I notice a lot of TRPers see "hypergamy" but BPers see "assortive mating" in the contemporary romantic/sexual marketplace.

There are three possibilities: 1. One or both sides is/are deluded. 2. Each side is observing different cohorts of women that behave differently from each other. 3. The sides see the same behavior but assess it differently.

So far I've seen a lot of people arguing 1 or 2. But I think we can make a case for 3.

As I see it, most "blue pill" people pedastalize women. By that I mean they overvalue all women's "quality levels" (so to speak) relative to men's. If this is true... that "being a woman" means an automatic upgrade to how you're assessed... then we can expect a bluepiller to sincerely see an hypergamous relationship as an instance of assortive mating.

Or, in short, "she deserves him." It is simultaneously egalitarian and hypergamous.

A lot of TRPers seem to see hypergamy through the lens of a maledom fetish, but in a way what hypergamy reflects is the opposite. Its the idea that women, because they are women, are so innately and inherently valuable that a man has to be "above her" in order to really be her equal (i.e. for her to be the highest value woman he is worthy of).

This dovetails nicely with the "sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive" evolutionary psychology, as well as the Women Are Wonderful Effect, and the fact that feminism and "girl power"/"princess culture" pop-feminist mass media haven't lessened hypergamy or traditionalist expectations placed upon men in dating... indeed, these things have wholeheartedly embraced and celebrated hypergamy as empowering of women.

Indeed, this theory perfectly explains all of those "Where Have All The Good Men Gone?" articles, often written by feminists, which bemoan the lack of "worthy" and "deserving" men; because benevolent sexism/female privilege/chivalry/etc. is both on overdrive AND resulting in women being given automatic status upgrades, of course she will find it harder to find "her equal."

I should add, I am not claiming that this is cynical, insincere or immoral. I think that it is quite plausible that chivalry/princess culture/pop-feminism/the pedastalization of women may have actually led some to comprehend hypergamy as equality, to see the top third of men as the "true equals" of the top two thirds of women. Ergo, neither TRP nor TBP are insincere when one side says "hypergamy" and the other side sees "assortive mating." They are giving their actual assessments of the same behaviors by the same women. Neither are deluded, and both are issuing judgments that are consistent with their premises.

Any thoughts?