Female Hypergamy is an Adaptation Survival Strategy Rooted in Biological and Socio-economic Factors.

       Female hypergamy is a biological mechanism women developed for survival that is still very observable and and quantified nowadays in the 21st century despite our advances as a civilization. Many sex typical behaviors are rooted in our own inherent nature despite all the rationalization done by the feminists and neo progressives inside academia pulling their buzzwords like "patriarchy" and "social construct".
In this article, we will look at the science behind female sexual predilection and choices based purely on biological and psychological reasons. Women prefer more intelligent, creative and more masculine men who perform physical tasks, which produces stronger and more intelligent children:

Source: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2808%2900079-2/abstract?cc=y=

Source: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0013191570100106?journalCode=cedr20&

                              

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130383/pdf/rstb20100404.pdf

       Women also prefer gifts and material wealth as signs of affection and romance, while men just see them as tools of courtship to gain sexual favors, as we can read in a study titled, " 'Heck with the flowers and candy—I just want sex!' Women’s and men’s agreement and disagreement about romance":

"As a concise definition of romance is virtually absent in the literature, based on our analysis of scientific and layperson construal of romance, we define it as an orientation toward a partner whereby 1 expresses love, caring, and sexuality to facilitate and solidify commitment. Of interest to the authors, men’s and women’s definitions of romance were similar, and they placed equal importance on romance in a committed relationship. However, men considered themselves to be less romantic than did women, and men considered romance to a means to sexual access more than did women. This evidence suggests that men, acknowledging its importance, may be just “playing the game” of romance to gain sexual access. These results can be interpreted through an evolutionary psychological framework vis-à-vis the fundamental reproductive differences between the sexes."

Women also associate sexual stimulation with material wealth, while seeing lower value objects as negative sexual stimuli, to the point of even upsetting them: all the while men placed no sexual value on wealth:

                         
 

Source: The Price Had Better Be Right: Women’s Reactions to Sexual Stimuli Vary With Market Factors

In another study, researchers examined the mate preferences in dating site that had a highly skewed sex ratio (646 men for 1,000 women). But despite all that, they still found that women remain highly selective of higher status men even during the study's "marriage squeeze" scenario:

Source: RATIONAL CHOICE AND EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AS EXPLANATIONS FOR MATE SELECTIVITY

The Myth That Most Women Didn't Vote Because Their Husbands Didn't Allow Them To

The popular myth concerning the accepted history of women's voting rights is that women were ultra enthusiastic overall about voting but the men in their families were oppressing them and preventing them from voting.

The Pew Research Center however, detailed a survey of women from 1923 where 65% of the women chose not to vote and found that less than 3% of the women said that they didn't vote because their husbands didn't want them to.

A much higher percentage of them said they did not believe in voting than those who said that they didn't vote because their husbands didn't want them to (11% vs 3%).

46% of the women chose to vote for President versus 75% of the men.

This is vital information because it gives us a glimpse of what the mindset of women were like in large cities back then concerning suffrage as opposed to the myths.

The Myth that Women Were Not Allowed to Hold Office or Court Prior to The Feminist Movement

If women were 100% not allowed to hold office at all prior to the feminist movement by the evil patriarchy as feminists claim, then how were women allowed to be Queens? Why is an entire era called The Victorian Era?

 A declaration from a case in 1808 stated that women were allowed to hold most offices in the UK including Queen of course, and this was long before the feminist movement.





And yet here feminists are claiming that women wouldn't have that right without them.

Granted, life for both women and men was often no picnic back then, and there was plenty of discrimination against both sexes, but the fact remains, you are being lied to about women not being allowed to be public officials or hold court.

The first female mayor in the United States was Susanna M. Salter in 1887 which was at least 70 years before anything called the feminist movement existed. There is no record of her having to fight to be mayor.

Women in Colonial America were the first to Own Printing Presses.

  Unlike the humongous myths you have heard or been told by feminists, when it comes to women having basic rights as men did; like having the right to education and running businesses, during the colonial days of the US, women were pioneering in journalism and advertisements.

In"Encyclopedia of Women in American History", we discover that the first person to even own a printing press was a woman named Elizabeth Glover of Cambridge MA, in 1638, and 25 women who ran newspapers and presses, plus other additional 26 cases; including where a woman opened up her own firm with her own money. Do these women sound oppressed to you?  

When we read further down, we also find out that a woman named Mary Katherine Goddard was chosen to be the first one to even print out the first copy of the Declaration of Independence, and that publications respected both male and female audiences; even not wanting to offend women who would read those articles. Sounds like typical chauvinism in action to me:

                                              

These just helps demonstrate some of the massive lies your government, teachers and the mainstream media have told you regarding women's level of freedom in early America.

Women of all Classes could Vote in England before Women's Suffrage

   Another important piece of information that we are being lied about and letting the feminist movement get away with, is the historical revisionism they commit when they claim women were just properties of men and could not vote before women's suffrage. We posted in this blog how that was a lie in the U.S, and now that is also a lie in England.


Women of all classes and social status voted 75 years prior to the Parliamentary franchise to officially give women the vote. Those include women who were property owners and owned businesses as well, but we were told women weren't allowed to do that?
Here's The Telegraph's report on it:

"A new document has surfaced which shows British women, of all classes, voting in 1843, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918. History professor, Sarah Richardson, explains what this discovery means and how it was possible.

The document in question was a poll book for the election to the local office of Assistant Overseer of the Poor, in the parish of St Chad’s, Lichfield in 1843. I was tipped off about its existence by a friend, Philip Salmon of the History of Parliament. It was a schedule of voters, their addresses, the rates they paid and how they voted. But as I looked down the list of names, some immediately jumped off the page: Elizabeth Shorthouse, Hannah Holiman, Phoebe Skelton, Ann Mallett… In all, there were thirty women playing an active role in the election.

Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century.

The record was compiled because the solicitors were the agents for the Conservative party in Lichfield. The town was a highly marginal constituency in this period, so the party clearly wanted to keep tabs on the political temperature between parliamentary elections. The solicitor would have compiled the poll book from the ballot papers returned by the voters.

In the period before the secret ballot, everyone was entitled to know how people voted. It was unusual to have an election for an Assistant Overseer. This was a powerful post responsible for collecting poor rates and deciding how they were allocated. But the overseers were usually appointed to avoid the expense of an election. All heads of households, paying rates were entitled to vote. This was a very wide franchise, and one that included single and widowed women.

 

My assumption was that the women would be of genteel status. But as I checked their names against the 1841 census return, I was surprised to see the diversity of the group of voters. There were a few women of independent means, owning property and land. There were also women, probably widows, who had inherited their husbands’ businesses. So, for example, the wealthiest female elector on the roll was Grace Brown, a butcher, who managed a large household including several servants.

Due to the high rates that she paid, Grace was entitled to four votes in the election, which she cast in favour of the Conservative candidate. But I was amazed to see many women on the list who were far lower down the social scale including the laundress, Caroline Edge, the servant, Sarah Payne and even paupers, including Sarah Batkin of Stowe Street.

The poll book is all that remains of an unremarkable local parish election in a comfortable Midlands market town in the mid nineteenth century. Yet, it has prompted a need to re-write the history books by providing the first substantial proof that women were able to vote long before they received the parliamentary or municipal franchise"