The dudes of the manosphere are concerned, deeply concerned, about the fate of young women today who won’t have the opportunity to marry dudes richer and better educated than they are, as they are apparently hard-wired by evolution to do. Turns out when women start investing in good educations and getting good jobs, some of them end up making more than most dudes! Clearly, this portends disaster, for these young ladies, and for civilization itself.
On his Alpha Game blog, reactionary racist doucheblogger Vox Day has a puckish solution to the Hypergamy Crisis: we should just eject a good chunk of women from our universities – as 36 of Iran’s universities have recently announced they will do, starting in the coming academic year, by making 77 different fields of study male only.
Vox explains his, er, logic:
[T]he Iranian action presents a potentially effective means of solving the hypergamy problem presently beginning to affect college-educated women in the West. Only one-third of women in college today can reasonably expect to marry a man who is as well-educated as they are. History and present marital trends indicate that most of the remaining two-thirds will not marry rather than marry down. So, by refusing to permit women to pursue higher education, Iran is ensuring that the genes of two-thirds of its most genetically gifted women will survive in its gene pool.
Well, that’s one … way of looking at it.
No doubt the Iranian approach will sound abhorrent to many men and women alike. But consider it from a macro perspective. The USA is in well along the process of removing most of its prime female genetics from its gene pool as surely as if it took those women out and shot them before they reached breeding age. Which society’s future would you bet on, the one that is systematically eliminating the genes of its best and brightest women or the one that is intent upon retaining them?
Let’s just say I’m going to bet on the one that respects and utilizes the talents of all of its people, instead of treating half the population as little more than egg repositories and baby-making machines.
This isn’t the first time dear Vox has addressed the dangers of allowing women into college. See here for some comments from him that are a good deal worse than the ones I quoted here. (TW: Violence against women.)
He could just stop assuming that women are hypergamus but then that would require him to actually admit he was wrong and that would end the world as we know it.
Outside of the manosphere, is hypergamy actually a thing? Because I can’t seem to find any reference to it, save for the MRAs.
Vox seems to have started a web comic on dating; I’m confuzled by this.
I know one guy who kind of referenced it but he claimed he had no idea that the PUA or MRA existed.
He also told that wanting a smart husband was also proof of hypergamy. I still do not get it.
If I never hear “hypergamy” again it will be too soon. Women only marry/sleep with/reproduce with men who are higher status than them? Women should be denied education so they find husbands? What if a woman doesn’t want a husband or kids, she should forfeit her education anyway?
This is another stupid concept that makes sense on paper (somewhat) but really is difficult to see happening in real life. MRAs just want to marry naive teenaged girls who will take their controlling behaviors and not complain because they don’t know any better. We’re not going to see some epidemic of spinster cat ladies in the future because 1) men marry women over forty all the time 2) some women DO NOT want to marry a man or anybody and 3) women will marry men of a lower status if he is the man they love.
The only people ending up alone are these MRAs.
And, from the comments section, how about this very humane solution to the problems within the education system in the U.S.:
“I believe American universities should be burned with student aid workers inside.”
What about all the women who sleep with thugs with no job or education? Doesn’t that contradict the concept of hypergamy?
So that’s what hypergamy means? Breaking it down to roots, it seems like it would mean “makes lots of gametes”. I’ve been sitting here thinking “No MRAs, that is by definition wrong, because the one making lots of gametes is always designated male.”
*sigh* I guess there’s a world outside of biology. Stupid world. *kicks ground*
Why is it always people WITHOUT a college degree who so fervently believe that a degree is worthless?
It is terribly sad that women are physically prevented by RAW NATURE from loving, marrying, and possibly producing children with men who make less or have less formal education than them.
It really is amazing how many insane obviously untrue things about the world Vox Day purports to believe in order for this worldview to be true. Women being unable to produce children with “lower status” men. Women only being able to breed with “higher status” men. Status, financial success, and education level being at all representative with actual intelligence levels, capability, or anything meaningful genetically. The weird belief that its only women who retain their “smart genes” when barred and locked from college and personal advancement. Believing that it’s still the early 1900s and people don’t tend to meet their future partners either through school, work, or pre-existing friend circles. Believing in hypergamy. Believing that it’s the Age of Kings and we’re all foppish nobles marrying for relative status and political alliance rather than love. Apparently believing that love doesn’t exist. And so on.
I mean at least the Iranians are honest about why they don’t want women to be educated (because then they’d be educated and more likely to stop putting up with the system). Vox Day has to invent Inception levels of BS just to try and self-justify it.
And here I was thinking I’d read that it was some men who get twitchy (emphasis on ‘twit’) about marrying someone who’s better educated or earning more money than them. Which, I daresay, is where these clowns are really coming from. They’re threatened by just everything, aren’t they?
It’s funny how in the comments they’re all “go free market! government is ruining education by being too communist about it!”
but then the solution is “so come on ladies, you need to give up your own dreams and freedom for the GREATER GOOD!”
also, jesus christ I have never looked at this guy’s blog. what the hell is this supposed to be about:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-professional-fake-rapist.html
?
Hi David,
Are you sure you know what puckish means? Or Swiftian? Are you sure you can detect sarcasm, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire?
In a very related thread over at The Good Men project, Good Men were tweeting very similar concerns:
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/megasahd-the-dark-side-of-womens-requests-of-progressive-men/
The Dark Side of Women’s Requests of Progressive Men
Read more at http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/megasahd-the-dark-side-of-womens-requests-of-progressive-men/#qQu1HQPRoBcwmS2k.99
“(Non-Tweet transaltion: “I’m having a hard time formulating all my issues here. It boggles my mind that we’ve been asking [men] to be more emotional and engaged, and when they become emotional and engaged we say, “That’s too much!” I mean, talk about expecting perfection. Life is growth and effort.”)” — joanna schroeder
I went to sleep thinking about a question which haunts me on an ongoing basis. For all of us. Culturally. And that question is: Do some women who encourage men, as Joanna says, to “be more emotional and engaged” end up losing respect for the men who do so?
I admit it could take a decade or two to unpack all the implications of the phrase “be more emotional and engaged”. This request by women to men covers a vast range of relational, emotional, and functional markers. It means very different things to different people. I take it to mean, at its base, that men are 1) being asked to increase emotional communication and 2) address basic issues of fairness in how gender roles in households are organized. If the stereotypical 1950′s dad worked his job and did little to help raise the kids or clean the house, the modern man is asked to be much more engaged, and in some cases to take over the home and child rearing while wives pursue their careers.
What percentage of women are actually asking some variation on this of their men? Is this request coming out of feminist quarters, or is it a function of the breakdown of gender silos, or what exactly? They’re good questions, but regardless of the answers, I think we can all agree the trend is out there.
Read more at http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/megasahd-the-dark-side-of-womens-requests-of-progressive-men/#qQu1HQPRoBcwmS2k.99
So, if I ended my day thinking about the conversation between Joanna, Hugo, Tom and Jeremy, I ran smack into the other bookend this morning—a book review by Liz Mundy of the San Francisco Chronicle. She is reviewing a novel by British author Rachel Cusk titled Aftermath: On Marriage and Seperation.
Mundy writes:
Not long ago, in an online blog of the Wall Street Journal, a wife made a confession. A high-earning editor and the breadwinner in her family, she admitted that she resents her husband for being supportive and domestically hands-on. Far from being grateful that he makes her job and family life possible by taking on the role of primary caregiver to their son, she feels burdened and jealous. While some of her objections are fair – supporting a household is scary, as men have long known – others, she acknowledged, aren’t.
Her piece is a reminder that women, like men, can be emotionally retrograde even as they are progressive and ambitious; it’s not always men who have trouble adapting to female achievement and female earning.
The same dynamic is at work in “Aftermath,” Rachel Cusk’s bleak and rather bravely unsympathetic memoir of marital dissolution. Cusk, a British novelist, sketches a scenario whereby she maneuvered her husband into the role of househusband, then scorned him for occupying it. She is not sure whom to blame for this radical inconsistency: her feminism, her parents, her schooling, or simply whatever was in the water when she was growing up.
It got me thinking, maybe this whole gender role adjustment thing is a hell of a lot harder than we know. Because it’s not just about men taking on new roles and ways of being, its about women and men unpacking the very real and conflicted emotions the reality of this can create. Its fine for a woman to wish for a husband who will stay home with the kids a support her career. But what if that woman then wakes up one morning resenting her husband for it? Now imagine how he feels.
Is there some vast emotional and sexual landscape that exists in direct conflict with the modern women’s request for men to “be more emotional and engaged?” Do some women struggle with what Mundy calls the emotionally retrograde side; yearning for a more traditional man even as they seek an egalitarian marriage?
It’s a question that begs a larger conversation.
Read more at http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/megasahd-the-dark-side-of-womens-requests-of-progressive-men/#qQu1HQPRoBcwmS2k.99
Fembot-
What baffles me is it’s an issue that’s been many years dead. Yeah, when marriages were transfer of ownership bills between father and husband, there was a bunch of status-obsession among the upper class.
When marriages for love become more and more the default, the status-obsessed man, woman, or family started becoming more and more anachronistic.
Nowadays? It’s frickin’ ancient history. Ask any kid and they’ll react in a combination of shock and horror to the very concept of marrying for status or wealth. The MRAs are not just horrible idiots who deserve to be alone for the rest of their lives, they are living fossils who somehow think that not only that the world works like it did centuries ago, but the feminist revolutions that pushed us away from such societies are somehow responsible for them.
Of course, that’s the rub, in’it? None of this shit is really in good faith. They’re just throwing whatever mixture of Projection and wild-eyed delusion they can up in utter rage that women have grown used to a world where they are no longer sold to terrible people like them just because they buy a few beers for the dad.
I begin to think that these guys were all out smoking a doobie during history class because every idea they come up with is a been there, done that, disastrous results. To say nothing of the fact that the solution to these mens real or imaginary problems always come down to oppress women MOAR.
When one partner is working while the other is “only” keeping house, the working spouse tends to resent the domestic spouse. NEWS AT ELEVEN.
My god, zanana, that blog was sickening. I need kitties.
http://youtu.be/-efQuSlxgWY
Hypergamy basically just means “marrying up.” The manosphere twits have somehow redefined it into meaning “every woman is a dirty lying slut who will immediately abandon her beta boyfriend or husband if an alpha gives her a second look and also women can’t marry guys poorer than them because then their uteruses will explode.”
some dippity d00d, if you work long and hard at the idea that a woman somewhere does not equal all women everywhere eventually you might get it.
Until then, eff off.
Are you working for the Piranha Brothers now, Schitckhead?
some guy, I started your blog for you. It took 30 seconds.
http://someguyboredwithyourschtick.wordpress.com/
ironicnamedouche-
Are you copy and pasting whole threads from your rogue’s gallery of nutjobs and unfortunate time-travelers from the 1900s? Cause, that’s a whole new level of sad.
To answer your question, of course not. It’s not even a “coded feminine” thing. It’s caring enough about the person you supposedly want to continue being in a relationship with to actually physically and emotionally BE there. Yeah, I bet many straight women want to have a partner who actually wants to be there. I bet many straight MEN want a partner who is there emotionally. I bet many of the various variations of queer want the same. Because when most modern 21st century people want a relationship, they don’t mean the caged hell of “Better Man” by Pearl Jam.
As to actual feminine qualities in men. Yeah, they exist, a lot, because a lot of what both sexes try to deny in themselves to fit “genetic” “proper” gender roles is just a matter of how people be. And when people stop performing self-parody and just exist and love, it turns out people are a lot happier, have better sex, have more successful relationships, and don’t become the bitter burned out fucks trying to blame their discomfort in the patriarchy as somehow the fault of some evil group of women somewhere.
In short, don’t like the system you’re trying to prop up and force on everyone, stop doing so.
So we have the reality, which is that when women have more options than simply getting married and having kids, many of them will choose to NOT DO THAT. These assholes can’t accept that some women don’t want to get married (only men can “go their own way?”).
If people want to read what’s being said on The Good Men Project, sticky, they’ll go over there and read it themselves. They mostly don’t. Because most of what is posted there is full of shit. What was it you posted above? An account of one person asking another person to express their emotions better and their clearly already dysfunctional relationship crumbled anyway? Look, if the dude wanted to express his emotions, whatever they were, he ought to be able to do that. If this woman didn’t find that attractive, that’s valid. People find all sorts of stuff unattractive. That’s totally ok.
What is with these guys and their obsession with breeding age?