Hypergamy in cinema & reality

[Mario Gaborović]

Let's talk about this act of practice which I personally think is overwhelmingly present in reality, not so much in cinema (where it's even negated in many forms of denial, call it Fantasy World if you like). Of course most would agree that women are those who aim above their weights when looking for a partner, but in some cases I'd say men are the ones opting better choices whenever possibility occurs.

Here we talk about movie scenes that support this theory, because cinema more or less revolves around reality anyway. The 2022 Irish hit The Banshees of Inisherin shows one such dynamics which results in rejection:



Now at another online forums I talked about this and was called 'fascist', and when I spoke once when I was having a night out some dude called me "arrogant jerk" because I said this exist. I wasn't mad in either of the cases at them, but as an atheist I'm only interested in truth and not in fantasies or "what sounds nicer". Do you think this is a phenomenon present enough not to be overlooked? Do you ever experienced hypergamy in harder or softer way?

[Mario Gaborović]

Think about another classic like Danish Sult. The writer's romantic prospects are shattered down once the female character realizes he's dirt poor.

[Mario Gaborović]

Alexander Grace explains "she could do better" philosophy epidemic and the rise of sexlessness as the logical outcome:

[Pretentious Hipster]

Keep in mind both of these films are in more patriarchal countries and time periods, when dudes have to have a certain toxic masculinity standard. This is a dude who uses weird personal and outlier anecdotal evidence instead of material analyses. This is also a dude who heavily implied that there are less women serial killers because "it requires hard work"

This almost ruined another forum. If icm knows what's good for them, they will block or remove this thread before the shitshow happens.

[kongs_speech]

Well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere positive. The idea that people "aim above their weights" when looking for a partner is inherently pretty toxic. People don't have more value because they're hot or wealthy. Most folks just want to be loved.

It also seems weird to think that Kerry Condon's character in Banshees should have gotten with Barry Keoghan. He was an endearing character whom I certainly pitied as a viewer for all the tragedy in his life, but he had nothing to offer Condon and she didn't even like his personality or enjoy being around him. There was no compatibility at any level. He just had a crush.

[Mario Gaborović]

This is a dude who uses weird personal and outlier anecdotal evidence instead of material analyses.

A study done by the University of Minnesota in 2017 found that females generally prefer dominant males as mates. Research conducted throughout the world strongly supports the position that women prefer marriage with partners who are culturally successful or have high potential to become culturally successful. The most extensive of these studies included 10,000 people in 37 cultures across six continents and five islands. Women rated "good financial prospect" higher than did men in all cultures. In 29 samples, the "ambition and industriousness" of a prospective mate were more important for women than for men. Meta-analysis of research published from 1965 to 1986 revealed the same sex difference (Feingold, 1992). Across studies, 3 out of 4 women rated socioeconomic status as more important in a prospective marriage partner than did the average man.

When you use analyses and factual support to claim your theories, but people around you keep getting upset, get emotional and try to discredit and insult you, imo THAT MEANS YOU NAILED IT!

You're free to base your stands on how you feel about the data and actual statistics. You're free to reject or accept them any way you want, but I will not back off. The only hate speech you could find here or elsewhere is yours directed towards mine. Leave if you don't like it.

[Onderhond]

If you live in a society where women are given less chances to succeed/support themselves and are brought up to be submissive, then yes, those parameters may be of bigger importance to them. It mostly just underlines our societal issues rather than biological traits.

[RBG]

Mario this is a result of patriarchy and women's traditional role as homemakers. They are trained to look for good providers for their children since they didnt work outside the home.

Warning that this thread got extremely ugly at scfz

[kongs_speech]

If you live in a society where women are given less chances to succeed/support themselves and are brought up to be submissive, then yes, those parameters may be of bigger importance to them. It mostly just underlines our societal issues rather than biological traits.

Nailed it.

I gotta say, this isn't the type of thing I'm used to seeing on ICM. "Bitches want money" is a disappointingly regressive take at any level.

[Mario Gaborović]

If you live in a society where women are given less chances to succeed/support themselves and are brought up to be submissive, then yes, those parameters may be of bigger importance to them. It mostly just underlines our societal issues rather than biological traits.

Legit. But I don't see how Minnesota is traditional in any way except maybe among Native Americans.

[RBG]

It says a study done throughout the world - where most cultures are still traditional. D'uh

Good luck yall

[Mario Gaborović]

If you live in a society where women are given less chances to succeed/support themselves and are brought up to be submissive, then yes, those parameters may be of bigger importance to them. It mostly just underlines our societal issues rather than biological traits.

Nailed it.

I gotta say, this isn't the type of thing I'm used to seeing on ICM. "Bitches want money" is a disappointingly regressive take at any level.

I wasn't talking about their reasons (and please don't call them like that), I'm talking about if this is true nowadays or not. I get in conflict with people who say it isn't actual truth, that's what bothers them.

I realize you're defending their position but that wasn't my point. If you're saying "they're forced to", that's ok but I myself as a man "am not forced" to give in - i.e. to finance their existence because what the world had in store for them.

In short: let it be, but let myself realize the truth - stop denying it is not the case.

[kongs_speech]

Mario this is a result of patriarchy and women's traditional role as homemakers. They are trained to look for good providers for their children since they didnt work outside the home.

Warning that this thread got extremely ugly at scfz

Regardless of how many red flags the framing in this specific situation is sending up, I can't take seriously any "theory" that says women as a monolith always do one thing or another. That's never going to be an accurate assumption, whatever the theorist is trying to sell. There's also the matter of those of us who aren't interested in men of any sort, regardless of how much money they might have. Some of us are gay.

[Pretentious Hipster]

Did you read the actual study? The 10,000 people part was created in 1989, before the feminist movement became mainstream. It also says that there are cultural differences. And wow...ambitious, that could mean almost anything, like confidence, or wanted to follow one's dreams. Also, some aspects from LITERALLY the same study shows how it goes against what that study says:

Buss (1989) found that women rated a prospective husband who was kind, understanding, and intelligent more highly than a prospective husband who was none of these but had the potential to become culturally successful.

This is within reading a few pages. Maybe actually check your sources

[kongs_speech]

Did you read the actual study? The 10,000 people part was created in 1989, before the feminist movement became mainstream. It also says that there are cultural differences. And wow...ambitious, that could mean almost anything, like confidence, or wanted to follow one's dreams. Also, some aspects from LITERALLY the same study shows how it goes against what that study says:

Buss (1989) found that women rated a prospective husband who was kind, understanding, and intelligent more highly than a prospective husband who was none of these but had the potential to become culturally successful.

This is within reading a few pages. Maybe actually check your sources

Just in my personal experience, I've never heard a woman I actually know imply that she wanted to land a rich dude. That's not a conversation I've ever witnessed. Are there some girls like that on social media, clout chasers and whatnot? Yeah, sure, but they're not representative of the average woman at all.

[AdamH]

This is not the type of thread we are keen to see on iCMforum and we've tried to eradicate some of the more controversial posts over the years. Please avoid using the forum as a platform for these views.

Thread locked.