Stefan M @ 4:29 “Female Nature, is not fixed. Neither is male nature. What I mean by that, is people say…uhhhh……hyper-gamy is female nature, and if she could find a better man, she’ll just trade up. Well, no. Divorce was very rare, prior to the welfare state. If you look at the Amish community, separation or divorce rates are like 2%. So you tell me where female nature is? If divorce rates are very high, where there is a welfare state, and divorce rates are very low, like in the Amish or in the past, where there was no welfare state, you tell me, where is female nature?…in that equation? I mean, it makes no sense. It makes no sense to talk of female nature. Female nature. Female adaptability is the key, you see.”
Stefan is not interpreting his own data properly. There is a lack of logic, in what he says. The fact that females react differently, in different situations, with regard to “trading up” does not mean that hyper-gamy is not real. In fact, it proves the opposite: that hyper-gamy is very real. So real that humans have had to invent all sorts of social adaptations, in order to counter it. For instance, humans invented religion, to counter female hyper-gamy.
In the Amish community, there is a holy book at the center of life…..The Bible…All the people in that community, they read from that holy book, every day, and they pray to an imaginary God, who tells them in that book that adultery is wrong. This invisible man, the women are told, he watches everything they do, and he expects good behavior, and he judges them and will some day punish them in a Lake of Fire, if they do not comply. This practice socially induces compliance in women, not to cheat, not to wander, not to trade up.
We can measure the degree to which women would like to wander, to cheat, to trade up, by the degree of social reinforcement society puts in, to restrain that hyper-gamous impulse in women. In the case of the Amish community, that trait to trade up, in women must be very high, for the Amish work tremendously hard every day, at their religious rituals, in order to restrain female hyper-gamy…..I maintain that all religion evolved to act as a “LOCK” on female hyper-gamy…to restrain it.
Picture religion in your mind, as a dam that holds back water. Imagine that you are hiking somewhere in the mountains, in a new place for you. You are walking uphill, up a dry, large creek bed. And you come across a large, well-built dam you didn’t know about, that covers the crevice space between two mountains that the dry creek comes out of. You look downhill and notice the town near the bottom of where the run off from the dam, would flow if the creek had water in it. What can you conclude about that dam? That it was built for no good reason? Unlikely. More likely: There is a lot of water behind that dam, or there is water behind that dam, at least some of the time, after a rain storm. The dam may have been built to protect the town from occasional flooding. Some areas in the Swiss Alps have large basin areas of rain collection as a natural physical feature in the mountains, in the back country, away from town, but the water that runs off from the large catch basin has only 1 creek, as a way of getting the water drained from a flash flood….and the town is in the direct path of any large occasional run-off. You see this sort of dam in the Swiss Alps in places, protecting towns from occasional flash floods. You can infer the reality of occasional floods and occasional large volumes of water, from the existence of the damn….so it is with religion, hyper-gamy and the implied social consequences of unrestrained female sexuality.
As to Stefan’s comment on divorce being very rare, prior to the welfare state, in which he implies that means, there is no underlying fixed hyper-gamy, because the divorce rate variance must disprove the notion of fixed hyper-gamy, as an essential part of female nature….again, Stefan is wrong. Think about it: Welfare are resources. When we introduced the welfare state, we weakened the role of the husband, we weakened the power of the husband, we weakened the economic power specifically of the husband, by providing women with a Substitute Husband, IE The State, which could provide resources to women. So then what did women do, right after we gave them a substitute husband? They ran off with that Substitute Husband, trading a real flesh and blood man, for an artificial construction, The Welfare State…which sent her money.
I guess maybe the “new man” made less demands on her….while granting her more freedom. Also, he didn’t leave the toilet seat up, after he peed…..lol
So women looked at the two deals: the deal that the husband provided her with, and the deal that the new Substitute Husband provided her with, and many women decided, they preferred their new Substitute Husband, as he provided the better deal. So in fact, introducing welfare, then looking at women’s subsequent choices, and noting the rise in the divorce rate after the introduction of welfare, this data surrounding the introduction of welfare doesn’t disprove hyper-gamy. In fact it PROVES it. So Stefan got his logic wrong. One of the “LOCKS” on female hyper-gamy in the past, was husbands had more or less a monopoly on resources, to bring to the women, to help the woman survive. One you remove this LOCK on hyper-gamy, by taking away husband monopoly over resources, this weakens the male economic power, allowing hyper-gamy to emerge.
The key thing to realize, is hyper-gamy does not exist alone. It does not exist without reference to something else. Female hyper-gamy exists in relations to economic resources and in relation to social context. Change the basic economic relationship over resources, between men and women, and hyper-gamy expresses itself differently. Give women welfare, hyper-gamy expresses itself in high divorce rates. Install LOCKS on hyper-gamy, such as in a religious society, and female hyper-gamy gets restrained…..and you have a low divorce rate.
And also, hyper-gamy has a social glass ceiling of sorts, built right into it…it’s built in and implied in the very definition of hyper-gamy. I call it the Hyper-gamy Glass Ceiling. What is it? It’s a tendency for all women to pursue a higher economic status male, but at a certain point the female realizes she has done about as well as is possible for her to do, there is really nowhere “up” to go, so she stops social climbing. For instance, what’s the difference between a woman marrying a doctor or an accountant or an engineer or a man like Stefan, with several university degrees, who has a very successful online podcast and in the past had a successful computer business? Not much. All of these theoretical and real men are high status men, all these men can provide her with status, a good life and sufficient resources, to put her in the top tier of society….which is what she wants. So that’s the Hyper-gamy Glass Ceiling.
But what about all the other men in society, who are not in the upper tier of society, economically? The top men have a Hyper-gamy glass ceiling in their relationships, but what about average men?
Think about this: In economic terms, what’s the difference between one of these theoretical high end men, and a bunch of lower-end theoretical mean, of a guy who works at 7-11 and is going nowhere, or a plumber or truck driver? Well, that economic difference is very, very large, and everyone knows it…..so if my theory of the Hyper-gamy glass ceiling is valid, we should expect that female hyper-gamy will play out in different ways, for different economic groups, in the real world.
And so if I am right, here is the data you should find, in the real world: You should find, in looking through marriage and divorce statistics, that marriage rates are very high, in the upper classes of society, divorce rates are very low, in the upper classes of society….because women must really want these high status, high resource men. And there should be a very large difference, between the upper classes and lower classes, statistically. Divorce rates should be very high, in the lower classes, marriages should be far less common and unstable in the lower classes, as women’s hyper-gamy kicks in, unrestrained by the Hyper-gamy Glass Ceiling and superior economic resources of the upper class.
Guess what? That’s exactly what the data says.Charles Murray talks about it in his book Coming Apart. Marriage is very common in the upper classes. Divorce is quite low among the upper classes. Marriage is quite uncommon in the lower classes. Divorce is quite common, among the lower classes….and women initiate 70% of all divorces.
So the data says female hyper-gamy is alive and kicking. Mr. Molyneux is wrong in his interpretation, in my opinion. Mr. M gets 98% there, 98% of the way in proving female hyper-gamy is real, he just didn’t realize that hyper-gamy evolved with LOCKS on hyper-gamy….and the practical necessity of the LOCKS proves that something is real there….and must be dealt with, it’s part of the reality between the genders.
So, Stefan phrases it, is that, quote “adaptability” is how we should understand female nature. I agree with that. But then Stefan also denies hyper-gamy, by pointing out that hyper-gamy varies, depending on social context. And it’s there that Mr. M goes too far, and misinterprets his own data. Yes, females are adaptable. But denying hyper-gamy is like denying water runoff after a rain, in the mountains.
I think we should understand hyper-gamy, as a culture, why and how it evolved, then figure out strategies to deal with it, so we can stop screwing up our culture, family life and marriage.
The key is, marriage has to be a generally good deal for women, or they won’t bother to marry…..that’s female hyper-gamy, in a nutshell. It’s a natural thing, not to be condemned, but to be understood and worked with. The reason women evolved as hyper-gamous in the past, was humans had a very, very hard time surviving in the past. So women had to make good choices in mate selection, in order to survive. Women should definitely not be morally condemned for what is a good and natural behavior. Condemning women for being hyper-gamous is as dumb as condemning a man, for running out of a burning building, to escape fire.
So in the real world, the new economic and social world we now live in: Women can now out-earn men, often. For American women under 35, the women are out-earning the men, right now. Think about the consequences of that: If men and women are to have stable families and look after children, and raise them properly, but the women earn more than the men, why would young people get married, in the first place? They usually don’t today, unless the man makes a lot of money….or is likely to eventually out-earn her.
So, hyper-gamy is real, and economics better start figuring this out, so we can create an economic system for both sexes to flourish.
And this relates to the economic policy of the past 40 years, and “globalization”….meaning the de-industrialization of America, off shoring the jobs, the jobs which were mostly done by middle class American men. At the same time as de-industrialization and globalization was going on, the economy and technology evolved in a way, that more and more jobs that were suitable to women, were created. They were more people oriented jobs with fewer physical demands for strength. And at the same time, automation is increasing….and as we automate, this means fewer and fewer jobs for average men.
Bill Gates has said in the past that he expects about half of all jobs in America could be automated in the next few decades.
It is expected that the most common job for men in America, which is truck driving, will soon be automated. Elon Musk and others are working on it. Don’t bet against Elon, you will lose….automation of driving jobs, will happen, it’s well on the say already. This driving job was often done by average men. In this new economy, how will these average men compete? Will average men suddenly get a 40 point IQ increase and be able to be trained for sophisticated jobs? Unlikely. How will these 10s of millions of average men compete sexually for women? What do they have to offer women, economically? Not much, usually.
With all this in mind it seems that marriage as a stable institution, doesn’t have much of a future….except for the upper classes….where the men have most of the money and can thus attract women.
And this ties into feminism, which has, at it’s goal, equality of income for men and women….as groups. The trouble is, this conflicts with what women actually want and need. What women want is a man who earns more than them…so that if they have a family, she can rely on his income. Besides wanting a man who earns more than her, at the same time, women want women as a group, to earn as much as men as a group. The trouble is, both goals are incompatible, logically and mathematically….if you try to attain both goals, at the same time…..that won’t work.
You can’t do both, at the same time. Logic, math and reason forbid it. We have two mutually exclusive choices. We have to pick one, or the other, as a social goal: We can have an economically unequal society, where men as a group, out-earn women as a group, but then that means that women as a group will never catch up to men as a group, in terms of income. Or you can have a society where women as a group earn as much as men as a group, but the marriage prospects for most women, radically decline, as many women start to out-earn many men. You can have one outcome and goal, or the other. Not both. We need to pick one, and not lie any more about the consequences of our choice.
The closer we get to the goal of women as a group, earning as much as men as a group, the fewer men that are available for those women to marry. When we reach equality in the sense that women as a group, earn as much as men as a group, then what? The mathematical odds, of any random woman earning more than any random man, will be 50%. Currently, with men as a group earning about 30% more than women as a group, this current situation means that there are still a lot of opportunity for women to “marry up”. However, this is quickly changing. Women’s chances of “marrying up” are declining every year, thanks to feminism. As I said, women under 35 now earn more than men under 35, so American women now have few opportunities to “marry up”….since they are economically out-competing men.
….and that can explain a lot about the current low marriage rate, among the young
Just to be clear, I’m not opposed to the feminist goal:
If women want to have the babies….within the very narrow biological window of time, that nature allows… plus work so hard that they earn more than men, so they can financially take care of the man, I’m fine with that. I don’t feel threatened, as a man. You go, girl. But I doubt very much, that’s what women actually want. I suspect it’s going to make women very, very miserable. And I suspect this social arrangement will make women endlessly very, very stressed out….how could it not??? But, thanks to feminist social policy, feminist brain-washing in schools and universities, plus other economic trends like globalization, technological shifts, that’s exactly what women are getting.
We have built our economic system, our social policy and feminism, on the basis of not understanding female hyper-gamy, not accepting that it’s just what women want and not accepting how hyper-gamy relates to family formation and economics. When women earn more than men, stable families don’t form….feminists are wrong. Women want men who earn more than them, they want men who can take care of them, buy them a house, when they have family.
To understand hyper-gamy, we need to understand how society was held together in the past. We need to understand how men and women in the past, were held together, with a series of , what I call “Locks”….My guess is, the female-male pair bond, is held together by a series of what I call “locks”…..
We bind people together, the ties that bind, are, in effect “locks”….and the reason for the locks, binding men and women together, is that we are we are animals in evolution. Females choose among mates, for status, power and resources. They evolved with a strong instinct, a survival instinct, to go for the best male. Then there is the counter-instinct towards pair bonding and monogamy. These two instincts contend with each other, in life. And this creates a lot of social dilemmas, as we all compete for power and money and have families, in a changing world. How do we create enough unity and social cohesion between the sexes, to hold a family together? We evolved a series of social locks through time, to hold couples together, in this tension. We need to examine these locks see how they work, see how they may be defective now, see how maybe our social policies effectively destroy the ties that bind, destroying the social locks holding men and women together.
So blindly we continue to take the Locks off, female hyper-gamy. The Sexual Revolution was one such removal of a lock….the lock was taken off female sexuality, and greater “sexual freedom” was embraced for women. The abandonment of religion was another lock, we took off women. Feminism brought about female empowerment, giving women more economic power. This effectively removed another lock on female hyper-gamy, because when women are economically dependent on men, it binds men and women together….that effectively acts as a lock on female hyper-gamy. But the more economically independent a woman is, the less she needs a man. So female economic empowerment is just another way of taking the lock off hyper-gamy. Granting single women money and welfare, that act effectively was taking a giant lock off female hyper-gamy, as it destroyed the competing economic value of many men. And the economic value of men, acts as a kind of lock, restraining female behavior, binding the couple together, in common interest. And technological trends such as automation have diminished the social and economic status of most men, with the exception of upper class men…..and all this diminishing of economic value of most men, effectively acted like removing a lock, off of female hyper-gamy….meaning she has less and less reason to stick around. As the old saying goes, “when money goes out the window, love walks out the door” And for most people in the American middle class, these economic changes means the lock of hyper-gamy is off, and what holds couples together, is diminished.
One more lock that came off, has to do with having fewer children. Thanks to feminism and other things like birth control and economic opportunity for women, women have far fewer children than a few generations ago. And children acted as a social lock, binding couples together. Divorce rates bear this out. Childless couples divorce at high rates, couples with a lot of children, rarely divorce….there is too much at stake. So family and having children acts as a sort of social lock, on women, if they have kids….and many don’t now, thanks to our new feminist culture and technical changes. Having a lot of kids around creates general social stability. Life is richer, everyone has more at stake, if things go wrong, when there are a lot of children around. So, with more kids, marriage is stronger, divorce more uncommon.
So, I think we have hyper-gamy all wrong. It’s not evil, but it’s a natural thing, likely good for us, if managed properly. We don’t seem to understand it yet, so we are doing much wrong. We have to find ways to deal with it.