It's a scientific fact that hypergamy does not exist
Red pillers always use the excuse that women practice hypergamy but that's not true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/kyrqm0/its_a_scientific_fact_that_hypergamy_does_not/
Summary (taken from scientific sources)
-FACT 1: People will date similar others in many domains, including overall "mate value" (ex.: 7’s date 7’s). People will end up with those who are similar to them in many characteristics, including "mate value"
-FACT 2: People date partners of similar value not just because more attractive people select between each other living less attractive people to select among themselves (Ex.: "settling for someone") but because there's also a tendency for people to naturally like those who are at their own mate level.
-FACT 3: There's further evidence that women aren't more choosy than men. Rather, it's men that are less choosy than women
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200008835_Integrating_Evolutionary_and_Social_Exchange_Perspectives_on_Relationships_Effects_of_Gender_Self-Appraisal_and_Involvement_Level_on_Mate_Selection_Criteria
The overall conclusion is that men relax their standards immensely for casual relationships as in comparison to women, while for more serious levels of involvement, differences in choosiness are small to none.
-FACT 4: Women who date down don't divorce more often
https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/kyrqm0/its_a_scientific_fact_that_hypergamy_does_not/
Summary (taken from scientific sources)
-FACT 1: People will date similar others in many domains, including overall "mate value" (ex.: 7’s date 7’s). People will end up with those who are similar to them in many characteristics, including "mate value"
Quoting Conroy Beam et Al (2019)
https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2019/08/assortative-mating-and-trait-covariation-EHB-2019.pdf
Humans mate with self-similar partners across a wide array of dimensions. For example, mated partners tend to be improbably similar to one another in terms of education (Mare, 1991), intelligence (Bouchard & McGue, 1981), and physical attractiveness (Feingold, 1988). One critical dimension of assortative mating is that for “mate value,” or overall desirability as a mating partner (Sugiyama, 2015). To the extent that all individuals vie for the most consensually desirable partners on the mating market, those highest in mate value tend to have the greatest power of choice and use that power to select high mate value partners (Kalick & Hamilton, 1986). Mated partners consequently tend to have correlated mate values (Shackelford & Buss, 1997). Such assortative mating for mate value creates “cross-character assortment”: correlations between mated partners on otherwise independent traits (Buss & Barnes, 1986). Consider a scenario in which humans mate assortatively for mate value and mate value is determined by just two preferred characteristics: kindness and intelligence. All else equal, a kind person will be higher in mate value and will tend to attract higher mate value partners. These high mate value partners, relative to randomly chosen partners, are disproportionately likely to be intelligent. Assortative mating for mate value will therefore pair kind people with intelligent partners at above-chance rates. Such crosscharacter assortment does occur in married couples for specific traits; for instance, physically attractive women tend to marry men higher in status and resources (Buss & Schmitt, 2019; Elder, 1969).
https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2019/08/assortative-mating-and-trait-covariation-EHB-2019.pdf
Humans mate with self-similar partners across a wide array of dimensions. For example, mated partners tend to be improbably similar to one another in terms of education (Mare, 1991), intelligence (Bouchard & McGue, 1981), and physical attractiveness (Feingold, 1988). One critical dimension of assortative mating is that for “mate value,” or overall desirability as a mating partner (Sugiyama, 2015). To the extent that all individuals vie for the most consensually desirable partners on the mating market, those highest in mate value tend to have the greatest power of choice and use that power to select high mate value partners (Kalick & Hamilton, 1986). Mated partners consequently tend to have correlated mate values (Shackelford & Buss, 1997). Such assortative mating for mate value creates “cross-character assortment”: correlations between mated partners on otherwise independent traits (Buss & Barnes, 1986). Consider a scenario in which humans mate assortatively for mate value and mate value is determined by just two preferred characteristics: kindness and intelligence. All else equal, a kind person will be higher in mate value and will tend to attract higher mate value partners. These high mate value partners, relative to randomly chosen partners, are disproportionately likely to be intelligent. Assortative mating for mate value will therefore pair kind people with intelligent partners at above-chance rates. Such crosscharacter assortment does occur in married couples for specific traits; for instance, physically attractive women tend to marry men higher in status and resources (Buss & Schmitt, 2019; Elder, 1969).
-FACT 2: People date partners of similar value not just because more attractive people select between each other living less attractive people to select among themselves (Ex.: "settling for someone") but because there's also a tendency for people to naturally like those who are at their own mate level.
-FACT 3: There's further evidence that women aren't more choosy than men. Rather, it's men that are less choosy than women
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200008835_Integrating_Evolutionary_and_Social_Exchange_Perspectives_on_Relationships_Effects_of_Gender_Self-Appraisal_and_Involvement_Level_on_Mate_Selection_Criteria
The overall conclusion is that men relax their standards immensely for casual relationships as in comparison to women, while for more serious levels of involvement, differences in choosiness are small to none.
-FACT 4: Women who date down don't divorce more often
Esteve et Al, 2016
Do relationships suffer in societies in which wives have more education or earn more than their husbands? Evidence from the United States suggests they do not. Prior to the 1980s when men clearly had more education than women and hypergamy was the norm, men who married women with more education were more likely to divorce. However, as the situation reversed and wives now have more education than their husbands, the association between wives’ educational advantage and divorce has disappeared. Among marriages formed since the 1990s, wives with more education than their husbands are no more likely than other couples to divorce (Schwartz and Han 2014). A similar trend is observed for couples in which women earn more than their husbands (Schwartz and GonalonsPons 2016). This suggests that, at least in the United States, couples have adapted to the changing realities of the marriage market. A recent study of marriages in Belgium in the 1990s found that those where the husband has more education than the wife are more likely to dissolve than marriages in which the wife has the educational advantage. In line with the American findings, the same study also found that the latter type of marriage is more stable in regions and municipalities where they are more common (Theunis et al. 2015). The implications of the growth of hypogamic unions for fertility are more difficult to establish since there is virtually no research that measures whether women who marry men with less education than themselves bear more, the same, or fewer children than women married to men with the same or more education. A recent European study showed that couples in which women have as much or more education compared to men tend to have higher fertility than couples in which men have more education than women (Nitsche et al. 2015).
Do relationships suffer in societies in which wives have more education or earn more than their husbands? Evidence from the United States suggests they do not. Prior to the 1980s when men clearly had more education than women and hypergamy was the norm, men who married women with more education were more likely to divorce. However, as the situation reversed and wives now have more education than their husbands, the association between wives’ educational advantage and divorce has disappeared. Among marriages formed since the 1990s, wives with more education than their husbands are no more likely than other couples to divorce (Schwartz and Han 2014). A similar trend is observed for couples in which women earn more than their husbands (Schwartz and GonalonsPons 2016). This suggests that, at least in the United States, couples have adapted to the changing realities of the marriage market. A recent study of marriages in Belgium in the 1990s found that those where the husband has more education than the wife are more likely to dissolve than marriages in which the wife has the educational advantage. In line with the American findings, the same study also found that the latter type of marriage is more stable in regions and municipalities where they are more common (Theunis et al. 2015). The implications of the growth of hypogamic unions for fertility are more difficult to establish since there is virtually no research that measures whether women who marry men with less education than themselves bear more, the same, or fewer children than women married to men with the same or more education. A recent European study showed that couples in which women have as much or more education compared to men tend to have higher fertility than couples in which men have more education than women (Nitsche et al. 2015).
36-40, FVIP
