?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Hypergamy - it's for breakfast! - Tactical Ninja

Aug. 8th, 2011

09:30 am - Hypergamy - it's for breakfast!

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

I did that thing again. That thing where I was innocently reading the internet, and came across an article containing the statement "Women are hypergamous, thus... " And instead of putting my grownup pants on, shrugging at the silliness of some people and moving on, I left a comment:

[citation needed]

And the writer of the article kindly gave me one. This one. Please tell me, oh internets, if I were to hand something like this in as an academic essay, would it be accepted? I had a look at the reference list at the bottom and went "Um.." - maybe I'm turning into a snob, but after reading the tripe opinion-stated-as-fact that makes up most of the *cough*essay*cough* cited, seeing the complete lack of proper referencing and the amount of other opinion pieces that were referred to made me go "Wot a load of bollocks." So I left another comment:

Peer reviewed, academic citation please, not just opinion.


The reply I got was "Google it, bitch."

Yes that's right, asking for demonstrable evidence of a statement made broadly as if it's universal fact draws insults before it draws evidence. Somehow I wasn't surprised by this. A bit of to-ing and fro-ing happened, which involved the writer attempting to imply I have a mental illness and am off my meds (by posing as my mother O.o) and then attempting to turn it around to make me prove that women aren't hypergamous. And some statement about how men have to do something and if they don't they are pussies and if I don't believe that then *loop back to mental illness implications*.

Still no research produced to back up the original statement though. And now someone else has jumped in and wants to know if I'm a woman and if so, do I find lots of men attractive wherever I go.

Leaving the heterocentricity of that question aside, I am wondering why this is relevant. The answer is of course, yes I do find lots of men attractive. Some women too. I thought that was pretty normal - I've yet to meet anyone of any gender that only ever finds one person attractive at any given time. So what does this multiplicity of attraction prove in terms of hypergamy? I have no fucking clue. My guess, using evo-devo logic, goes something like this:

I find lots of people attractive even though I have a partner. Clearly my partner is a beta pussy and I'm out to ride the alpha cock carousel. I'm keeping my options open so that when I find a higher status male I can then ditch my current partner and move up the status ladder myself. TA DA! Hypergamy!

Except, um, believing in alpha and beta is a bit like believing in god and the devil if you're a pagan. And assuming that attraction = love is like saying sheep = cows because they both have cloven hooves and chew their cud. Never mind that, you know - agency. Dunno about these people, but I have this remarkable ability to choose whether I act on an attraction or not. And weirdly enough, I don't find status all that attractive.

And anyone who would label Dr Wheel a 'beta pussy' has not met Dr Wheel. Just saying.

"But Tats, surely that proves your hypergamy! If Dr Wheel isn't beta, he must be alpha, therefore you're moving upwards already!"

Up from where? How does my own status factor into this, hmm? Oh yeah, that's right, my status relies on that of whatever man I'm shagging. Except not. Measures of status in these people's world seem to be about power and money. I have plenty of both - does this make me high status? And will this affect what I find attractive? I am really confused about this hypergamy thing, which is supposed to make life simpler by predicting behaviour based on .. oh wait.. an assumption! An incorrect one at that.

Thing is, what I find attractive has nothing to do with power or money. I do have a bottom line for partners - can support self. But that's not the same as can support me. I'm perfectly capable of supporting myself, therefore all (hypergamy-based) bets are off in terms of what I'll look for in a mate. And, you know, being able to wake up with them every morning and be happy about that, being intellectually, humour-ly, sexually and personally compatible are much higher on my list than some socially-constructed idea of status.

And that's the rub. Hypergamy in women does exist, but it's mostly expressed in societies in which women routinely do not have avenues for their own agency. In these societies, women are generally less educated and more oppressed. In these cases, the only options for many women are to marry a man with status, or starve. The more educated* women are, the more hypergamy declines - without the predicted 'marriage market' problems, no less.

The thing is, many proponents of hypergamy as the natural state of women are also of the opinion that women are not oppressed, that in fact men are oppressed by Teh Evol Feminists. To which I say "So which is it? The research demonstrates that hypergamy is a product of oppression - to insist that women are hypergamous is to admit that women are oppressed. If women are not oppressed, then they are not hypergamous. Again, which is it?"

The reply: "I am beginning to think you are autistic."

At which point I rested my case because there's no need to say more, is there?

[edit] Ooh ooh, there's a final shot from said person: "Then get the fuck out, douchebag. I’m not here to play pattycake with a child. If in your experience women prefer low-status males, then simply support this claim. I provided you with one of the best links which support female hypergamy, and you disregard it on grounds that it is not “scientific”. What do you want, e = mc squared? Pythagorean theorem? You won’t get it. Hypergamy is not a geometric “proof”. It is a notion that since knowledge itself is uncertain and unstable, it is the tendency of females to the seek out the most resourceful males. It is a “theory”, not a “theorem”. We are not speaking of individuals here, but of women in aggregate, so spare me this NAWALT defense, you won’t find anyone who buys it.

Now go away you autistic little shit. Fuck off."


*ROFL* Successful troll is successful! (only i wasn't really trolling la la la)

* Yes, that's an academic paper, with graphs, tables, statistical analysis and OMGPROPERREFERENCING!


tl;dr I had a weak moment on the internet and engaged with evo-psych True Believers.

And yes, that 'citation' provided actually did state 'men are simpler' as an attempt at an academic argument.

Comments:

(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 7th, 2011 10:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
But.. but.. it's one of the best links which supports female hypergamy!

To which I am thinking if that's the best they can do, they are completely sunk. Also, they have no clue what research actually means.

To the Archives with you! Otherwise, a life of giving in to your natural womanly gold-digging instincts awaits.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:polychrome_baby
Date:August 7th, 2011 10:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The only parts of my own culture or other cultures wherein I know that women exist in that way are also cultures or segments of my own culture where men "trade" up as they gain status, financially, politically and socially. "Trading" progressively for younger, more physically fit and socially ideal women.


In general, though, I've found these both to be more of a cultural cliche than statistical reality. I assume they are based on what makes sound sense on a purely biological basis, but do not take into account the anthropological reality that human behavior is more nuanced due to our complex cultural strictures and traditions and the very many different influences our neurobiology plays into less obvious mate choice.

I often want to reduce things down to anthropology, neurobiology and pure biology when examining human behavior, and am quite flummoxed when I see people disregard the first two for the last. Even bonobo behavior isn't that simple, so why the hell should human behavior be such?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 7th, 2011 10:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Because women like pink because of the colour of the berries in the forest. Duh.



We are all slaves to our DNA, no agency or power of reasoning. No culture, no variance, no exceptions.

Now, men - go hunt me a mammoth.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 7th, 2011 10:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The mental image of the airport one is less disturbing.

But neither are as disturbing as the mental image of you and your giant testicles waving a 20-foot long steel spear around. In my picture, the testicles won't fit in the helicopter.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 7th, 2011 11:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So you're saying that Real Men evolved jeep-shaped (if somewhat hairy) testicles, necessitating the invention of helicopters so that they could still get around, otherwise the skinny 17-year-olds would ditch them for smaller-balled but more mobile beta pussies?

There are no mammoths, yet there are helicopters. Clearly your logic wins!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 7th, 2011 11:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
But the sexing relies on your ability to provide me with a mammoth.

No mammoth, no sexing. Please hop to it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 12:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
How about we both jump on the carousel and leave the blonde 17 year olds and the mammoth-hunting alphas to each other?

(sounds like more fun)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 12:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, and it has lasers, which were invented by non-17-year-old women to make it easier to find - because our eyesight is going you know..
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:02 am (UTC)
(Link)
There better be room for me, or I'm going to have to euphemistically shake my peacock feathers at you.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:07 am (UTC)
(Link)
We would shove some poor alpha off to make room for you AND your feathers.

Trufax.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 12:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
Real Alphas just stare the mammoth into submission and make it cook itself. True facts.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
This sounds like something I need to model with ecological models to prevent further extinctions. This is the real reason you try to avoid excessive international travel isn't it?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:18 am (UTC)

Directions for future research

(Link)
What other pachyderms are affected?

We need to send Happy to South Africa to see if the rock hyraxes keel over.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
I would totally be impressed and swooned by a man hunting me a mammoth. Given it'd involve inventing time travel.

I love you, but .... TIME TRAVEL!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:08 am (UTC)
(Link)
So if I invented time travel and hunted you a mammoth, what then?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
*censored*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:thatgirljj
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
That made me giggle a bunch.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:pombagira
Date:August 7th, 2011 11:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*bounces about* just cause
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 12:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
If I'm going to be a greek symbol I'm going to be Omega. It's so much cooler than all those symbols that sit up at the front of the alphabet trying to impress the retarded theorists.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 12:57 am (UTC)

This? This is why my gamy points at you.

(Link)
You're right, alpha is boring and beta looks like a pair of breasts on a stick.

My first love will always be π though, because it's so useful. Mmm, π...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:01 am (UTC)

I prefer my breast on women.

(Link)
The pi is a lie!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:05 am (UTC)

Re: I prefer my breast on women.

(Link)
They will pry my pi from my cold dead hands!

(because tau doesn't lend itself nearly as well to bad puns)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:07 am (UTC)

Re: I prefer my breast on women.

(Link)
Well, I'm going to go have a shower now and dry myself with a tau-l.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:11 am (UTC)

Re: I prefer my breast on women.

(Link)
You should constantly know where your tau-l is.

(that was weak please stop me)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrouswheel
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:04 am (UTC)

Re: This? This is why my gamy points at you.

(Link)
Also, the ironic thing is that their extreme reactivity in response to you is the antithesis of being "alpha". Alpha's don't care and are detached from outcome. A bit like buddhists.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:09 am (UTC)

Re: This? This is why my gamy points at you.

(Link)
Apparently calling me a bitch is supposed to make me pant for their hot cock or something.

I don't get it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:pythia
Date:August 8th, 2011 01:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
"Clearly my partner is a beta pussy and I'm out to ride the alpha cock carousel."

*gigglesnort*
Best sentence I've heard all week.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 02:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
I have found this entire thread highly amusing, and reinforcing of why I choose to hang out with actual people instead of evo-psych cardboard cutouts.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:raincitygirl
Date:August 8th, 2011 02:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
This post is made of win, and the comments are made of even MORE win!!!!!!!!!
(Reply) (Thread)
From:38
Date:August 8th, 2011 08:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What a bunch of bullshit spouting douchenoodles.

Also,this:
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/memes-loses-argument1.jpg

(not directed at you,but at them :) )
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 8th, 2011 08:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I try not to judge people by appearances, but that dude in that photo.. wow.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:38
Date:August 8th, 2011 08:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's "Scumbag Steve" xD some of the pictures in that meme are...questionable,or at least the things written on them,since he's portrayed as a really sleazy,misogynistic guy,but some of them are very funny!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:labelleizzy
Date:August 28th, 2012 08:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
visiting the past, because the tag of "i want your alpha cock apparently" was irresistable.

yanno, I couldn't be bothered reading past the first page of that ridonkulous "research" paper, due to the tyop on the first page. Just LOLWUT.

Too much lols.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tatjna
Date:August 28th, 2012 08:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Evo psych people are a bit special, eh?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)