Women aren't hypergamy-ing right.

Okay. Let's accept as true the proposition that women are hypergamous by nature. This, of course, assumes that human beings are evolved from a lower species of ape like creature and that hypergamy is then an instinct of selection acquired in human females and developed over the course of two to three million years as an essential element in their mating strategy for securing the optimal chances of survival for themselves and their offspring. They are therefore genetically, biologically, evolutionarily hardwired to seek after high value alpha males for reproduction. That's the idea.

In prehistoric times, that would have meant the biggest, strongest, fastest, most effective hunter gatherer in the clan. Today, it means a financially successful man with power and influence and wealth and money, and who exudes confidence and dominance. Presumably, the human created institution of arranged marriage, which prevailed over the entire history of the species until around the eighteenth century, interfered with the manifestation of the female instinct of hypergamy insofar as it removed from women the control over mate selection. Exactly why such an institution would have developed among the species is a mystery because it does seem counter instinctive and counter evolutionary to arbitrarily join men and women together without reference to natural selection, but we'll leave that aside. As women regained control over mate selection, undoubtedly, the hypergamous instinct will abundantly manifest.

Okay. Between 1960 and 2011 in The United States, unwed mothers as a percentage of total single mothers skyrocketed from four percent to forty four percent, that is women who mated with men who did not marry them. The overwhelming majority of current unwed mothers are young or became pregnant between the ages of 17 and 30, in other words, at the height of their youth, beauty, and fertility, the pinnacle of their so called sexual market value. In other words, at an age when their hypergamous instinct had the best chance of securing for them the highest possible value mate. It's surprising then that they are overwhelmingly poor and that they frequently continue to reproduce with a variety of mates, none of whom provide them what we could call high value outcomes and most of whom almost always inhabit the same socioeconomic strata as the women themselves.

I mean, for an instinct that was supposedly honed over the course of millions of years since the stone age, women seem to do hypergamy quite badly. As their control over mate selection has increased, family stability and their own security has declined since the days when arranged marriage apparently scuppered the natural selection process. Rather than what we would expect to see if hypergamy is in fact the natural instinct of women, control over mate selection by the youngest, most beautiful, most fertile women should result in their financial advancement and security. Instead, women seem to be reproducing at record numbers with low value males, none of whom they marry, and plunge themselves into deeper states of poverty and desperation. Indeed, in The United States, the majority of people living in poverty are women and the children produced by their allegedly hypergamous instincts.

In other words, this is one of the stupidest ideas to ever be proposed as truth, and it cannot even stand up to scrutiny according to the basic criteria of evolutionary theory upon which it is supposed to be based. Anyone who says that women are hypergamous by nature has immediately discredited himself as an ideological charlatan.