antifeminism antifeminist women hypergamy ladies against women misogyny MRA patriarchy reactionary bullshit reddit special snowflaking women's jobs aren't real

Phyllis Schlafly channels the manosphere with a column about female "hypergamy."

The world's most eligible bachelor?
The world’s most eligible bachelor?

Professional antifeminist Phyllis Schlafly – perhaps best known for her fervent opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment – seems to have been channeling the manosphere in a column she published yesterday on the issue of “paycheck fairness.” Turns out she thinks such fairness is actually a bad idea, because ladies love marrying rich guys more than they love earning money.

According to Schlafly, equal pay messes with the fundamental female desire for “hypergamy” – that favorite manosphere buzzword – and undermines marriage:

[H]ypergamy … means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don’t have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Indeed, Schlafly argues, women love marrying men who earn more than them so much that when the pay gap is eliminated some of them just won’t marry at all. Which is apparently the end of the world, or something.

The pay gap between men and women is not all bad because it helps to promote and sustain marriages. …

In two segments of our population, the pay gap has virtually ceased to exist. In the African-American community and in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 32), women earn about the same as men, if not more.

It just so happens that those are the two segments of our population in which the rate of marriage has fallen the most. Fifty years ago, about 80 percent of Americans were married by age 30; today, less than 50 percent are.

So it’s not enough that most people end up getting married; civilization will crumble if more than half of them don’t marry before the age of 30!

And so, she suggests, if American women knew what was good for them they would be begging for employers pay them even less, relative to men.

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

Hmm. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Schlafly – a best-selling author and popular speaker on the right – didn’t send back any of her royalties or speaking fees so that she would feel more like a woman and her late husband would feel like more of a man, and I doubt she’s doing so now, as a widow. She’s also been unmarried for more than twenty years. Coincidence?

NOTE TO MEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS: When you find yourself agreeing with Phyllis Schlafly on pretty much anything (beyond, say, the existence of gravity, the need for human beings to breathe air, and other widely accepted beliefs of this sort), this is an indication that perhaps your movement isn’t the progressive, egalitarian movement that you like to pretend that it is, and that in fact it is sort of the opposite.

That said, I should also note that Schlafly’s notion of “hypergamy,” while sexist and silly, is decidedly less obnoxious than the version peddled by PUAs and websites like A Voice for Men — congrats, Men’s Human Rights Activists, you’re actually worse than Phyllis Schlafly!

She just uses the term to indicate a desire to marry up. For many manospherians, by contrast, “hypergamy” doesn’t just mean marrying up; it means that women are fickle, unfaithful monsters who love nothing better than cuckolding beta males in order to jump into bed with whatever alpha male wanders into their field of vision. (I’m guessing Schlafly hasn’t actually been going through the archives at AVFM or Chateau Heartiste looking for column ideas.) While many MRAs love to complain about hypergamy, many of them also seem to think that it’s unfair that “beta” males with good jobs aren’t automatically entitled to hot wives.

In case anyone is wondering, the actual definition of the word “hypergamy” involves none of that. According to Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, the word means “marriage to a person of a social status higher than one’s own; orig., esp. in India, the custom of allowing a woman to marry only into her own or a higher social group.”

That’s it. It refers to the fact of marrying up, not to the desire to marry up, much less to the alleged desire of all twentysomething women to ride the Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel. The manosphere’s new and not-so-improved definition came from a white nationalist named F. Roger Devlin.

ANOTHER NOTE: Big thanks to the people who emailed me about this story. If you ever see something you think would make for a good Man Boobz post, send me an email at futrelle [at] I get a lot of ideas from tips!



319 replies on “Phyllis Schlafly channels the manosphere with a column about female "hypergamy."”


This is entirely what I was talking about, in fact – it’s a great example of the way the mind can come to so many different interpretations that are separate from the bare facts.

The link you provided is from a Christian Ministry devoted to helping people escape prostitution and sex trafficking. Their overall goals of ending sex slavery and providing safe places for those who have suffered from it are laudable and largely aligned with feminism, but the author disparages feminism. So when you say it’s “dripping with prostitution, I can interpret your somewhat vague sentence in one of two ways:

1) That you feel the author is a proponent of prostitution, in direct violation of the very statement of the organization she’s writing for, or

2) That you feel she holds that feminism is a proponent of prostitution. There’s a bit more traction here! But the biggest reply to that is that she doesn’t understand feminism either. She’s not a feminist, and nowhere does she say she is. She speaks very much like a traditionalist, which lines up with her faith. (She also sounds like a very nice person, and I wish her all of the best).

Mark, you’re seeing conspiracies where there are none. There’s no elder council of women arranging for the death of millions of men through forced conscription and endless war. That conscription and those wars are due to the fact that our society teaches men that they have to be active parties, and that they’re justified in taking and fighting and conquering so long as they win. That’s Patriarchy 101, and we oppose it..

We’ve told you this so many times, Mark. There’s no conspiracy. It’s in your head.

Oh, and one last thing. In the future, if you’re going to cite sources? Don’t bother citing random websites or news articles. The internet is vast and there’s no editor – you are bound to be able to find articles to hold up any opinion, no matter how wrong. If you’re going to cite sources, please cite something with a foundation of credibility instead – white papers are a good start, as are statistics gathered by reputable sources. I’d be happy to go through those with you.

I’m still not clear on what Mark’s goal in commenting here actually is. Is he trying to use reverse psychology? By saying “feminism is great for men” he’ll cause us to immediately renounce feminism because we all hate men and will never support anything that might help them? Or does he truly believe that backlash against feminism will somehow lead to an MRA utopia? If it’s the latter, why is he coming here? Everyone here is already feminist or at least feminist friendly. Why preach to the choir? Shouldn’t he be spreading his message in the manosphere or at least in more dudebroish spaces?

I don’t know. I’m not sure he knows. I’m pretty sure they all just come round for the jollies of trying to insult women.

I always figured it’s basically just a slightly more verbose version of “neener neener you’re stinky”

note that I’m manspreading as I type

Aww, Mark’s saving room for cats!

P.S. Why are there no Mark Wahlberg photos where he’s manspreading?

Edit: @WWTH – I thought it was just a “haha, own goal!” brag. Ad nauseum.

CN: murder, victim blaming

He a friend of yours Marky?
Because you sound like a guy who hates no fault divorce because it allowed a woman to get away from you.

I suspect that men who claim to fear false allegation are actually very much afraid of actual accusations being believed. I find that men who worry about victims being believed are personally afraid that the system that has let them get away with their crimes for so long will finally fail them.
And ya know what?
One day it will.

Anyone who would minimize rape by calling divorce a form of rape, is using some highly motivated reasoning. Anyone who would quote Warren Farr favorably despite his pro-child rape stance is definitely gonna get The side-eye with me.. I mean, did you think we don’t know who you got you misinformation from?

By the way, how does it feel to know that rants like yours encourage murders like this?
I bet dollars to dog nuts it gets you off.

There’s a reason I won’t bother to appeal to your better nature. I don’t believe you have one.

Unless you are actually typing on a crowded train, you aren’t manspreading, Marky. You’re just sitting.

No one cares.

“If you’re going to cite sources, please cite something with a foundation of credibility instead – white papers are a good start, as are statistics gathered by reputable sources. I’d be happy to go through those with you.”

Scildfreja Unnýðnes, I don’t have to cite jack for you. The evidence is all about you. It’s everywhere. It’s deeply embedded in the feminist hatred of men – which is plastered all over the internet by both middle and upper tier feminists – far more well known than you – and plainly visible in every day life. Cultural misandry, gynocentrism and male disposability are entrenched by women and white knights for a reason – to keep it hidden in plain sight. Make it so common that it goes unnoticed. That’s the game.

The hatred of men on college campuses is the gift that keeps on giving. Affirmative Consent is the best ever thing that could have happened to men. Safe spaces, mansplaining, manspreading, divorce rape, trigger warnings – all very, very helpful. Affirmative Consent will be defeated – via civil suits against the institutions and false accusers – but its appearance and prevalence is priceless for men. It’s another awakening. It’s all over the news daily – women stripping and marching to protest sexual discrimination and objectification. Ailes going down is just a message to the wealthy to avoid any financial or legal obligations to women – priceless. On the one hand – women shouldn’t expose themselves for men’s objectification – on the other – women should march naked and free their nipples because empowerment. It’s mind boggling. Wear makeup and you’re a traitor – marry down and you’re setting. Shell game – all a simple shell game.

I’m not going to retrieve articles or white papers for you that are easily found with a few key strokes on Google. Feminist culture is chock full of hypocrites that seek only superiority over and the continued usury of men. That’s the beauty of the internet – it’s all there in an instant for the whole world to see. It’s wonderful. You can no longer hide behind your wall of ‘mature, practical, rising-above-it woman defeating the angry patriarchy routine.’ You’ve been outed all across the globe for years. Unfortunately – due to the brainwashing of gynocentrism and male disposability – men are awakening a little too slowly. That’s where your group comes in – to speed up the process.

All that I’ve written is monumentally obvious to all but the most brainwashed of man haters (you and yours). I get your little ‘rising above it routine’. You sound so passive and mature with your calming, nearly obsequious yet condescending words. You portray yourself as the patient victim to gain support. Your followers lap it up. You’re not fooling anyone – especially not your fellow man haters – they know your game – because they thrive on man hate. Now don’t get me wrong. I love feminism inspired misandry – because it helps men wake up – so under no circumstances should you and yours stop.

The very worst thing that could happen for men is a Trump presidency. The very best thing that could happen for men is a Hillary presidency. Why? Hillary will further highlight all of the hypocrisy, double standards and double speak with which you’re so adept. The bulk of Hillary’s voters are single women and minorities (the victim class). The division Hillary will create is beyond anything Obama could have hoped to create. Win for men. Trump is just another Phillis. He’ll likely promote, like Phillis did, even more misandry, male disposability and cultural misandry. Loss for men. Hillary will do the same, but in a way that encourages a male awakening – like I pointed out in the previous link. No one would have heard of Hillary were it not for her woman-magnet husband. Hillary exists with the support of the patriarchy. Trump will try to put men back to sleep like Phillis. That is the true danger to men of a Trump presidency and why I dislike conservatives and their outlets. Hillary will destroy those outlets and I’ll be cheering her all the way – not that I really respect feminists. I understand the irony in the value of feminism for men – so I therefore need them to continue.

In the end, either way, marriage rates and birth rates will continue to decline – as they’ve done for decades. Feminists will push for more and more forced wealth transfer. The debt will continue to pile up. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are itching for war – a war in which women will most likely have to fight on their own. Over time, the gynosocialist systems that keep male disposability and cultural misandry alive will collapse – and male dominance will return of its own accord – not that that’s good – but women will finally have to survive without sucking off the teat of cultural misandry and male disposability.

Hillary must win – or men will suffer another generation of male disposability, gynocentrism and cultural misandry – which is what Phillis always sought to further. Phillis wasn’t for men or family. She was deeply in denial of her own misandry – or maybe fully aware of it – just with a pleasant smile, a weak frame and disarming “men need to fight and die for me while I go to university” persona. Bait and switch. Shell games.

I see straight through you.

I don’t have to cite jack for you. The evidence is all about you. It’s everywhere.

Why is it that every MRA eventually comes around to this exact statement? Hm.


I’m pretty sure there’s a picture of you next to the dictionary entry for “sophistry”.

@Scildfreja Unnýðnes

Where do you find all of that patience ? Are you secretly a spider ? 😮

@Mark, you do not see me at all, i’m afraid. I don’t see myself as a victim, I see myself as a helper and a learner. I don’t behave this way to gain sympathy, I behave this way to extend sympathy to others. At the moment, I am extending it to you.

It’s probably not the sympathy you’re used to. From what I’ve seen in the message boards of the MRAs, sympathy there involves agreeing with one another, and sharing complaints about the world. That’s a valid thing to do. It doesn’t help you grow or learn, but it does help you re-centre yourself. It’s a safe space, which is an important thing to have.

That sort of sympathy is warmth and comfort; it’s a warm cup of cocoa. I’m giving you ice water- cold and clean and clarifying. Different perspectives are vital, Mark. They’re the only way we can prevent ourselves from spinning off into conspiracy and self-destruction.

I didn’t ask you to provide sources, I said that if you are going to provide sources, please provide credible and substantial ones. I was very clear in that statement, but you didn’t read my words – you read the words you thought I meant. Your thoughts are a poor lens for my intentions, Mark – this is the problem we have been discussing all along. You hear the words you want to hear and not the words themselves.

You hate feminism not because it’s hateful, but because you desperately need something to hate. Feminism is just the place on which you’ve set your sights.

And now, as you say, the evidence is ‘everywhere’. Mark, when you see a dark smudge in front of you everywhere, is it likely that the world is filled with dark smudges, or is it more likely that there’s something on your glasses? The thing you hate is an artifact of your own wounded perception.

I’ll say that again. The thing you hate is within you.

I can cite volumes of evidence on this – real studies, double-blinds, encyclopedia entries, textbooks.

You will not find happiness until you discover what that hateful thing is inside of you, so that you can finally fix it. It takes courage and perseverance; it’s a life’s work. Be patient with yourself.

Oh hey, speaking of misconceptions and being glad for feminism for all the wrong reasons, here’s a coincidence.

Could be the same person for all I know.


Trees are a better analogy. I’m arachnophobic 😐

I find that I have a lot of patience for some things, and very little for others. MRAs fall into the second category… but I’m working on it ! Slowly.

It’s the Final meltdown!
doodoodoot doot doot doot doo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.