Finding it hard to 'debunk' hypergamy but it's also being used to justify far right superstructures by tradcons. Solution?

serpentineeyelash · 2019-12-11T09:08:56+00:00

A couple of things:

I find evo psych as flawed, and sometimes more so, than purely social constructionist sciences. Both focus entirely on one aspect of the nature - nurture debate. It's no wonder that proponents of each tend to be at each others' throats and accuse each other of pseudoscience. Another field of study that is often disparaged when it comes to politics is Economics, which is described by some as a tool to prop up the neoliberal status quo or whatever. The fact is that, once you leave the realm of physics, chemistry and other hard sciences etc you are necessarily introducing various levels of subjectivity into the mix, and this especially goes for studies of population level phenomena where it is both impractical and unethical to perform double blind experiments that solidly falsify a hypothesis. So relax and take it all with a grain of salt.
I'm not deep into the whole "hypergamy" thing, but let's assume for a moment that it is real. A bit of cursory Googling has yielded me these two links:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421994 - a study showing the decline of hypergamous partnerships and a trend towards hypogamy. This would indicate that restructuring society towards more egalitarianism does not necessarily lead to "runaway hypergamy" as right wing redpillers want you to believe.

https://thepowermoves.com/hypergamy - Now this is a blog from some guy who claims to be a member of the APA; but he also offers some kind of life coaching or whatnot, so some skepticism is required. However, he seems to link to "legit science" (keep in mind though that even in the scientific community it is widely accepted that 90% of scientific papers are trash only written because "publish or perish".);Anyway, this is a quote from the article:

the more skewed the distribution of resources is, the higher hypergamy pays off and becomes the norm.

If this is true, this gives us reasons to believe that economic equality reduces hypergamy. And since we live in a neoliberal system that in some ways necessitates a good bit of economic inequality, this means there might be a "Left-wing case for reducing hypergamy".

Now I'm sure that there are voices in the "hypergamy debate" that claim the opposite and have their own links to prove it. All I'm saying is, whatever these Ancap Tradcon Neoreactionary Whatevers are saying, it does not exactly seem like settled science to me. I'm inclined to be wary because we have seen how the far right has tended to co opt spaces where vulnerable men gather.

Human societies are immensely complex and it seems weird to base everything on one contentious concept (hypergamy) because there are so many things that can influence this, and every other natural or societal phenomenon. That is the whole reason why I am on a forum like LWMA and not on menslib: because menslib bases their entire worldview on Intersectional feminism, which is based on a few core assumptions, a few real world phenomena that seem to support the philosophy, and a lot of theory that is extrapolated from it. But like any theory, it ignores the true complexity of reality.

In a similar way, incels base their entire worldview on 80/20 statistics on online apps but this is flawed as well. Online dating apps are a strange microcosm and we know that men are overrepresented there, so that alone stacks the odds against men. I'm not saying that the (non hateful) incels who fall into this don't have legit complaints, but a lot of it seems like catastrophizing to me.

serpentineeyelash · 2019-12-11T16:11:12+00:00

I have certainly had these thoughts run through my head as well. This is undoubtedly one of the major reasons why young men are flocking to the far right.

Fortunately, I think there is a problem with the anti-egalitarian analysis. They claim the rise in incels is being caused by too much egalitarianism and democracy, but upon a closer look the reverse might be true.

The supposed equality of our time is pretty illusory considering wealth inequality has been rising for decades, due to our increasingly unrestrained capitalist economic system in which workplaces are undemocratic. We're also seeing a rising number of unemployed men as automation is beginning to reduce the need for workers. Living in a society with high wealth inequality is known to exacerbate various social and psychological problems, because social status differentials are larger. It stands to reason that women's preference for high-status men is probably one of the issues being exacerbated by rising inequality. If I'm right, then addressing economic issues could help reduce hypergamy and make women's preferences more egalitarian than they may be now.

Of course, it's not all about economics. Across society there is a vicious cycle happening: women receive more sexual attention, which enables women to be more sexually selective, which means women receive more sexual attention, and so on. And speaking as an autistic man, I think a lot of the incel issue is to do with inequality in social skills and how this interacts with social norms. There are probably other contributing factors too. The point is, if some of these factors can be reduced, maybe the number of unattractive men can be reduced too.

Unfortunately, right now it's pretty much impossible to talk to most left-wingers about the male sexual hierarchy; they seem to reflexively dismiss the issue as imaginary or illegitimate or both. But if we can get over the hurdle of getting the left to admit there is a problem and it is important to society, then maybe we can find left-compatible ways of addressing the incel issue. Then society could debate any number of pullable "policy levers" that might make it easier for men to meet their sexual and/or romantic needs, much like society addresses other issues without infringing on people’s freedoms.

This comment is getting too long to go into any more detail about solutions, but there are surely many ways in which the problem could be at least reduced.

DignifiedAlpaca · 2019-12-11T03:39:52+00:00

Clearly we leftists are a minority and everybody from Paul Elam and Karen Straughan to Michael Buchanan refuses association with us.

Those people are really only one half of the men's rights movement, although they tend to be the louder half. I recommend looking into Warren Farrell. He is much more reasonable I think, and interestingly, he identifies with both the men's rights movement and the feminist movement. Despite the fact that this can often end up resulting in him being attacked by both sides, I can appreciate the fact that he is trying to see what is best for everyone.

As the description of this subreddit explains, people who tend towards left-wing political beliefs but question the prescribed narrative on gender often end up without an obvious home politically. Warren Farrell is a Democrat who lives in San Francisco, but most of his interviews are done by right-wing news sources (my assumption is that right-wing outlets like him because his existence tends to make most feminists angry and left-wing outlets don't like him for the same reason).

As for the issue with hypergamy, I would say that the existence of average differences between men and women shouldn't stop us from striving for a society free from unequal treatment anymore than the existence of murderers should stop us from striving for a society without murder. Sure, there might never be a truly fair and equal society in the same way that there might never be a society without murder, but that doesn't make it a bad goal to strive for nonetheless.

AskingToFeminists · 2019-12-12T11:49:50+00:00

I have a tradcon friend slowly turning into a new flavour of a hybrid of Ancap and crypto-fascist patriarchy as a result

First, you have to understand that tradcons are the exact same thing as feminists or patriarchists. They are an expression of the instinct to think women as hypoagentic and men as hyperagentic. Tradcons is what happens in older societies, where there is still a big need for work power, for protection and provision for women, etc. If you are in a society where women don't need protection and provision from one specific man, it expresses as feminism. Your tradcon friend doesn't like feminism, so he wish for what he imagines tradcons societies were, which is quite different from their realities. But he is also very aware that tradcons can not win in the new environment, so he just jumped to something that would result in the kind of thing he imagines.

As for debunking hypergamy... There is no debunking to be made : hypergamy is definitely one of the instincts playing a role in mate selection in women.

The thing is, though, it isn't the only one. If there was only hypergamy, then we would be more like chimps or gorillas. Women mating only with the biggest man around.

The issue is not necessarily with the hypergamy, but with how it is expressed. In the same way that the issue with the obesity crisis is not with the instinct to eat high sugar high fat food, but with the fact that it is put everywhere in our faces.

For example, the most probable instinct opposing hypergamy in women's mate selection was their need to secure provision and protection while with child.

A woman is incredibly vulnerable when pregnant or with an infant. And rather than seeking to mate with the biggest strongest male around, it could be better to sleep with a lesser male who, him, will stick around after the mating part, in order to help her during the pregnancy and child rearing. That is why we had marriage.

But what about nowadays? Well, nowadays, yes, there is marriage, but the courts are so biased that 70% of divorces are initiated by women, who get custody of the kids and alimony, child support, often the house, etc. Basically, no reason for women to stick around with the man. What was once traded, companionship for security and resources, she can get without upholding her end of the bargain. As a consequences, the other instinct that reined in the hypergamous instinct is kept satisfied, and there is nothing left to keep hypergamy in check.

One way to reduce hypergamy would be to make divorce much less of something that our society incentivize women on doing. If it is no longer a jackpot, then suddenly hypergamy becomes much less tempting.

Basically, to fight obesity, first step : stop giving free candies to people.

Another important thing that could be done is to try to rigorously study such things, and to have campaigns of awareness. In the same way that an important step in the fight against obesity was to understand that we have that instinct to eat high fat high sugar food, and to openly discuss it to find solutions, being able to have a basic general level of awareness of hypergamy is a good step towards fighting it.

It might be time also, for example, to stop celebrating si'gle motherhood, and to start again to see it as what it is : a state of things that is worse for everyone, but sadly can't be avoided in every situations.

There are several things that can be done that would impact hypergamy that don't involve tradcon or far right solutions, just egalitarian or realist ones.

Melthengylf · 2019-12-11T19:08:26+00:00

Hypergamy is a consecquence of millenia of women depending on men finantially. Thus, there is some disgust from women in case that they don't provide value in some way and there is the perception that men are overall disgusting. This was compensated through money before and that isn't a possibility anymore.

Women have not yet accepted that men could be vulnerable or not powerful or anything. This can change and is changing. Many women marry down economically right now, in the past that was like 0. So I would say is part of the culture change.

Men should just connect with themselves and express who they are instead of hiding themselves in shame and throw a wall of money to compensate.

IM_MAKIN_GRAVY · 2019-12-13T01:41:50+00:00

My view is a sort of leftist, supportive of traditional-ish gender roles, Jordan peterson take on things.

I would recommend the first chapter of Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules of life on male hierarchies. And Tribe by Sebastian Junger.

I forget which of this came from where exactly but: in Tribe they talk about how for the vast majority of the millions of years of our evolutionary history, up until the past 10,000 or so, humans lived in very close knit tribes of about 50. They were almost never alone. And there was very little greed or tyranny. If an older male got tyrannical or greedy (and this is backed by an anthropologist deemed representative sample of still extant indigenous tribes) the other males would form a coalition and stop him with force. Failing this one could simply leave, so tyranny was difficult to enforce. Common (corporally published) crimes included things like failure to share. These tribes were basically egalitarian as a result, seemingly because they were so emotionally bonded and had such a fulfilling sense of community (much of the book is about how important this is), and sharing was in the interest of the whole. Now, there was still some inequality, material and sexual, and a good hunter could support a handful of mates based on his own merits which could not be materially passed down to his offspring. But there was not the crazy extent of wealth (or I imagine sexual) inequality we see today.

Compared to this, modern society seems to be full of what we call “beta males,” males unwilling to stand up collectively to tyranny, and tyrannical alpha males.

Modern society gives us no way of vetting strangers, or hardly anyone except those we are most deeply emotionally bonded to. Secrecy, greed, and tyranny run amok in an environment that rewards them— including sexually.

Obviously, the solution to hypergamy is the restoration of the tribe by restoring good old fashioned, tribal, masculinity: the spine to stand up to oppression, to restore a society in which hierarchies are rightfully earned. Warrior energy.

Edit: oh! And in ch 1 Peterson talks about how anger, while shunned in our society, is very useful and informative. It is what points us to where someone is tyrannizing us. The manosphere is the personification of male anger, the anger that doing everything right will get you nothing in terms of female attention today. The manosphere just either doesn’t know where to point that anger (tyrannical capitalist imperialist system) or just says fuck it: now that I know what’s going on I’d rather eat than be eaten. It is much harder to stand up to the predators without becoming one yourself. This is what it will take, on a massive scale, if we want to have a successful revolution, one that ends the cycle. Not a bunch of immature nice boys who felt entitled to some pussy and got mad about it. But a bunch of men willing to shoulder the responsibility of creating a just society. And yes the responsibility falls on men. We’re biologically wired for it, we’ve been the ones creating social hierarchies from day 1. It’s our job to fix them.

That is why power structures will encourage any sort of “leftism” that doesn’t involve class consciousness or masculine men. Feminism is fine to proliferate, it threatens nothing without the radical economics it came out of. And it divides the left on identity politics.

Why is this important? Because if the left starts appealing to masculine men, that means the same coal miners that voted for trump vote for social programs. That means the revolution becomes both angry and sexually frustrated. and those are two things power structures do not want to see wielded against them. Along with the male instinct to protect and wage war.

Now, all of our dialogue is filtered through corporate media, academia, internet and social media giants. So of course we, the most dangerous population seem fewest in number and representation. They either keep masculine men alienated from the left consciously, or it happens as a result of allowing ANYTHING to be addressed, hell even trans rights, before we touch the fact that 4 people own more wealth than the bottom 3.5 billion people in the world. And focusing on the most divisive stuff too.

Sometimes I wonder if Peterson realizes it too. He always says that he’s not sure why he’s allowed to say what he says and that if people really understood it they would... idk. He’s not criticizing the left, he’s criticizing privileged college bubble leftists and identity politics, both of which are effectively, and by that I mean in their actual effects, liberal. He also criticizes tyranny and fascism masquerading as socialism too, not the real modern left that has learned from these mistakes. He shits on basically everyone but the mature, masculine left.

But yea, I call bullshit on modern society not needing traditional gender roles (while they can’t be used to justify modern wealth inequality either). Who cares if they’re necessary, they turn us on and they turn women on and as long as that’s the case they will prevail. We can only use them to our advantage, for good. Like our ancestors. They are in our veins, our genes. And if you listen closely, you will hear them.

Socialism + personal growth + jordan peterson + a little red pill - the misogyny and emotional detachment/emptiness + a little white knight-ism/heroicism/balls. Whatever you want to call it.

perlman_sonata_1 · 2019-12-11T08:34:57+00:00

The only good solution I have found is transhumanist: Throw technology at the problem.

VR porn, sex robots, drugs that suppress sex drive, maybe even ways for single men to have their own genetic children are possible technologies that would reduce tension without requiring patriarchy.

Faulgor · 2019-12-11T08:17:53+00:00

A lot of it comes down to a superficial understanding of equality. People think it means identical, and when right wingers talk about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome it makes me want to smash my head through a wall.

You can only make people equal in certain respects, and by doing so inevitably make them more unequal in other respects. E.g. if you have two workers, one earning $15/h and one $20/h, you can make them more equal by adjusting the total income, hours worked or hourly wages, but this means other parts of the equation become more unequal. Marx understood this just fine, so I'm clueless why so many people today seem to struggle with it.

Ultimately this means, we have to decide in which respects we want people to be more equal, and which inequalities we are prepared to accept for this.

That means living in a society where women and men in general don't have equal social standings (whatever that means in any given society) is not the end of the world as long as this inequality doesn't mean they have less rights to education, economic prospects, physical safety etc., i.e. things we fundamentally care about.

That isn't an unsolvable problem for leftists, although I do agree that currently there doesn't seem to be a proposed solution. Mainly because most leftists don't consider "hypergamy" to be a problem whatsoever. Maybe it just means we have to help boys and men a bit more so they aren't left behind, and feel they actually have a stake in their society.

cromulent_weasel · 2019-12-11T20:29:41+00:00

The more equal you make men and women legally

The more exaggerated sexual inequality becomes

Egalitarianism won't change this because it's rooted in biology

This is really a mindset that ignores the obvious fact that women are people too. And they also get horny and enjoy sex.

Both men and women get lonely and horny. The men are getting angry and women for denying them the sex that they are rightfully entitled to. But what are the women doing? They are also single and not getting any.

I think men need to build better emotional resilience and support networks (although this is something that I don't know the whole roadmap for). That would help them deal with being lonely and single more. Because being angry and bitter isn't good for those men or the people they lash out at.

mtcapri · 2019-12-13T23:48:35+00:00

To be honest, your view of MRAs seems tainted by an over-exposure to PUAs, MGTOWs, incels, and other extremist types. I came to the MR movement mainly via /r/mensrights, and while there are certainly some folks on that sub who express the views you describe, they're nowhere near the majority. As such, I see far more of a spectrum in the MRA community, and the main bands seem far more in-line with an egalitarian perspective than not.

Xemnas81 · 2019-12-11T02:41:56+00:00

He has stopped caring for the MRA solution because he has lost hope in the reality of equality being possible.

He is, of course, completely right. equality is an impossibility. No two people are equal, no ever have been, nor ever will. What you do with this revelation is up to you. Perhaps take some comfort in that co-operation is possible, and even still desirable between people. That friendships, loves, and good relations can exist despite the persons being unequal.

Why do you believe in this God? Perhaps, because American founders wrote that men are created as equals on some paper? Because it is what you have been told by leftist saints?

Ask yourself instead, 'what is real?'. We were not created, but shaped by evolution. Does evolution create equal specimens? No.

Setting equality as a goal is nonsensical, but so is every goal in this indifferent universe when you get down to it.

GaborFrame · 2019-12-11T03:01:21+00:00

How people get from "men have more variance in dating success" to MGTOW has always been a mystery to me. It sucks to be on the side of the losers, but cannot force women to have sex with you.

Title	Finding it hard to 'debunk' hypergamy but it's also being used to justify far right superstructures by tradcons. Solution?
Author	Xemnas81
Upvotes	17
Comments	48
Date	December 11, 2019 2:20 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/e90qr2/finding_it_hard_to_debunk_hypergamy_but_its_also/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/finding-it-hard-to-debunk-hypergamy-but-its-also.1064313 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064313

Comments