This is what happens when you allow women a place in your reactionary/counter-mainstream movement: you get gaslighted to fucking oblivion.

Let's see what the "traditional" wife, mother, and "researcher" (ooh, she can READ AND WRITE, guys!) Donna Askins has to say in her piece over at http://www.renegadetribune.com/hypergamy-thing-past/

She first tries to define hypergamy, by giving a textbook definition of the term and lazily stating that:

The term comes from the 1960s when women supposedly went about marrying males of higher social status. In America it would be from blue collar to white collar.

A simple Google trip to Wikipedia shows that the term has been in use since at least the 19th century, but hey, were you expecting a woman to actually do her research?

Let's continue.

Now, in 1960 we must understand that a woman was expected to follow one path: to marry in her early 20s, start a family quickly, and then devote her life to homemaking. Women had little to no opportunity for a career, nor was she expected nor able to take care of herself. She had very little rights.

Bingo. No cock carousel, no "i need to find myself" loose-slut bullshit, no "well im an independent womynz and if u cant handle me at my worst u dont deserve me at my best". Just a plain simple, honest transaction: you take care of the home and provide sex, I take care of the bills and provide for the family.

Say what you will about it, but it was a transparent agreement between both the sexes and you knew what you were getting; it was not the emotional and financial ruin it now has become.

Today some men accuse all women of practicing hypergamy as if it is some sort of taboo. They accuse women of being gold diggers in one breath and in the next breath they say they want women to be like they were in the 1960s, when hypergamy was supposedly a “real” thing. I hear derogatory comments about hypergamy on an almost daily basis. Women marry for money, they always marry “up”. Gold diggers is all they are, the whole lot of them.

Do you? I wonder why.

Now while men are visual beings, women are not so much. Pretty girls have been known throughout time to go for the “frog” of a guy, not merely for his money but for other reasons.

"For other reasons". Mrs. Askins of course, fails to elaborate on what these "other reasons" could possibly be. But don't worry guys, it's not just the money she's after, she also truly loves you for, ahem, other reasons - don't worry about it, really!

She then goes on ahead to cherry-pick several studies and hamster away all the results, in typical female fashion.

So no, she is not just attracted to his money. She is looking to be respected and treated right. She wants to be happy, with someone she can trust, and by whom she can be adored and appreciated (who doesn’t want this?). He is proud to have her on his arm. They both are happy. What is so hard to understand about that? Looks are only skin deep you know…

Oh yes, haven't we heard this all before? She just wants to be "treated right" and be "adored" by an unassuming gentleman! Just what is so hard to understand about this, men, just have money and treat her right and you'll both be happy! Isn't it obvious?

So if in 1960, when most women stayed home, studies show that hypergamy was not the normal behavior of women in America, why would these “wise” men be spouting off this as a fact? Well quite frankly they have an agenda and it is not the promotion of the family; it is the degradation of women and the destruction of our folk. Why they blame “hypergamy”, calling it an invention of women, as the cause of the destruction of the family and the destruction of the west, is beyond me. All facts when examined prove otherwise.

This is when you have to wonder if this woman really really believes what she's writing. Every sentence is just dripping with solipsism and unawareness that it actually reads like a comedy.

To seriously imply that we are responsible for the "degradation of women" and the "destruction of our folk" (whatever the fuck that means) is borderline mentally-ill. In today's society, women degrade themselves, and all the proof you ever need is a weekend in Miami, LA, New York, or hell just open your Facebook account.

One thing they claim is hypergamy is responsible for the high divorce rates. To blame women and this notion of hypergamy solely for the increase of divorce rates is just plain wrong. There are many determining factors when it comes to divorce.

So let me get this straight. Men have been the most accommodating and placating version of themselves in ages, have given women virtually unlimited freedom and support and yet somehow the newfound divorce epidemic is still not the fault of women?

When are you going to grow up, woman? They always come back with the same sob story "it's not our fault, it's just the evil men saying mean things about us". It's pathetic and you're pathetic.

Men should NOT capitulate to their feeble demands, all this ever leads to is more blame-shifting and even more ridiculous witch-hunts and tone-policing.

In January of 2010 the Pew Research Center did a study called: Women, Men and the New Economics of Marriage, which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that if it existed, hypergamy is heading out the door and will soon be a thing of the past… and their data is from 2007! Today it is 2016 and these “wise” men still have ignored the published facts and would rather parrot their assumptions, trying to taint the minds of our young men against our women. Let’s set the record straight using the 2010 report.

The paper found that, consistent with previous research, “the degree of associative mating (the tendency of people with similar characteristics to marry) had increased” from 1970 to 2007. The study also found that women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth. A larger share of men in 2007, compared with their 1970 counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own. A larger share of women are married to men with less education and income. This clearly is not showing a continuing trend of hypergamy, but rather it shows a trend towards the opposite, hypogamy.

All that this shows is that as women have become more and more "educated" their options for climbing up the social and economic ladder via marriage have dried up almost completely. It is therefore no surprise that, as we would predict, these women would end up visibly miserable because they are unable to satisfy their hypergamy by snatching a high-value male that is beyond her.

Women haven't given up on hypergamy, in fact they've doubled down with a feminist campaign of man-shaming and misandry. Desperately trying to provoke some fierce male response, even going to the lengths of cuckery and whoredom to get their fill of sexual hypergamy.

The study continues: Overall, married adults have made greater economic gains over the past four decades than unmarried adults. From 1970 to 2007, their median adjusted household incomes, the sum of financial contributions of all members of the household, rose more than those of the unmarried. For unmarried adults at each level of education, men’s household incomes fared worse than those of women. And household incomes of unmarried men with college degrees grew at half the rate of household incomes of married men with only a high school diploma — 33% versus 15%. The data plainly shows that marriage for men is more profitable than staying single. This isn’t rocket science, since obviously two income homes have more assets than a one income home.

Yes, darling, and how much of that money gets wasted on the "adoration" or the "appreciation" of his lovely female partner? Why don't you bring up statistics on how much money women spend vs. men?

You're not going to do that, because you are in fact setting up a trap for the alt-right men. You want us to believe the fantasy of a traditional, demure wife who is subservient to his man but your writing betrays the desperate ploy of yet another member of the sisterhood feverishly scrambling to undo the damage that has been done to the mainstream, do-no-wrong, blameless image of women.

We must stop those who wish to divide our men and women with bogus made up lies about our folk, especially about our women, our greatest asset. When we compare what is being parroted around to the actual data, the facts, we can plainly see that these “wise” men have an agenda and that agenda is the break up of the family unit by attacking it’s most valuable asset, the female. Why else would they promote MGTOW using false or outdated data? Why else would they solely blame women for the ills of society? Why are they not promoting healthy, lasting relationships?

Of course, we here at MGTOW are the ones responsible of breaking up the family unit, of all people. Despite the fact that you have wasted the reader's time voicing yet another vacuous complaint against the patriarchy (except you dare not say it, lest the men in your ranks wake up to what you're actually saying) and not take even a moment's time to honestly examine female nature and the destructive role it plays in our society.

If anyone is our greatest asset, it's certainly not the mindless, narcissistic sluts that we see all around us. Just as Israel is NOT our greatest ally, women are NOT our greatest asset. Men are, and until men regain the strength to put their women in their place, society will continue to run its course as a distinguished house of circus performance, with hypergamy as its centerpiece.