Is Hypergamy Bad?

[Apollo Masters]

I wrote a script about hypergamy and I would like to know your guys' thought about it. More specifically, I think that hypergamy is bad, and I want to know if you agree that hypergamy is bad, and if my solution is practical.

To begin:

Hypergamy is when women only date men who are superior to them.

For example:

A hypergamous woman who makes $250,000 a year, would only date a man who makes more than $250,000.

If he makes $150,000, that's not good enough.

Hypergamy is when a woman only dates men who make more money than her, or who are more educated than her, or whose social status is higher than hers.

Now being hypergamous is often confused with having high standards, but those are two completely different things.

Having high standards, means that you only date men who are high value.

Being hypergamous, means that you only date men who are a higher value, than you.

Hypergamy denotes relative standards, not high standards.

Or to express this differently:

A woman with high standards will ask herself, is this man great?

A woman with hypergamous standards will ask herself, is this man greater than me?

Now let's get into my problem with hypergamy and afterwards my proposed solution.

 

Hypergamy causes women to pass up perfectly good men, who could have given them an extraordinary life, just because the men are not superior to them.

For example:

If a woman makes $250,000 a year, but only needs $100,000 a year to live the type of life that she wants to live, then if she were to reject a man, simply because he only makes $100,000 a year, then she would be passing up a perfectly good man, that could have given her the type of life that she wants to live.

Hypergamy is bad, because it is an irrational method of evaluating men, that leads to women passing up perfectly good men, that could have given them the type of life that they want to live.

And the solution to hypergamy, is very simple:

The solution is to stop comparing the man to you, and to instead compare the man to who he needs to be, in order for you to live the type of life, that you want to live.

So instead of asking, is the man smarter than you, you should ask, is the man smart enough.

And what is smart enough, is not based on your intelligence, but based on what level of intelligence the man needs to have, in order for you to live the type of life that you want to live.

In which if you want to live a simple life, with simple pleasures, and simple conversations, then the man doesn't need to be smarter than you, he simply needs to not be an idiot.

And when it comes to money, instead of asking, does the man make more money than you, you should ask, does the man make enough money.

And what is enough money, once again, is not based on your income, but based on what level of income the man needs to have, in order for you to live the type of life that you want to live.

In which if you are making $250,000 a year, and the type of life that you want to live, only costs $100,000 a year, then the man doesn't need to make more money than you, he simply needs to make more than $100,000 a year.

Women should ask themselves, what do they want in life, and can the man offer it.....at no point should the man's value be compared to their own.

Instead of asking, is the man better than you, you should ask, is the man good enough, for you to live the type of life, that you want to live.

That, is the solution to hypergamy.

Please let me know if you guys agree that hypergamy is bad, and if you agree with my solution.

[RationalEgoist]

I mean, I think I'm in general agreement with the gist of what you've written here. Money, as such, is not a proper standard by which you can gage the quality of a man (this is especially true in unfree societies). I don't think a man's wealth is necessarily irrelevant, but context matters.

Ability exists on a spectrum. Not everyone will want to look for a John Galt or a Dagny Taggart, nor is that necessary for a happy relationship. The virtue of a potential partner is what's most important, as well as how you gel together in terms of temperament. 

That being said, however, I do think there's something to the idea that femininity involves looking up to man. Thing is, your average Joe can be just as moral as an intellectual giant since ability and status are non-essentials when evaluating the moral character of a person. Eddie Willers and John Galt were moral equals, but unequal in ability. 

[Apollo Masters]

I understand that it would be ideal for a woman to find a man who she could look up to, but I now have a very specific question:

Do you think that my solution to hypergamy, of not comparing the man to her, and to instead compare the man to what is "good enough" is asking the impossible of women. Is my solution possible, or is it like asking men to fuck unattractive women?

Edited January 21 by Apollo Masters

[RationalEgoist]

7 minutes ago, Apollo Masters said:

Do you think that my solution to hypergamy, of not comparing the man to her, and to instead compare the man to what is "good enough" is asking the impossible of women.

No, it can be perfectly rational. I mean, there is such a thing as a biological clock, so women don't have an infinite amount of time to settle down with a man. Losing out on a romantic relationship altogether because "perfection" was nowhere to be found would not be in a person's self-interest.

[Eiuol]

12 hours ago, RationalEgoist said:

No, it can be perfectly rational. I mean, there is such a thing as a biological clock, so women don't have an infinite amount of time to settle down with a man.

As stated, hypergamy is always about comparison to others, not about value and seeking personal achievement and fulfillment in your life. This is secondhanded. If a woman really wants kids, she has many options that don't even have to involve a man, not to mention that if for whatever reason she wants a biological kid with a romantic partner specifically, a partner based on their superiority to her (or other men around him) is only going to result in all kinds of toxicity. 

[RationalEgoist]

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

As stated, hypergamy is always about comparison to others, not about value and seeking personal achievement and fulfillment in your life. This is secondhanded. If a woman really wants kids, she has many options that don't even have to involve a man, not to mention that if for whatever reason she wants a biological kid with a romantic partner specifically, a partner based on their superiority to her (or other men around him) is only going to result in all kinds of toxicity. 

Hm, what point are you arguing against here? Because I don't think it's the one I tried to make. 

[Eiuol]

You said that it could be (sometimes) rational, but I'm saying that the way it has been stated and described, no, it can't ever be. 

Edited January 21 by Eiuol

[RationalEgoist]

23 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You said that it could be (sometimes) rational, but I'm saying that the way it has been stated and described, no, it can't ever be. 

OP asked me if a woman settling for a man who is good enough is "asking the impossible". My reply was that it can be rational to do so if the only alternative is not being in a relationship. 

Do you disagree?

[Eiuol]

7 hours ago, RationalEgoist said:

My reply was that it can be rational to do so if the only alternative is not being in a relationship. 

But when it comes to rational self-interest, "settling" is a bit like giving up, as if being in a relationship can be so critical that it's absolutely necessary to achieve important values. Wanting to have kids isn't a good reason either, because you don't have to be in a relationship with someone to have kids with them. Of course there would be far outside the norm, but there is no reason to make compromises. At least, not today in 2023. 

The main post is cringe worthy though because it portrays women as people who probably by nature only approach things in terms of what the other person can provide to them. Not what you can do for yourself, but what your man can do for you (because of course it has to be the man that makes it possible for the woman to have the sort of life she wants). 

[Apollo Masters]

58 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The main post is cringe worthy though because it portrays women as people who probably by nature only approach things in terms of what the other person can provide to them. Not what you can do for yourself, but what your man can do for you (because of course it has to be the man that makes it possible for the woman to have the sort of life she wants). 

I just want to say for the record: That is not at all what I meant. I should have focused more on how I worded my post. I know, obviously, that men aren't to be used by women to give women a cushy lifestyle.

[Boydstun]

 

An Ideal Husband

[Eiuol]

9 hours ago, Apollo Masters said:

That is not at all what I meant. I should have focused more on how I worded my post. I know, obviously, that men aren't to be used by women to give women a cushy lifestyle.

Okay, but you did spend most of the time explaining how the woman can get what she wants from another person. In other words, I'm saying that your solution isn't very good, because it doesn't end up in a much better place. I mean, the solution really is just to judge people according to their virtues, how they enhance your life, which applies to males, females, and all sexualities. 

Edited January 22 by Eiuol

[StrictlyLogical]

Know thyself.

[Eiuol]

Just to clarify, it's right what you want from another person, but it becomes second handed when what you want is something you didn't help create, and you don't think about what you offer them. 

[Apollo Masters]

3 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Just to clarify, it's right what you want from another person, but it becomes second handed when what you want is something you didn't help create, and you don't think about what you offer them. 

Mutual trade, for mutual benefit.