Homogamy is the term that blogger Steve Randy Waldman gave to assortative mating (people pairing with those who are most like themselves in terms of career, education etc.)

Poor women are getting poorer because men with good jobs aren't marrying them.

Associate mating in America:

The term has a strong ethological ring to it—zoologists use it to describe animals with strong preferences about what their mates look like. Social scientists use it to describe human behavior: our custom of marrying not people who look like us, but who have résumés like ours. People, in other words, tend to pair off with those who have a similar educational background and similar earning power. Doctors marry other doctors, lawyers marry other lawyers, Ivy league graduates marry other Ivy league graduates.

Blogger Steve Randy Waldman has argued that assortative mating—he calls it, more succinctly, homogamy—also helps explain the rise in single motherhood at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. As everyone with good earning potential pairs off with each other, all that’s left are the less promising prospects, and more and more women make the understandable choice to go it alone rather than hitch themselves—theoretically for life—to someone who is going to be financial and emotional dead weight.

It’s not the sort of problem that lends itself to policy interventions. At a time when fewer and fewer Americans think the government should tell someone what gender their mate should be, it’s hard to see much appetite for the government’s telling people they should really marry someone from a different educational caste.

EDIT: I didn't want to ruin discussion by pointing out the obvious.

But Red Pill consistently state that men (ALL MEN) DON'T CARE what job or career a woman has or how much money she makes.

Typically, in the responses below, red pill doesn't admit that maybe they are wrong on this. Men obviously DO CARE.

Instead, the red pill response is all about "why should we save the poor women, instead of shining a mirror on themselves.

Weren't you always saying you don't care if she's poor as long as she's hot? Weren't you saying you PREFER she doesn't have a career? Weren't you saying that men don't want high-flying women?

Next week's strategy for red pill men:

DO marry women with careers because the feminists want you to rescue and marry the poor women because HOMOGAMY!!!

2nd EDIT: An example reply to me just yesterday:

When the fuck will women understand that your degree, your job, your career success is not an "asset" in the dating department? The only men who give a shit about a woman's job or degree are loser men who want a woman to leech off of while they play video games. And that's just who you're attracting.

3rd EDIT: Red pill don't get sarcasm. As if I'd be seriously asking red pill men to fix homogamy or to get married.

4th EDIT:

A summary:

Career men don't want women of low socioeconomic backgrounds even though Red Pill insists they do. Weirdly, in this thread, Red Pill is now largely insisting they don't.

Because women of low socioeconomic backgrounds apparently:

  • are less attractive
  • are obese
  • are undesirable
  • are less tall
  • are leeches
  • will divorce-rape you and take everything
  • are promiscuous
  • are bitchy
  • have poor family bonds
  • are hillbillies

The hamsters are running forwards and backwards. I could find a 100 posts where RP men state they don't care if a woman works on McDonalds wages.