Hypergamy

When I first started this blog, I predicted that I'd run out of things to say about politics quite soon, and could carve up a nice niche by talking of East Asian issues from a neoreactionary perspective. At the moment I've been lucky enough to find a good audience just by speaking my mind on politics in general, and I don't intend to stop just yet, but I sometimes think I'd be more useful by bringing forward some real data on what's going on in this part of the world.

Jim's been making a series on women and why they shouldn't be treated as adults. It goes without saying that I mostly agree. I myself did a post long ago on the issue. Allow me to introduce a data point.

Jim linked to the hilarious video of a fake celebrity generating gina tingles in an American mall. Seeing all those hot teens swooning for a fake alpha. Yet alpha is alpha, and a fake alpha is better than a real beta. A lot of oldies and game denialists say that that's modern Western society that has changed women into inmoral skanks. The women of old were more virtuous, as are women in other, more traditionalist countries, such as those in Asia.

Hah. It always cracks me up. So those Asians don't swoon over Alphas? Well allow me to introduce the supreme Alpha male in Japan. Fukuyama Masaharu. Some singer with a grave voice. 44 years old. Unmarried, thought not known to be gay. He's come out as a TENGA user, so perhaps he doesn't care about women anymore. Anyway, see what happened when Fukuyama went live on a popular noon TV show.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player\_embedded&v=ilTHTMZVEbE\]

See all those women? All those shrieks, all those faces of excitement? You can even smell their vaginal fluids flooding out of their pants. And you know what's funny? This show, Waratte ii tomo, starts as 12:00 PM, noon. Who watches TV at that time frame? Single women in Japan are overwhelmingly either on school or employed. So 12:00 PM means it's housewife time. Yes, I'd bet my house that 80%+ of those tingling bitches going to that studio are married and have children. And there's no doubt in my mind that they would throw everything away for the chance to sleep with Mr. Fukuyama.

So yes, hypergamy is a basic, universal component of the female brain. Given the existence of mass media, this kind of mass gina tingling madness is simply unavoidable. And given the overwhelming alphatude of Mr. Fukuyama, statistically only a small fraction of men will be able to control their wives' and daughters' instincts. We can't all be rich, and we can't all be alpha.

So, uh, I hear that men have been known to hoot and holler at strip clubs. And they sometimes sleep around. So remind me again what the argument for female disenfranchisement is...?

Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Married men don't do their shit in public. Men go for relatively objective standards (beauty), women go after manufactured crap such as fame. If you need more arguments head to Jim's blog. It's linked in the article.

Do women really have much different criteria than men? I think it's much more symmetric between the sexes than web rightists construe. Everybody wants a good looking mate who is socially facile and demonstrates some sort of skill. This alpha/beta and hypergamy stuff is a load of bullshit as far as I can tell. I have not an alpha bone in my body (thoroughly neurotic, in fact) and minimal social skills yet have been essentially followed back to my hotel room by a stranger on four occasions because I'm blessed with a nice face and height.

The argument as I understand it is that (1) politicians in general are overwhelmingly alpha men, and the State itself plays a masculine psychological role; and (2) men and women have different cognitive biases: men tend to view alpha men as threats, whereas women tend to view alpha men as opportunities. Thus men tend to have much more realistic attitudes towards the State (and politicians). By the same token, it has been argued that banks that are "too big to fail" should be run by women, who tend to be more risk averse than men. Statistics appear to support at least the first point (e.g. John Lott writing about "the gender gap" in _Freedomnomics_).

There's a subset of women who do fall for male beauty, but is not as universal as in men. What all women fall for is fame. Let me remind you that the original siamese brothers were married with two women and had a big bunch of kids with them.

"eggs are expensive" Hence why all this nonsense about hypergamy doesn't apply to *reproductive* sex (except among the welfare underclass). . "women go after manufactured crap such as fame" Women go after physical attractiveness and/or the ability to financially support children with the emphasis very much on the latter (because eggs are expensive) except when very young. Ergo prime males have both looks and money e.g. film stars, pop stars and sports stars. It's not manufactured. It makes perfect sense.

Explain hybristophilia.

I only figured it out recently. Protection - or at least the ability to protect. Women will be sexually attracted to whatever traits their great-greatgggggggg etc mothers were attracted to in men which had any positive reproductive effect - which includes not only having healthy children but those children also reproducing - and were thus passed down the generations. I would suggest one of those attractive male traits would be a willingness to punch dangerous things in the face. What "bad boys" do is overtly flout a societal rule in front of male and female witnesses basically daring a response from the other men. What they're doing is displaying their abiity to protect by showing other men are scared of them. Women with a particularly high shake of those type of genes get uncontrollaby attracted to dangerous men. The more violent the environment the bigger this effect. The less violent the less. Cops get the same thing all the time - especially after a fright like a burglary.

"Hence why all this nonsense about hypergamy" I don't think it's entirely nonsense. I think back in the jungle hypergamy was the norm but thousands of years of high latitude monogamy had an effect too so women have both sets of traits and which are dominant varies with the woman, the environment she's in and whether it's reproductive sex or not.

Criminals and successful alphas share a large set of attributes and attitudes. It is usually their cognitive and execution abilities and luck that differentiates them. It is not much of a stretch to say that technically all self-made kings are successful criminals. I especially object to using selected examples to "prove" the supposed superiority or failure of a group. Men also go crazy around beautiful girls and there are full of idiotic men. There are all sorts of -philia. Hypergamy simple means women select their perceived best mates. Big news. It is not a problem for women, this is their evolutionary duty; it is a problem for men in the sex competition market.

Not arguing for "superiority" here. I love women as they are. Just highlighting basic biological differences that make impossible for men and women to cooperate in equal terms. Giving women access to political power is simply toxic for men, and at the end of the day, most production depends on men, not women. So women are also better off if they don't have access to power.

You really think women react differently with reproductive and not reproductive sex? That doesn't make any sense. Your lizard brain doesn't know that. Think of it the other way, if men had a different instinct for non-reproductive sex, why would we be so horny?

Women never truly have power though. All their power and given by men who see it facilitative to do so. By facilitative it usually means beneficial to their own power and/or sex competitiveness. As a employer I would consider hiring some women even if they are less productive, if only to made the workplace more appealing for the beta men. The degenerative effect of feminism can be seen as the attritional cost of war among men.

Evolution is amoral. Civilization, at least any that we look upon as "good", has a moral component. The goal of civilization is to help people overcome their negative evolutionary impulses in a way that leads to better societies. If you worship evolution alone then you have to worship people like the recent Boston bomber brothers whose "alpha" actions have created enormous female sexual interest.

Spandrell, I'm interested in your thoughts on Japanese sexual dysfunction. They struck me as rather fucked up when I was over there, but I wasn't really that curious about it to learn to much.

Well if you're a consistent hedonist, with no religious heritage to stop you, and you live in a technologically advanced, tolerant society... You get tons of kink and TENGA. Get used to that from puberty and it's no wonder they find women not worth the trouble. Once you control for that I'm surprised people have sex at all.

Evolution, in the general sense, means how things evolve according to law of physics. Modern civilization is still part of the evolution, and everyone's desires and actions are part of the evolutionary force. Some forms out-compete others. It just happens that female selecting the best mate they can have results in evolutionary competitiveness, therefore it be. What you people are saying is that, you are [i]hypothesizing[/i] that 1) banning female hypergamy impulse will result in a civilization you prefer (subjectively better), and 2) the system you prefer is evolutionarily fit to out-compete others (objectively better). Both are pretty big hypotheses.

>Baker It amazes me to no end that a resident of Hong Kong is not a staunch enemy of female emancipation. HK women are famously annoying, and what's more important, infertile. HK gender relations are a big monument to the unsustainability of feminism.

> It amazes me to no end that a resident of Hong Kong is not a staunch enemy of female emancipation. Misjudged. You should've noted that I never said that feminism is good. I was describing what I see as scientifically as possible. Emotionally trashing feminism doesn't yield anything useful. Understanding the root cause of feminism is male competition in a saturately developed society, does give you a better understanding of why and how of the world and help you better navigate this environment. A root cause of princess-ification of Hong Kong female, besides the British influence, is that the number of male exceeded female in an earlier period due to sex-asymmetric immigration, intensifying male sexual competition. > HK women are famously annoying, and what’s more important, infertile. HK gender relations are a big monument to the unsustainability of feminism. Correct. But also note that Hong Kong males are overwhelming pussified. The majority of Hong Kong males are quite comfortable with feminism.

I understand that, and that's the reason I don't post much on feminism and the like. It doesn't help to get too bitter and emotional. See how I ended my post. But it helps to write about it once in a while. Male bonding maybe. HK males just drink too much 豆浆, but that's just my theory. Your "saturately developed" notion seems to me could use some elaboration.