The “high-status men” theory has existed for eons, and is part of science for a few decades with plenty of studies and research. Mostly in social psychology and evolutionary psychology and biology, as well as zoology (of primates) and anthropology.

Biology isn't destiny… But going for status is a large part of women's drive and instict, and to deny is to deny nature.

Status is also not always (or even most of the time) defined through money. Money is just ONE form status… A poor, but confident and daring guy who commands attention wherever he goes, has higher status, than a rich, but submissive spineless son of a rich-man.

To deny Hypergamy, is really, denying reality. Its not a end-all-be-all feature of women… but neither is looks for men. But to deny that looks and youthfullness matter to man, is to make the same mistake you're making about women (that they're status blind).

The “high-status men” theory has existed for eons, and is part of science for a few decades with plenty of studies and research. Mostly in social psychology and evolutionary psychology and biology, as well as zoology (of primates) and anthropology.

Biology isn't destiny… But going for status is a large part of women's drive and instict, and to deny is to deny nature.

Status is also not always (or even most of the time) defined through money. Money is just ONE form status… A poor, but confident and daring guy who commands attention wherever he goes, has higher status, than a rich, but submissive spineless son of a rich-man.

To deny Hypergamy, is really, denying reality. Its not a end-all-be-all feature of women… but neither is looks for men. But to deny that looks and youthfullness matter to man, is to make the same mistake you're making about women (that they're status blind).

Also, “high status” males? Bwahahahah. Dude, you gotta stop watching those “pickup-artist” programs. I had more sex, more often back when I was an always-hungry, homeless, long-haired, unemployable, usually-needing-a-shower high-school dropout — with a Gomer Pyle hillbilly accent no less — that at any other time in my life. Back then every woman was “high-status” compared to me, but… none of them seemed to mind. Including a statewide “Junior Miss” pageant winner, a diplomat's daughter, girls from lower, middle, and upper-class families.

You know what they almost all had in common though? (Besides bad taste in men I mean?) They all had the idea that they'd be able to live independently some day and so they generally weren't as fretful about picking the “wrong” guy who might not turn out to be on the “right” track to support them.

Oh yeah, and since they had ambitions of independence and partnering with the men of their choice instead of the wallets of their choice, they weren't worried so much about their “reputations” and so they tended to be a lot wilder in bed. More experiemental. More up for new stuff. More willing to say what they liked, and more willing to try it again if they did.

I have had sack time with women who seriously joked with each other about marrying some guy and “lying flat on my back drinking Cutty Sark and eating bon-bons for the rest of my life.” And they're fun in bed too, don't get me wrong. But they were way more likely to say “I'm not that kind of girl” than “nah, that doesn't turn me on.”

In other words, it sounds like you think men are such disagreeable life-forms that women will only hang with them out of freaking, shrieking greed or desperation, but never love, friendship, or pure, unadulterated horniness. Shrug. If I was a woman, which once again I'm not, I wouldn't want to hook up with a guy who felt that way about himself either, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to hang out with a guy who felt that way about women.

So. What's your plan? You can sit there and stew over how you can't buy your way into a woman's bed anymore, can't force your way into a woman's bed anymore, and aren't allowed to lie your way into a woman's bed anymore either. And you can fume and call that femifacism or castrating communism or whatever. Or you can look around and take a look at who's the bigger threat to your manhood — the women who just want to be treated like people, or whoever the sam hill it was filled your brain with “no sex for you unless you earn it?”

Also, you think women are “hypergamous?” Look at the language men use when talking about sex! “Getting lucky” “she's out of my league.” “Scoring.” Not to mention “getting some.” That's all talking up, man. But for the more general case did you actually read Elaina Rose's paper? Where women are so “hypergamous” in India that… their parents kill them in infancy? That's not women making the decision is it? No, because a dead baby girl can't make any decisions at all can she? It's their parents who are making the “hypergamy” decisions, and f**king murdering their little girls if they can't get what they want out of it.

Clue? That's what feminism is trying to stop. Another clue? Prof. Rose talks about “disadvantage faced by successful women in the marriage market.” Right. She thinks marriage is a market where men buy women and women sell their asses and no woman (and no man for that matter) ever married for love instead of property transfer. Feminism is even more opposed to that than it sounds like you are.

So, who are you siding with here?

I don't know though. You're so caught up in the lies you've been told you can't get that it's a healthy, happy, and horny 6'3″ 200 pound man that's talking up feminism. But the thing is feminism isn't just good for women, it's great for men. Once you open your eyes.

Good point. Women speak openly about male gendercide, the uselessness and redundancy of males. Take a look for crying out loud it is mainstream.

For GOD SAKE I mean female professors speak openly about killing off men in The Chronicle of Higher Education

(a newspaper that presents news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators. The Chronicle of Higher Education is the major news service in the United States academic world.)

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/ar...

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/10/mg...

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/en...

—”HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, sure they were. I haven't seen any articles from any feminist that treat sexual mutilation of males as anything other than hilarious at best, or not really a crime, at worst.”

Hey Bob, can you imagine a society in which women were treated like shit and when their breasts were cut off with garden sheers everyone laughs and make late night talk show jokes about it….The men say “she had it coming” Can you even imagine?!

LOL, I hate to inform you lady but women are overwhelmingly hypergamous in mating preference of males. Education and earnings for women actually makes it less likely that they will marry and have a child….. Take a look and get back to us when women no longer look for high status, resourcefully successful males and try to castrate them from being so at the same time with your draconiancommunist femifascist laws !

Education and Hypergamy, and the “Success Gap” by Prof. Elaina Rose * Department of Economics University of Washington contact email erose@u.washington.edu
http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2005/01...

Soooo do you see how ironic feminism is? Men will get our independence as well and you will not like it… Men will gain the right to fatherhood as well Ms. Feminist.

Please also see my blog at rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com

What a load of garbage. Feminists want special treatment for women, and thats all there is to it. They want 42% of the US's new jobs despite having lost only 20% of the old ones, they wanted, and got, a white house council on women and girls despite the fact that by most measures they already do better than men and boys, they wanted, and got, a sexist, racist cow on the Supreme Court just because she's a female cow. etc etc.

As for the idea that the rhetoric of the 70s was a response to such attacks on women, where is the male equivalent of Valerie Solanas Scum manifesto or Sally Miller Gearhart's, “The Future—If There Is One—Is Female” Come on, where are the male documents calling for women to be wiped out? They dont exist.

Feminists don't get a bad rap, they actually get a good rap, they get treated as if they have a just cause when what they really have is the female equivalent of the crap you find on Stormfront

My point being it's the same with feminism. Feminists get a bad rap. End of the day they just want two things — the same things everybody wants: to be recognized as human beings instead of treated like property, and for people to behave towards them like human beings instead of animals. And same as anybody they get ticked off any time someone says they can't have those two things.

As for the 1970s comparison, I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but the extreme rhetoric from feminists back then was usually in response to equally extreme rhetoric going the other way.

Someone telling someone with an advanced degree in refractory-metals engineering they can't have a job they weren't just qualified for but actually hired for because the department head said “the only position for women in this lab is on their backs,” as happened to a friend of mine, would make anybody angry. Being told that legally there wasn't a thing she could do about it didn't exactly make her day either. Then Rush Limbaugh goes and calls people like her Nazis for trying to change that.

And you know what? Just like John Madden or Lyle Alzado she'd be great to sit down and have a beer with too, if you drank, or pie and coffee if you don't.

Point is when it comes to the Raiders you made my point for me. And by extension you made my point about feminism too. They get a bad rap.

Just saying.

figleaf