I started reading The Alpha Female's Guide to Men and Marriage and find it very good so far.

Men want respect and deference. A woman is supposed to be a passenger (not in the back seat) of life with her husband leading. Men don't like to be nagged.

That said, if a man is to lead a family, why is it bad that women are hypergamous?

Everyone gets offended when a woman says she wants a guy in at least the same tax bracket as her, but how is the man a leader if he makes significantly less? A woman who makes a lot more (> 20%) becomes the leader.

Why would I want a guy who is less smart than me to lead me? I am not talking about education level. If I am going to yield to him, he needs to know what he is doing better than me. If the guy is not smart, then his family will be led through chaos.

Why would I want a guy who has a weaker moral compass than me? If he is constantly making poor moral decisions, the family will be led to destruction.

The only thing a woman shouldn't be hypergamous for is looks. Most women don't care about looks as long as the guy isn't ugly (despite how people insist otherwise.)

Far more ugly guys can get a beautiful woman than the other way around. Women measure attractiveness by what a guy does and men do so by looks and personality.

If a man wants a woman to submit to him and be led by him, he should work on being a little bit better than her. I don't see what is so bad about that.

If you want an equal than you can't complain about her not being submissive.