This is a reflection about a concept whose place in TRP I think should be taken into its 'due consideration'.

Alpha is hypogamous. Hypogamy is alpha.

Alpha's hypogamy is something you already imply when you explicitly talk or specify female hypergamy, since if female sexual choice lies in male superiority aspects (hypergamy), then, for the sake of compatibility, male superiority's sexual choice will need to lie in the very aspects of female inferiority that justify that female hypergamy (that is, alpha will logically have to be hypogamous).

I've already brought up in some of my previous comments how female hypergamy is logically linked to female inferiority (inferiority logically makes women need and select the strongest and most capable male, alpha), and how inferiority itself is the underlying reason that explains the most typical female traits together with hypergamy, such as the inability to bear responsibility (she needs to put the blame on others so the inferiority of her abilities are not to blame), the inability to handle rejection (if a woman won't even be desired for her tits and her tits are her best asset, then she is doomed), the demand for quotas and affirmative action, etc. In this sense when we state women are hypergamous we are stating that female inferiority is hypergamous. And to us it's useful that the hypergamy-inferiority logical link deserve a careful, qualified awareness.

So if women prefer men according to those men's superiority (hypergamy), then men will have to prefer women according to those women's inferiority (hypogamy).

If women prefer men according to male features relating to superiority (superior physical and mental performance), then men will have to prefer women according to female features relating to inferiority (i.e. men will have to prefer women according to the fact that women are just fuck meat and the best and 'most superior' thing women can contribute the male gender is their female bodies for sexual and breeding purposes; thus under this 'female inferiority' category we'd include things like submissiveness, flirtatiousness, provocativeness, sexiness, femininity, etc)

If female inferiority prefers and selects alpha's male superiority (hypergamy), then alpha's male superiority will have to prefer and select female inferiority (hypogamy).

Female inferiority's hypergamy and male superiority's hypogamy are logically linked, they constitute a logical link.

If male superiority, alpha's hypogamy is something you already imply when you explicitly talk or specify female (inferiority's) hypergamy, then I think alpha hypogamy would accordingly need to be brought to the due explicitness as well.

Just notice that the Red Pill almost entirely revolves around (female inferiority's) hypergamy, that is, about what is the kind of man women prefer and select, so the Red Pill advises men to lift, game, etc; but, as much as the Red Pill man appreciates himself, the Red Pill says nothing about what requirements should be met by women in order to earn the privilege of getting accepted by a superior man, that is, the Red Pill says nothing about which women should be preferred and selected by a superior man, and so the Red Pill doesn't address the issue of alpha hypogamy at all. The Red Pill only considers the man-woman relationship from the perspective of female inferiority's hypergamy, but it neglects the male superiority's hypogamy perspective and its logical necessity in relation to female inferiority's hypergamy.

But let me indicate the explicitness and 'due consideration' of alpha's alpha hypogamy I'm raising here must be of a logical-theoretical nature, that is, as something belonging within the conceptual frame of the Red Pill...

A few posts ago a fellow redditor reflected on the helpful idea that 'the biggest part of relationship management is choosing the right woman'. This guy conceptualized a 'Dominant woman -------------- Submissive woman' sort of scale so you could clasiffy women and choose the most submissive women, because doing so would help you save efforts and energies, since you would not need to spend time or resources in converting dominant women to submissiveness (as well as this last thing might even lead to illegal concerns).

Although saving time and efforts is one of the many advantages of selecting 'inferior' women (that is, of hypogamy) and it pressuposes female inferiority as an alpha goal and so it pressuposes male superiority's hypogamy itself, on this post I'm not introducing hypogamy as a way of saving time and resources or as a way of enjoying several other advantages.

On this post I'm complementarily putting forward that alpha, male superiority's hypogamy has to be additionally understood as something logically required within the Red Pill's concept frame; that is, alpha hypogamy has to be understood, and implemented, as well as something of a logical nature within the Red Pill's frame.

I've just mentioned alpha hypogamy has several advantages, and it does as long as it is a theoretically-logically required thing.

When the Red Pill requires you to put women off the pedestal it's requiring you to put yourself on top of the pedestal, that is, it's requiring you to acknowledge your male superiority.

Your male genes are programed to want women 'just for sex' because your male superiority doesn't need anything better from them.

If it's you and not her on top of the pedestal, then your self-sufficiency will need no else pedestalized self-sufficient one on your side, so you will only be interested in her as long as she's a mere worthless cumslut.

That is, in order to win your attention and sexual interest, she'll have to pay a price: that of being a worthless, depedestalized cumslut. But in order to win her own pedestal in front of you, she'll have to pay another price: that of losing your attention and sexual interest, since you're already on top of another pedestal as well and you need no one's superiority or self-sufficiency but your own (you only accept her pussy).

This means that when alpha's male superiority makes female inferiority a requirement in order to earn alpha's approval and acceptance, alpha is restricting to 'inferiority' the chances women will have of being interesting or desirable to him, and so women will be desirable, qualified and 'superior' as females to alpha according to how 'superior' or 'severe' is those women's inferiority (that is, according to how marked and authentic is the fact that those women are only useful for sexual things). Inferiority will then become the only thing women will be able to manage in order to be 'interesting', 'desirable' and 'superior' as females to alpha.

Regarding alpha, women can only get valued precisely according to their lack of value, and any deviation from this rule will only make women unattractive and uninteresting to alpha. Women have to choose between either being attractive to alpha on one hand, or dismissing inferiority and trying to adhere to a status of superiority on the other hand, but women can't have both things at the same time. If she wants to win alpha she has to lose superiority; if she wants to win superiority (pedestal) she has to lose alpha.

After all a woman can only be interesting to a superior man by being an inferior woman, since a superior man's superiority is self-sufficient and needs no one else's superiority.

It's the fact of alpha being seen as a god by women the thing that creates the appearance of 'female submissiveness' alpha sees and hypogamously selects; while the fact of betas being seen as worthless subhuman garbage by women is the thing that creates the appearance of 'female independence, female strength, female superiority, female respectability, dignity, decency and buck-deservingness' that motivates betas' interest.

In other words: alpha gets interested in women thanks to women's interest in alpha; while betas get interested in women thanks to women's lack of interest in betas.

Women's inferiority hypergamously pick superior men; so be a superior man and hypogamously pick and require inferior women who need superior men because you can only use them for sex.