Feminist leaning blue pillers, our dna records show that hypergamy is natural and normal. It wasn't so much the case during patriarchy, which seems to be a short period during which women decided the one man one woman system was better for them, now women are dismantling that ...

ThorLives · 2015-03-25T20:29:41+00:00

First, it's important to point out that, even if there was a 17-1 reproduction ratio at one point and then something closer to a 1-1 ratio in modern times, that it's biased to suggest that the 17-1 ratio is somehow the "normal" pattern for societies.

Second, It's worth listing all of the possible explanations for what's going on here.

(1) Agriculture and settlements allowed for the accumulation of wealth, which allowed some rich and powerful men to be much more attractive to women. (Hypergamy)

(2) Agriculture and settlements allowed for the accumulation of wealth, which allowed some rich and powerful men to be much better options for women having children, who were always living in fear of starvation. (Not hypergamy, though it functions much the same)

(3) Agriculture and settlements allowed for the accumulation of wealth, which allowed some rich and powerful men to dominate female sexuality by preventing lesser men from having sex or marriages with those women. You can see this in political systems - the Aztecs (or maybe it was a different American civilization) controlled female sexuality, and the higher you were in the political hierarchy, the more wives you were allowed to have. The same thing happened with Ghengis Khan - the higher up you were in the political heirarchy, the more wives you tended to have. This must've caused a massive lack of available women for any males who were not part of the political hierarchy. And polygamist Mormon enclaves, the boys are often driven out of the community while the young girls get married into polygamist marriages with older men. ""Lost boys" is a term used for young men who have been excommunicated or pressured to leave polygamous Mormon fundamentalism groups such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). They are pressured to leave by adult men to reduce competition for wives within such sects, usually when they are between the ages of 13 and 21. FLDS men are each expected to marry at least three wives. Since birth rates for boys and girls are roughly equal, and women do not enter the community in large numbers, there are not enough women for all men to do this. While some boys leave by their own choice, many are ostensibly banished for conduct such as watching a movie, watching television, playing football, or talking to a girl" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28Mormon_fundamentalism%29 (Not hypergamy)

(4) Women were more likely to accumulate in early cities - perhaps they were more likely to fit with village-based life, while men tended to keep hunting and foraging (as nomads). This gave any village-dwelling men almost exclusive access to women. (In fact, something like this happened in the middle ages, this happened. Men were more likely to continue working on farms while women tended to accumulate in towns. The result was a gender imbalance - where males who lived in towns were outnumbered by females, which meant they had access to a lot more women than farm-dwelling males did. "It seems certain that in the later Middle Ages, comparatively fewer men than women were reaching the age of marriage. What do population surveys of the late Middle Ages tell of the comparative numbers of women and men in the community? Those surveys which concern cities, particularly north of the Alps, consistently record a numberical preponderance of women. At Rheims in France in 1422, Fribourge in modern Switzerland in 1444, Nuremberg in Germany in 1449, and other cities, women outnumbered men by ratios of from 109 to 120 females per 100 males." Source Obviously, that's not a 17-1 ratio, but it's just an example of the fact that men and women don't always go to villages/towns in the same frequencies. (Not hypergamy)

(5) Violence between males (either interpersonal or through warfare) meant that a lot of males died before reproducing. There are some tribes where the homicide rate of males is very high - a few where males in those tribes have over a 50% chance of dying in a homicide. That would reduce the number of males who'd get a chance to reproduce. Similarly in warfare: in early civilization, it was often expected that every able-bodied male participate in warfare (attack or defense), which could take a huge toll on the male population that wouldn't affect the female population. Females captives were generally kept alive and turned into wives, slaves, or whatever. (You can see this in the Old Testament, where the Israelites were sometimes commanded to kill every male in a city, but were allowed to keep young females as wives and slaves.) Point being: males were far more likely to be violently killed than females were. Example: "Studies of the Yanomamo Indians of Amazonas during the past 23 years show that 44 percent of males estimated to be 25 or older have participated in the killing of someone, that approximately 30 percent of adult male deaths are due to violence," http://anthroniche.com/darkness_documents/0606.pdf (Not hypergamy)

(6) Taking of slaves in warfare. Male slaves might not be allowed to reproduce (maybe with other female slaves). For obvious reasons, female slaves could still get pregnant by their owner. (Not hypergamy)

(7) Male Homosexuality. While I doubt this was a big cause, there have been past societies where homosexuality seems to be common - e.g. ancient Greece and modern-day Afghanistan. Afghanistan currently has a big problem with older males sexually abusing young boys. (Not hypergamy)

taiboworks · 2015-03-25T19:05:00+00:00

this could be explained by primitive hierarchical societies where few men controlled most resources in an environment where resources were harder to come by. women had to select these men to ensure they and their children were taken care of. hypergamy was a result of limited resources controlled by a few powerful men, not a drive in itself. now, that's not the case, resources are not as scarce, there is government safety net in most societies, and women follow the assortative mating model, selecting a more equally matched partner that will stick with them versus someone out of their league that will not.

[deleted] · Wed Mar 25 19:29:30 2015 UTC

[permanently deleted]

Nitzi · 2015-03-25T18:17:51+00:00

What about other reasons than hypergamy that explain this gap?

Homosexuals for example. Or boys that die more often because if dangerous jobs.

Or restricted female sexuallity. I mean women maybe haven't been as free as today. Maybe men haven't been as free as today. You know the oppressed poor.

CursedLemon · 2015-03-25T20:07:22+00:00

Hmm, and I believe a certain someone tried to tell me that technology - specifically agriculture - didn't change our values system. How about that.

In any case, I'm pretty sure nobody says hypergamy doesn't exist.

chameleone · 2015-03-25T21:42:09+00:00

I don't think you understand the data. This is saying that every man had sex with four or five women, not the other way around. Certainly not proof of female hypergamy which is what Red Pill guys moan about, and subsequently what we fine people over at TBP laugh at them for condemning.

emptypillbox · 2015-03-26T06:41:46+00:00

There is something that really irritates me: hypergamy means "marrying up". Statistics that x number of women reproduced for every y men that reproduced don't demonstrate hypergamy. Hypergamy has to do with a moving outside a status group of some definition (including castes, defined social status groups, informal social status groups, class, and various other types of groups). It doesn't mean, "Sleeping with lots of people". It doesn't mean "changing partners".

This irritates me because the term has been skewed beyond all meaning, for the purpose, I assume, of sounding more scientific. But if you're going to use a term, at least use it in some way reminiscent of the meaning of the term. Hypergamy doesn't imply lots of partners. It doesn't imply changing partners for partners within the same status-group, class or caste. Anything else is a mis-use of the term.

I've seen the RP use the term to mean changing partners for someone perceived to be of higher SMV or more alpha. While that's not what the term means, I can at least see the connection (higher value/higher status), and so I can understand the use of the term in this context. But that doesn't imply that women will have lots of partners or always be changing partners, though this is something that RP is associating with the term.

So you're evidence of "hypergamy" is not actually evidence for hypergamy. If this is seriously the type of evidence that you use to support RP concepts, then hopefully you can see why people might take your "scientifically backed" claims with a huge grain of salt. Note that in the article you link, the researchers can't conclude what the cause was because there is insufficient data.

OfSpock · 2015-03-25T18:35:42+00:00

Or perhaps men who are more aggressive and dominant fend off other weak suitors?

rulenumber303 · 2015-03-25T21:46:55+00:00

The impression I got from family histories on both sides of my family was that the people who bred like crazy were on farms that were doing well... quite often a man would have 6+ kids from one women then she'd die and if he still had small children needing care he'd usually marry another women and get straight back to breeding. The couples who bred less were in cities and towns and presumably limiting their breeding due to lack of space and resources. Oddly enough, when disease swept through the place it tended to be the heavily breeding women who were lost in the country (maybe they were low on iron etc after all those births) with just a small % of their kids, and in towns the wives generally survived and a greater proportion of kids were lost. If there was a family with twelve kids in the country they'd probably lose the wife and a couple of kids, and if there was a family with four kids in the city they'd probably lose just a couple of kids when diptheria swept through. That sort of thing is bound to add up.

But hey that's just my family. On both sides. Maybe someone can do a more detailed study of multiple families sometime.

[deleted] · 2015-03-25T18:31:27+00:00

[permanently deleted]

[deleted] · 2015-03-25T20:44:09+00:00

[permanently deleted]

[deleted] · 2015-03-25T20:40:59+00:00

[permanently deleted]

[deleted] · 2015-03-25T18:42:04+00:00

[permanently deleted]

no_respond_to_stupid · 2015-03-25T19:07:26+00:00

Hypergamy means serialing changing partners. Polygamy means multiple partners simultaneously. Polygamy practices would explain this large a difference more easily than hypergamy, as it's hard to go through that many partners serially while raising children.

What is the evidence this indicates hypergamy and not polygamy?

Comments