough, the right mature girl will come and stay forever.
SEE CAM? AND HERE YOU THOUGHT WOMEN DIDN’T LIKE ”SWEET GUYS?”UH-UH BRO!😉
Well yeah they do Professor. When they’re 40 years old. That was one of the most common themes at Dalrock.
Cameron, Mike’s sister was like that (and all her friends were the same).
I can’t recall knowing anyone like that before.
OTOH, I don’t know any guy who would do the stuff you describe either. I mean, I guess the pump-and-dumps but the other stuff no.
Hm. Testing….last message didn’t go through.
Might have triggered something. I’ll just say I didn’t really know a lot of girls growing up who were as you described, Cameron.
But I didn’t know many boys who were as awful as you described either.
It’s been a bad day for the spam filter. Probably our topic includes some snippet of a banned keyword. I keep fishing things out. If you are missing a comment, just wait for me to fish it out or drop me an email to let me know.
Hmm. You didn’t know guys who hit their girlfriends? I’m glad you didn’t see that Liz. It was very common. Not every guy but really common.
I had a friend , Jessica, since the 3rd grade. She had one of these guys as her HS boyfriend. She was friends with me in HS but definitely not interested romantically. Several years after HS, after she had become an RN, she locked herself in the hospital bathroom and OD’d and died. I can still remember her as a little 3rd grade girl playing with my newTrapper Keeper notebook – I was so excited that she liked it.
I’ve never heard of guys hitting their girlfriends, no. If it ever happened, it was never discussed.
I went to a highschool with about 200 students per grade. One girl got pregnant in four years, and it was a scandal. I wonder how that compares to other schools.
A number of my peers ended up marrying the first person they dated, with quite a few marrying a person they met there. Heck, my brother married his first and only girlfriend too. If you had had more than a couple girlfriends, you were almost certainly married.
It’s like a completely different world.
That is awful, Cameron.
I’m sorry. 🙁
Never thought I was sheltered growing up but maybe I was a little sheltered.
Wasn’t very popular (high levels of social anxiety and so forth). Maybe that was a good thing.
Just thinking further, in middle school the bus was pretty bad.
I’d get on the bus and the 8th graders in the back would pelt me with tobacco juice spit balls. And they’d grab and stuff. One time a boy dragged me out of my seat and down the aisle by my pony tail.
Florida buses were rough. That was about the only time I’d see those types of people though. Unless I’m suppressing really bad memories. Heh
Liz, Florida school buses were sometimes Lord of the Flies. My wife got beat up on a bus that took her and her sister to a baptist church on sunday morning. It was the bus they sent to the poor neighborhood to pick up the kids that the parents didn’t want.
My sister ran off with a pot smoking bad boy who beat her up. He was an obvious jerk from the get go. Then she met her nice guy husband. My aunt was beaten up by her husband early in her pregnancy – she divorced and the baby was fine. He was an obvious badboy. In none of the cases I saw was the jerk/badboy some sort of stealth badboy who faked being nice. They were obvious jerks from the get go.
My sister had the following advantages: stay at home mom who watched Little House and the Waltons, father who was VERY loving and affectionate, both to her and mom, taken to church on Sunday, etc.
My aunt was the daughter of a doctor and my grandmother’s family were lawyers and local politicians. She wasn’t from white trash. Women can sure pick ’em.
“I’ve never heard of guys hitting their girlfriends, no. If it ever happened, it was never discussed.”
Oh yeah, one guy in HS put his girlfriend’s head through the plaster wall. Between classes I think – I didn’t see it happen I just saw the hole in the wall and the blood.
Also, the middle school bus had a girl named Elise who used to read her mom’s porno romance novels aloud – the ones that had the Fabio-looking guy on the cover ravishing the woman to her mild protests. They were super graphic. At that age I was reading books like this and fantasizing about having a girlfriend to take to McDonald’s or whatever:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Love-Ill-Take-Spaghetti/dp/0590438190
And there was this girl – I was going to save up my money to buy her this ring I saw a Luria’s – remember Luria’s in Florida? Man, I was bluepill.
Cameron,
Honestly, just going by what you’ve said here it sounds like you dodged a bunch of bullets if you could have been saddled by any girl like you’ve described (who prefer the guys who beat them up, are terrible to them and so forth).
Sometimes one must declare victory and try not to wonder why so many people in this world are dumba*ses.
One of life’s mysteries, heh.
🙂
“Florida school buses were sometimes Lord of the Flies. My wife got beat up on a bus that took her and her sister to a baptist church on sunday morning. ”
Sometimes I look back and wonder if there was a lot of lead in the environment (aerosol) back then (1980s, early 1990s). Saw Stand By Me once with the boys and the characters brought me back to my childhood bus experiences in particular (though it was a different time setting). They asked, “were people really like that?” and I had to admit, yeah, people were pretty mean back then for no real reason.
Friend of mine who used to ride the bus with me (we always sat in the front if we could) ran into one of the guys who rode the bus with us (a hoodlum then). He apologized with a bit of a sheepish, “Yeah I was really mean to you back then”
Recently got in touch with another friend from childhood and she apologized profusely for the (quoting her) “terrible way she treated me in middle school”.
Quite honestly I couldn’t recall it at all (which I told her).
Sorry just noodling out loud (it’s early and I’m on my first cup of coffee, which is usually a bad time to post…before I have at least 2 cups I mean, but I feel the blab. Mike had a bad night and he has been awake for a while…respiratory crud has held on for over 2 months now, trying to get him to go to the doctor but he says it is “getting better”. Be careful everyone, lots of bad crud out there).
Sometimes I wonder if there is a corollary to the 20/80 premise. Are all the “good looking girls” attracted to “chads” or are they the girls the boys notice? Because they are trying to get noticed. Every once in a while when the curtain slips if you read the sphere long enough there is the occasional admission of a “nice girl or two” who was dumped in the past. For no real reason…other than someone “hotter” came along (often a skank) and that last person formed their world view after ruining their life.
Talking to my cousin recently (whom I haven’t seen since I was 7 years old, we have a big age gap), it occurred to me how little we really know anyone. Even our own family at times. I mean, my dad was completely fluent in German and I had no idea. Apparently my uncle stormed a machine gun nest in WWII. Like something out of a movie. He was ordered to run toward it, while the Germans were raining bullets on them. He tripped and fell flat on his face in the road and they thought they’d killed him (as he didn’t move, which was smart). Fortunately his face was in their direction, so he watched until they moved away from their weapons, then grabbed his hand grenades and ran toward them and flung them, taking them out.
He went on to be a teacher (and later a professor). No one would ever guess he did something like that.
Bernard Shaw said partial information is worse than ignorance and he was so, so right. And we only have partial information…even in the real world we so rarely know where anyone is coming from. But some folks in the sphere make very personal and ignorant conclusions formed on very inaccurate partial information.
I should add, of course I do the same (form conclusions based on inaccurate partial information). But I try not to form conclusions about people based on what I think they mean rather than what they actually stated. I definitely try not to be personal and insulting for no real reason other than my own ignorant assumptions.
At any rate, hope you all are having a good day. Almost 7 here time to take the pups out on our snowy snowy mountain. Sun is coming up.
” But some folks in the sphere make very personal and ignorant conclusions formed on very inaccurate partial information.”
Yes, I did that a few times with you Liz and with Elspeth and I do regret that. I think sometimes we hurt others to “relieve” ourselves of hurt – it’s not so much a conscious decision and obviously I don’t think it provides any real “relief.”
“Every once in a while when the curtain slips if you read the sphere long enough there is the occasional admission of a “nice girl or two” who was dumped in the past. For no real reason…other than….”
I knew some nice girls who got dumped. It seems some guys dumped their girlfriends right after HS because they wanted to see how they could do in college (girl-wise). This mentality is totally alien to me. I remember a nice girl who got dumped by my HS friend – he seemed to have serious mental issues (depression). This started a downward spiral in the nice girl’s life.
This is part of the problem of the Dalrockian manosphere as stated here by our bro Pseudonymous Commenter:
Pseudonymous Commenter says:
July 6, 2018 at 10:59 am
No man should even consider marriage until he’s done with school, earning some money, and has some experience with women under his belt. That’s at least, AT LEAST, age 25, and I’d argue putting off to 28 is better. I was 28 when I got married and I STILL wasn’t ready. Of course, I was firmly Blue Pill then, and veterans of the sphere know my story.
When the ”anti-feminist” guys talk like Elizabeth Cady Stanton,you know something is amiss.
“Again no girl should marry until she is at least twenty five years of age as she does not reach physical maturity before that time. Thus many years could be devoted to reading, thought and study, to a preparation for that higher companionship of the spirit and intellect with pure, cultivated, scholarly men.”
— Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “Our Girls.” 1880
See how Pseudonymous Commenter {as does his bros Pseudonymous Commenter Taiwan &Pseudonymous Commenter Oscar from the odd couple(to protect his identity who think girls have to be at least 18 to sanctityly marry-like their Satanic feminist overlords preach )} agrees with one of the two mothers of Satanic Feminism when it was called women rights and suffrage?
i really have to tell Derek my own parents were still teenagers when they got married?
As he should have known all along.
Professor,
Red pillers set men up for miserable, sexless relationships with women who hate them.
Some of that does make sense though, huh?
The Pseudonymous Commenter notes that the typical marital age difference is ~3 years:
This advice is for women to marry between 18 to 21. Combined with the advice for men to marry in their late twenties, this means the recommended age differences are actually between 5 to 12 years (or greater if the man reaches his 30s). That advice flies very abruptly against standard assortative mating, and that kind of gap is not recommended for a whole host of reasons.
His reasoning? His own personal anecdotal experience:
Following this advice would almost certainly lead to an increase in divorce risk, or more likely to not marrying at all. Moreover, he knows delaying marriage comes with a serious set of problems which he claims to have experienced:
There is something quite strange about this. There is no way that women are calling a decent-looking in-shape, weightlifting, physically active 25-year old man “too old,” “too fat,” and “too bald.” Something doesn’t add up here.
It’s funny. Compare this advice for such a huge marital age difference with your post from the self-described feminist above, where she said:
Women are primarily physical objects and tools to them, not people, which removes their ability to be supportive partners in challenging times. Their misogyny is immediately apparent to women with self-esteem or experience with men.
This limits these men to a small group of women—those who are young, with low self-esteem (and often the trauma and mental health challenges that accompany it), and with few career ambitions. These characteristics make them more likely to center and be dependent on men, and to have few interests and support outside of the relationship.
Women who are willing to overlook the behavior of red pillers (or who actually like that behavior) are a very small percentage of the total population of women. So the number of women willing to date these dudes is quite small—maybe 10% of women.
Those women will expect their misogynist partners to be physically attractive, stereotypically masculine, and to earn a good living. Men who meet these criteria tend to have higher self-esteem and more success, and are therefore less vulnerable to manosphere ideology. So most men seeking out this vulnerable 10% of women are not going to be able to woo them. They’ll ignore the women who might actually show an interest, and end up single, alone, and resentful.
If they’re lucky, they might be able to attract a young, naive, vulnerable woman who likes misogynist men. But that path is going to lead to a miserable relationship, too, because from the outset, the two parties have incompatible needs.
It’s like the feminist was reading the Commenter’s comments: be an older man who marries an 18-21 year old woman before she has any career ambitions or experience, and so must rely on her husband.
I think the feminist overestimated how many of these women even exist for men of that age, as I’ve concluded that by age 30, these men have almost no one left to choose from. The advice is quite unlikely to work. The men who follow this advice will most likely end up “single, alone, and resentful.”
The feminist also says that it will lead to a “miserable relationship.” The stats on divorce certainly support that claim.
Peace,
DR
It seems like this is becoming contra-Deti instead of contra-Dalrockian manosphere. It’s your blog it’s just that it’s not clear to me that the Dalrockian position is that all marriages that fail, fail because of “hypergamy.”
You listed several reasons that women state in social surveys as to why they divorce. Ignoring that they might not be honest in the surveys, one problem is that things don’t usually fail based on one particular “final” issue in the marriage. It’s usually a chain of events, attitudes, differences, etc. “He doesn’t appreciate me/love me” is often after cascading series of differences. So, it’s hard to capture this in a questionnaire that asks women why they divorced. This sounds like your second and third order effects in the post. It may very well be that “hypergamy” is responsible for more than the 20% (max) you claim to be plausible. Even then, 20% is a lot. Not “all divorces” a lot, but a lot.
Also, these studies don’t account for the large number of non-marriages that end. A huge number of people don’t bother to get married, so they don’t count in the studies. If you’re right and coitus creates marriage, then the average woman has 5 or 6 or whatever marriages that end but only one. the legal one, is described in the divorce surveys. So, we have data for a small fraction of the marriages that women end.
I don’t recall Dalrockians believing women never divorce high value males. Even deti has said repeatedly that women divorce top men when the emotional cost is too high. I think that model lady divorced Brady because he didn’t quit football. It’s the “he doesn’t love me” thing I guess. As an aside, I don’t think you’re right about Brady being more alpha than the BJJ instructor. A BJJ “Professor” can not only beat up but can kill an NFL quarterback. A top one can kill a professional strongman. You can ask Liz about BJJ since Mike practices it. I’m not an expert but know a little about combat sport.
Bill Gates is a neomaxdweebiegeek so I don’t think I’d use him an example of a high status male. Not in the way that would create romantic-sexual attraction.
Cameron,
The thing about hypergamy and the Dalrockian Manosphere is that most of the opinions come from the peanut gallery, commenters like Deti. Dalrock himself rarely weighed in (I know, because I have his whole archive with comments and I checked it). You can see from my citations of Manosphere authors that opinion varied, but among the “rank-and-file” the opinions were more extreme. I focus on Deti’s opinion because it is much easier to focus on one position than all of them at the same time. He has spent much of the last 15 years pushing this position. I’m not sure I can really try a different approach without the conversation blowing completely out of control.
I don’t believe that hypergamy exists in any statistically meaningful sense. I don’t believe that it can exist in non-polygamous systems, due to the way assortative pairing naturally happens. In particular, as I noted in my very first post, I believe that to the extent that both female hypergamy and female hypogamy actually exist, they average (or cancel) out. I think the fraction of women that engage in pure hypergamy is very small. That said, I have to acknowledge that the data I’m working with, while IMO unambiguous, is not of high quality. So I could very well be wrong. My acknowledgement about the 20% is an acknowledgment that error bars exist on my belief. I consider these things to be unlikely, in large part because we lack almost any data to support the counter-narrative. Even with those large error bars, the data against hypergamy is still much stronger than the data for it. Any argument about poor data quality is likely to negatively impact the pro-hypergamy argument more than the anti-hypergamy position.
As for cohabitating “non-marriages” I have no sense for what typifies these. I lack both personal experience and formal data to analyze them. They are obvious relevant to the question of hypergamy, but I’m not equipped to consider those issues given the huge uncertainty.
You demonstrate a common problem: the inability to precisely define what an “alpha” is supposed to be. Everyone seems to be able to point and say “nope, not him” after the fact, but this doesn’t seem credible. I consider this to involve large amounts of circular reasoning as I believe I said yesterday in a comment.
Peace,
DR
This comment to me illustrates why I need to invent some new terms as alternatives to “hypergamy.” If hypergamy is used in the traditional sense of enacted/realized, social status (or sexual capital for that matter) hypergamy then, yes, it doesn’t really work in large numbers in a monogamous society. It could for “dating harems” but I think it would be screaming at us even anecdotally if it were near universal.
I still maintain this was never the Dalrockian narrative. Dalrock always described marriage as largely lateral in terms of both sexual capital and social status. Assortive pairing. The Dalrockian narrative is that (some unspecified fraction of) women have sexual-capital (which isn’t just “looks”) hypergamous STRs before their lateral LTR. And that there is a sexual capital AND social status hypergamy-of-desire in women not just in the sense of wanting better (just like men) but of having an aversion to lateral or lower “deals.” Low romantic sexual attraction to their assortively-paired equals. It might still be wrong but I want to describe the narrative accurately.
Lacking a vocabulary to describe the ideas makes this hard to discuss. That’s probably why they latched onto “hypergamy.” For the life of me, I can’t remember what prefix you attached to “gamy” to describe lateral parings.
Deti has stated that he is intentionally hyperbolic in discussing these things because he is trying to convey a general truth. It you pick the hyperbolic comments then it’s really easy to poke holes in them.
You’ve done a good job summarizing the Dalrockian Manosphere’s position on hypergamy. Maybe I’ll capture that and build a post off of it for next week.
The term you are looking for is heterogamy.
Now, it’s one thing to use hyperbole, but it’s quite another to apply it to something that is rare. If someone said “everyone in America owns a gun” when the actual figure was a simple majority, I might give such a statement a pass. But if the actual number was 17%, the use of hyperbole would be woefully inappropriate. I think that’s the problem with “hypergamy,” even as you describe it here. Describing it with hyperbolic language is extremely misleading to the point where it is hard to argue that it is hyperbole at all and not a mistake.
Roughly 60% of first time marriages do not end in divorce. A sizable majority of them report satisfaction. Unlike other research, the marital satisfaction studies have been consistent for decades-upon-decades. That data is solid. At any given time, the majority of those 60% are happy. They rest tend to go through the ups-and-downs common to married couples. I don’t believe there is a hidden epidemic of dissatisfaction that has been hidden for half a century or more. I would argue that a majority of marriages are not suffering from any deeply serious ill-effects.
Hyperbole does not excuse the belief that a lifelong marriage must be due to luck. That’s not a general truth and the actual truth isn’t being conveyed by the use of hyperbole. It’s just wrong. Hyperbole is hiding the reality.
Do you really think I’ve been taking hyperbole too literally?
Cameron,
After thinking about this for half a day, I don’t buy the hyperbole defense. Various arguments regarding hypergamy are more-or-less the same spirit as Artisanal Toad’s argument for hypergamy, (which he happens to root in Genesis 3:16). He makes clear that AWALT and that this is not hyperbole. It really is all of them.
I’m open to the idea that Dalrockian Manosphere’s definition of hypergamy is hyperbolic, but I find it hard to believe. Hypergamy is viewed by so many as something that is inherent to being female, not something that is developed or restricted to a subset of the population. When I read “all women” I believe it really means “all women” to such an extent that any of the rare exceptions are alleged to have come down to chance or luck.
In fact, attributing this to a figure-of-speech is probably a misrepresentation, as reflected in the claim made about me that my luck just hasn’t run out yet. In other words, one wife is just as inherently hypergamous as any other, she (1) just happens to have enough character to resist it or else (2) the husband has just not experienced its negative effects yet.
In other words, hypergamy exists whether or not there are hypergamous STRs followed by “beta” LTRs. According to the theory, if a woman goes straight to a “beta” LTR as a virgin, she’ll still continuously fitness test him because she’s inherently hypergamous. Any successful marriage is defined—in circular fashion—as one in which the man is passing the fitness tests…. for now.
Do you disagree?
Peace,
DR
I don’t know what to say other than I wouldn’t word things the way Deti does, but I don’t wish to criticize my (online) friend. I don’t know how to explain this other than to call it loyalty.
I don’t know that I would say that “hypergamy” is a force that drives all women or such. I don’t like phrases like “all.” There were many disagreements in the “peanut gallery” at Dalrock’s. I was told by a commenter that “all obsese women are promiscuous because they lack self control”, I was told that I was wrong when I expressed doubt that women would be fooled by a fake using “game” (Scott agreed with me). Recently, esteemed commenter GunnarQ seemed to be demanding my endorsement of complete MGTOW because I suggested what a man could do to give himself a good chance IF he decided to marry. It’s not like everyone agreed with everything at Dalrock’s or SF or SS.
I think my definition that you linked to is not hyperbolic – it’s more or less what I believe and I didn’t type that comment intending hyperbole. The main part I’m quite uncertain about is the prevalence and details of the “carousel” life since I was never into the dating, bar, nightclub, etc. scene. I also believe women are commonly naturally attracted to bad boys but that can vary from “biker who wears leather” to a serial killer.
I mean Jim of Jim’s blog writes that a woman will crawl over a mile of broken glass to get to an alpha and that what a woman really wants is a Taliban warlord with an AK and a necklace of his victim’s ears. If you really want an example of hyperbole to use to disprove the sphere then try Jim’s blog.
I agree that some commenters think the way you describe. Why not pick, say, my thoughts as representative of the sphere and disprove my ideas? That would be interesting. It isn’t very interesting to take a bunch of “all” statements and disprove them because it’s really easy to disprove “all” statements. More importantly, we don’t really learn anything and I’m interested in the truth, even if I’m wrong.
My guess at the source of deti’s hyperbole: when they tried to talk about this stuff people said they were crazy, weren’t seeing what they were seeing, they were just seeing this with messed up women with bad childhoods, they were told they were insecure, they hated women, they were just hurt by women, they were anatomically inadequate. Deti has described the response. So deti evolved his speech to be about as subtle and nuanced as a punch in the mouth. That’s my guess.
. The main part I’m quite uncertain about is the prevalence and details of the “carousel” life since I was never into the dating, bar, nightclub, etc. scene. I also believe women are commonly naturally attracted to bad boys but that can vary from “biker who wears leather” to a serial killer.
You know at one time a bunch of women at some church was going nuts over a guy wearing a black leather jacket while carrying a Bible? Even Dalrock i think mentioned how it was a big topic of discussion on some Christian forum or such. The point I’m making is that too many MEN think you must be either one extreme or the other such as your mention of ” Jim of Jim’s blog writes that a woman will crawl over a mile of broken glass to get to an alpha and that what a woman really wants is a Taliban warlord with an AK and a necklace of his victim’s ears. If you really want an example of hyperbole to use to disprove the sphere then try Jim’s blog.”
Jim uses classic Roissyian=Heartistian and GBFMian hyperbole as he was a big fan of both.
My guess at the source of deti’s hyperbole: when they tried to talk about this stuff people said they were crazy, weren’t seeing what they were seeing, they were just seeing this with messed up women with bad childhoods, they were told they were insecure, they hated women, they were just hurt by women, they were anatomically inadequate. Deti has described the response. So deti evolved his speech to be about as subtle and nuanced as a punch in the mouth. That’s my guess.
Yeah, his hyperbole is more like GBFMS than say Sparkless for instance who relishes in offending as he himself, just stated here at Spawnys yesterday:”Over at Simpfront one person said that, “Sparkles seems to like to intentionally offend people.” As if that were a bad thing. So did my Lord and Savior who was a “Rock of offense” offending people left and right until the whole crowd in the capital city cried out for him to be crucified. Yes, I’ll proverbially shiv my ideological enemies in their vulnerable spot and am happy to twist the knife. Maybe the pain will make them wise up. If I fail to offend those whom I intend to offend, I’d be losing my touch. If anything, I’m far too nice still. Anyhow, I’ve had folks with proverbially smaller balls trying to tone-police me for my whole life. As if God’s first commandment was to kiss everybody’s ass.”-
i have to tell you he went on to attack the pope as you should know he would? Remember Sparkles gets very personal, very fast with anyone he dislikes such as Scott,Oscar,Derek, and me or sometimes even Jack, so it is NOT as personal as one should think as that’s just Sparkles being Sparkles .i actually feel sorry for him. He seems NOT to know how to interact with anyone past insults or high-fiving others who cheer him on that’s the real sad part.
For one thing of what Sparkles said above is that Derek isn’t the one that tone-polices Sparkles that was Dalrock, then Jack at SF & Deepstrength, and one time Scott at Scott’s site(either courtship pledge or Treasure State i forget which-more than likely the latter as that was newer ) as Sparkles told me in 2021-over Scott saying Sparkles was anonymous even though his legal name was known to Scott and with the e-mail account he was using.
I don’t know what to say other than I wouldn’t word things the way Deti does, but I don’t wish to criticize my (online) friend. I don’t know how to explain this other than to call it loyalty.
Deti knows if GBFM criticizes him he does it with brotherly love and knowing how hurt Deti is from battling/arguing with his wife for some 30 years now. He should know that with you too, if he thinks you’re criticizing him is what I’m saying.
I can’t really keep up with all the previous posts, so I’ll post my comments about them in the latest post.
You mentioned that you’ve seen studies that show than the average couple has sex once a week. I’ve seen studies that show it’s two or three times a week. This is why I don’t trust social survey type studies. You get radically different answers. Particularly about sensitive topics.
My criticism of the studies you cite should not be understood as me claiming anecdote is better – I do like having real data as anecotes can be subject to our biases. But I have real problems with “soft” social science.
Cameron,
I think it is fine that you are just moving the conversation to newer posts. It makes it easier.
As for the problem with studies, I don’t think there is anything we can do about it. We could probably find serious methodological problems in every study if we tried hard enough. I may have strong beliefs in these areas, but I can’t genuinely claim victory no matter how good my arguments are because the data they are based upon just don’t have a high enough certainty.
That doesn’t mean this is a waste of time. At the very least we can figure out what the data must mean if the data happens to be accurate.
Peace,
DR
The fact that 90% of upper middle class divorces are initiated by women makes women look really bad to me. Not necessarily or just because of the “sexual-capital-hypergamy” idea.
It seems that one of the big differences is that upper middle-class women can AFFORD to divorce. This seems to suggest that the general level of discontentment experienced by women manifests itself where they can afford to divorce. I mean, I guess it could be an upper middle class women “bubble” but I’m having a hard time thinking of which of their qualities (or UMC husbands’) cause such an insane skew toward wife initiation.
It also suggests (possibly) traditional hypergamy (of desire). These women have high education, careers, and income. We are hearing endlessly about how men aren’t “keeping up” with the ladies.
I feel we need to create a manosphere dictionary and start populating it with terms. We can start by differentiating between traditional (social status) hypergamy and sexual capital hypergamy and we could also differentiate between desire-hypergamy and enacted hypergamy. I guess we could also talk about STR and LTR hypergamy.
Cameron,
You seem to be focusing on behavioral differences between women in different socioeconomic tiers. But, I don’t think the 90% of divorces being initiated by women is particularly astonishing. High-tier men are generally content with their wives and rarely ever divorce. The biggest change between marriages between high-tier individuals and marriages between low-tier individuals is that as the tiers decline, the number of men initiating divorces goes up alongside the greater divorce risk. I didn’t run the numbers to get the exact proportions, but I suspect a decent chunk of the effect is changes in men’s behavior, not changes in women’s behavior. Or put another way, women are somewhat more consistent, while men are not.
This, obviously, is not a narrative that I’ve ever heard.
So it is interesting how you interpret this statistic as potential proof of hypergamy, but I see it as saying more about men than about women. When dealing with different rates interacting, we have to be careful to avoid the statistical problems like Simpson’s Paradox and the Base Rate Fallacy. In particular, we need to know, separately, how men’s and women’s divorce rates change with different socioeconomic tiers. Looking at the combined rate can lead to the wrong conclusion.
One day when I have a bit more time, I might examine this more closely. It would be interesting to see if my hunch is correct and by how much, or if instead your hunch is the correct one.
Peace,
DR
Pingback: Hypergamy or Adultery - Derek L. Ramsey
Thought I’d post an uplifting link, with all the darkness on the internet.
This is so, so true:
https://x.com/justice_Tyr22/status/1898365266897059937
LOL
LOVE This.
In the spirit of this post, Mike and I seem to be going deaf at the same time.
While frustrating, it also leads to some really funny moments.
I’ll close with a quote from CS Lewis:, I’ll try to keep it in mind today:
“It is one of the evils of rapid diffusion of news that the sorrows of all the world come to us every morning. I think each village was meant to feel pity for its own sick and poor whom it can help and I doubt if it is the duty of any private person to fix his mind on ills which he cannot help. (This may even become an escape from the works of charity we really can do to those we know).
A great many people (not you) do now seem to think that the mere state of being worried is in itself meritorious. I don’t think it is. We must, if it so happens, give our lives for others: but even while we’re doing it, I think we’re meant to enjoy Our Lord and, in Him, our friends, our food, our sleep, our jokes, and the birds song and the frosty sunrise”
Think with that I’ve exhausted my internet posting for a long while.
Take care. All.
———
The internet is a strange place for human social interaction…which is how odd and counterproductive ideas can become viral. And everyone thinks they are the odd one.
Let’s take the school bus example for instance.
It sucked, was a bad experience and so forth.
But there was never a time the bus bully would suddenly jump up on a soapbox and without preamble lecture everyone on the value of kindness. To applause.
That’s the internet.
Should’ve given it up for Lent. Heh.
I took up with the society of St. Vincent de Paul – they make home visits to distribute funds to local folks that are about to get kicked out of their homes, etc. Many of these people make bad decisions but explain that to a child whose family is homeless. The real value seems to be not just in throwing money at them but in actually talking to people who are very different from you – really hard for me as a strong introvert.
I recommend shopping at “St. Vinny’s” if you’re into thrift storing. From what I can tell, almost all the money goes to help people – not to big salaries for executives.
That is awesome thank you!
If we have any here (we do love thrift stores), I will check it out. I’ll spread the word either way (family is everywhere around the country, and we all like thrifting…funny these days thrift stores seem to have replaced malls to a big degree. The young ‘uns go thrifting on the weekends like we used to loiter in malls).
side note (wanted to say this): What you wrote above about making assumptions. Can’t speak for Elspeth but I never noticed that at all. Always appreciate your perspective.
Take care.
My kids and I try to volunteer once or twice a year with a Christian organization. We deliver food and gifts during holidays straight to their homes. Then we pray with them. As an extrovert with mostly extroverted children, this is fine, but I’d imagine the introverts struggle. I agree that there is value in interactions with people you wouldn’t normally interact with.