men compared to women

Maladaptive Hypergamy

Comments (30)
  1. David says:

    Being young and fit, with resources. But no intention to give those resources away freely because my life trajectory is going the way for me personally, MGTOW and no kids. I feel like these needs can be met without simping for the betas. If only they could understand this and see the chessboard clearly, we can hack our innate drives to compete for women and kick this whole “lets you and him fight” mentality. But again, slot of men have neurosis and are quite beta. I’m confident in my SMV and know I can get sex if I really wanted too. So maybe my situation is different.

  2. Anonymous 2 says:

    To be fair I think Rollo Tomassi at the Rational Male blog covers the topic of hypergamy quite extensively. From what I understand, by his definition women run a dualistic hypergamous sexual strategy whereby while their SMV is at it’s highest they seek out the best genes in ‘alpha’ men, then as their SMV begins to decline due to age/children etc they engage the second phase of their strategy which is to secure the man that has the best alpha/beta provider ratio. He also covers how a patriarchal society is a means to keep hypergamy in check.

    1. CS MGTOW says:

      Anonymous 2, you make an excellent point hypergamy can be said to be dualistic and Rollo’s work is superb. Despite the fact that Hypergamy is innate to the species and the standard blue pill response has been to aggressively white knight and slavishly pander, I see a lot of shaming of these guys and it seems to ignore the root cause that man are driven by the sex drive.

  3. George says:

    The while “best genes” thing seems to make the same mistake “rational man” economics make – reducing mankind to a machine that maximizes profit and ignoring all the multifarious other interests and passions we have.

    In reality, nobody relentlessly optimizes like that. A woman will find a man who is “good enough” and then develop binds of intimacy with him him that make “upgrades” in the genetic sense itrelevant.

    The woman as relentlessly optimizing machine is a simplification that has no application in the real world of messy and conflicting human passions.

    Its easy to ascribe inhuman traits to exotic “other” groups that you don’t belong to.

    Hypergamy can be more easily explained without ascribing mysterious biological drives to simple rational choice – and the principle of not multiplying explanatory factors beyond necessity should be obsrtved.

    In this case, in most of history hypergamy made rational sense for women, to add the additional explanatory factor of a biological drive seems unnecessary and to violate the aforementioned rule.

    And today we in fact see a massive reduction in hypergamy as women’s basketball con mic position makes it no longer necessary.

    Aren’t women ignoring the doctors and Lawyers and other high status men in favor of broke guitar players in obscure bands and other low status men?

    1. CS MGTOW says:

      hi George, thanks for commenting. I take your point on board, however reducing human beings to their innate drivers, their environment and how these two interact is a very positive thing. It does not allow us to completely predict human behaviour, however it does allow us to make broad generalisations, based on observations for the purposes of analysis. Humans are driven by motivations we now know and understand, such as Hypergamy.

      I would disagree with you that no one relentlessly optimises in the manner I describe in my post. From my personal experience most women are constantly on the look out for the better deal, they may not act on it, as there is the opportunity cost of wrecking their current situation and the new arrangement failing to work out, however the desire to upgrade is always there. Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t see this as either ‘bad’ nor ‘good’, I just prefer not to be on the sharp end of it.

      It’s clear that Hypergamy is not ‘Exotic’, it’s a very human trait and one that was beneficial to the human species as a whole, as I stated in my post.

      Hypergamy is rational AND biologically driven. Finally we have NOT seen a reduction in hypergamy, far from it and actually opposite, the hand brakes have been taken off and Hypergamy now has fewer negative social consequences vs. 25 years ago.

      Some women are ignoring the ‘high status’ males in favour of males of lesser status, evidence suggests this is for short-term mating, for long term pair bonding they prefer higher status males, this is a factor in the plethora of online articles where women complain they cant find a man, meaning they cant find a man making more than they do.

      1. George says:

        Our drives are complex, conflicted, contradictory, and poorly understood – reducing humans to a few simple drives, and ones entirely devoted to maximizing power, survival, and reproduction, is a-historical, untrue to life as lived by everyday people, and merely reflects the prevailing biases of our time, or the assumptions of an intellectual class that prefers abstractions to concrete reality, and takes its intellectual point of reference from the culture of technology, where unsentimental efficiency is the preeminent, perhaps the only, value.

        In one feel swoop, all sentimental, emotional, and intangible considerations are swept away and a simplified caricature of human behavior emerges that bears little relation to how humans actually conduct their lives.

        Hypergamy exists, but it is one impulse among many, and it vies with sentimental and emotional considerations that are just as powerful. Outside of the realm of technology, humans aren’t relentlessly driven by efficiency or optimization – they tolerate imperfection, messiness, and incompleteness very happily. They may even prefer such conditions.

        If you claimed men are completely unmotivated by sentimental considerations – by love, intimacy, loyalty, intangibles, but are ruthless fitness-maximizing machines – we would immediately recognize it for the inhuman caricature that it is. But women, the exotic “other” for us men, can be safely ascribed robotic attributes that deny their humanity.

        Point is, humans do pursue power, survival, reproductive advantage, but most humans don’t pursue these things with the ruthless single minded focus that an elegant abstract theorizer might wish , and they balance these things with sentimental considerations that are as important to them, producing a complex and messy human reality that is the bane of mathematical formulas.

        1) Humans aren’t driven by efficiency in their personal lives 2) Sentimental considerations and intangibles are just as important as simple power drives

        Are there some humans who are utterly ruthless power maximers? Of course. You would be wise to learn how to identify such people and avoid them completely. In fact, such people, while few in number, are extremely dangerous, and it should be part of everyone’s education to learn to spot them, especially since they are often adept at concealing their nature.

        You say hypergamy is rational AND a drive – this violates the principle of not multiplying explanatory factors beyond need. If it can be explained rationally, there is no need to posit a drive. It may be a drive, but we don’t know, and it isn’t necessary to explain it.

        As for the “dual mating strategy” – it is my understanding that women settle for high status men in their 30s because the low status penniless men they were hooking up with in their 20s wouldn’t marry them. As I have heard the theory described, women would love to settle down and marry these “alphas” (low status penniless men) but settle for a man who merely has high status.

        1. Jim says:

          Just stop George, you are not up to the standard of cs mgtow

        2. Dinosious says:

          Excellent Point made George.

    2. Pellaeon says:

      Aren’t women ignoring the doctors and Lawyers and other high status men in favor of broke guitar players in obscure bands and other low status men?

      Yes, and this is easily accounted for, and to a limited degree predicted by, the alpha fucks/beta bucks theory of attraction, as anonymous2 notes.

      FYI – in case you hadn’t already seen it, I finally posted a response to your last comment on the “are women evil” page.

      1. George says:

        Palleon, I didn’t see your other response, sorry. I’ll post a reply as soon as I can.

        1. Pellaeon says:

          No worries – I was a week late in posting it, I’m not surprised you hadn’t seen it yet.

          1. George says:

            Hey I answered u on other thread. A bit if a disjointed response but the best I could manage from my smart phone.

  4. TMG says:

    The push for acceptance of polyamory, “open” relationships and eventually polygamy is largely driven so women have more chances to snag a top-tier male.

    1. Xtianity says:

      Correct, this is very true of Arab countries and polygamy apparently where top 30%-40% of men have multiple wives while the remaining men are sexually frustrated.

      I don’t know how much this is the cause of t3rr0rist recruitmen in countries like Saudi Arabia, not sure if there has been a MGTOW video or article on this written, it seems like a very interesting topic.

      1. TMG says:

        “I don’t know how much this is the cause of t3rr0rist recruitmen in countries like Saudi Arabia, not sure if there has been a MGTOW video or article on this written, it seems like a very interesting topic.”

        I can’t point to a datum that says exactly that but I’ve read much about the abused and sexually frustrated young men who aren’t of a high-enough status to get a woman.

  5. GhostFaceMGTOW says:

    “Male Mother Need” does not exist. Please provide support for this assertion.

    Human mating and pair bonding tend to be assortative.

    Oh, and Rollo Tomassi is a complete fool and ignoramus when it comes to human behavior. This shit is embarrassing.

    See Uncle Bob’s blog:

    1. Choas Preacher says:

      “Oh, and Rollo Tomassi is a complete fool and ignoramus when it comes to human behavior. This shit is embarrassing.”

      Agreed. His writing sounds like someone swallowed down an evo–psych 101 textbook and then mixed in some ‘manosphere’ jargon.

    2. PsychologicalCynic says:

      Male mother need “doesn’t exist”?

      Perhaps not in the oedipus complex sense, but in terms of the angelic figure of forgivness and mercy? I’d say it’s very much in existence.

  6. Tim says:

    Marriage rates are dropping the globe over. Where feminism goes, marriage rates tank. Because you know – feminism is all bout equality. Birth rates in many countries are only being sustained via mass immigration. There’s a limit with how far women can go in their quest to forcefully transfer men’s wealth and power to themselves (forced redistribution of wealth). Just look to Japan. Countries are now gearing up to pay women to have kids (year long paid maternity leave, free healthcare for single mothers, free childcare for single mothers, forced marriage of men to women after X number of months of cohabitation).

    If the mass media were to explain to the world the concept of MGTOW in the same way and with the same exuberance it uses to tout the miracle of feminism, lesbianism, homosexuality and transgenderism, marriage and birth rates would tank overnight. As that doesn’t quell the blood lust of the man-haters (both male and female), forget the lame stream ever having a national discussion on the merits of MGTOW. The priority, for the past 50 years, has been punishing white heterosexual males for the benefits of minorities, women and the LGBTQs.

    To truly understand women – one need only study sociopaths. One need only understand pathological narcissism and deeply misplaced hatred. Need proof? Why is selective service still male only? Why is it OK for women to hit men but not for men to hit women? Why so much fuss about rape when women’s crime rate has risen 700% since 1980 – rape rates have gone down since then – and why is there suddenly a global call to close women’s prisons, but not men’s? Whites are maliciously and hatefully raped, murdered and harassed by blacks – but only white on black crime makes the national stage. What would happen if the brutal murder and rape of whites by blacks were so enthusiastically reported as the comparatively miniscule white on black crimes?

    It’s all about forced power and wealth transfer. You didn’t build that. Fundamental transformation and what what. Don’t let the progressives, anti-feminists, feminists, conservatives, white knights, gynocentrists and captain-save-a-ho dads fool you.

  7. Tim says:

    Polygamy – Wealthy men marrying one anothers daughters and grand daughters, en masse, in an act of national heroism, self-sacrifice and pro-male populism.

    That married people live longer is why marriage rates among the heterosexual monogamous has been skyrocketing.

    Robin Williams had many wives before he committed suicide. As a less wealthy man – I have nothing but gratitude.

    Polygamy – Wealthy men taking on more wives and freeing less wealthy men from the life destruction of marriage.

  8. Tim says:

    If you can murder my child through abortion – give me no choice in the matter – and also demand I pay you should you decide not to abort – then what more reason do I need to beat you to death?

  9. The societal collapse I see coming will be cause by welfare spending and gynocentric laws that push productive men to the side to “empower” women. At this point the politicians are just doing what they think will get them elected, and aren’t thinking long-term. Their planning doesn’t go passed the next election.

  10. Ray Manta says:

    GhostFaceMGTOW wrote:
    Regarding the hypergamy fallacy:

    You have a few cute anecdotes about why hypergamy can’t be true. Because UncaBob said so. So what?

  11. David says:

    If Hillary gets elected, what kind of anti-male legislation can we expect to see over the course of her presidency? Also, do you guys this that the dollar or stock-market may collapse soon? Ive also just realized that our government is spraying us like rats with Chemtrails/ geoengineering. Basically top people are playing God and now have the ability to destroy our entire planet all for the sake of todays profits.

    Where in the world is it safe to go to just live, work, and be free?

    1. Ty says:

      If Hillary gets elected, I can think of so many anti-male laws that could potentially be passed (even more than now), that would have seemed like it came from science fiction. There is already a man that might be facing prison time just for debating his point with a woman (Look at the youtube user “Captain Nemo” and see his video of “Man faces 6 months in jail for disagreeing with feminists on twitter”). It is already considered domestic abuse for trying to use logic on a woman (Google it), and we already have “Yes means Yes” laws that will probably get passed throughout the United States and most likely other feminist strongholds.

      As far as safety, I think off-grid living is probably the best bet. You are away from the major feminist strongholds as well as government intervention (for the most part), and you are able to use your own utilities, produce your own GMO-free food, and not have to worry about most of the bullshit that is going on, and all of that at a very low cost of living. I’m hoping within the next 5 years, that I will be able to do that.

  12. Aaron P says:

    “Especially if the government is happy to shower them with resources for getting pregnant”.

    Governments are proving that this is an inefficient strategy, and will continue to go bankrupt because of it seems. Next decade or two will be telling.

  13. GhostFaceMGTOW says:

    Nations (like the US, UK, Japan, and Russia) that are monetarily sovereign (issue their own currency) absolutely cannot go bankrupt or insolvent. However, countries like Greece, Germany and France, that use the Euro do have a problem and can become insolvent. It’s all explained by Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

    What this means is that independent, sovereign nations, which are monetarily sovereign, will always have well-funded welfare programs. What do you think the implications are for society? What will happen when women individually do not need a man for financial support or help in raising children (in their view)?


    @Monkey: Consider doing a vid on MMT, I think the MGTOW community would be receptive to how MMT explains economic reality.

  14. beaker12 says:

    Here is a serious suggestion for a topic for an article:

    Could feminism be a deliberate strategy by Jews to weaken society for exploitation and control? Jews view non-Jews as being their adversary. Jews influence the legal system to create an environment hostile to non-Jew family formation and population growth.

  15. Jessie Nagy says:

    You see single women thriving for most of their lives in department stores frequently. It doesn’t affect them as much as males because women lack imagination. Women don’t really need to be taken care of that much.

    Original hypergamy has really very little to do with Western contexts. In India, where it originated, women were assigned as basically property. Western hypergamy allows women to do their true actions – flee to the next for greed. Original hypergamy was created by calculating males, which are “beta” males.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *