When I think of hypergamy, I initially think about money. And it's hard to feel sorry for a rich guy that loses a woman to a richer guy. I used to think he should have something else going for him. May he could use the money to get his foot in the door but then he should have "offered" non-monetary benefits (though in writing this I accept that she only wants him for his money, he could be Gandhi but if he didn't have money she wouldn't be with him. Plus, is he supposed to just continually offer her things, afraid she'd leave? How is this different from prostitution? In fact it's worst, because at least then it's a clear transaction without the psychological weight of uncertainty.)

Now though I'm wondering if everything a man offers to a woman can be reduced to a single score and if the man is above it, she'll stay and if she's not she'll leave (though it'll probably be phrased in such a way that it's the man fault and he left her with no other option, doesn't really work that way for a man, a man can't say "she made me leave". everyone will provide all manner of things he should do. though if he tries to fix her issues during the relationship he's a misogynistic know-it-all). What got me thinking about this were the noblest professions, take a fireman or a police officer or a soldier. They offer the woman a social boost, but if, say, the man is injured, well he has less value now. She may stay due to societal pressure but that can vary depending on how sensitive she is to it, who is exacting it (friends, family, etc and her relationship with these people) and what other options she has available to herself. Still, is it the same as the obvious golddigger? Do they all distill it to the same cold calculus? What have you done for me lately? If so isn't there a cruel irony to it? Namely that a woman can leave a man if he stops providing or he "isn't the man I thought he was", effectively blaming you for not being what she wanted, retroactively, you're forced to take the blame for her lack of judgment. However if a woman lets herself go and the man moves on he'll get chewed out. Of course a woman can respect a man she can chew out so ultimately you have to ignore them because they'll punish you for hearing them out.

TL/DR: Are all women golddiggers, even if the "gold" takes different forms? Should men be just as transparent and ignore biased societal feedback? If no one's paying attention to societal feedback, would we be better off or worse off? (Though it seems like those that control the conversation shift it to benefit themselves.)