Talk:Hypergamy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 23 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raequel.Sank. Peer reviewers: Raequel.Sank.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hypogamy
The word "hypogamy" typically refers to instances of the inverse occurring: marrying a person of lower social class or status.

By definition, if one spouse is engaging in hyprgamy through getting married, then isn't the other spouse simultaneously engaging in hypogamy? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So is the problem that it is redundant to state that or that the statistics show that hypergamy is a largely female phenomena? I would agree with the first one but the second one is backed by solid numbers. 12.227.104.109 (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment
While the hypotheses propounded in the discussion of "Hypergamy" are certainly fascinating, there is not likely to be a whole lot of recent academic literature on the topic. This is because the topic is Politically Loaded (politically correct or incorrect depending on the view propagated). As with all things Politically Loaded, the majority view will dominate and the minority report will be crushed. This is not a simple empirical inquiry, like observing bacteria. If either side perceives a threat from the certitude or lack thereof of the implied Experimental Hypothesis (Ha) or a professed conclusion, the party thus threatened is likely to dispute the idea in a Flat Earth Bunker Mentality mode. This, per se, is contrary to the spirit of academic inquiry. It would be helpful if BOTH sides confined their reactionary comments and stuck to factual disputes and dispassionate advocacy of this side or that. And finally, these ideas may or may not turn out to be crank science in whole or in part. Whichever the case, people still have the sovereign right to Think for Themselves. Does anyone imagine that a feminist contraponent (however "feminist" is defined and I know it means different things to different people) will simply accept this as gospel? Does anyone imagine that proponents will simply accept a contrary hypothesis or evidence which undermines their position? Of course not. Either side could threaten the emotional "validity" of their True Religion. It really would be nice if a dispassionate discussion could be had, but we all know better. As for me, I know good and well that this sort of thing is a 3rd Rail. I'm not touching it. I won't say and you won't know if I'm in Favor, Against, Eclectic, or simply disinterested in pismire discussions altogether. I really thought that the modern age would bring with it a cessation of burning heretics at the stake. We can see everyday and throughout history that this is not the case. And thus, I wish you all the best fun Thinking Official Thoughts (and Unofficial ones as well).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkar (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the role money plays in determining how women select long-term male partners is often considered a taboo subject, and is rarely discussed openly.[5]

The truth is taboo in society and even in wikipedia as I can see. . ..

That's funny. Rappers rap about it all the time.--Maltwhiskman (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rappers don't produce academic literature that is subject to peer review. 68.46.42.9 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Rappers" produce music that is very much subject to peer review. If the underlying message within the lyrical depiction of reality is not commonly accepted as "accurate" -- the music does not gain popularity, generate revenue, or make it's way into mainstream media.

My theory is relevant --- "If there is a shred of truth OR belive-ability contained within, the underlying message will gain popularity." --- In simple terms --- "If you've heard of it, it has some degree of substance."

Citation/Source
I was hoping I could get a fresh pair of eyes on this: "Discussion of the role money plays in determining how women select long-term male partners is often considered a taboo subject." I feel that the source does not definatively say this, however NJGW and I differ on this opinion. I hope a few people can look at the source and see if we are accurately portraying the information stated in the citation. Angryapathy (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a little WP policy research, and I think the one that applies best here is WP:SUBSTANTIATE, and secondly WP:ASF. They both dictate that we should list who the source of the information is. Angryapathy (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Restored content
I restored the Dalmia & Sicilian (2008) study because [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypergamy&diff=prev&oldid=579643662 contrary to the claim that the source does not support the statement], the authors summarize their findings: "Finally, we use the match matrices to examine whether marriages in our samples exhibit hypergamy (women marrying up) or hypogamy (men marrying up). Despite popular and some academic belief in the existence of hypergamy, we find no evidence of hypergamy or hypogamy." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that their methodology (cross-selectional, examining variables of currently married couples, rather than the relative status of before marriage couples and their mate selection criteria) supports their conclusions. In any event, won't argue it; but I will later add some more relevant articles that that directly look at pre-marital mate selection preferences and actions. Memills (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, whoever wrote the last sentence in the "Prevalence" section.
"Even in relatively gender-equal societies it's accepted that attractive young women will often mate with powerful Older Men. "

Thank you so much, that just made my day. Although the tone of the sentence may be a bit casual(but totally golden), so is this talk post. Thank you again.

12.227.104.109 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your response, but as I was coming to the talk page to raise concerns about that particular sentence, I think it's interesting someone else has already singled it out. I'm really not sure what the function of that sentence is in this article. Upon reading it, I found myself momentarily disoriented, thinking I'd wandered over to TV Tropes by mistake. The hyperlinking, at the very least, is oddly formatted for a Wikipedia page, not to mention the problematic nature of stating a social judgement as fact.

enlisant 17:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth.Hurd423 (talk • contribs)

Contradiction
The last section of the "Feminism and Hypergamy" section states:

Because a hypergamous marriage is unequal, hypergamy has been criticized for reinforcing and perpetuating gender inequality in society overall, for example when highly educated women married to high-income men decide to stay home to raise children rather than pursuing their own careers.

A highly educated woman marrying a high income (and presumably, also highly educated) man is not hypergamy. Hypergamy is generally woman with little or no education and/or poor earning capacity (long term, anyway) and youth/attractiveness (fertility markers) marrying wealthy and/or high status men (of any age or appearance level).

Hypergamy = more money. The man can be uneducated peasant but won 3 millions lottery. Guess what? a lot of women getting thirsty now for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.25.59 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also add, this actually fails logically. An educated woman marrying a wealthy man, whether she works or not, becomes wealthy via his wealth. So it doesn't perpetuate gender (financial) inequality at all, except speciously on paper if we pretend that couples don't have shared wealth (granted - this is generally how such figures are used in the "gender pay gap" fallacy).

Moreso, nothing is said here about the "unequal" being disadvantageous to male, who brings more to the table than his mate and therefore sacrifices a greater share of his wealthy. Does this make any sense?

I'd also include for example, overweight women who date primarily thin men, asian women who exclusively date caucasian men etc. also practitioners hypergamy, at least as far as societal norms go.

General Service Announcement
Don't bother yourself with this stuff. Go out there and make your life better. Thanks

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hypergamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412152104/http://www1.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/ec_evolanth.pdf to http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/ec_evolanth.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

needs a MGTOW analysis
There's a "feminist analysis" section already, and as awareness of hypergamy is a foundational cornerstone of MGTOW, having a feminist analysis and no MGTOW analysis is rather like having a Christian analysis of Judaism and no Jewish one. Or maybe more like a Nazi analysis of Judiasm and not a Jewish one. Oh yeah, that'll give you the unvarnished unbiased truth all right.

And the MGTOW perspective is that hypergamy is a female tendency, an instinct women have. It's not a rationally decided course of action taken by a poor family, that's silly. It is that which causes women to divorce their husbands (and 3/4 of divorces are filed by women) because she thinks she can find a man with more money, or because she decides she doesn't need him any more because all that's driving her is money, and she can do better with just getting his alimony payments, child support payments, and government social welfare payments due to the help of the gynocentric laws on the books put there over the last 150 years by feminism. It is why nice guys finish last, because women instinctually perceive men who treat them badly to be of higher social standing than herself and so choose the nasty choice as a romantic partner, and then friendzone the nice guy because she thinks he's beneath her and he's the last one on Earth she would ever be a sexual partner with. And it is why women have higher standards than ever before now, since they have so many available options (the government welfare and indentured servitude and subjugation involved in alimony and child support, reducing men to a slave caste) in addition to the ready abundance of men of high social standing and monetary status willing to give them a one-night stand now that marriage in general is on the decline, causing them to overvalue their own sexual marketplace values (they all think they're 10s, even when they're 2's and 3's, because they can get a man who's a 10 for one night, but not in a committed relationship), and this results in women not settling for any man less than Batman or Christian Gray, which of course they fail to get because 90% of women are going for the same 10% of men, and eventually becoming fat misandric cat ladies in their 40s lamenting "where have all the good men gone" (hint, you ignored them when they were in their 20s because they didn't have enough money for you because when YOU were in your 20s, you were going after the rich men, and now they have their choice of 20 year old women so why would they want you). It's all about misguided evaluation of sexual marketplace value and priorities, and fallacious projection of one's own motivations onto the opposite sex because of indoctrination into the feminist dogma of tabula rasa and identicality (mentally) of the sexes, so the women think men are looking for a good provider because that's what they themselves are looking for, so they think they bolster their marketplace values by being good providers (not that they want to be, they still want to be provided for, by a man with even more money). Meanwhile the men aren't looking for a provider because they don't have the hypergamy instinct. While the women judge men by their bank accounts, the men judge women by their bodies, and are looking for a young and pretty fertile thing, they're not willing to look past a fat 40 year old woman with a high paying career's age and appearance because of her career, the way that fat 40 year old woman isn't biased against a 40 or 50 year old man provided he has a career and income above her own. THAT is the MGTOW philosophy of hypergamy. As for citations, I could only point to the big youtube channels (most especially the user "turd flinging monkey") as this isn't published literature with popular acceptance as just saying it is cultural taboo, again thanks to feminist indoctrination of the masses.

184.100.233.241 (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A lot of this is just a very fickle diatribe. Appealing to notions such as an unvarnished truth don't help if you compare your side with "a Jewish perspective on Judaism" while comparing the feminist analysis to "a Nazi perspective on Judaism". I suggest that, prior to working on any substantial changes on the article itself, you sort out your priorities and biases first.LaTrobairitz (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This page has a feminist bias, that's why he made this post. For the record MGTOWs do base like a third of their writing on hypergamy it seems, but every other manosphere contigent seems to do so as well.  Person who made this subsection was asking for a NPOV through balance or deletion Willwill0415 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Feminist analysis
What's the point of having a feminist analysis and not a manosphere or MRA analysis? Especially when the former hardly ever acknowledges the word and the latter uses it constantly? Willwill0415 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The answer is contained at WP:RS. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Gold-digging?
I think the first section should not contain the word "gold-digging", for hypergamy and gold-digging are the closely related but different concepts and treating them as the same concept leads to confusion. As the Wikipedia article says, gold-digging means "type of transactional relationship in which people, especially women, engage in relationships for money rather than love", and it does not necessarily mean marriage. According to the web article mentioned in the footnote, "Gold digging is a rather self-centred experience in comparison to hypergamy, where the essential element is to be acknowledged by other people", which suggests that these two are different. If there is no objection, I will remove the reference to gold-digging in a week. I think if this article has a short section explaining the similarities and differences of these two concepts, it will be helpful. --saebou (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the word "gold-digging". --saebou (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the replacement of sourced content with rambling personal commentary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Illogical sentence
This sentence seems not correct to me / doesn't parse:

"Across studies, 3 out of 4 women rated socioeconomic status as more important in a prospective marriage partner than did the average man."

Either it should be _more_ women rated ... than did the average man or the last part should be changed. As I'm not familiar with the data I don't want to make a change myself and risk introducing an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1582:8180:8D5E:A8BB:5CE7:2C8E (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)