Hypergamy – the action of marrying a person of a superior caste or class.
The term comes from the 1960s when women supposedly went about marrying males of higher social status. In America it would be from blue collar to white collar.
Now, in 1960 we must understand that a woman was expected to follow one path: to marry in her early 20s, start a family quickly, and then devote her life to homemaking. Women had little to no opportunity for a career, nor was she expected nor able to take care of herself. She had very little rights. The husband was expected to provide for her and their children. So smart women were taught to marry rich, or at least marry a man who was a hard worker or who had a career.
Today some men accuse all women of practicing hypergamy as if it is some sort of taboo. They accuse women of being gold diggers in one breath and in the next breath they say they want women to be like they were in the 1960s, when hypergamy was supposedly a “real” thing. I hear derogatory comments about hypergamy on an almost daily basis. Women marry for money, they always marry “up”. Gold diggers is all they are, the whole lot of them. Look, look at this ugly rich man with the beautiful woman. You know she only is with him because he is rich. See here? I have proof!
Now while men are visual beings, women are not so much. Pretty girls have been known throughout time to go for the “frog” of a guy, not merely for his money but for other reasons.
According to a study by UCLA’s Benjamin Karney, women who wed men who are uglier than they are will have a happier marriage than those with a more attractive mate. In couples where the wife is the hotter one, both parties seem to be content. Both spouses tended to behave more positively when wives were more attractive than their husbands and more negatively when husbands were more attractive than their wives. Men who married pretty women are perfectly fine while they show off their partner’s beauty, while men who are more attractive than their wives are less likely to offer support to their partner (emotionally and financially) and quite frankly are less committed to a relationship (they have more mating opportunities). And according to the study, it is evolution that dictates that the physical attractiveness of long-term mates is more important to men than to women. While men go for looks, women go for personality.
So no, she is not just attracted to his money. She is looking to be respected and treated right. She wants to be happy, with someone she can trust, and by whom she can be adored and appreciated (who doesn’t want this?). He is proud to have her on his arm. They both are happy. What is so hard to understand about that? Looks are only skin deep you know…
You can also read more about this research here and here.
Then we have these very same men who bastardize and curse hypergamy in one breath and in the other they dream of the traditional roles of women from the 50’s and 60’s that supposedly encouraged it. In fact if they had their way all women would be chained to the home with no prospect of a better life. They really make no sense at all. You really can not have it both ways. Either you support your spouse and are the sole provider for your family, or you are not. If you are and you desire what is called the traditional women then you must be able to adequately provide for her and your children. You must appreciate that she is willing to, quite literally in today’s world, do without the additional income to raise a family and take care of the home. This type of woman will never be attracted to a man who does not appreciate her or who looks upon her as some sort of parasite who is just there to suck up his money. She too is making a sacrifice. So this notion that hypergamy is what all women do, especially white women in America is pushed and pushed ad nauseam. According to these “wise” men, women are just out for your money. They say it is some sort of “natural” instinct we secretly possess. We gals get accused of this all the time, even though these guys offer zero statistical proof of their claim. I think they are still using 1960’s flawed data which btw shows that this assumption while considered the norm for countries such as India (that actually has a caste system), was never adequately tested and that it was NOT the norm of women in America.
So if in 1960 when most women stayed home studies show that hypergamy was not the normal behavior of women in America why would these “wise” men be spouting off this as a fact? Well quite frankly they have an agenda and it is not the promotion of the family, it is the degradation of women and the destruction of our folk. Why they blame “hypergamy”, calling it an invention of women, as the cause of the destruction of the family and the destruction of the west is beyond me. All facts when examined prove otherwise. One thing they claim is hypergamy is responsible for the high divorce rates. To blame women and this notion of hypergamy solely for the increase of divorce rates is just plain wrong. There are many determining factors when it comes to divorce. New research from the National Center for Family and Marriage Research (NCFMR) at Bowling Green State University (study conducted in 2011) shows there is substantial variation in the first-time divorce rate when it is broken down by race and education. But, there is also evidence that a college degree has a protective effect against divorce among all races. The study also found that among white women, there were few differences according to education, but those with a college degree experienced lower divorce rates than any other education group.
In another study, using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79)—a survey of people born during the 1957–1964 period, marriage patterns differed markedly by age at marriage and by educational attainment. College-educated men and women married at older ages compared with their counterparts who had fewer years of schooling. About equal proportions of men and women who received a college degree married by age 46, 88 percent for men and 90 percent for women. Men and women who did not complete high school were less likely to marry than were men and women with more education. Men who earned a bachelor’s degree were more likely to marry than men with less education. The chance of a marriage ending in divorce was lower for people with more education, with over half of marriages of those who did not complete high school having ended in divorce compared with approximately 30 percent of marriages of college graduates. The study continues: For both men and women, the probability of divorce declines with educational attainment. The gradient, however, is steeper for men than it is for women. For men, those who married and only completed high school are 25 percentage points more likely to divorce than are their counterparts who have a college degree. In contrast, this difference is roughly half as large for women. These “wise” men also say that women should marry in their teens and 20’s. According to the same study above we can see that not only is not having an education counter productive to keeping a marriage union, but age also plays a factor.
A negative relationship between the age at which the marriage began and the propensity for the marriage to end in divorce is also apparent. Among marriages that began at ages 15 to 22, 58 percent ended in divorce. Of marriages that began at ages 23 to 28, 43 percent ended in divorce. Of marriages that began at ages 29 to 34, the percentage that ends in divorce declines further to 36 percent. Hence, the data supports the finding that, on average, people who marry later are more likely than younger couples to stay married. The problem is white women! Not according to the data: Compared with Whites and Hispanics, Blacks were less likely to marry and, conditional on marriage, more likely to divorce.
n January of 2010 the Pew Research Center did a study called: Women, Men and the New Economics of Marriage which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that if it existed, hypergamy is heading out the door and will soon be a thing of the past… and their data is from 2007! Today it is 2016 and these “wise” men still have ignored the published facts and would rather parrot off their assumptions trying to taint the minds of our young men against our women. Let’s set the record straight using the 2010 report. The paper found that consistent with previous research, that “the degree of associative mating (the tendency of people with similar characteristics to marry) had increased” from 1970 to 2007. The study also found that women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth. A larger share of men in 2007, compared with their 1970 counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own. A larger share of women are married to men with less education and income. This clearly is not showing a continuing trend of hypergamy but rather it shows a trend towards the opposite, hypogamy.
These men are also told not to marry women because it isn’t profitable (she is just going to suck you dry, bud). But what does the actual data show?
The study continues: Overall, married adults have made greater economic gains over the past four decades than unmarried adults. From 1970 to 2007, their median adjusted household incomes, the sum of financial contributions of all members of the household, rose more than those of the unmarried. For unmarried adults at each level of education, men’s household incomes fared worse than those of women. And household incomes of unmarried men with college degrees grew at half the rate of household incomes of married men with only a high school diploma — 33% versus 15%. The data plainly shows that marriage for men is more profitable than staying single. Which isn’t rocket science, obviously two income homes have more assets than a one income home.
Education matters: …less educated married women now are far less likely than in the past to have a spouse who works — only 77% did in 2007, compared with 92% in 1970. The study says, among U.S.-born adults ages 30-44, most married men did not have a working spouse in 1970; now, most do. Married women, on the other hand, are somewhat less likely than their 1970 counterparts to have a husband who works. So while women are now working more, men are working less. Educated women are far better off at finding a husband who works.
Within this group, working women are also blamed for the decrease in marriage. This is something the study also looked at. So who is responsible for the Decline of Marriage? According to the study, the decline in marriage rates has been steepest for the least educated, especially men, and smallest for college graduates, especially women. Another “myth” debunked.
Hypergamy was never adequately studied in the 1960’s however from the data they did have they did not witness any overall tendency to “marry up” in America.
Men and women tend to marry people with similar characteristics and this trend is increasing.
Beautiful women marry less attractive men because they get treated better.
Women have gained over men in education and earnings growth.
Married men are better off financially than unmarried men.
Unmarried men are worse off than unmarried women.
There are more men today living off of women.
Uneducated men show the steepest decline in marriage rates.
Divorce rates are highest among people who marry young, the uneducated and Blacks.
So there you have it. Actual case studies that YOU can read for yourself, not some one’s uneducated and biased opinion.
In conclusion: We must stop those who wish to divide our men and women with bogus made up lies about our folk, especially about our women, our greatest asset. When we compare what is being parroted around to the actual data, the facts, we can plainly see that these “wise” men have an agenda and that agenda is the break up of the family unit by attacking it’s most valuable asset, the female. Why else would they promote MGTOW using false or outdated data? Why else would they solely blame women for the ills of society? Why are they not promoting healthy, lasting relationships? Given the data, well educated, well respected, older females are happier and tend to STAY in the marriage substantially more than the uneducated, disrespected ones do, yet they want the women to be uneducated, married young, and have no choice in their marriage partner… sounds completely counter productive to me.