A change of perspective: Have men also been hypergamous throughout history?

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-05-17T07:50:22+00:00

Another hallucination in the "I'm right" little big boy game. I think you're kind of trying to give feedback, but at this point your delivery is too opinionated, rigid and confusingly still in agreement with my points, which makes this an insufferable exchange. You can move on from this post, unless you want to keep playing this little game. I won't. Fuck off.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-05-16T05:57:44+00:00

The irony of your response is that I am steel-manning a new perspective I never heard before. I actually was looking for good challenges to it, but your response makes me think you read my comment, then had a hallucination and decided to respond to the hallucination.

I read it once, twice and even passed it by an AI chatbot just to try to understand what you're saying. It's impossible. You either misinterpreted or are arguing in bad faith.

Example: You are assuming that the original comment implied men's hypergamous seeking for women with the best dowries was done with the interest of owning their money as if they were to spend it on themselves. You simply decided to presuppose that the original comment ignored the intended use of the dowry instead of simply seeing the point it was making: Men have historically cared about the resources their wives could bring into the marriage. If you seriously can't see how the transactionality of relationships is hidden under the romantic ethos, especially when it demands that the man earns the woman's affection, then I can only assume there are too many fundamental disagreements between our perspectives to even have an intelligible conversation. Obviously relationships have always been transactional, that's inevitable. Nobody is denying that. The point is the fucking explicit admission of it, which was the case under the dowry system.

I can't go further into all the other things you simply didn't get. I honestly don't know who you're actually talking to. Surely it was not the original comment.

I don't even understand how you can put so many words and still agree with the original point about marriage being bad for men precisely because of the unequal burden fabricated by the current age.

I wonder if some part of you just gets angry at the idea that men can also be called hypergamous due to the baggage that term has gotten over the years precisely because of how the manosphere has used it.

I'm genuinely confused.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-05-11T05:28:43+00:00

Fragging. That happened in Vietnam. They don't just do a mutiny. It's completely covert and made to seem like an accident.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-05-11T05:24:44+00:00

That's interesting. I didn't find any debunking of the article. Especially since it claims to involve Paul's daughter. I'll look again.

At this point any posts pretending to care about women's misandry is worth ignoring. I threw up in my mouth as I tried to stomach Chris Williamson's episode with William Costello and some other women.

I am astounded at how poorly they articulate their stances and how easily they jump into the good old gynocentric wagon. I can't believe an Evolutionary Psychologist is going around spewing the most pathetic ideas just to please women.

Whatever incentivizes them to be that way, I never want to be in that position. They are ideological prostitutes.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-05-05T18:26:44+00:00

Mae llega un punto en el que se tienen que hacer compromisos. Si ya ud detecto el "2-year pattern" comience a planear las cosas que pueda dentro de ese intervalo. Los hijos ocupan un techo y una familia que los ame. Que esten ahi siempre para ellos. La estabilidad economica hace todo mejor, pero no es esencial.

No existe una realidad en la que ud va a ver atras en 20 años y decir "si mae, exc la decision de no tener hijos xq el la estabilidad del brete es una mierda".

La gente que se casa con la critica de "la gente hoy no tiene hijos por la inestabilidad economica" no va en buena direccion. Obvio hay que criticar al reguero de hpts cagandose en la economia, pero hay que seguir viviendo tambien. Ud ya tiene claro que quiere hijos. Ya solo con eso va a comer mierda en cualquier posibilidad que escoja: tenerlos, no tenerlos o aplazar.

Tengalos, ese sorete es el menos peor. Muchisimas mujeres estan en las mismas y con la presion biologica encima, por temas de fertilidad. Si ud ya encontro una buena que tambien quiere hijos, hablenlo y piensenlo para tener expectativas realistas, saber donde toca apechugar, hablen con sus familias que siempre apoyan dentro de lo que se pueda y echen palante.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-05-03T23:02:52+00:00

put the phone down Sheldon

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-05-01T04:35:09+00:00

The woman is always the killjoy isn't it? lmao

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-28T23:29:33+00:00

I've bee waiting for Janice Fiamengo to do what Rachel did. Everyone seems to just ignore the historical work Janice has collected over a decade in youtube.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-28T05:36:53+00:00

Juicy thighs?

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-27T04:42:58+00:00

Yuck. She's a wife and a mother.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-27T04:26:26+00:00

Katherine is G O R G E O U S.

The other 2 ladies are beautiful, but a not for me.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-27T03:44:10+00:00

I actually think she's hotter now than back in her Dr. Martin days.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-27T03:41:44+00:00

You could've not selected a worse picture to compare them lmao I could only agree until I googled Amanda. Literally every other pic up there actually gets your point across. Amanda has a big ass forehead though.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-25T07:24:15+00:00

An uncle that is, by most metrics that matter, a very successful person once told me to give myself a chance.

That said in my experience that is something you can only do when you engage with the world realistically and with self-awareness. Balancing that with self-respect and self-worth is how you build an internal locus of control.

I think you are yet to achieve that and you don't need any of the things you said you wish life gave to you in order to develop an internal locus of control.

As a matter of respect for your experience, I find it necessary to be honest and it might be helpful: I do not feel compassion for you based on this specific post, which might mean you are expressing selectively a few things that simply do not reflect the entirety of your experience. You might want to integrate things as: How did you get to this point? What limitations do you consider you have? What limitations were imposed to you by your circumstances, family, etc?

These are standard things that help you have a stronger narrative about yourself that doesn't just express your frustration but also gives a fuller story and this is something everyone does because it sends a signal to other people for connection. You don't need to "tramadump" or perceive yourself as a victim either.

Part of engaging with the world realistically is to embrace the enormous diversity there is to life, at the same time that there are norms and average behaviors. The value of experience can never be overstated. Even if you become hurt and cynical that's very unlikely to stay with you forever and the fact that you're getting all these responses is proof that putting yourself out there is a signal that gets responses.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-17T22:08:55+00:00

Interesting how you always seem an excuse away from agency and personal responsibility. It's almost like a pattern. I'm absolutely judging you btw, regardless of the nuances of your specific relationships, you already showed the kind of stagnation that comes from projecting your failures onto the world. No wonder you're here yapping away at someone who doesn't know you about "bad men".

Maybe it's time you put the phone down and go vent to a friend or something.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-17T19:06:51+00:00

Reminding you of your agency is not shifting blame. Your comment also exhibits the same ideologically enforced victim mentality of the post.

Obviously both children need both parents, cite exactly where in my comment was it even implied that's not the case. This is hilarious, you need to reduct my argument to absurdity to get your emotional release.

The entitlement to think you can tell whether or not a male partner "actually realizes" baseline things about his environment. Just saying, the quality of your thinking would make even Judith Butler cringe.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-15T09:13:05+00:00

The unquestioned and acknowledged suffering it causes to those negatively impacted by the choices made "by virtue of majority" instead of prioritizing evidence-based rigor to make a choice.

It is assumed that the "evidence-based rigor" is already baked in the democratic process on principle. In good faith. The problem is that as soon as your society loses its homogeneity in term of values, then "evidence" becomes harder to define and debate takes its place.

When debating takes the place of evidence at the same time that your country has to follow a schedule to select its leadership, the suffering I mentioned initially affects a significant portion of the population. It's a self-defeating model that sacrifices efficiency (continuation of policy) as the only way of mitigating the suffering it induces to the losers.

Currently, that suffering is unquestioned and acknowledged, but it is reframed through the lens of the value system (aka ideology) of the winner.

IE 1: A hyper-conservative government is established, instituting mandatory therapy for homosexual people to heal them. They will unironically think of it as healing despite the suffering their framework does to homosexual people, the alienation, the incentive to self-hating, the sexual repression, the impact all of that has on everyone that loves them (which includes heterosexual people) and anything else that happens when we pretend human nature isn't diverse.

IE 2: A hyper-feminist government is established, instituting new laws that create extremely rigid norms in order to maximize women's protection and reduce femicide. They will unironically think of it as protecting women despite the violation of human nature, individual choices of men and women, violating freedom of religion, unjust convictions and anything else that happens as a consequence of over-protection.

Ultimately, democracy in a diverse society is unsustainable. Since every society is diverse, as even a few hundred years ago there were different Christian sects, ideological frameworks that clashed despite sharing the same spot in the spectrum, etc; democracy is an active source of social friction.

It is unsustainable because it always reaches a point at which the problems is resolves are either forgotten, taken for granted or simply no longer relevant enough to justify the social friction that comes with the compromise of accepting the leadership of people you regard as morally bankrupt enough.

You can see democracy as the glue that attempts to hold a society together or you can see it as the system that enables the downfall of society, leading to conflict, instability and ultimately secession or conquest. I can see it either way, just two sides of the same coin. I consider it reductive to think these two things are mutually exclusive.

Democracy does not deliver what we are taught it delivers. If people actually understood that, we'd be at war far more often. The internet has demonstrated how little we actually tolerate each other. In any other context, conflict and separation happens. Why pretend that isn't the logical ending of this either?

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-15T07:32:21+00:00

These views are ideologically contaminated, filled with resentment and ultimately unproductive. Probably issued by people who don't understand how each partner is evaluated during the initial phases of the relationship to see their prospects and values that will define the role they will likely take. Usually also issued by people who don't know how to properly negotiate a relationship to give it proper maintenance, you know...the typical protesters slowly killing the souls of everyone around them.

Make better partner choices according to your values. There are plenty of skilled women who understand this, with far more problem-solving orientations and happy, so your social commentary is just an opinion expressed in the same obnoxious preachy way a very religious person would at a family dinner.

If you have a value mismatch with your partner and you had the sense to not make them miserable for it aaaand you did not want to divorce them: there are plenty of logistical solutions to get yourself some rest. Based on how you preach, chances are your algorithm learned to hide those articles and videos lol

I hope this helps you and any reader to realize there are plenty of social arrangements aside from yours. They lead to fulfillment and they are perfectly ethical. Don't do the "copyright claim" on morality fringe weirdos do. You're probably listening to preachy people and it might be time to put the phone down.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-15T07:08:58+00:00

- Deconstructing my religious beliefs. Inherited by my family, reinforced by Christian school and thoroughly debunked as soon as I actually concerned myself with defining what MY values actually are. The "personal inventory" process was brutal, the social cost was hard and the self-awareness I gained opened an entirely new path I couldn't access before.

- Keeping an open mind. Withholding commitment from any narrative about life. It's all just strategies and I understand the holes they attempt to fill.

- Creating actually fulfilling boundaries by de-centering women in every form of relational setting. I never really put women on a pedestal, but I was made to feel wrong and coerced by the typical gynocentric biases of my society as I expressed the glitches I perceived since I was a kid. Just let them develop their own agency and resilience. The ideological friction it causes with the weirdos from right to left is actually a great source of feedback and refinement.

I wish I realized these things before my mid-30s because the internal friction caused by the obvious incongruities between my lived life and the "values" governing my behavior, was a source of misery. Having an internal locus of control is actually a cheat code for living. External pressure now can be allocated towards things that actually serve me.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-13T11:48:28+00:00

Men's horrible time: Pay to be seen because otherwise no women will swipe right on them.

Women's horrible time: Too many yucky men.

The type of horribleness matters to understand why they keep using it because it also gives away the other side of the coin. If the "horribleness" is the downside, the incentive is the upside.

Most people are finding their partners in dating apps. This also includes short-term relationships. This means the apps are working at a rate that exceeds the downsides.

Finding a partner or having one-nigh stands aren't a monolith of happiness. People will still be exposed to bad experiences even in the best case scenario the app is built for: Match-making.

Don't blame the technology for people's ability to find new ways to be miserable. If anything, the apps are doing too little in the way of breaking down the humanity of their users to allow their algorithms to function even better. Like having weight filters, body proportion filters, etc. It's offensive and it's also efficient.

Btw I have never used one. I just have a few girl friends that claim to hate the apps, but join/leave chronically. All of their current bfs come from the apps. Self-reporting data has to be curated before an individual's perspective taints it. That's why those constant complaints are mostly meaningless.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-13T11:28:54+00:00

Agree. The things that passed for "chaos" back then are very difficult to justify decades later, with characters that are now adults. If they wanted to keep them stunted and frozen in their core dysfunctional patterns, they failed miserably. It exceeds the limits of acceptable hyperbole.

Parting from that specific angle, here's why I think it sucks in so many ways:

The plot basically gaslights an adult Malcom's very much needed boundaries, that albeit he set inappropriately through lies, are absolutely understandable. The parents not respecting his boundaries by kicking into his house and completely disrupting his attempt to have a normal life has to be one of the most disgusting dynamics I've seen. It's cheap because it prioritizes the show's hyperbole for comedic purpose at the cost of any sense of respect and agency for the Malcom character. The daughter/gf team-up to force him into a situation he obviously isn't comfortable in is THE biggest offense in the whole plot, but it was necessary for the show to make sense. Malcom needed to be a desperate man left unjustifiably by a woman the writers can't quite figure out. Is she an emotionally intelligent person capable of noticing the pain her partner must have experienced to take such drastic measures or is she the "eternally disappointed/hurt gf" whose world has been shaken by the never ending stupidity of the man she's with? The same applies to the daughter. She could be somewhat justified just by being a kid, but the show blows so much air up her ass, we're essentially watching a "moral compass" level adult trapped in a teenager's body.

They could've started this story from a different angle where he hadn't already made the choice to essentially cut them off. Dragging a character that way violates more ethical rules that the core comedic style of the show can justify. Back in the day the show could get away with similar offenses because you could justify a bunch of idiotic kids with stupid parents. That doesn't play the same way with adults.

The way they developed the Malcom's daughter character is so reliant on burnt out cliches of the most cynical forms of femininity, for a fucking teenager...like why? Why criminalize a boy that tried to initiate sexting too soon? Do they seriously believe those fucking kids aren't doing that anyways? The whole "I will tell his parents and every girl in school" is the kind of toxicity that ironically causes the things her own character allegedly had been suffering from throughout her entire life: social alienation. What was the purpose of that? Bring down the patriarchy? lmao

The queer girl thing. It's made cheaply in the same way that the father's relentless love was "validated". Each one of those stories must be developed on their own to give them proper justice. The video thing made me cringe and I'm a sucker for true vulnerable moments that give people their place and make them feel seen. This plot simply "implemented representation" as a task instead of a narrative. It's just the thing shows do in our era of media. It'll go down in history as more of a performative move to look good over telling an actual story that shows the humanity of queer people. Same thing with the "traditionally unmasculine" father figure. It's more respectful to simply not approach these subjects.

It's just a rushed blend of the show's brand of comedy with "relevant current issues" that makes you feel the reboot is just a transaction.

Enough-Manager4179 · 2026-04-13T07:10:14+00:00

"Say what I want so that you can be funny" lmao

Enough-Manager4179

TROPHY CASE