Hot off the presses, a criminally patriarchal research paper has concluded that men with higher income and status have more reproductive success than women with high income and status have in industrialized nations. First, to set the table, an excerpt from the abstract:
It is concluded that an evolutionary perspective helps explain reproductive patterns in modern humans and may thus make a valuable contribution in the assessment of urgent contemporary problems.
The sexual market is the one market to rule them all, across space and time.
– Le 156% Heartiste
Female hypergamy, female education, female economic self-sufficiency, low female fertility…choose any four.
In terms of social and economic status, men date across and down, women date across and up. Industrialized societies filled with overeducated careerist shrikes make it more difficult for both men and women to find long-term reproductive partners. What the West has done is weaponize female hypergamy, so that the only winner in this zero sum mating game are the HSMV alpha males who can serially date and marry increasingly younger women.
In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.
Low status beta and omega males are bigger losers in this new world order than they were before under the rock solid pre-femcunt patriarchal system, because the women who would be theirs under the old rules have decided to skip past them for a shot at 1. the high status alpha or 2. a tub of ben and jerrys.
The biggest DARWINIAN WINNERS are the charming jerkboy cads and the sociopath hedge funders.
Post-America alpha males enjoy not only reproductive success (in an environment in which widespread use of contraceptives thwarts the ability to convert bangs into bangbinos), but sexual success:
Potential fertility — that’s a nerdy way to say “sexiness”. Men with high social and economic status in industrialized and primitive nations alike — HSMV alphas — monopolize the hottest babes, and probably more than their fair share of the plain janes too. The Pill and condom don’t thwart the sex act; those things just thwart the consequence of the sex act, and incentivize women to liberate their sexuality (which in practice means liberating themselves from beta males). Imagine how many little snot-nosed Heartistes (heartots?) would be running around creating kindergarten mayhem if the Industrial Contraception Complex didn’t exist.
How unequally is sex distributed in industrialized jizztopias? Very:
There are interesting eugenic/dysgenic possibilities to ponder from this knowledge. There is dysgenic selection pressure on high status women — at least as measured by income, social status, and their proxy, IQ — but eugenic selection pressure on their male counterparts, the HSMV alphas who are having more kids.
This isn’t a complete picture, though, because female mate worth is so much more tied into their physical beauty. Those HSMV alpha males are choosing less educated, less wealthy, lower SES “status” women who are younger, hotter, tighter, so by Darwinian calculation the end result is very eugenic: capable sons and pretty daughters. This is evidence that the West is beginning to pursue the patented CH BOSSS strategy of sexual market health and societal reinvigoration.
I’ve been warning about this stuff for a while, and I’m glad to see ¡SCIENCE! finally catching up with Heartistian observations. There was only ever going to be one effective response by men to the emergence of weaponized female hypergamy (and it wasn’t cuddly beta supplication).
Game will save the West….in one respect, by heightening its late stage contradictions and encouraging a change in course.
***
On the silliness of the “wage gap”:
…and the silliness of the feminist narrative about the “patriarchy”:
******
Some juicy excerpts from the paper linked in this post:
religiously homogamous couples have a significantly lower chance of remaining childless but a higher average number of children, even controlling for religious intensity…
***
In addition to the fact that close inbreeding carries genetic risks (discussed previously), this may also be the case (p. 485) for distant outbreeding, although the effects of outbreeding are far less clear…
***
…homogamy along certain characteristics has consequences as well. Particularly educational homogamy may be an undervalued risk factor, resulting in less permeability of social stratification and hence a stronger segregation of the social strata. This has negative consequences for “social cohesion,” increasing the tensions within a society.
***
In times of global mass migrations, the high prevalence of religious homogamy, together with its reproductive effects, may also have far-reaching implications because it may lead to the breakup of societies into “parallel societies,”…
Word of the day: Homogamy.
It is the secret Truth that shivs miscegenation propagandists dead.
…empirical evidence for a fitness advantage over generations by reducing the number of children and investing more in fewer children is minimal or absent. Evidence suggests that on the one hand, low fertility increases the progenies’ socioeconomic position, but on the other hand, it reduces long-term fitness.
***
In addition, different strategies of maximizing versus optimizing fertility may lead to a conflict between the sexes.
Aka the modren sexual market. The battle of the sexes has never been more pitched than it is now.
[crypto-donation-box]
