This is true. However this is not "hypergamy". Hypergamy comes from the Indian caste system. A woman is hypergamic if she married up to a different caste level.
Let's discuss your belief system where you state you believe hypergamy to be a woman's modus operandi. I appreciate that your intent is not to pass judgement at all - it's just your belief system, I think the belief system is where some men struggle with a woman like myself.
Also, this is long. For that I apologize.
To apply that in a more broad sense, to say I'm hypergamic if I earn 200K and he earns 275K is honestly not true in the real sense of the word nor its original meaning. If I was a waitress marrying a millionaire then yes, I would agree on the hypergamy argument.
To marry someone who is my same level or same caliber or above empirically as far as income goes is not hypergamic if you are both in the same social class. Hypergamy is moving up the social class system.
Kate Middleton (who I think is a lovely woman and a good feminine role model) is hypergamic by the definition of moving up in social class.
But to say that me expecting leadership qualities is hypergamic is just throwing a term at something where it doesn't fit.
Add to the mix that the natural order of things (from a reproductive standpoint, a Biblical standpoint, a historical standpoint) is that the man should be the leader of a marriage and that the woman should defer to and assist the man, and we have a dichotomy here that comes from application of the term "hypergamy" in too broad a sense. This creates a disconnect. That disconnect is as follows:
"Women are hypergamous...but many men don't want/fear/are suspect of a hypergamous woman."
"Women should defer so men can lead them (but note how a very broad definition of hypergamy interferes with this premise) and so a man must be capable of leading his particular woman."
Both lines of thought conclude that women are hypergamous; therefore women who seek a man's leadership are hypergamous.
It is a fixation on an overly broad definition (an inaccurate definition I would suggest) of the term hypergamy.
See how these two lines of thought compete and conflict with each other? This creates a cognitive dissonance on the forum that can be seen in various threads from time to time. It creates a level of distrust.
I think of it more like military rank. If I'm a 2 star general I might confer with other 2 star generals but I take orders from a 4 star general. That is the way of things. If I'm a major I take orders from either a 2 star general or a 4 star general. If I'm a 4 star general, I CONFER with other 4 star generals, I do NOT take orders from a major or a 2 star general, but I take orders from the commander in chief. One can rise in rank in the military and in life. As you rise in rank your place in the hierarchy changes and so do those whom you lead and those to whom you defer.
As to me, nevermind that I don't care about getting married, so hypergamy (marrying up in social class) as far as I am concerned personally doesn't apply, and second of all I am already moving in social circles that are at my caliber etc. so it's a red herring argument regarding me personally. I think some people, not necessarily
@SkrooU use the term loosely and as a means to justify their own shortcomings in the sexual marketplace.
I mean the man I see currently was originally married into an extremely wealthy family of greater means than he has. And his own family was well off. Was he hypergamic? Was he opportunistic? I know another man who married a woman from a wealthy family who is unhappy sexually but he stays with his wife because to get divorced would remove many of his clients and business people and ruin his reputation. He is dependent in a way on his father-in-law. Is this hypergamic? Opportunistic?
We all know that people (not just women) are drawn toward money and power and influence. I've seen many men marry for (family) money. These men most often end up unhappy because they do not wield the power in the relationship, rather the wife or the wife's family (most typically the father-in-law) does. But in these cases the man sacrifices himself in a way for his children to be of the family and be legitimately from that class, or that family, or that money. Both the men I am thinking of knew the woman they were planning to marry wasn't the right match before the wedding. They got married anyway. Was that the right thing to do? I don't know.
The course this thread has taken is actually kind of interesting. The whole question is who are these women, how are they different from the generalized woman; how is their behavior different from the generalized behavioral framework men assume to be operationally true with regard to women? The generalizations men make here often do not apply to me or women like me. I represent a minority in the marketplace. Again this is the rationale behind the post at the outset, which is what everything comes back to. That is, who are women that are outliers from the paradigm many men; most men operate from?
The whole premise of this thread is that there is a part of the dating market that doesn't fall completely in line with how men expect women to behave in male/female relations and how to recognize and understand differences specific to this part and how to relate to this minority (who are generally more not less desirable as a group).
The problem is that some men have a rigid belief system for whatever reason and therefore have difficulty acknowledging any behavior beyond the generalizations. So rather than expand one's perspective, some men want to cram the outliers into a compartment where they don't go.
Expand your thinking. Be fluid as
@guru1000 always encourages men to do.
