The Human Reproductive Skew Is Not Evidence of Female Hypergamy

The human reproductive skew is not evidence of female hypergamy. Nevertheless, it’s the favorite myth of red-pill influencers, feMRAs, and pop-evopsych evangelists who distort a genetic statistic to gaslight you into accepting and catering to gynocentrism.

The Claim You Keep Hearing

“Twice as many women as men reproduced in our evolutionary past. That proves women are hypergamous—choosy gold-diggers who only sleep with the top 20% of men.”

Wrong.

The reproductive skew—the fact that ~80% of ancestral females left descendants while only ~40% of males did—is real.
But it is not evidence of female mate choice.
It is not evidence of hypergamy.
It is not even evidence that women had any say in the matter.

What the Skew Actually Is

Genetic Fact	What It Means
Female effective population size = 2× male	Twice as many women as men contributed genes to the next generation.
~80% females reproduced	Almost every woman who reached adulthood had kids.
~40% males reproduced	Most men died genetic dead-ends.

That’s it.
That’s all the DNA tells us. It says nothing about why.

Two Ways to Get the Same Skew:

Scenario A – Female Choice (the Red-Pill fantasy)

Women freely pick the richest, tallest, most dominant men.
Top 20% of males get 80% of the sex.
Bottom 80% of males get zero.
Result: 2:1 female-to-male reproductive ratio.

Scenario B – Male Monopolization (historical reality)

Warlords, kings, and chiefs use power, violence, wealth, and law to hoard women.
Young girls are sold, captured, or assigned as brides.
Low-status men are banished, killed, or priced out.
Result: 2:1 female-to-male reproductive ratio.

Same genetic footprint. Totally different cause.

Historical Proof That Monopolization, Not Choice, Drove the Skew

Genghis Khan
- 1 man: ~16 million male descendants today.
- Not 16 million women choosing him.
- Conquest, tribute, rape, and forced concubinage.
Ottoman Harems
- One sultan, 1,000+ women.
- Zero female opt-in.
West African Chiefs
- Polygyny via bridewealth.
- Poor men couldn’t afford one wife.
- Women traded like livestock.
Modern Cults
- FLDS leaders exile teenage boys and assign wives.
- No female choice. Massive skew.

These are not edge cases.
They are the rule in 85% of documented societies (Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas).

Why “Female Choice” Is The Weaker Explanation

Argument	Reality Check
“Women evolved to pick high-status men.”	Sure—if they had the power. Most didn’t.
“Modern surveys show women want rich guys.”	Modern women have options. Ancestral women often had none.
“Dating apps prove the 80/20 rule.”	Apps are opt-in, anonymous, urban, post-feminism. Not Paleolithic.

The Genetic Data Is Agnostic

Effective population size (Ne): Female Ne = 2× male Ne.
Translation: Twice as many unique mothers as fathers.

Possible causes:

- Women selecting alphas (low likelihood)
- Alphas taking women by force
- Arranged marriages
- War killing substantial numbers of men
- A mixture of the above

The relative influence of each of these factors varies across cultures, time periods, and ecological conditions.

David Buss Doesn’t Claim ‘The Skew’ is Evidence of Hypergamy

Buss’s work is about modern mate preferences, not ancestral monopolization.
He never says the skew “proves” hypergamy — that’s a post-hoc fan fiction by gynocentric ideologues.

The Bottom Line

Reproductive skew is evidence of asymmetric mating outcomes, not asymmetric agency. It shows some men monopolized sex—but reveals nothing indicating that women chose them freely. For this reason, we can stop letting evosimps weaponize a Y-chromosome statistic to guilt men into pandering to modern female narcissism under the false banner of “natural” hypergamy.

Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins