@Rainman4707
Responding to a page of the old lady....
Honestly I think Rollo has a narrow view. I know there exist women who fit that belief/value system, but certainly not all women do.
Perhaps Rollo's beliefs reflect his reality and experience as a married man.
Some thoughts:
His belief really applies only to young women of childbearing potential who desire children and dont have the resources to be completely self supporting. This belief would be far less likely to be true of a careerist woman in my opinion. The belief also is transactional at its core, and while ALL relationships are transactional or contractual (marriage), the currency can vary a great deal depending on individual factors.
If a woman wants children (which will mean she has to assume the risks and obligations associated with pregnancy and childbirth and caring for an infant/young child) then a man's ability to provide for his family is something to think seriously about as a practical matter.
What if she experiences medical complications or a short term disability during pregnancy? What if she gets put on bed rest and can't work? What if the baby is seriously disabled or premature or something else unexpected and expensive happens?
You don't want the father to be a deadbeat with no ability to support his family. A woman takes great physical risk in pregnancy & childbirth, up to and including death, even in today's modern world.
So women who want to be mothers are wise to consider a man's ability to support her and a baby. Pregnancy has many unknowns that cannot be reliably predicted.
As far as the hypergamy piece? I think this term is greatly misused in the manosphere. Hypergamy means a social climber when you look at the real definition arising out of Indian society's caste system. A woman who marries with a motive of rising from one caste to another.
Relatively few women actually do this in western society. The vast majority of young women marry a high school or college beau who is of similar age and usually of similar social background. Then they "do life" together. This is my son & daughter-in-law for example. They were high school sweethearts, have gotten married and are embarking together on life's journey. Was she looking to punch a ticket to a better life on his coattails when they started dating at ages 16 (her) and 17 (him)? That's silly. They fell in love young and have stayed together through thick & thin. They are certainly emotionally invested in each other. That's good. It's the best glue alongside satisfying sex in a relationship.
In my opinion I think few women are hypergamous in the real strict sense of the word. Women want a man they find attractive who has his act together. She will choose typically the man she finds to be her best choice from the options available to her. This is not hypergamy. Men do exactly the same thing....pick the best choice from options available to them. Its what humans do in mate selection, period.
This should not surprise anyone.
But I think "hypergamy" is a cope used by men who don't like the options available to them. It's an excuse for not looking at the real issue, which is what limits an individual man's choices.
A Victoria's Secret or Sports Illustrated swinsuit model (for example) is going to be an exceptionally beautiful woman being very well compensated for her images. She is nearly universally beautiful or she wouldn't be in the catalogue or magazine. She is going to be selecting from elite level men as she is an elite level woman. She's not going to be with a tubby middle age middle manager. To expect otherwise is complete unreality.
Emotional investment is important in any successful meaningful relationship. Agree there. It goes both ways.
Water seeks its own level. This is true of human relationships too.
My 0.02.
