Hypergamy is a hot topic in the manosphere.

Many women appear to "marry up" or "partner up," allegedly in order to increase social status and/or acquire "alpha" genes. Paul Elam did a radio show in which he claimed that female hypergamy is "innate," and is the female equivalent of men lusting after young attractive girls. Men don't deny that they are attracted to young nubile women, however women deny that they are hypergamous. So this presents a problem.

Red Pill/Pua's take it a step further, and argue that "dark triad" traits may be particularly attractive to women. This view suggests that the reason for the existence of psychopathy amongst human beings is that it was/is a successful mating strategy. The psychopath doesn't really care about his mate or children, but will protect them, just as he/she will protect belongings.

The cause of hypergamy is disputed. Evo psychologists claim that it's a simple matter of sexual selection; women will choose the male most likely to protect the woman/offspring. Feminists and other social theorists tend toward the view that it is environmental; on Wiki, it is claimed that hypergamy reinforces "gender inequality in society overall, for example when highly educated women married to high-income men decide to stay home to raise children rather than pursuing their careers."

Wiki aside, there is a much more interesting aspect to hypergamy than what feminists dwell on, and that is the fact that it has persisted despite the triumph of feminism. Most women do not seem to be particularly interested in "dating down," i.e. most female lawyers do not seem interested in dating male plumbers. "Dating down" amongst women continues to be rare even in "gender utopias" like Sweden. Most women seem to want to engage in relations with their perceived "equal" or better.

How much of this is due to adaptation to a hierarchical culture and how much of this is "innate"? Could we change this pattern by finally acknowledging the enormous contributions to society of blue collar workers? -- Who are more important than a thousand hedge-fund managers? -- If, as Red Pill types claim, females are "herd creatures" (nonsense imo), then why not simply change the culture?

If women really are more attracted to "assholes" vs. "nice guys" then we're in a lot of trouble. Not least because -- regardless of genetic dispositions -- assholes aren't very good at raising kids. It seems to me that female sexuality is more complex than male sexuality. We find scores of women settling down with "nice guys." However, "no fault divorce" allows women to cut and run while the man is busy building a future for his children -- only to be cut off at the knees. This is unfair. It's not remotely egalitarian. It's not remotely "leftist" according to traditional definitions.

Right-wing "Manosphere" sites like Return of Kings suggest that the only solution is patriarchy. However there may be another option, namely real egalitarianism.

Anthropologists are now virtually in agreement that our ancestors were highly egalitarian.

In the words of anthropologist Christopher Boehm, author of "Hierarchy in the Forest," “Humans were egalitarian for thousands of generations before hierarchical societies began to appear.” Many of the behaviours we now celebrate – “success” through the hoarding of wealth, for example – were traditionally considered socially deviant. "Alpha" behaviour was the worst of all. Read Richard Lee on the !Kung. "Fighting was considered stupid."

Ethnographies of extant nomadic foragers reveal that they are “all but obsessively concerned with being free from the authority of others. That is the basic thrust of their political ethos.”

The Utku in the Canadian Arctic have an extreme intolerance for “displays of anger, aggression, or dominance.” The Pintupi Aborigines insist that “One should assert one’s autonomy only in ways that do not threaten the equality and autonomy of others” (Myers). Among the Wape tribe in New Guinea, “A man will not tolerate a situation where a neighbour has more than he has. A man should not possess either goods or power to the disadvantage of others."

How much of this was due to sexual selection?

According to Boehm, weapons levelled the playing field. Perhaps Kubrick's 2001 was not so primitive after all. Once "beta" males got their hands on weapons, they were able to put the "alpha" in his place. Egalitarianism was the new rule. Disobey, and you might find your throat slit in the middle of the night.

Even if "Red Pill"/Pua/ROK/theories are true, there is really only one solution: equality.