One side argues that if men had fully understood and accepted hypergamy before the major feminist movements of the 20th century, support for feminism among men would likely have been significantly lower. From this perspective, many men supported feminist causes while assuming that greater equality would lead to more balanced social and romantic dynamics. If they had anticipated that women’s increased economic and social independence could intensify competition for a smaller group of highly desirable men, they may have viewed the costs and benefits of feminism differently. Advocates of this position contend that widespread awareness of hypergamy emerged much later, and that both men and women were often unaware of how strongly mate-selection preferences could shape relationship outcomes.

Opponents respond that feminism was never intended to provide men with romantic benefits and that support for equal rights should not depend on personal dating outcomes. However, supporters of the original argument counter that social movements do not gain support in a vacuum. People often evaluate major social changes based on how they expect those changes to affect society and their own lives. From this perspective, if men had understood what they believe to be the long-term implications of hypergamy under conditions of greater female freedom and independence, many would have been less willing to support feminist reforms. The disagreement ultimately centers on competing conceptions of fairness: one side prioritizes equal rights and individual choice, while the other emphasizes whether the resulting social and relationship outcomes are broadly beneficial and equitable across the population.