Yes, exactly. That's why I find myself turned off by Tomassi's stance, some of his tweets are basically saying to men to avoid 'gold-digging women' and save your money, those hypergamous females are basically out to get men in his eyes it seems. But as you point out, the biological reality has worked out for humans for a long time.
I haven’t read his tweets but I have read his first book. While it’s interesting, I didn’t think there was anything really ‘groundbreaking’ in terms of behavioral science. I guess it is like an interesting summation of some of that research, although there is some bias since it’s just his theory. What I think would have helped some of his arguments would be if he included links to the actual studies he references.
While there does seem to be a flavor of animosity in some of his writing (anti-fem, pro-masc), the book didn’t come across as that anti-woman to me. What I got was more along the lines of him being opposed to ‘feminized social conventions’ that are not doing men any favors (nor women) and by men taking that as the basis to model themselves it leads to many ‘beta’ males which he terms as “AFCs” (average frustrated chumps) and this is his attempt to disabuse them of the mindset that they find themselves in.
It’s something like 1 part behavioral ‘science’, 1 part pop psychology, 1 part self-help advice for men and 1 part relationship/dating advice. It’s a mixed bag of things, some of it good and some I would say rather crass. There’s definitely some separating the wheat from the chaff required.
He does touch on some biology so that’s not absent from the book. He essentially says that the core biological imperatives are deep structures that have been around for years, operate below the level of consciousness and generally do a good job of promulgating the species. He includes into this ‘biological imperative’ hypergamy. A more detailed explanation from the book:
The theory is more like this, from what I have read. Hypergamy is a woman’s natural (which is to say, genetically wired) preference for a higher status male– that is, higher status than herself and also higher status than the other men in her field of vision and also perhaps higher status than men she has known in the past and even (at the extremes) higher status than most men she can personally imagine meeting. That cuts across a range of possible relationships, all the way from a one night stand to marriage. In all cases, women naturally prefer the highest status man they can get. And sometimes they want so much status that they won’t settle on any man they could actually get.
“Status” has a varied meaning in this definition. Certain things correlate with high status, for instance money, prestige, social standing, etc. However a man can have all of that and still be low status because of low status intra-personal behavior (i.e., needy schlumpitude). The highest possible status male would be rich, good looking, fit, well dressed, high social cache, high prestige job (preferably one which involves risk, physical risk being better than mere monetary risk), and also extroverted, dominant, the leader of his group of friends, able to command any social situation, and so on. However, women are wired to be turned on more by the latter behavioral traits than by be the former substantive traits. So, if you have to choose one or the other, to get women, be socially dominant and a broke societal loser rather than socially awkward and a rich societal winner. But best to be both, if possible.
As to marriage, sure women want to marry up. But this does not exhaust the effects of hypergamy. Women can marry up– both intrinsically and in their own mind– and still ditch their catch because someone “better” comes along. That is hypergamy at work. Also, when women are pursuing short and medium term mating, hypergamy has no less force. They always prefer the most socially dominant male they can get. This is often relative (A& B are both a little dweeby but A is more alpha than B and since I want someone NOW I choose A) but sometimes it is more intrinsic (A& B are both a little dweeby and even though A is a little more alpha, since I don’t have to have someone NOW, I am going to hold out for the Real Deal).
It’s not all about marriage. It’s about mate selection across the range of circumstances.
I think what’s missing is that ‘hypergamy’ is played by both sides. Except in the case of men factors like fertility and looks carry more weight. From wiki: men express a desire for an analogue of hypergamy based on physical attractiveness; they desire a mate who ranks higher on the physical attractiveness scale than they themselves do.":51
Although the degree to which that factors in does appear to be more heavily weighted towards woman, and can understand as to why he would default to hypergamy as the root cause of all said behaviours , even though I don’t necessarily agree with all of it. The reality seems to be a lot more complicated than that and there is no one ‘all encompassing’ theory that can predict what we will do and even more so why we do it (since often times we don’t really know). I do think that his argument has merit however, when one considers how much of the world is mechanical and driven by biology although I did wish he wouldn’t keep saying “... because hypergamy!” for everything but I get his point.
Studies have proven that men even into their 50s find women in their early 20s the most attractive, and those women will be more fertile so the man will be able to have children more successfully than with a woman who is over 35 years old.
He talks about that in the book and it's a pretty interesting chapter. But basically the curves where a man's 'sexual market value' and a woman's smv peak at around 40ish and 25ish respectively. I can't say for certain whether his chart is actually representative of the reality but it does seem to line up with the studies. The inverse is also true in that women looking for more stability will look for men with higher status and good jobs, according to Tomassi, "He’s young enough to retain his physique in better part, but old enough to have attained social and professional maturity."
Here's the chart for those curious:
The thing is, I think men find the 'average' woman's mating strategy distasteful, and vice versa. Men don't like being judged by their accomplishments if they don't have any accomplishments. And women don't like being judged on their looks if they're not extremely attractive. Even alphas and model-level beauties might harbor some resentment about being reduced to their accomplishments or looks (though often not without some degree of hypocrisy as they reap the benefits of those advantages). But there will always be a conflict between biological drives and deeper emotional needs/ideals.
Yes, he also touches on that in the book. It’s one of the observations he makes and one that guys have a hard time accepting. They want to be loved for ‘who’ they are when the reality is more like they are loved for ‘what’ they are. I think this also ties into the narcissistic longing for unconditional love when they are in search of their ‘soul-mate’ as Joe had pointed out. This below relates to this point as well:
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
In its simplicity this speaks volumes about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.
Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.
In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation.
Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of any capacity for women to love Men as Men would like them to.
For the plugged-in beta, this aspect of ‘awakening’ is very difficult to confront. Even in the face of constant, often traumatic, controversion to what a man hopes will be his reward for living up to qualifying for a woman’s love and intimacy, he’ll still hold onto that Disneyesque ideal.
It’s very important to understand that this love archetype is an artifact from our earliest feminized conditioning. It’s much healthier to accept that it isn’t possible and live within that framework. If she’s there, she’s there, if not, oh well. She’s not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she’s incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn’t lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.
The resulting love that defines a long-term couple’s relationship is the result of coming to an understanding of this impossibility and re-imagining what it should be for Men. Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy.
The main point being that this whole idealization is self-centric and that's a problem. The assumption that what you think is supposed to be 'love' is a different thing from their conception of it and thinking of it in that sense is the first step to misunderstanding one another. Not only that but turning that idealization into the other's obligation is surely a path to resentment, on both sides. It's a very important realization I think for men to really grasp.
There's probably a lot more to say on the subject. I just wanted to point out that it makes sense that a lot of men would harbor resentment towards hypergamous tendencies. Just like a lot of women would resent being judged in terms of their looks. But there's a logic there, like JBP points out: men have to work to makes themselves attractive - that means bettering themselves, getting responsible, and all that stuff. And arguably, it is that very thing that is what makes stuff happen, like, practically every societal, technological, artistic advancement. Women create the standard in some sense, and men compete to fulfill that standard. On average. There will always be individual aberrations (as Hollywood often proves).
Yes exactly. He also says something similar in the book as a ‘counter’ to hypergamy, although nowhere near as gracefully as Peterson says it.
So overall I’m somewhat mixed about the book. On one hand, for the average guy that has no conception of psychology or the human condition, this book could be helpful in dispelling some of the myths that have been taken as gospel surrounding interpersonal relations. Some of the advice is even applicable to all relations, not just romantic ones. Some of what he discusses I’ve found to be my experience as well from observing people and their behaviours and his outlining of what appear to be at the root of what women’s motivations aren’t entirely left field.
On the other hand, his hardline on hypergamy and women (in a general sense) runs the risk of impressing on men that all women are solipsistic whether they know it or not and are inherently self-serving beings (“because hypergamy”) - while at the same time implying that men aren’t (so much as women) because women are hardwired for it (though that's true to a degree).
But.... it’s people in general that tend towards solipsism or nihilism (especially in this post modern age) and that if you were to take a Pareto distribution and applied it to the generalities described in the book I’m willing to bet you’d see a lot of overlap.
Now Tomassi would probably say that I have that view because I’ve been taken in by the feminine imperative. That’s their secret to keep men from finding out about it, etc etc...
It’s not so black and white though and that I think is my biggest issue with his approach. Reducing them to ‘base level mechanics’, while it does have its utility, leaves out a whole host of other things which factor in.
That said, I think there is still enough in there that can be helpful for those interested in intergender dynamics. Hypergamy in the contexts and examples he provides are another way of understanding how people relate to another and what might be behind people’s motivations for what they do. To say all interactions are simply that is where we have to be careful, but I think that very often that element is a component, especially when people don’t understand or care about why they are doing things and following biological dictates. Having the knowledge that this can be a factor is useful and worth contemplating... osit.