Thanks for the link, but it is specifically comparing _education_ levels, which has been strongly leaning towards more women, for various factors: such as, men are more interested in trades (partly economic, but also instinctual) and STEM, and most "education" now has been diluted to appeal to women; there are more creative, feminine studies now than 50 years ago.

>> the more complex the hierarchy, the worse change is for those on top.

>Because they can fall to the level of an unattractive woman 50 years prior?

Yes. unattractive woman 50 years ago still had plenty of men to choose from - most men didn't procreate, although the levels weren't as drastic today.

Now, unattractive men cannot convince the same ladies to "swing down", which is why there is an all time high of unchilded women at menopause age.

>India is a terrible example of generalized outcomes. It has a large gender imbalance and this whole dowry bullshit.

I want to agree, but, it _is_ the oldest civilization on the planet, and it is the in the most immediate dire population/ecologic/economic stress. I think something can be gleaned, and not placed at the hand of outdated cultural alone.

> Thanks for the link, but it is specifically comparing _education_ levels, which has been strongly leaning towards more women, for various factors: such as, men are more interested in trades (partly economic, but also instinctual) and STEM, and most "education" now has been diluted to appeal to women; there are more creative, feminine studies now than 50 years ago.

The study is illustrating the groups in which women broadly have more educational attainment than men, women are more likely to marry down. Including highlighting several subgroups where the majority of women are marrying down, and thus implying that the majority of men are marrying up.

Your arguments here try to diminish the meaningfulness of this metric. Which I think is dumb because it's clearly at least a good proxy measurement for women gaining some form of social power, but suppose you were correct and it's a meaningless metric. Then what's driving the high prevalence of women marrying down? Because they are. This is observed data. Women in these groups are marrying down. The idea that hypergamy is instinctive female behavior does not hold up to scrutiny against sociological studies.

We are speaking socio-economic. Money. Men are happy to provide money to women, woman are more happy with a man that can provide.

The linked study specifically tiptoes around it (money earned) and only speaks of "educational advantage", namely prevalence of women in higher education - my point was that college has been feminized, so this isn't a surprise.

Women may swing down in the later years, sure, because to rise up the educational/career ladder, takes time it and of itself. Time that females don't have, when maximizing mate selection. Men don't have that problem, old sperm is just as good, which also explains the 4-year on average disparity between men and women's ages.

Men like to swing down 4 years, women up. Aligns again with biology, and the preferences instilled in us.