Smart women need to marry down to become mothers


There are simply not enough brainy men to go round – so women may need to widen their search, warned the author of a report that found a growing number of professional women were freezing their eggs because they couldn’t find ‘Mr Right’.
‘There are fewer educated men in the world for educated women to partner with,’ said Marcia Inhorn, professor of anthropology at Yale University.

Anybody else see the problem with identifying, for example, a women with 5 to 6 figures worth of college debt marrying an auto mechanic with no student debt as “marrying down”?


If you ask most women I think they would say they married down.


I have known some women, including doctors, who have “married down”. I don’t know that it ruined their lives to do it. “marrying down or marrying up” can’t necessarily be based on educational achievement. There are some mighty smart people who have never seen the inside of a university. And besides, who comes out of college truly educated nowadays anyway?


I love these studies they do. They think they can read a woman’s/man’s mind. The fact that society made it easier for women to continue with their education because they wanted to become a doctor, lawyer or a welder, electrician etc…does not mean after they fall in love they will look down on someone when they see their paycheck. If that’s what it’s about’ that’s not love. Real Love has no $$$ sign. Real love is wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone who makes you feel love everyday you awake, someone you have children with, knowing they are a part of each one of you.This is a gift from God… Your career if you have one is something extra and no one has to do a study on the life you’ve made for one another…:butterfly: God bless


I just remembered reading, years ago, a book entitled “Metropolitan Life” written by Fran Leibowitz. Not surprisingly it was about all the “with it” people in NYC. In the book, among other things, she described persons known as “tricks”. Obviously taken from a name more commonly applied to prostitutes, those in the “with it”" crowd also use the term to describe those whose overall position in life is significantly lower than that of the other person in a duo.

So, for example, if you’re a famous female designer and your “significant other” is a handsome man of no accomplishment who is five or more years your junior, the male partner is “the trick”, particularly if his name is “Juan”. If a wall street tiger of 50 partners with a stunning lady of 30 whose educational accomplishment was a bachelor’s degree in “art history” or less and learning how to operate a Mercedez Benz, then the lady is “the trick”, especially if her name is “Heather”.

Sometimes, though, it’s hard to know who is “the trick”. If a 75-year-old wealthy man but of no recent accomplishments is partnered with a beautiful 40 year old woman whose sole accomplishment is being seen in all the right places with the right people, then who is the “trick”???

So, if a fairly unattractive female doctor or lawyer is married to a lanky and handsome cowboy type who manages the ranch her money has bought, and knows what he’s doing, then who, exactly “married down”?

I have seen it, and I sometimes find myself remembering Fran Leibowitz again after all these years.


“The Mating Gradient. In choosing a marriage partner, the first requisite is homogamy. However, within those limits, it is almost universally accepted that hypergamy, a situation in which the woman marries up, is more common and more acceptable than hypogamy, a situation in which the woman marries down.”

The mating gradient phenomenon is not a new concept in sociology. When I first read about it many years ago, my thought was that the preference was actually driven by men because they did the proposing which was based on a physiological male response necessary for procreation.

Obviously, it would follow that men at the bottom of the socio-economic scale and women at the top would have fewer marriage opportunities (assuming marriage is the objective; an assumption that is now in question).


Sorry, my post was meant for you. [ good pic of Gabby } God bless you.


Men have been shoved into corners so much by the modern feminist movement, particularly where that movement is strongest in places like institutions of higher learning, that many men are now simply earning what they need to get by themselves and have no interest in working for a family; or, they are unable to get the high-paying jobs that women are now beginning to take out of proportion due to things like “affirmative action” in colleges and workplaces.

If modern, feminist women want to “marry up”, they need to stop attacking men so as to actually have men that they can “marry up” to.


Yes. I see where you’re going with this and I’m following you.

It’s not very smart to calculate someone’s intellectual capability by their earning power. Some of the most “intellectual”, high earning people need help finding an address (even with GPS) or opening a door. Not to mention social capabilities…getting along with others, burning bridges, making deals…all of which are factors that make a person smart.

In my experience, and not just mine but the Wizard of Oz’s as well, a diploma does not make someone smart. Not at all. In fact, many smart people skip college all together because they don’t want, or need it. They do just fine starting their own business.


If you ask most men, they would agree.


I think that is to paint a negative picture of their financial status. But to evaluate that more information would be needed including her income and assets.

Many of the women in my social circle have achieved higher education than their significant others. They also tend to be the ones more responsible with money too. The difference in income they are okay with. The things that bother them tend to be more based on behaviours. That said the people in my social circle are anything but a random sample, so don’t take that to be evidence supporting this article.

There’s a rather broad range of people that call themselves “feminist” that don’t all promote the same thing. Someone that is a feminist doesn’t necessarily attack men, someone that attacks men isn’t necessarily a feminist. But in general it is probably a good idea for someone to not attack a person for which they have romantic and potentially long term intentions.


“Both husband and wife are most comfortable when the husband has higher status than the wife. The cultural preference for hypergamy results in a mating gradient: women prefer men who are of equal or higher status than themselves, and men prefer women who are of equal or lower status than themselves. The result is that two categories of people tend to be squeezed out of the marriage market: high status women and low status men.

“The mating gradient is apparent in terms of height and weight. Tall women have trouble finding even taller men, and short men have trouble finding even shorter women. In more general terms, the mating gradient means that when men increase in status, they widen their pool of eligibles; when women increase in status, their pool of eligibles becomes narrower, leading to an exacerbation of the female marriage squeeze.”


Certainly if your wife is in the room…


Yup …:laughing:


Well it is an interesting psychological phenomenon. Multiple studies have demonstrated that, when looking for a marriage partner, men and women have some similar and some different priorities. Men tend to prioritize intelligence and good looks. Financial status of the woman is pretty low on the list of priorities, regardless of the financial status of the man. Women, however, do prioritize a man’s financial status, especially over attractiveness. Women also prefer intelligence and prefer someone of a comparable age or slightly older. Men almost always prefer a woman around 18-25 at all ages. Go figure.

Obviously these are generalizations for the sexes and at the individual level these vary. But it is a fact that in general a woman considers a man’s financial status as an important factor when considering a husband.


Reading the male responses on this thread, I feel like I am attending the 60th Reunion of the Boy Scout Jamboree of 1958. You guys must get a table all to yourself when you show up for Thanksgiving Dinner at your relatives.


Nearly everybody in my social circle married “sideways” (similar education, earning potential, socioeconomic class).
Except for my one cousin who married very up. But she’s kind of a flake and divorced him soon after


I think most people marry “sideways” as you said.


I think you’re right. A lot of people marry people they met during their educational years. That’s a “sideways” marriage most of the time. Even in colleges and universities it is. If you can’t afford Washington U. quite likely you’ll go to Mo. State or somewhere. And the likely economic status of students at Mo. State is probably similar to your own. On the other hand, if you park your Mercedes sports car on the campus of Washington U, your fellow students are likely to be similar to you.

An interesting exception to that at least used to be Catholic schools. Since they weren’t all that expensive once upon a time, the economic status of students wasn’t terribly predictable. Nowadays, I think, it’s a different story.

For most people, that’s not a problem of any kind. But in some circles, it can be. I recall reading a British study in which it was determined that the “Autism spectrum” occurrence among the children of science and math graduate students in Britain was massively higher than for the population at large. The conclusion was that those students tended to marry among themselves and within a pretty small circle of people. Any kind of genetic defect was therefore likely to be expressed.

But you know, we might not be as genetically diverse as we think we are. How many original settlers does anybody think there were in, say, the Ozarks? There are a lot of people in that region now, and mostly descended from the original settlers. There are no few places like that, including huge swaths of Ky, Tn, Mo, Ar, Ok and Tx. And, with other people, what about the upper plains with all its northern Europeans? How many wagon trains are they descended from, really?


The problem the article highlights is that there are more women than men in US colleges, so the number of people on one side of the equation is not equal to the number on the other by a significant amount.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit