“Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match…”
-Fiddler On The Roof

Red Pill watchers of the Cathedral Media will surely have noticed an ever-increasing scrum of articles, “studies”(?), editorials and artistic works all centered around Assortative Mating – the idea, supposedly, that “like goes with like”. Among these pieces, are the recent “Fat Lady” episode of the hit sitcom “Louie”, starring and written by comedian Louis CK; and an even more recent “study” done by Notre Dame Prof. Elizabeth McClintock, which sets out to put the notion of “trophy wives” on the trash heap of history. Both make the case, that similar people not only can and should, but *must* pair off – and in doing so, will live happily ever after.

OK, I’m using a bit of hyperbole, but it’s difficult not to, given the ham-fisted nature of all of this. But the sheer onslaught of these pieces – all seemingly coming out back-to-back in the hallowed venues of the MSM – do raise a very interesting question:

WHY is this so important, right now; WHO is pushing this particular line of argument; and finally, WHO benefits from this line of argument?

Today’s article will attempt to, if not answer these questions, at the very least, raise them up to the light of day for you, my esteemed readers.

Get coffee.

The (Feminist) Narrative

First, we have to clearly understand something: that our culture and climate currently, operates on the following assumption – that for most of human history, Men, as a group, have attempted to corral and coerce and control, Women’s sexuality. Usually but not solely, this was achieved in terms of arranged marriages, and of course, Rape(TM). This notion, along with other “tenets” of the Cathedral – like the idea that the absolute worst thing anyone could ever be in this world, is a Racist; or that merely citing facts is tantamount to being such, or a Homophobe, or a Sexist/Misogynist, and so forth – make up the cultural climate within which we all must endure and labor under, often at the threat of ostracization, job and career loss, even loss of spouse, family and close friends. Sad to say, but the plain truth of it is that the Truth has long left the building, and Doing Good(TM) – not seeking and upholding what we know to be True, no matter where it leads or how we personally may feel about it – has become the Holy Grail of our times. Which is truly unfortunate, because critical thinking no longer guides our understanding of our world, and which can and often does lead to grievous errors, not just in thinking, but in terms of social, economic and (sexual)political policy, too.

For example, the Feminists do make a point when they argue that for most of human history, Men as a group have indeed attempted to control Women’s sexuality; I leave it to others to quibble over the reasons why, but I for one am perfectly willing to concede the point because the point is a factual, legitimate one.

But what the Feminists either don’t know, or won’t own up to, is another fact:

That throughout much of human history, Women have attempted to corral, coerce or otherwise control Men’s sexuality, too.

Think about what I just said for a moment – it is very, very important. Far from being merely a tit-for-tat debating trick, the above point is important, because it puts to bed the lie that Men, and Men alone, were the causal agents of the Sexual Marketplace (SMP), and that Women were passive victims in the mix – quite the opposite in fact. Indeed, when reading Evergreen College Prof. Stephanie Coontz’s excellent “Marriage: A History”, we understand that from even the earliest Roman and Greek times, vast numbers of Women had a tremendous say in who they married, if at all, and under what circumstances; only a relatively smaller number of Women were bartered and traded in arranged marriages as we would understand them today – and they were invariably of the “royal” variety. Even more to the point, there have been several documented instances of State-assisted Women, to usurp the sexuality of Men. For example, aside from the ancient Roman schemes to tax bachelors into “compliance”, ie, marrying widows or otherwise “downmarket” (read: unattractive) Women. More recently, a little over a century ago in this country, there were attempts on the part of what could be described as Feminists of the era, to force eligible bachelors to once again wife up downmarket Women – widows, often with kids, and/or otherwise unattractive Women, ie, Spinsters, into “doing their duty” – all backed by the State. It’s an old story and by no means nothing new, but one that is curiously left out of the dicussion when topics like this come up.

Coontz’s work is hugely important, because it raises the very real role that Class, and to a lesser and more recent extent, Race, plays in discussions like these – discussions that assumes, a priori, that everyone is White or failing that Honorary White, and upper middle class (UMC) – when the facts simply do not align with this boots-on-the-ground reality. As always, I will address both the topic and the Narrative, from that “other” reality.

Qui Bono?

One of the many great life lessons I learned out on the bricks was this: to properly understand any situation or problem, simply ask “Who Benefits?”, and everything will be revealed to you.

So, who benefits from all this yammering about assortative mating? I mean, do old farts like Donald Sterling benefit from it? How?

Do guys in the Red Pill sectors of the Manosphere benefit from it? How?

Do Women in general benefit from it? How?

While the former two questions seem to answer themselves solidly in the “no” column, the remaining third question is rich with exploration, so let’s do just that.

For one thing, and again, while it is true that at the highest levels of the game, Men arranged marriages and the like, they weren’t the only “matchmakers” to do so. As the famed stage play-turned Oscar-winning film “Fiddler on the Roof” makes abundantly clear, Women on the more pedestrian levels of life have had a long and storied role of matchmaking, often carrying a tremendous level of influence in their communities – influence that could be parlayed and deployed in any number of ways; I refer to these machinations on the part of Women as “Court Politics”.

We all know what I’m talking about – just about every female clique will have its “queen bee” and attendant “court” – the rest of the ladies, who will order themselves from the next-most attractive, to the least, each has specific duties and roles in said queen bee’s “court”. One of the operations of a court, is to determine “who goes with who” – one can easily observe girls as young as kindergarten age hashing out in great detail which boy should pair off with which girl – something boys or Men for that matter, rarely if ever do.

But why?

Well, among other things, for many of the same reasons that Men have arranged marriages at the upper levels of society: so that resources can be consolidated, influence can be corralled and alliances can be assured; but there’s another reason as well:

So that rivals can be dealt with, and/or so that a particular male can be thwarted in his aspirations to a better deal, which could threaten to upset the apple cart in a “court”.

If you’re a guy who’s considered to have anything going for you, and you either have a sizable number of female relatives (sisters, cousins, aunties), and/or female friends/coworkers/fellow students, you’ve seen this in action for yourself – they will often attempt to set you up, but often with a lesser attractive gal than you would have normally gone for. The argument if and when you protest, will be “But She’s So Nice!” - which, to Guy Ears, is a dead giveaway and confession, that Homegirl is Homely.

But here they are, attempting to offload her onto you.

Notions of assortative mating aside, why would the ladies in your life do this? Do they honestly see you two as being “evenly yoked” (yet another term or phrase that Women seem to utter much, much moreso than do Men – and that includes the most devout among them), despite what anyone with one good eye can clearly see is a physical mismatch – or, are they other reasons at work as well?

“Tyrone Should Stay In His Lane!”

Regular readers of J4G will remember well my ongoing “Tyrone series” - a series of articles wherein which I discuss the Tyrones – smart, level-headed Blue Collar Brothas who simply never went on to college, and instead made good lives for themselves in the Trades and so forth. One of the main reasons why I wrote that series of articles, was to see what the reactions would be from my audience…and boy, they didn’t disappoint.

I say that because I noticed that virtually ALL of the Black Woman readers of said series seemed to have a visceral reaction to Tyrone, expressed in the following fashion: “Tyrone should stay in his lane!” – meaning, that Tyrone, being a Blue Collar Brotha, should seek out mates among Black America’s working class sections, and not among the solid middle or upper middle classes. Quite a few Sistas insisted that, one, there were such Sistas around for Tyrone to mate with; two, that he didn’t because he was aiming out of his league; and three, that whatever protestations Tyrone would have toward mating with his putatively assortative equal, that they/she could say much the same about him (having multiple Baby Mamas, et al).

But, their citation of the supposed analog to Tyrone – we’ll call her Tamika for the sake of this discussion – only belies just how ignorant, or disingenuous, they really are about the matter. For one thing, Tyrone is an Intellectual who just happens to work in a Blue Collar field – he shares many of the very same values that the better heeled Sistas to whom he feels a natural attraction to and affinity for, share and hold – like education, curiosity, and a more highbrow way of seeing and interacting with the world than Tamika does. Sure, without question the Tamikas exist; but they often ARE Baby Mamas, often several times over, often with several Baby Daddies, and on top of that, do not share the same values that Tyrone does – they aren’t particularly curious about the world, rarely reads, and if they do, it is of material that is markedly less in quality, partakes in habits that are a net turn off to the Tyrones – like smoking in general, and smoking weed in particular; are loud and crass; and so on. Surely, the better-heeled Sistas know all of these things – Ratchets are well-known by this point – but yet, that doesn’t stop them from suggesting, insisting, demanding, that Tyrone deal with them, instead of those Women who really DO turn his crank. As something of a Tyrone myself, I think I’m in a position to say, if this is their or the ladies writ large’s idea of “assortative mating”, I’ll pass.

While many more Educated Sistas insist that there are one-to-one analogs to Tyrone (read: Tamikas) my own direct personal experience, along with the numbers, begs to differ – due in part to what Charles Murray calls the College Sorting Machine, Black America has basically been somewhat “split” along gender lines, with far and away more Black Women going on to higher education than Black Men. But that doesn’t mean that said Black Men who don’t go on to college, don’t also go on to educate themselves – indeed, it is not at all uncommon for the Tyrones to be formidable auto-didacts, to such an extent, that unless you knew their life story or they outed themselves, you would think that they’d matriculated with the best of em. The same simply cannot be said about Tyrone’s supposed counterpart – the plain, if somewhat harsh, truth of it is, that there is a real “brain drain” that has taken place in both sexes on the lower class end of Black America; but thanks to the aforementioned College Sorting Machine, the effects are much more evident on the Black female side of the ledger, as those Sistas who have anything going for them upstairs are quickly identified, and encouraged, to go on to school, while the same isn’t said about the Brothas. In fact, this “effect” is so commonplace, so ubiquitous, that it’s not even noticed anymore; just part of the “white noise” of Black American life.

But it becomes very apparent as to just how smart the Tyrones really are. For one thing, they tend to have much, much better impulse control and, future time orientation than their Blue Collar peers and homies – which results in fewer to no arrests, little if any alcohol and drug use/abuse, better living and working habits overall, and few to no Baby Mamas. They get into fights and other high risk/low yield behaviors much less often if at all, like low level drugs dealing. And they tend to be much more discriminating as to who they sexually partner with, resulting in a much lower incidence of STD contraction and being “trapped” with babies. Granted, Tyrones may be relatively rare or unusual when seen against the backdrop of his fellow Blue Collar Brotha cohorts; but they aren’t unheard of, either. After all, the arc of Black American history bears out the fact that the Tyrones – Auto-Didact Brothas – are more the norm than we may realize.

Nevertheless, Educated Sistas still suggest, insist and demand, that Tyrone “get with/wife up” the Tamikas of the world, when it couldn’t be clearer as to just how “unevenly yoked” they would truly be, instead of seeing and recognizing that Tyrone shares many of the exact same values as they do, including strong work ethic, and is as well-read, if not better, than many of the Educated Sistas themselves.

Why?

If none of the above works, the Educated Sistahood will then insist that Tyrone himself is “damaged goods” – he cannot be the straight-arrow “good guy” he’s made out to be, and for him to even fix his mouth to speak on these matters, marks him out as a “Bitter Brian” type – “Aha!”, the Sistahood goes – “That’s the real reason why Tyrone can’t find anybody – he’s bitter!”. Somehow, “being a jerk” is to account for how and why Tyrone doesn’t find what’s “on offer” in “his lane” to be satisfactory, rather than merely accepting and admitting that much of what’s on offer, sucks, and that there should be nothing wrong with Tyrone at the very least, trying to improve his mating prospects with ladies that, at least in the abstract, fall right in line with what so many them claim is assortative. Ahh, but therein lay the rub: assortative mating is quite a malleable, elastic concept, when the Sistahood needs it to be.

One other thing I noticed about the Sistahood’s response to my Tyrone series, was the overall tone of the responses; no one said it outright, but there was an unmistakeable sense of indignation in their “voices”: “how dare Tyrone think he can date above his station!” - remember, the term “stay in your lane!”, is one that Black WOMEN, utter much, much more frequently, than do Black Men. Don’t take my word for it – try it! Just spend some time around or among Black folks, listen to their conversations, especially when it comes to mating matters, and just take note of the sheer number of times Sistas use that phrase, versus Brothas. And, note how often Sistas will use the term not just with regard to Brothas, BUT WITH REGARD TO OTHER SISTAS. In fact, in the latter case, perhaps even moreso(!) – which again, raises questions as to just why is “matchmaking” so very important to Women writ large?

The Vanessas Vs. The Trophy Wives Of America

Back to our burning question: who benefits from all this hub bub over “assortative mating” in our time? We can see how Women as a group can benefit from it, but simply leaving it there is a bit incomplete, a bit imprecise. More specificity is called for.

Prof. McClintock’s work, which has been referenced above, calls for examining the question as to whether “trophy wives” – ie, Women who bring to the table outsized beauty in exchange for status and resources in a Man – is still the “norm” in American mating life, or whether couples in our time are “matches”, by which it is supposedly meant, same educational (read: formal; in the author’s experience, Sistas by and large do not respect auto-didacts until they have to), work profile (read: white collar; these discussions don’t include anyone else), and, perhaps most importantly, physically (read: until it comes to the preferences the ladies most look out for a desire, like male height; more on this below). Again, I’ll leave it to others to hash out all the details and methods as to how she went about her work; in the meantime, I hope to raise a number of philosophical questions about the nature of her work, why she chose to do it in the first place, and who it can potentially benefit.

The first question has to be, who commissioned Prof. McClintock’s work in the first place? I mean, did the Trophy Wives of America get in touch with her, upset about their marriages and the like, and exhorted her to investigate the matter? By all accounts, the late Anna Nicole Smith and Mrs. Donald Trump – Marla Maples - didn’t seem to mind their status in the overall scheme of things. Nor do the ladies that makeup the “casts” of hit reality tv shows like Real Housewives of Atlanta, Basketball Wives, and the Love & Hip-Hop franchise. All of these ladies could rightly be classified as “trophy wives” – and not only do they fit the term, they seem more than elated with it.

So, while the study is about “trophy wives” it seems highly unlikely that many such ladies commissioned the study in the first place, or that they were even contacted to discuss the matter.

OK, so who does that leave? Remember, the study is focused on the UMC – what Murray refers to as the New Elite – basically, the upper 20% of American society. And, as we all know, they are the demographic that is not just most likely to marry, but also the demographic that, at present at least, the most likely to remain so. At present, their rate of divorce is around 20% – which is peanuts when compared to the middle class and especially the working class, where at this point, more than half of all marriages fail. Toss in Race, ie, Black folks, and the marital failure rate is even higher. So, if we know this, and if McClintock’s study is basically being marketed to the ladies of this cohort, what the heck is going on? I mean, if you’re a White or Honorary White, UMC chick, your chances are very, very good, that not only are you going to pair off, but pair off well, enjoying marital bliss forever, and ever, amen. Right?

Right?

Well, that’s just it – while being a White/Honorary White, UMC female is without a doubt, especially compared to everyone else in American life currently, a leg up in the marital market, it is no guarantee. Besides, as is often said in hood, there’s levels to this sh*t – saying that you have a better chance of marrying and staying that way, than does Sharquisha in Buckhead, is like any of us saying that we have a better shot in life than any one of Jerry’s Kids. Of course that’s true, but it’s also not saying much. The real measure of how you stack up, is in comparison to your actual peers, not those who are in just about every way, beneath you.

I argue that McClintock’s study is aimed toward those ladies in the UMC who didn’t, or couldn’t, make the cut – they wouldn’t qualify for trophy wife status even if they wanted to, and they couldn’t appeal to the better-off guys in their college years and shortly thereafter for marriage, and are now kind of floundering around looking for answers. Which is more assuring – being told, by a rather average-looking Woman academic, that them trophy wives are a rare thing these days, and that most Women like you actually pair off with that cute boy in accounting, etc – or – being told that all the cute boys in accounting are taken, and the hotshots in the real estate and hedge fund worlds are gunning for the Smiths and Maples of the world, leaving you pretty much with lots of fur balls and kitty litter in your future? Gotta keep hope alive, and all that.

Enter “Vanessa” – the “Fat Lady” that was the focus of the Louie episode I’ve previously written about. When you think about it, McClintock’s study is actually aimed precisely at her – a smart, funny, earnest Woman with a quick wit and a down to earth manner – but who’s physical appearance simply cannot be overlooked. Not in the eyes of the fellas, anyway. Go back and watch the speech Vanessa delivers to Louie; it’s got McClintock’s “message” all over it. At one point in the speech, Vanessa says to Louie, that they make a perfect couple – supposedly because they’re a physical match, due to Louie’s receding hairline, expanding waistline, and relatively advanced age – and that other people see that. Were it only that Louie saw that, too. Vanessa’s speech in that episode, which interestingly enough was written entirely by Louis CK himself, is a text book exposition of just how emotionally manipulative – abusive, I would say – Women can routinely be. And “matchmaking” – nowadays known as “assortative mating” – is the conduit through which this abusive emotional manipulation on the part of so many Women, manifests.

Think about it – Vanessa is playing a version of “But She’s So Nice!”, only amping it up with equal parts “we should be together!” and sob stories about how bad fat Women have it. While it may indeed be a sob story, how or why is this Louie’s, indeed ANY Man’s problem to “solve”? After all, doesn’t Louie know what he wants? And even if he doesn’t, who’s business is it of Vanessa’s? Why does she get to tell him, or any other Man for that matter, who to want or not want – who to partner with, or who not to partner with – who to pursue, or who not to pursue? What is it to her what someone else does, on his own dime and on his own time?

This is how, and why, I refer to the current meme of “assortative mating” as a tyranny – because those who proffer it the most – the Vanessas – have a vested self-interest in making sure that THEY get the mates THEY want – after all, Vanessa was the one who sought Louie out, not the other way around – and “assortative mating” – with the imprimatur of Women academics like McClintock, who’s stated focus is on “equality in relationships” – gives the Vanessas moral authority in the pursuit of their own interests. Just like it is highly unlikely that actual trophy wives commissioned nor was contacted to be research subjects for McClintock’s study, I’m also pretty sure that the Louies of the world didn’t commission or were researched (read: interviewed” for the study, either.

Understand something: the Big Game in the UMC, especially if you’re a White/Honorary White Woman, goes something like this: go to the most prestigious university you can, as it serves a dual purpose: getting credentials/signalling your grey matter street cred, AND, puts you in position to also get that “Mrs.” degree. Of course, Susan Patton killed the game by openly discussing such a tactic in postfeminist, postmodern American life, and paid dearly for it - but McClintock’s study only reinforces Patton’s point. If you’re a Woman, particularly of the type that her study aims at, you will never again have a shot at so many potentially available and eligible males, as when you’re in your school years – which can be anywhere from four to ten, depending. And the best part of the whole thing is, as one lady reader of a popular relationship blog said it best, it gives you plausible deniability – you don’t have to be out there actively seeking a mate, and thereby looking Thirsty.

On a lot of levels, such a strategy makes sense, and underscores one of the key reasons as to why so many Women, who were NOT trophy wife material to be sure, wanted access not just to education, but to MALE centers of the highest education: so they could gain access to the Best Men. Remember: this was never an issue for the Debutantes of the world – per McClintock’s definition, they would be trophy wives, right? This is about the Vanessas – and let me be clear here. By “Vanessa” I don’t just mean Fat Ladies. I mean Women who have unattractive qualities about them that form the basis of powerful impediments to their mating success, WITH CONSPICUOUSLY SUCCESSFUL MALES – like Louie. The idea goes, that since Louie is middle aged, a bit pudgy and will never be a leading Man, he should happily pair off with Vanessa – forgetting the fact that they are NOT an “assortative match”, even if you did take their educations into account. Louie is successful; Vanessa is not, unless you think waitressing/being a barista is your idea of being successful. That’s important, because once again we see another lie about “assortative mating” – most Women don’t want to pair up with Men who are exactly where they are; they want Men who are further along, or higher in terms of success and status, than they are. If Vanessa were truly about “assortative mating”, why didn’t she pursue all those pudgy busboys, waiters and baristas that NYC’s just bursting at the seams with? Why did she pursue a successful standup comic? And speaking of “higher”…

If these ladies, the Vanessas of the world included, were truly about “assortative mating”, they’d pair off with Men who were their same height – but they don’t, now do they? Again, look at Vanessa, and look at Louie – he literally, towers over her. How is one to explain this glaring contradiction? Welp, for her part, McClintock doesn’t – I guess her idea of what it means to be “equal in relationships” doesn’t go that far. And the biggest yammerers for “assortative mating” never seem to get around to dealing with that little fly in the ointment either, now do they?

Old Farts, Big Money, The Question & Power Of GAME

As we all know, one of the biggest stories in the year thus far, was the downfall of NBA team owner Donald Sterling, who’s life is about as close as it can get to a Horatio Alger story as perhaps is possible at this late date in our Republic. Born a Jew, and suffering quite a bit of discrimination in his own life, he struggled to earn a law degree and fought a colossal number of cases in court as a litigator, parlaying his legal success into real estate, from which he made his riches to play in the NBA’s Owner’s Club by purchasing the struggling L.A. Clippers franchise roughly three decades ago. Sterling was known to be a prickly character, but his recorded statements about Blacks and other minorities – serrupticiously taped by his then-mistress, a Minority Woman herself, and many decades his junior – proved to be a public relations nightmare for the NBA. He was quickly banned for life from the organization, levied with a heavy fine, the largest on record, and strong-armed into selling his team.

But wait – wasn’t Sterling honored by the country’s premiere civil rights organization in the NAACP – and was slated to be honored again prior to the Big Kerfuffle? How does one square the notion that Sterling is one step away from being a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan, with his winning Image Awards?

Agh, none of that matters – he’s a Racist, fullstop – and that’s where our collective brain stops, too. Nevermind the facts – like his being taped unknowingly. Nevermind the fact that these were statements he made, not on the job, but in his own home. And nevermind that these statements weren’t some kind of Turrets-inspired spontaneous rant out of nowhere – but were within the context of a relationship that took place, with the full awareness and sanction of his wife(!). Agh, little facts like those don’t matter – right?

For many ladies, especially those with keyboards and who like to write about “who should get with who”, Sterling’s downfall at the hands of his dusky-hued young chippie, was a large and comforting point – unlike Hugh Hefner, another octogenarian with a penchant for the Young Stuff, Sterling had a habit of being garrulous and unapologetically Politically Incorrect – he’s essentially an Archie Bunker with a lot of dough. To equate him with Bull Connor, or Gov. Wallace, is laughable if it weren’t so serious. And sad.

So, why is Hef able to get away with stuff that got Sterling into so much hot water? To ask the question, is to answer it: for one thing, Hef knows that it is very important to tell the ladies What They Want To Hear(TM) – the truth, almost never counts. And second, Hef also keeps his Chippie Chasing out of sight of those Vanessa eyes – he stays holed up in his Playboy Mansion, and has for decades. Sterling on the other hand, is brash, uncouth, in-your-face – on top of being mad successful, with no compunctions toward using that success to getting him the Hottest Piece Of Trim he can buy. It’s a very old story that, if RHOA, L&HH, B-Ball Wives, Sterling’s mistress and many, many other instances we’ve all seen in the media lo these many years, is anything to go by, one that won’t be going away anytime soon.

As J4G brother Ciaran has noted, the New Totalitarianism is a line of thinking that both proffers certain ideologies on one side, while doing all it can to either squash or crush dissenting views on the other. “Assortative Mating” is but one manifestation of said New Totalitarianism, because at its core lies emotional abuse and manipulation, coercion, shaming and cajoling others, Women and especially Men, into getting with their supposed “equals” – and all in the service of an Agenda that holds “Equality” as the Sine Qua Non of our age. And like other manifestations of the New Totalitarianism, “Assortative Mating” operates by getting the imprimatur of high-level academics, media types and culture shapers, to cosign these notions. This is hugely important, because of the way the Female Mind works – it NEEDS the cosigning of others to make what they feel “legitimate”. This is how and why Women will often appeal to others – Men most importantly – to “sign off” on their notions - because by doing so, their personal feelings are now imbued with Moral Authority – so, in the case of Sterling, he just wasn’t an Archie Bunkeresque blowhard who has done some real good in his life; his supposed racism and chippie-chasing, regardless as to whether his wife was good with it or not, makes him a Big, Bad Meanie(TM) – and must be punished for the Good of All. Nor did it matter that said chippie, young as she was, was also a grown-arsed Woman, in full control of her faculties and not some Third World chattel. Nope – all that matters is that Sterling offended the Cathedral, and for that he had to be excommunicated. Fellow NBA team owner Mark Cuban, himself no stranger to controversy and certainly isn’t known for hiding his light under a bushel, rightly noted that what has happened to Sterling sets a very bad precedent for the NBA – because now, anything anyone says that the Cathedral doesn’t much like, is in danger of suffering the same fate.

Aside from the above, this is how and why Game, Pickup Artists and by extension, Evolutionary Psychology, are so utterly derided by the Sisterhood – because It Works. Think about it: if Barry the 3, is able to, via a combo of Game and success, bump himself up to say, a 5, he is now within striking distance of bagging himself Sarah the 6. Fun question: where does that leave Tamara the 2, Tina the 3, Felicia the 4 and Fatima the 5? ALL OF THESE LADIES HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN SEEING TO IT THAT BARRY “STAYS IN HIS LANE!”.

And one way to do that, is by banging lots of pots and pans about “assortative mating” – by doing de facto Public Service Announcements in the form of sitcoms, where the Vanessas of the world make impassioned speeches meant to shame the Barrys of the world into “acting right”; by having the MSM fete female academics committed to “social justice”; by having the multi-billion dollar Entertainment business cook up Make Lupita Beautiful Campaigns(TM); and by using any opportunity it can to paint the whole of EvoPsych, Game and PUAs, as rampaging rapists, misogynistic killers and at the very least, apologists for same, facts be damned – and if that doesn’t work, merely tag them all as bitter losers in life who couldn’t get laid if their very lives depended on it. This is how and why there are not just blogs, but entire sectors of the Internet that are devoted day in, day out, to a PsyOps campaign of smearing and discrediting Game, EvoPsych and PUAs – not just to whip up on the putative losers who imbibe these teachings, BUT TO DISSUADE ANY OTHER MEN FROM GOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. This tactic is all the more successful and powerful, if there are Men on the side of the Ladies in Doing Good(TM) – “see! Real Men don’t need Game!”. “Real Men don’t chase young chippies!”. “And Real Men stay in their lane!”.

Welcome to A Woman’s Nation.

Conclusion – Sort Of

Because this essay is getting long even for yours truly, I think I’ll wrap up here, for now. As you might have guessed, I’ve given all of this a tremendous deal of thought, and have only shown you all the tip of the iceberg in that regard; in a future post or two, I should like to revisit this meme of “assortative mating”, as I think the concept/push is one that is very, very telling and interesting on a lot of levels – perhaps all the moreso, given that our country is currently undergoing a fundamental seachange as to the very definition and meaning of relationships and marriage in our time, perhaps most dramatically punctuated by the Gay Marriage Debate. Seen as more than a mere dry and somewhat academic matter of rights and fairness, Gay Marriage has been deemed as among, if not the “civil rights issue of our time”, with impassioned pleas by both gay and straight folk talking about the Right to Love. No doubt, those who bang on the loudest about “assortative mating”, will be ardent supporters of Gay Marriage.

Strange then, that the very same people who would champion such a seemingly noble cause on the one side, would vehemently insist that others get with their supposed “equals” on the basis of metrics that are at best, hard to nail down and one gets the sneaking suspicion that such “metrics” are in fact a quick-moving target – designed to fit the whims and designs of those who tout the idea the most at any given time. When you really stop to think about it, “assortative mating” is little more than what used to go down in the Old World – matchmaking by another name, and sans the overt power plays and coercions that were part and parcel of said Old World. Here, in the New World, “assortative mating” works by more subtle, indirect and covert ways – the College Sorting Machine, is one such example – and Doing Good(TM) “PSAs”, along with studies from the country’s best schools, all work to “gently nudge” along those who dare to love who they want to love, while also assuaging the butthurtness of those Vanessas Who Didn’t Make The Cut. And for those who openly buck the system – like a Don Sterling – they are swiftly excommunicated, to serve as an example to other Men who don’t tow the line.

How is it, that such a draconian, and invidious, notion is even possible in a place where “the pursuit of happiness” is part of our very way of life, by design? That, is a question I leave to you, to hazard out. In the meantime, I’ll say this:

Getting Game materials: under $100

Getting upgrades on wardrobe, fitness, minor cosmetic fixes, building an interesting life, being able to “show and prove” all of that: a couple thousand dollars

Being able to leverage all of that into bagging that Educated Sista with the 3-point-something GPA from thus-and-so Top Ten private uni with the Big Butt & a Smile:

Priceless.

How Modern Culture Twisted Man Up

Black Women Do Not Respect Boundaries

Of Supermodels & Male Emotion

The "Real" Nice: Distinguishing Genuine Kindness From Manipulation In Dating

What Happens When You Date An Angry Incel

Assortative Mating And The Real Rules Of Value

Jane Austen Beyond Chick Lit

Exposing the Myth Of The Alpha Male

A Woman’s Window Is Only Open So Long