What would be the two classes of men here? I find this quite plausible, as I tend to view the race bullshit this way ("anti-racism" is mostly about one group of whites signaling that they are better than another group of whites), but I'm not sure how to conceptualize which men were the winners here and which were the losers.
When women first got the vote they were considered more "conservative". They seemed to be a counter balance to atheistic communist men and labor. Early suffrage even emphasized giving the vote to women that specifically fit this mold rather than all women.
In other words, conservatives gave women the vote to achieve a short term political aim and thus fundamentally altered the body politic in ways they didn't foresee.
In fairness, a lot of this happened in response to WWI where women were critical to war production. Women were also key players in many revolutions (think the French and Russian). Bringing them into the tent on the terms of those days conservatives solved an immediate political problem.
Clearly Hollywood movie stars and other rich and famous men were/are the winners. Have you noticed that the children of the "stars" never seem to hold them in resentment for being abandoned? Screwed up yes, but never bitter, life-long resentment.
Modern feminism is ironically implicitly misogynist! Feminism spends a lot of time telling women they should act like men, yet hate actual men. Maybe Freud was right about penis envy?
Hypergamy/promiscuity/hookup culture/sex work is based on male sexual mores. It makes women miserable and insane. (Truly, this is the origin of the longhouse! Women crave commitment on a neurobiological level. They fuck, no commitment. Subconsciously, they resent men and seek to punish them for this, even if they’re the ones consciously choosing this arrangement. Ask any dude what happens when he rejects a woman sexually - this is what’s happening culture wide on a subconscious level. If you let a woman act like a man, you’re damned because you don’t see her as a woman. If you don’t, you’re damned because you don’t see her as a woman. It’s like a society level female mind game, fun!) Because “the culture” lauds depravity, consensus-sensitive women laud depravity, and around and around we go. The only people benefitting are the SSRI manufacturers.
The question is not so much whether women can control their pickiness – any thirtysomething down-settler can do that – but rather, how much pickiness can they normally get away with? It just so happens that nowadays the answer is "quite a lot", because we live under a total state that actively tries to supplant men, by making itself the provider of everything for which a woman traditionally needed a husband (and using the lives and labour of men in order to do this).
Elaborating on your analogies, we could imagine a counterfactual order, in which the total state instead tries to supplant women. In this world, prostitution and surrogacy are not just fully legal, but competitive and heavily incentivized for any woman who wants to pay the bills. Conversely, only on a strictly voluntary basis is a man ever expected to incur labour, danger or loss of property for the sake of a woman (perhaps marriage still exists in theory, but men can swan out of their obligations on a whim and there are strict laws against 'marital enslavement').
Obviously, in such a world (which would not last long, as the economy and public order would soon go the way of the modern birthrate), men would be exactly what women are today: that is to say, spoiled and over-sated good-for-nothings who think they have a unilateral right to everything that the opposite sex can offer them. And maybe women would seek to blame male biology for this, but they (mutatis mutandis) would be missing the point, which is that this biology did not lead to such perverse outcomes until humanity became a captive species.
Aren’t women already resisting to some degree to hypergamy? Like yes, they do seem to strongly prefer men with higher quality looks and higher income/status. But when you look at the data, we can’t really say that there is « chad » epidemic. Many of the men that have a lot of sex partners, have them because they try really hard to have a lot of different sex partners.
If you look at marriages, women often have a similar or higher income than their husbands.
So overall, can we really argue that women are doing a worse job at resisting their instincts than men? I would say no.
Right, my argument isn't necessarily that women are doing a worse job at resisting their instincts than men. If you want to argue men are screwing up too, go for it. The difference is that most people in this space don't give men a pass on this stuff. If you look at Walt Bismarck coming out to argue about how men should have harems, he's been given all kinds of flak for that, which I've joined in on at times, with comparatively few people sympathetic to his perspective. Most of the sympathy for male misbehavior is on the left, i.e. with people who will never read this blog.
But people are naturally far more hesitant to harshly criticize women, especially to their faces, and I've found that that's true on right-wing Substack just like it is anywhere else in life. Then when right-wing men do take on this topic, they often go too far in the other direction and come at it from a sort of grug-brained "women bad" mindset (as I described at the start of the article, this type of person sometimes speaks as if women are basically animals that need to be trained), which doesn't tend to resonate with women for obvious and justified reasons. I wanted to push back a bit on both of those tendencies.
I liked this but dispute the income part. Men have systematically higher incomes than their wives. Wives often have higher education. It's not the same thing.
A lot of our issues are that high earning men without credentials aren't seen as high enough status, probably because the government solves women's money problems.
« In almost half of opposite-sex marriages in the US, women now earn at least as much or more than their husbands. Nearly one-third of wives earn roughly the same amount as their husbands, while the woman is the primary or sole breadwinner in 16% of marriages, according to a Pew Research Center report released Thursday. »
So we have 16% of marriages where wife is the breadwinner in the us and around 50% if you add have the two breadwinners marriage. the rest the men are the breadwinner. If you take into account that women are the ones getting pregnant+ a little bit of gender roles remaining, I would say the word « systematically » is a bit too strong and that there is not much evidence for widespread hypergamy from marriage incomes.
Most people (both sexes) are interested in “marrying up” (unless they suffer from really low self esteem). Only difference is what criteria they are looking at. Men often want women who are more attractive and younger than them. Women may want to men who have higher status and wealth. But those are only broad generalities.
A lot of men are drawn to high status women who come from high status families. Plenty of men have married for money (Tori Spelling who IMO is very unattractive, was able to land a man who was good looking and didn’t have much status or money, because of her wealth, family connections, and therefore status).
The ideal arrangement is when both parties feel that, in landing the other, they have “married up”.
There’s also neuroticism (or lack thereof) which is the hidden female status trait.
Men need to avoid the pitfall of ‘marrying up’ to a highly neurotic woman who appears high value but is only available because she scared other suitors away.
Men are far better off marrying a slightly less attractive woman who sees him as a catch. If she’s ’settling’ for him and she’s a neurotic, his life will be miserable.
In my experience, beautiful neurotics can also easily end up in the camp of always finding a reason to dump all their marriageable boyfriends until they reach their later 30s and start looking to panic-settle. It’s the nature of a neurotic to endlessly question every relationship and to only experience the briefest windows of contentment.
In general I agree with you. But, also, men acting on their impulses and raping women would be the equivalent of women aborting their children. If you want the analogue to women only dating higher-status men, then it's men only dating prettier women. A woman only dating a man who makes 150k or more is the same as a man only dating a woman who is a 7 or above. Sure, it would be nicer (and more Christian), if a woman considered a man's character and decided that a man of good character was worth dating even if he is a gym teacher making 30k a year. It would be nicer if a man considered a woman's character first and decided that a woman of good character was worth dating even if she is a 1 or 2. It's the same ask.
I agree that if a man is delaying marriage or otherwise taking himself out of the dating market due to unrealistic standards, I'd have exactly the same thing to say to him: Cut it out. This is not generally an issue though because again, hypergamy is a female trait. Men don't really have it. Women are highly selective and naturally choosy in their mate selection, men are not. There are pretty straightforward evolutionary reasons for this. Most men will be quite happy to date a 5 rather than be single, and women generally can't really go below a 5 without being fat or old (again, because men ultimately just aren't that picky).
Even if you believe this, it makes the same ultimate point--people can, should, and do police mating preferences, and sometimes this is done for legitimate reasons.
And in the case of white women and black males it's not even marriage in 90 %of the couplings just hit and quit. The poisonous effects of which are too controversial to be analysed
Interesting, but how do you interpret the results of the recent study by Clark and Cummins, which finds no evidence of hypergamy in England during the period 1837-2022?
--Higher divorce rates (though this might be stabilizing now IIRC)
--Less fertility, especially within marriage
--Higher average age of marriage (i.e. people waiting longer to get married, often well into their 30s)
If it's not hypergamy (which I'm sure that it's not *just* hypergamy, complex social outcomes like these are affected by a bunch of different things), then just substitute in whatever theory that you prefer in order to describe or explain changes in attitude about these things among women, and everything I said still applies more or less unchanged.
No, if female hypergamy is not a thing (i.e., a major contributing factor to the decline of family structures), then clearly everything you said does not apply, simply because you would have to change your basic causal assumption. There are several social, political, economic and ecological factors that hypothetically can contribute to these trends, concerning changes in attitudes BOTH in women AND MEN within a complex array of influences, many of which operate independently of female hypergamy.
Sure it does! Just replace hypergamy with "several social, political, economic and ecological factors," and my essay still applies unchanged. Now it's just about women resisting or giving in to "several social, political, economic and ecological factors" instead of hypergamy.
That's correct in part. If the assumption is incorrect, and female hypergamy is not a major contributing factor as one could imagine, then you will have to see how BOTH women AND MEN are resisting or giving in to these factors.
Sure, you can expand the basic thesis out to men as well if you want to read it that way. I think it should be self-evident that there are major differences in how men and women approach this topic, though. I suppose we'd have to have more of a proper debate about what those differences actually are, which would be another set of articles unto itself.
I want women to control themselves. And if they can't, society should control them using appropriate measures. The same goes for men in areas where they're tempted to misbehave (such as wanting to screw anything that moves, consequences be damned).
How about the fact that, unlike in the US, England has always had a multi-tier social class hierarchy enshrined in law, leaving much less room for social mobility?
Lost me when you said interracial marriage is perfectly normal. Look into the statistics of interracial marriage, their offspring, and how they fair in life -on average- compared to people from unmixed backgrounds. Marrying a person from another race is short sighted and selfish.
I'm an avowed anarchocommunist and I find myself very frustrated with my fellow-travelers over this obstinate denial of women's implicit rewarding—and therefore reinforcement—of hierarchy (not to mention being class-traitors!). And the concurrent denial of female agency, as you point out. From a left perspective, women need to recognize the abject power differential that will always place them over men in the realm of sexual selection if force is off the table, and choose to compensate the men who adhere to that social contract accordingly to make up for it, while denying and punishing the men who do not. My own wife is quite proud of the fact that she chose me at a young age (she 19, I 18) in part for my anti-authoritarian values, and arrested my ongoing slide into inceldom at the time by rewarding me with her body and company. We've been together near a decade now and are still going strong—arguably, stronger as a couple now than ever.
If we do not establish a social order in which every man like me is thusly mollified, the cost-benefit analysis of becoming the kind of man left women say they hate even as they reward them will necessarily tilt even natural allies like me into siding with the system that will actually butter their bread.
Women marry men who have a similar social status to their fathers. Men marry women who’s fathers have a similar social status to their fathers. The hypergamy hypothesis is incomplete.
Isn't upward social mobility the entire reason for most things people do? Education, savings, hard work, etc. I fail to see how females attempting to marry upward is a bad thing? Doesn't that mean men need to work harder to move themselves upward in social status (or at least the appearance thereof)?
If a woman delays marriage for this reason, it becomes an issue at a certain point because fertility is on a biological clock.
And yes, men should do what they can to improve their social status. But, by definition, not all men can ultimately be high-status, nor can every woman marry a high-status man. Trade-offs have to reckoned with for the vast majority of people.
Okay, but if by positing that hypergamy is a baser instinct equal in concept to something like rape, then it absolutely is an immutable fact of existence and we can only build around it by asking of women that they control it. That is the case you make, in alignment with the worldview you try to debunk. Isn’t asking women to control their baser instincts just building around hypergamy as a base fact?
No, not really. You do know how human reproduction works, right? Technically us men could leave the women to raise children alone, but women don't seem to be big fans of that path.
Hypergamy is a natural and normal part of female psychology. Women's natural and sensible inclination to desire high value men is meant to insure that the best men breed and there are better outcomes for their off spring. Hypergamy is here to stay and it is not a problem to solve. It's a feature not a bug. Men that decide to deal with women must understand this and act accordingly. If any measures are to be taken to mitigate hypergamy or to deal with the consequences of hypergamy it is women's responsibility.
We gave women rights because a class of men at the time thought it would give them an advantage over other men.
What would be the two classes of men here? I find this quite plausible, as I tend to view the race bullshit this way ("anti-racism" is mostly about one group of whites signaling that they are better than another group of whites), but I'm not sure how to conceptualize which men were the winners here and which were the losers.
When women first got the vote they were considered more "conservative". They seemed to be a counter balance to atheistic communist men and labor. Early suffrage even emphasized giving the vote to women that specifically fit this mold rather than all women.
In other words, conservatives gave women the vote to achieve a short term political aim and thus fundamentally altered the body politic in ways they didn't foresee.
In fairness, a lot of this happened in response to WWI where women were critical to war production. Women were also key players in many revolutions (think the French and Russian). Bringing them into the tent on the terms of those days conservatives solved an immediate political problem.
Clearly Hollywood movie stars and other rich and famous men were/are the winners. Have you noticed that the children of the "stars" never seem to hold them in resentment for being abandoned? Screwed up yes, but never bitter, life-long resentment.
Modern feminism is ironically implicitly misogynist! Feminism spends a lot of time telling women they should act like men, yet hate actual men. Maybe Freud was right about penis envy?
Hypergamy/promiscuity/hookup culture/sex work is based on male sexual mores. It makes women miserable and insane. (Truly, this is the origin of the longhouse! Women crave commitment on a neurobiological level. They fuck, no commitment. Subconsciously, they resent men and seek to punish them for this, even if they’re the ones consciously choosing this arrangement. Ask any dude what happens when he rejects a woman sexually - this is what’s happening culture wide on a subconscious level. If you let a woman act like a man, you’re damned because you don’t see her as a woman. If you don’t, you’re damned because you don’t see her as a woman. It’s like a society level female mind game, fun!) Because “the culture” lauds depravity, consensus-sensitive women laud depravity, and around and around we go. The only people benefitting are the SSRI manufacturers.
The question is not so much whether women can control their pickiness – any thirtysomething down-settler can do that – but rather, how much pickiness can they normally get away with? It just so happens that nowadays the answer is "quite a lot", because we live under a total state that actively tries to supplant men, by making itself the provider of everything for which a woman traditionally needed a husband (and using the lives and labour of men in order to do this).
Elaborating on your analogies, we could imagine a counterfactual order, in which the total state instead tries to supplant women. In this world, prostitution and surrogacy are not just fully legal, but competitive and heavily incentivized for any woman who wants to pay the bills. Conversely, only on a strictly voluntary basis is a man ever expected to incur labour, danger or loss of property for the sake of a woman (perhaps marriage still exists in theory, but men can swan out of their obligations on a whim and there are strict laws against 'marital enslavement').
Obviously, in such a world (which would not last long, as the economy and public order would soon go the way of the modern birthrate), men would be exactly what women are today: that is to say, spoiled and over-sated good-for-nothings who think they have a unilateral right to everything that the opposite sex can offer them. And maybe women would seek to blame male biology for this, but they (mutatis mutandis) would be missing the point, which is that this biology did not lead to such perverse outcomes until humanity became a captive species.
You are not wrong. The sexes work best as a team and there has been a driving narrative to push the two apart.
There is no savior. It takes individual action. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to get the short end of the stick until more people opt in.
I am optimistic, but I do think it is going to take quite a few generations to course correct.
In the meantime do what you can do and fuck the rest. Let them burn.
You alluded to the "solution" (if you want to call it that), in your post.
Agency is a double-edged sword.
You can't make sweeping change in a year, but you can vote, have standards and boundaries.
Let Women deal with the consequences of their actions.
This is happening already. Trans ideology bit women in the ass and they are not likely to support policies that reinforce it.
Younger women are seeing the plight of the "girl boss" and opting out.
Girls are seeing medicated and lonely women who valued their feelings over well-being and prematurely exited a marriage.
Men can't do anything other than what I said above.
Let them burn and the smart ones will succeed.
70%of single women will vote for the Democrats in the upcoming presidential election...
I wouldn't be so certain. Maybe. Maybe not.
Aren’t women already resisting to some degree to hypergamy? Like yes, they do seem to strongly prefer men with higher quality looks and higher income/status. But when you look at the data, we can’t really say that there is « chad » epidemic. Many of the men that have a lot of sex partners, have them because they try really hard to have a lot of different sex partners.
If you look at marriages, women often have a similar or higher income than their husbands.
So overall, can we really argue that women are doing a worse job at resisting their instincts than men? I would say no.
Right, my argument isn't necessarily that women are doing a worse job at resisting their instincts than men. If you want to argue men are screwing up too, go for it. The difference is that most people in this space don't give men a pass on this stuff. If you look at Walt Bismarck coming out to argue about how men should have harems, he's been given all kinds of flak for that, which I've joined in on at times, with comparatively few people sympathetic to his perspective. Most of the sympathy for male misbehavior is on the left, i.e. with people who will never read this blog.
But people are naturally far more hesitant to harshly criticize women, especially to their faces, and I've found that that's true on right-wing Substack just like it is anywhere else in life. Then when right-wing men do take on this topic, they often go too far in the other direction and come at it from a sort of grug-brained "women bad" mindset (as I described at the start of the article, this type of person sometimes speaks as if women are basically animals that need to be trained), which doesn't tend to resonate with women for obvious and justified reasons. I wanted to push back a bit on both of those tendencies.
I liked this but dispute the income part. Men have systematically higher incomes than their wives. Wives often have higher education. It's not the same thing.
A lot of our issues are that high earning men without credentials aren't seen as high enough status, probably because the government solves women's money problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg_0QwBgpA8
« In almost half of opposite-sex marriages in the US, women now earn at least as much or more than their husbands. Nearly one-third of wives earn roughly the same amount as their husbands, while the woman is the primary or sole breadwinner in 16% of marriages, according to a Pew Research Center report released Thursday. »
So we have 16% of marriages where wife is the breadwinner in the us and around 50% if you add have the two breadwinners marriage. the rest the men are the breadwinner. If you take into account that women are the ones getting pregnant+ a little bit of gender roles remaining, I would say the word « systematically » is a bit too strong and that there is not much evidence for widespread hypergamy from marriage incomes.
55% Husband Breadwinner
29% Egalitarian
16% Wife Breadwinner
Seems to me like that implies men are earning more.
Male incomes in general are higher then female incomes as well.
I think he mean the percentage of female breadwinner are increasing
Most people (both sexes) are interested in “marrying up” (unless they suffer from really low self esteem). Only difference is what criteria they are looking at. Men often want women who are more attractive and younger than them. Women may want to men who have higher status and wealth. But those are only broad generalities.
A lot of men are drawn to high status women who come from high status families. Plenty of men have married for money (Tori Spelling who IMO is very unattractive, was able to land a man who was good looking and didn’t have much status or money, because of her wealth, family connections, and therefore status).
The ideal arrangement is when both parties feel that, in landing the other, they have “married up”.
There’s also neuroticism (or lack thereof) which is the hidden female status trait.
Men need to avoid the pitfall of ‘marrying up’ to a highly neurotic woman who appears high value but is only available because she scared other suitors away.
Men are far better off marrying a slightly less attractive woman who sees him as a catch. If she’s ’settling’ for him and she’s a neurotic, his life will be miserable.
Good point, but:
>scared other suitors away
In my experience, beautiful neurotics can also easily end up in the camp of always finding a reason to dump all their marriageable boyfriends until they reach their later 30s and start looking to panic-settle. It’s the nature of a neurotic to endlessly question every relationship and to only experience the briefest windows of contentment.
Well put.
In general I agree with you. But, also, men acting on their impulses and raping women would be the equivalent of women aborting their children. If you want the analogue to women only dating higher-status men, then it's men only dating prettier women. A woman only dating a man who makes 150k or more is the same as a man only dating a woman who is a 7 or above. Sure, it would be nicer (and more Christian), if a woman considered a man's character and decided that a man of good character was worth dating even if he is a gym teacher making 30k a year. It would be nicer if a man considered a woman's character first and decided that a woman of good character was worth dating even if she is a 1 or 2. It's the same ask.
I agree that if a man is delaying marriage or otherwise taking himself out of the dating market due to unrealistic standards, I'd have exactly the same thing to say to him: Cut it out. This is not generally an issue though because again, hypergamy is a female trait. Men don't really have it. Women are highly selective and naturally choosy in their mate selection, men are not. There are pretty straightforward evolutionary reasons for this. Most men will be quite happy to date a 5 rather than be single, and women generally can't really go below a 5 without being fat or old (again, because men ultimately just aren't that picky).
Interracial marriage really isn’t so good though.
Even if you believe this, it makes the same ultimate point--people can, should, and do police mating preferences, and sometimes this is done for legitimate reasons.
And in the case of white women and black males it's not even marriage in 90 %of the couplings just hit and quit. The poisonous effects of which are too controversial to be analysed
It rarely works out well for white women or their offspring, but Asian women (and offspring) do visibly better.
Interesting, but how do you interpret the results of the recent study by Clark and Cummins, which finds no evidence of hypergamy in England during the period 1837-2022?
Well, something has caused:
--Lower marriage rates overall
--Higher divorce rates (though this might be stabilizing now IIRC)
--Less fertility, especially within marriage
--Higher average age of marriage (i.e. people waiting longer to get married, often well into their 30s)
If it's not hypergamy (which I'm sure that it's not *just* hypergamy, complex social outcomes like these are affected by a bunch of different things), then just substitute in whatever theory that you prefer in order to describe or explain changes in attitude about these things among women, and everything I said still applies more or less unchanged.
No, if female hypergamy is not a thing (i.e., a major contributing factor to the decline of family structures), then clearly everything you said does not apply, simply because you would have to change your basic causal assumption. There are several social, political, economic and ecological factors that hypothetically can contribute to these trends, concerning changes in attitudes BOTH in women AND MEN within a complex array of influences, many of which operate independently of female hypergamy.
Sure it does! Just replace hypergamy with "several social, political, economic and ecological factors," and my essay still applies unchanged. Now it's just about women resisting or giving in to "several social, political, economic and ecological factors" instead of hypergamy.
That's correct in part. If the assumption is incorrect, and female hypergamy is not a major contributing factor as one could imagine, then you will have to see how BOTH women AND MEN are resisting or giving in to these factors.
Sure, you can expand the basic thesis out to men as well if you want to read it that way. I think it should be self-evident that there are major differences in how men and women approach this topic, though. I suppose we'd have to have more of a proper debate about what those differences actually are, which would be another set of articles unto itself.
I want women to control themselves. And if they can't, society should control them using appropriate measures. The same goes for men in areas where they're tempted to misbehave (such as wanting to screw anything that moves, consequences be damned).
How about the fact that, unlike in the US, England has always had a multi-tier social class hierarchy enshrined in law, leaving much less room for social mobility?
Lost me when you said interracial marriage is perfectly normal. Look into the statistics of interracial marriage, their offspring, and how they fair in life -on average- compared to people from unmixed backgrounds. Marrying a person from another race is short sighted and selfish.
I'm an avowed anarchocommunist and I find myself very frustrated with my fellow-travelers over this obstinate denial of women's implicit rewarding—and therefore reinforcement—of hierarchy (not to mention being class-traitors!). And the concurrent denial of female agency, as you point out. From a left perspective, women need to recognize the abject power differential that will always place them over men in the realm of sexual selection if force is off the table, and choose to compensate the men who adhere to that social contract accordingly to make up for it, while denying and punishing the men who do not. My own wife is quite proud of the fact that she chose me at a young age (she 19, I 18) in part for my anti-authoritarian values, and arrested my ongoing slide into inceldom at the time by rewarding me with her body and company. We've been together near a decade now and are still going strong—arguably, stronger as a couple now than ever.
If we do not establish a social order in which every man like me is thusly mollified, the cost-benefit analysis of becoming the kind of man left women say they hate even as they reward them will necessarily tilt even natural allies like me into siding with the system that will actually butter their bread.
Women marry men who have a similar social status to their fathers. Men marry women who’s fathers have a similar social status to their fathers. The hypergamy hypothesis is incomplete.
Isn't upward social mobility the entire reason for most things people do? Education, savings, hard work, etc. I fail to see how females attempting to marry upward is a bad thing? Doesn't that mean men need to work harder to move themselves upward in social status (or at least the appearance thereof)?
If a woman delays marriage for this reason, it becomes an issue at a certain point because fertility is on a biological clock.
And yes, men should do what they can to improve their social status. But, by definition, not all men can ultimately be high-status, nor can every woman marry a high-status man. Trade-offs have to reckoned with for the vast majority of people.
Upward social status is largely a scam, when for the middle classes.
Okay, but if by positing that hypergamy is a baser instinct equal in concept to something like rape, then it absolutely is an immutable fact of existence and we can only build around it by asking of women that they control it. That is the case you make, in alignment with the worldview you try to debunk. Isn’t asking women to control their baser instincts just building around hypergamy as a base fact?
I mean can’t women and men live on their own?
No, not really. You do know how human reproduction works, right? Technically us men could leave the women to raise children alone, but women don't seem to be big fans of that path.
What I mean, you can just be a Volcel.
Hypergamy is a natural and normal part of female psychology. Women's natural and sensible inclination to desire high value men is meant to insure that the best men breed and there are better outcomes for their off spring. Hypergamy is here to stay and it is not a problem to solve. It's a feature not a bug. Men that decide to deal with women must understand this and act accordingly. If any measures are to be taken to mitigate hypergamy or to deal with the consequences of hypergamy it is women's responsibility.