This is part of a series. See the index here.
After writing “Hypergamy and Male Variability,” I received a lot of comments that merit fuller responses to do them justice. I’m going to try to respond to some of them here.
Lastmod’s Comment
I dont see “average” men swimming with options concerning women Derek.
Maybe twenty-five to thirty years ago. Average guy could date more, or “spin plates” as the ‘sphere calls it…but there was a change somewhere as the new century came about. Many average men were being lumped in with their lower intellect and physically unattractive male counterparts.
That’s the narrative, for sure. It is the narrative written by the very same men who are not swimming with options. If the narrative were written by successful average men, the narrative wouldn’t match. It’s simply selection bias. So which narrative is true?
First, around half of men are losing their virginity before they turn 18 (and it used to be even higher!). Most of the rest lose their virginity by the time they are 25. It is absolutely the case that average men are having sex (or at least have the opportunity to do so). The narrative that only the elite are getting women is simply false.
Here is how things were 20 years ago closer to the dawn of the Manosphere and the PUA/Game movements:
By the very early twenties, 75% of people had lost their virginity. Ultimately 90%+ of people will eventually have non-marital sex. These days some of that may have shifted to a slightly older age, but the overall trend has not changed appreciably. Average men are not having trouble finding a non-marital sexual partner. Virgin incels make up less than 10% of men. A majority of men have options and more than half will eventually go all the way and marry (including most average men).
Remember that a majority of first-time marriages do not end in divorce!
Hypergamy simply does not explain the success that non-elite men are having. If women were only going after elite men, then the virginity of average and below-average men would be much higher. By definition, women must be actively mating with average and below-average men for them to lose their virginity. And if women are commonly mating with non-elite men, then hypergamy is a myth. The fact that women are hooking up with elite men does not eliminate the fact that they are also hooking up with non-elite men: homogamy and hypogamy cannot be evidence of hypergamy, their opposite.
Second, the most common way that people meet these days is online. We know that these marketplaces are dominated by men. There are nearly two males for every female. There are not enough females interested in relationships for the demand from men. Regardless of whether or not the available men and women can find assortatative pairs, there are not enough women to go around.
Something is causing women to not be interested in dating (i.e. WGTOW), causing currently single men—average or otherwise—to have few options. But whatever that cause is, it can’t be female hypergamy because hypergamy necessarily implies an interest in dating. About half of the available women are opting out entirely. There are many contributing factors for why this might be, including the greater male variability hypothesis and feminism in general.
The whole PUA and Game thing. Dating coaches. Books. Podcasts. Leaders of Men arouse out of this. It became a problem when more and more men where now deemed “losers” by women.
This is likely a contributing factor to WGTOW.
Could this be hypergamy? I am sure it could be thrown into that large barrel that term seems to now cover.
The term “hypergamy” has grown so all-encompassing that it can mean almost anything anyone wants it to mean. The attempts to define it are so vague as to include (or exclude) whatever anyone wants to include (or exclude).
What I saw as my twenties ended……a small group of men that seemed to be getting smaller by the year seemed to have plenty of option dating / mating (like they always have had) while a larger base of men at the bottom of the pyramid seemed to be getting bigger.
Cultural factors? Was it because sex was so easy to get without consequences….women decided that if I am going to give it up to a man, might as well be someone I find physically attractive? Was it a cultural shift in general of men being left behind in the classroom, the workplace, higher education that probably started in the 1980’s? I am sure that plays a factor. But its not the “sole” reason.
Did you know that prior to no-fault divorce, the majority of divorces were among the most highly intelligent? The rest rarely divorced. But once no-fault divorce became a thing, divorce among the less intelligent skyrocketed. Now the most intelligent have the lowest divorce rates. Contrary to some claims, the very intelligent do not willy-nilly “blow up” their marriages in order to upgrade them.
Lower tiered men are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce when they do. Thus, a larger pool of lower tiered men are more likely to be available. The base of the pyramid at the bottom did, in fact, get bigger.
Now, when you factor in greater male variability, you’ll find that the “average” single man is in a lower tier than the “average” single woman. And, most notably, the average single man is in a lower tier than the average married man. To wit:
This is interpreted as hypergamy through the extremely common assumption that women are unrealistically holding out for a better man rather than settling by selecting from the perfectly acceptable available men. Even if this were true from a purely physical attractiveness standpoint, it need not be true with respect to the other attributes that people are attracted to (e.g. intelligence).
This is the problem with defining hypergamy in terms of physical attraction. How does one even determine if a man and woman are looksmatched? Earlier in this series, I noted that people often naturally view two people in the same percentile as being looks-mismatched.
It’s easy to call something “hypergamy” simply by assumption.
My opinion. My thought. Not the *only* reason but this plays a part. When the infrastructure is basically built. Stability in the culture or nation is pretty much a given at some point. Hardships like a war….where people actually die en mass, not these border skirmishes we have been involved with post Vietnam in 1975. A large swath of the population…..rich or poor……handsome or not…..urban or rural has a prolonged period of said stability and doesnt have to worry about many other things. This s the result.
We have always had shallow people. The American in 1955 wasnt smarter per say in everything….people still had children out of wedlock. Jails had criminals in them.
A large cultural change (WW II / Great Depression) was still in the recent cultural memory. There was still a personal accountability of sorts. You just couldn’t “sue” McDonalds because the coffee you spilled on yourself burned you. Social Welfare and related programs were not entities fof their own and not full “entitlements” yet. At your job, you didnt spend all day talking to the HR Office about what you thought was unfair in your position……
When a culture has too much free time, too much of a stability of sorts and a growing economy……..wouldnt be obvious stuff like this happens?
Look at China right now. A nation that was third world still in the 1970’s today has a “leftover” woman problem, a falling birth rate and the hardships from the 1950’s thru the 1970’s are a faded memory now.
What do you think about this? Am I way off by your accounts?
This is a good assessment. What you describe is a cultural environment of immorality applicable to all relationships, not just hypergamous ones.
Redacted’s Comment
… descriptions of their CURRENT marriages sounded rather like they jelled with some of the ‘sphere’s ideas.
I’ve been told by women who are critical of the manosphere that women ARE attracted to bad boys …
I don’t think Derek’s ideas stem from real observations of what is going on. I think Derek is a Manosphere troll and he is playing contrarian to the things many in the Manosphere say.
My observations are rooted in various established facts. They are not rooted in anecdotal evidence or observations. The latter—which the Manosphere relies upon heavily—involves significant amounts of cherry-picking.
For example, if you see a woman having sex with a higher tier man, you can say “hey, that’s hypergamy!” even though the data shows that women are also having plenty of sex with lower tier men. The non-hypergamous relationship is just explained away in order to reinforce hypergamy (that is circular reasoning, by the way).
What I’m focused on is the inconvenient facts that are being ignored, rather than what has been picked over time-and-again. Some take issue to this. To wit:
Derek doesn’t need to have one fixed alternative view, he is OK coming against the Manosphere from any angle that lets him take a shot at the Manosphere. He isn’t always really proposing a fully though out alternative, he is really just trying to steer people away from the Manosphere and what is being shared there. In a lot of ways Derek is acting as the devil’s advocate against the Manosphere and against God’s holy order of patriarchy.
Stop and pay close attention. What I’ve done with all those “alternatives” is highlight an important fact: human relationships are influenced by a complex set of variables. No one explanation can explain all that we observe. My varied explanations reflect the mutlicausal nature of human relationships, while hypergamy is largely a unicausal explanation. Hypergamy is expected to apply to all women and explain virtually everything that matters. We can see this quite clearly in, for example, Devlin’s treatise on hypergamy.
Hypergamy is fundamentally flawed because it tries to be the Unified Field Theory of Women (alongside, in the classical Heartistian Manosphere, solipsism).
Alternatives are, by definition, a threat to any unicausal explanation. This is why this commenter sees everything I say as a threat or attack. Each new explanation is a shot against the established orthodoxy, not something that can even possibly be true alongside it. It would be completely unacceptable if hypergamy was an incomplete explanation.
As Jack pointed out, Derek likes to create a dopey Manosphere strawman and then beat the stuffing out of it.
I encouraged Jack (or anyone else) to produce a definitive “Manosphere Hypergamy Manifesto” so I can respond to that directly. If not that, then post a comment here that includes the definitive definition and I’ll respond to that.
Earlier in this series, I tried to find a consistent explanation for hypergamy and I could not find one. You can blame me for fighting strawmen all you want. In truth, all definitions of hypergamy are strawmen because none of them are the definitive explanation.
Derek is a master debater, but his goal is not to find truth, but seemingly to keep others from finding it. Like the devil, Derek doesn’t have to steer you to any particular belief, his goal is merely to deflect you away from the truth, off in any other direction.
This is one of the more pernicious logical fallacies.
The fact is, it is much easier to disprove something than it is to prove it. If you want to show that someone didn’t rise from the dead, you dig up their tomb and show them the body. But if you want to prove that someone rose from the dead, not even an empty tomb will be proof enough.
Steering someone away from a false belief is valid in its own right. It is enough just to show what is false. Rejecting the false is the first baby step towards finding the truth. After all, so long as you cling to what is false—you can’t even take that baby step—the presentation of the truth (e.g. the empty grave) will not be proof enough.
Or, put another way:
If your position is susceptible to falsification from multiple angles, you should consider that maybe the problem is with your position, not the falsifications.
Derek doesn’t have to steer you to any particular belief…
Notice that the commenter is presuming a unicausal explanation. Black-and-white absolutists have trouble accepting the existence of multiple explanations. Having multiple factors in an unclear arrangement makes some people deeply uncomfortable.
Note: I truncated the above comment to remove the irrelevant content. You can see my response to that portion here.
And yet, a short while back you were being pedantic about the ideas being wrong based upon a dictionary definition that did not includes how the Manosphere (and now society at large) is reappropriating the term.
You’re building a strawman again. The manosphere isn’t saying that hypergamy is the only factor that affects women’s choices. And a short while ago you were claiming “hypergamy” as the Manosphere uses it, was entirely a myth.
You’re conflating two separate arguments. My quote wasn’t regarding hypergamy but was in reference to God’s ONE prescribed order. There is only one God-prescribed order for the ideal family — patriarchy. Not everything in this world is ideal. There are husbandless widows, and women married to mentally incapacitated men, but the exceptions, which require workarounds, don’t negate God’s leadership structure for families, which is patriarchy.
Derek, do you advocate for patriarchy?
Do you mean the weak, wimpy, feminine, non-historical version of “patriarchy” that you and others understand and promote? Absolutely not. Never.
The Dalrockian Manosphere’s conception of patriarchy is laughable and non-biblical. It deserves ridicule, not fake veneration as “God’s ONE Holy Patriarchy.”
I have been implicitly “promoting” true patriarchy each and every time I have criticized the Manosphere’s caricature of it. I’ve been the patriarchy’s biggest champion. It’s not my fault you are too blind to see it.
You’ve done far more to hurt the cause of patriarchy than anything I have ever done or said.
Oh really?
Why yes, I created such a strawman by pointing out exactly what was said. Could it get any more clear that this is an objection to providing a multicausal response?
It’s called expressing a “counterfactual,” something I’ve done throughout the series. If you had read it, you would know.
Oh, now you’re gaslighting me. Here is what you said:
Derek doesn’t need to have one fixed alternative view, he is OK coming against the Manosphere from any angle that lets him take a shot at the Manosphere. He isn’t always really proposing a fully though out alternative, he is really just trying to steer people away from the Manosphere and what is being shared there. In a lot of ways Derek is acting as the devil’s advocate against the Manosphere and against God’s holy order of patriarchy.
As Jack pointed out, Derek likes to create a dopey Manosphere strawman and then beat the stuffing out of it.
Derek is a master debater, but his goal is not to find truth, but seemingly to keep others from finding it. Like the devil, Derek doesn’t have to steer you to any particular belief, his goal is merely to deflect you away from the truth, off in any other direction.
Do you know what we were not talking about prior to your comment? Patriarchy. The whole “God’s ONE prescribed order” is a complete non sequitur.
Do you know what you did reference? My beliefs. Mine. My multiple, not-fixed-at-just-one beliefs. The ones I was describing and “steering others to.” And what were they? The various alternative explanations opposed to hypergamy. You made that comment in the context of the article called “Hypergamy and Male Variability” after a comment that was explicitly discussing my various articles.
You literally complained that I don’t need a single fixed alternative view. You didn’t like that I wasn’t steering others towards a single fixed alternative, but was rather steering them towards multiple other alternatives.
See, I can read what you wrote. It’s not hard to understand your words. When you wrote “Derek’s ideas,” I took this to mean my (plural) ideas were the subject of your comment. When you said “Derek doesn’t need to have one fixed alternative view,” I took that to mean that you think I don’t have to have one fixed alternative view. When you said “Derek doesn’t have to steer you to any particular belief,” I took that to mean that you think I don’t have to have one fixed alternative view, that I don’t present any particular belief against hypergamy. When you said “He isn’t always really proposing a fully though out alternative,” I understood you to mean that you think I’m just throwing up as many alternatives as possible and hoping that something sticks, insisting that I should stick to a unicausal explanation.
Let’s play a game called “one of these things is not like the other”:
(1) Derek doesn’t need to have one fixed alternative view, he is OK coming against the Manosphere from any angle that lets him take a shot at the Manosphere.
(2) Derek is acting as the devil’s advocate against the Manosphere and against God’s holy order of patriarchy.
(3) Derek doesn’t have to steer you to any particular belief, his goal is merely to deflect you away from the truth, off in any other direction.
It takes an ounce of common sense to see that you don’t like my multicausal approach. It is also painfully obvious that you think a unicausal approach is not only possible, but explitly preferred.
Stop making stuff up and admit you were wrong.
When we test a theory, we attack it from every possible angle. We look for fatal flaws that might indicate that it is wrong, no matter how well it might seem to fit the details. And if it fails to replicate or is otherwise falsified, we set it aside. What we don’t do is weakly test a theory one time from only one angle and then treat it as dogma.
The primary indication that you are on the wrong side of the issue is that the introduction of additional information is a threat to your position. The secondary indication that you are on the wrong side of the issue is that after I made these assertions, I largely received insults, attacks, and deflections rather than substantive responses.
Do you really think that hypergamy is part of a multicausal explanation? Let’s test this out, shall we? Can you admit that hypergamy is, at best, only a partially causal explanation for at most a single digit percentage of the outcomes of all relationships (because most relationships at any stage are homogamous)?
Derek,
I usually only skim your site. I certainly don’t read all of the words in your posts, nor all of your comments, nor did I even read all of the words in your comment above directed at me. I simply don’t have that much time to waste on your stubbornness and pedantry. You seem to have mistaken what I intended by my words, and have convinced yourself, or are pretending, that your mistaken impression is the only possible thought I could have been thinking. LOL You need to add “Mind Reader” to your résumé.
In answer to your question: I think hypergamy is generally a strong factor in a woman’s thinking. There are many factors in her calculus, for attraction, for sexual relations, for marriage, and for reproducing. The strength of these many factors varies by the woman, and by her beliefs, and by her mood, and even by the time of the month. For most women today, hypergamy will always be a factor in their calculus regarding their choices for sex and marriage, whether conscious or subconscious or both. I’m not a woman, nor could any woman authoritatively speak for the rest, so I can’t precisely quantify the exact magnitude of hypergamy’s effect in various scenarios, nor is it likely that anybody could, without access to a trustworthy source of data that clearly shows the inner workings of women’s minds, and not just the numerical constraints of a society that has outlawed polygamous marriage. But alas, I saw that you’ve already applied your mind-reading skills to the female mind and have published your preconceived notion that hypergamy was only a myth, and that women didn’t generally want to have the best man for themselves.
For somebody seemingly so pedantic about dictionary definitions, and precise definitions, it is hypocritical that Derek can’t be left alone with the simple definition of “patriarchy” for a minute, without him trying to redefine the word as something other than father-rule.
patriarchy /pā′trē-är″kē/
noun
1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family.
Bruh.
Writing about patriarchy (especially how you do it) is not the same as advocating for it. Do you advocate for God’s holy order of patriarchy? Try to give a yes or no answer, or something clear and concise.
Again, “Bruh.” Your assertion is completely refuted by what I’ve written. And, the Professor gets it, so why can’t you? You are Not. Even. Trying.
Also, did you miss this relevant comment? You’ve done nothing to merit a better response than this.
Whoever wrote the script to censor my online identity seemingly messed up the accuracy of the comment counter in the process.
Learn to code! 😜
It’s completely cosmetic and WordPress usually fixes it automatically. I know how to fix it, I just don’t care.
‘Having sex’ is different to mating. If that difference and others like it from the realities of life are removed from your rather shallow analyses of hypergamy, one would arrive at these rather meaningless conclusions. Reality gainsays most of them.
Jack,
Sometimes I think that I live in a completely different world, a world when words mean the things they mean and you shouldn’t get “corrected” for correctly using words.
It’s not like what I said was, in any way, either novel or ambiguous.
Remember not that long ago that you said this?
Instead of nitpicking the minutiae of my generalized word choices for no good reason, perhaps you should take your own advice.
Why bother even commenting if you are just going to dismiss what I say without engaging with my ideas? What are you trying to prove? You’re certainly not going to convince me that I’m wrong just by declaring it so. We already have another semi-frequent commenter who just declares his views correct by fiat without engaging with the arguments made (or even, for that matter, reading them). Do we really need another unproductive member of the commentariat?
Why don’t you, instead, explain…
(1) …why my analysis—which is backed by actual data and logical argumentation—is shallow? You are the one making shallow claims, dismissing my entire thesis with a whole three sentences! Congratulations on demonstrating exactly what you criticize in others.
(2) …what makes my conclusions meaningless? I consider them to be quite meaningful, or even quite persuasive. You are the one obfuscating the meaning of my plainly expressed and unambiguous viewpoints.
(3) …why a distinction between making and having sex has any bearing on my argument?
I suggest, also, that you review this comment previously addressed to you to which you never responded. Before, as with now, you’ve projected the limitations of others onto me.
Peace,
DR