darkmatter24
Posts: 34
Joined: 4/27/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jj292 There is some truth to the hypergamy claim. It's partly due to cultural history. Historically, women didn't work much at all outside the home. A woman would marry, raise the kids, cook, work in the home. The man would go out and work and provide for the family. That's just how it was for centuries. Men, at least in theory, could work hard and eventually gain more wealth and social status over time on their own. The only way women could gain wealth or status was through marriage. So families would always motivate their sons to succeed and do well in the world. Then they would motivate their girls to marry a successful man. That's the way the family can gain in status. This is generally correct when describing a particular period in time when social roles were already established, but I think it would be beneficial to understand why respective gender functions evolved the way they did. It's not because anyone made a conscious effort to steer them in that direction; it's because it was the optimal way, and societies that adhered to it survived. Men always had to be the risk takers who did the most dangerous tasks. There are two reasons for that: 1. They are physically stronger 2. They are expandable from a procreation perspective. Few men can impregnate many women, but few women cannot sustain the population. It means that any society worth its weight in survival had to put special care in protecting the life of women. Women could not be sacrificed in combat like men could, even if they were able to physically rise up to the challenge. It simply wasn't an option. Perhaps there were tribes/societies that attempted this approach, but none of them survived to tell the story. quote:
ORIGINAL: jj292 In the western world today, those days are long gone due to a combination of economic forces and the advancement of women's rights and feminism. But traditions and cultural dynamics tend to take a long time to change, especially in more religiously conservative areas. Today, 60% of college graduates are women. Already, 40% of households have a female breadwinner. Hypergamy is going to become mathematically impossible as the society moves more and more towards equality and women start climbing the social ladders themselves. And we are starting to see that in the upper levels. Often, rich women will complain that they can't find a suitable man to marry. It's not that there are not any good men out there...the problem is she has priced herself out of the market. Her standards are way too high. On the other hand, it is true that there are some men who are intimidated to be with a woman who makes more money. He may worry that society will judge him harshly that he's not "wearing the pants" in the relationship. Yes, women can assume the exact same roles in the modern world that men can. And yes, that means they will probably have to adjust their expectations as to the kind of men they pick as partners because the higher you are on the totem pole, the fewer people there are above you. And it works both ways of course. The higher a man is in the pecking order, the more picky he will be in selecting the woman he wants. It presents a bit of a challenge for those at the top of the procreative food-chain because social status does not always match physical attractiveness, so mutual expectations of both genders will diverge. quote:
ORIGINAL: jj292 So our social dynamics that society used to organize itself for hundreds or even thousands of years is going to become obsolete very quickly...within this century. Both men and women are going to have to become more flexible on the gender roles. Actually, I don't think so. Women with a lot of power and influence do not want effeminate men. And vice versa. Stay at home fathers do not want butch women - they want feminine girlfriends and wives. Gender roles are not going to change. It's the method of assessing potential partners that might be under pressure to change. It remains to be seen exactly how it plays out.
|