H-Y-P-E-R-G-A-M-Y. Find out what it means to me!

Out and about in the shopping centre, I kept hearing the song 'Respect' first sung by Aretha Franklin, but reproduced by many others.

The line R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means to me! grabbed my attention, not so much for the demand for 'respect' as the 'find out what it means to me' part.

I have always been at odds with this line, by the way. By that I mean that it has always struck me as odd. Now of course I know why.
It always seemed a touch abrasive for a woman to be demanding of a man for 'respect'.
And it seemed somehow 'unfeminine' to me even before I understood what femininity meant.
Like most (feminine) women, I would rather be loved than respected.
I didn't get it that Aretha Franklin wanted 'respect'.
Unless she meant a specific form of respect which even I would demand of a man without verbalising it...
But I am getting off topic! (as usual :-)

What I applaud Aretha Franklin for in this line is the request for the chance to 'clarify'.
Male-female communication is often flawed because we have different brains.
I usually have no problems understanding other women when they speak or otherwise communicate with me (and I often communicate non-verbally with women!).

But sometimes when a man is being as clear as he thinks he is being, I am still scratching my head as to how to decipher his 'code'.
It is sometimes amusing, but more often than not, it is tragic.
At least for me.




Hypergamy is a word that is bandied about a lot in The Manosphere.
When I first came across this word, I thought it sounded like a disease.
:-)

Things haven't changed.
Because if it is indeed descriptive of how The Manosphere define it, then it is a disease that I wouldn't want.

Speaking of which...

I cannot verify the authenticity of the following story, but given the context, perhaps it should indeed be taken with not just a pinch of salt, but a bucketload.

On April 1st, an online florist company sent its customers an email offering them a choice of flowers to be delivered direct to their door for a special occasion of their choosing.

The following were on offer:

1. Narcissus sylvestris
2. Arum vulgare
3. Viola alba
4. Candida albicans
5. Viscum album
6. Narcissus jonquilla
7. Lanicera caprifolium


Only one of these is not actually a flower. And surprisingly, it was the most popular choice.
Incidentally, no-one chose either of the Narcissus species :-)

Thanks but no thanks to the Candida albicans.
But those who chose it clearly were not aware of what it was.

A bunch of florists having some fun on April Fools' Day.
But somehow I feel I cannot afford to have a laugh about what certain words mean to me.
In the course of blogging about specific issues in the SMP, it has struck me just how differently men and women see the world. The difference in perspective is really more than even I expect sometimes.

Which is not a bad thing, of course.
Men and women should be different.
Otherwise we would all be some weird form of hemaphrodite.
And that would be boring for a start. And there would be no more of us in the coming years :-)

In any case, feminism attempted to do away with said differences.
And look where that took us.

Occasionally, I feel the need to clarify something, if not to anyone else, at least to myself.
This is one such occasion.

This is how The Manosphere defines hypergamy, at least this is my understanding of its definition:
'Woman marries up, and keeps looking out for even higher status men and will trade up at the earliest opportunity that suits her, i.e. when first man is no longer of use to her'.

And this is mine:
'Woman seeks the highest status man she can get and stays with him because it is in her best interests and that of her subsequent progeny to remain a unit with said high status man'.



Both involve a woman seeing a man as bigger, stronger, taller, maybe even cleverer, etc.
The only ones in denial of this reality are those whose heads are stuck in the sand upside down.

But the similarity ends there.
The difference between my definition and The Manosphere's definition (and of course this is based on their perception, which is in turn based on their reality - so I am not blaming anyone for this) is the 'trade up' thing.
This whole 'trading up' thing: that's a relatively recent phenomenon, no? A sister of the EPL phenomenon?
And to me, it doesn't even make sense in Nature.

A woman is the audience of a male 'mating dance' of sorts where several men figuratively (and in many cases quite literally!) 'peacock' their way into her life, with or without her express and often covert help. She may not be totally passive in the whole process - and very often, she is actively complicit in the whole selection process.

Assuming she is a normal woman, with good character, a 'trade up' to a different man, after a few kids with the first man doesn't even make sense.
It is wired into most women to join forces with a man and keep him around to care for the young with her.
It is thus in the best interests of a woman to keep the connection going.
Barring serious reasons, it is against a woman's best interests to break this bond.

But, I wonder, is it even right to call it a trade up?
How many women really succeed in trading up?

Often, it is a trade sideways, or in most cases, a trade down.


Hypergamy?
No.
Folly.

If on April 1st next year I get an email saying: You have  a choice between the following two diseases: Hypergamy (as The Manosphere describe it) and C. albicans...
(Um, yes, I never seem to get the kind that offers you a choice between £5m upfront and £200,000 a year for life...but my lack of electronic luck aside...)...

I would choose the latter.
In the face of two evils...