#matronarchy

Hypergamy is often misunderstood because it is based on a common but yet somewhat acceptable conception: that women aim for men out of their league for their own satisfaction.

Actually whether women intentionally aim for it or not, the main genetic purpose of women is to have descendants and in particular more descendants than other women, because otherwise in purely genetic terms they disappear from history and their inheritable traits would also disappear. But the propensity to hypergamy has not disappeared.

So the hypergamy instinct which is so strong in women must be at least not-conflicting with that aim, but also must support it and indeed it does, in both types of hypergamy:

Economic hypergamy, choosing the most economically successful males, helps having many sons by providing more funding to bear and raise them.

Sexual hypergamy, choosing the most attractive and sexually active male help having sons that are also attractive and sexually active, and thus spread the genes of their their mother faster and wider than the sons of other women.

Of the two sexual hypergamy is clearly the most important instinct, as women get particularly turned on by sexy pump-and-dump players. It is reasonable that it is pointless as to outcome other women as to descendants to have a man able to provide for raising many children if the sons are not attractive or do not have a pump-and-dump player attitude to sex.

There is one case where women practice hypergamy for their personal advantage: when they want to maximize the chances of having a comfortable old age. In that case they will practice economic hypergamy, not only so that the man they choose will provide them with a better lifestyle, but also in the hope that his sons will also be like their father economically successful and thus continue to provide their mother with a better lifestyle when her husband dies.

But given how strong is the instinct to sexual hypergamy before menopause, my guess is that economic hypergamy is rarely chosen by young women, unless it is imposed on them by older women, who are near or past menopause, or anyhow do not care about whether the economically successful men are attractive because they are for their daughters.

The practice in some cultures of women wearing a veil or a full body coverall is indeed related to hypergamy.

The first important detail is that the same women who wear a veil or a coverall in public instead often dress very flashily and sexily in private even if the veil or a coverall are used with the excuse that there is a religious requirement for both men and women to dress modestly; but that requirement should apply to both as to cost and looks, regardless of whether in private or public. The second important details is that wearing veil or coverall in public is not just an individual choice in those cultures but strictly enforced by the matronarchy.

Therefore the veil or coveralls are not worn for modesty, but as a tool both for and against hypergamy: to ensure that the valuable men owned by some women (mainly the wives, but also mothers, sisters, cousins) do not get attracted by other women dressing sexily. Without ensuring that all women have a veil or coverall there is a much higher risks that valuable men already owned by some hypergamous women get turned on by other women who are of course hypergamous too and then seduced and stolen. Hypergamy means that most women are very keen to take valuable men owned by other women and vice-versa to prevent that happening to the men they own.

It is not a coincidence that in those cultures there is often a high proportion of marriages with cousins and other relatives: the female relatives are those a man can see without veil or coverall, and marriages with female relatives ensure that valuable men (and their inheritances) remain owned by the matrons (often grandmothers and grandaunts) who rule an extended family.

There is a nice kdrama series about the difficult relationships between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law.

This tensions largely happens only in cultures with extended multi-generational families, and it has a simple motivation:

Mothers in those cultures marry men to finance their raising of sons as pension assets to provide for their old age.

When those sons marry a woman, they know that the daughter in law wants to do the same: get to help finance the raising of the daughter's in law sons,

Therefore the mother and daughter-in-law are in conflict having to share the output of the same man, the son of one and husband of the other.

The conflict is usually resolved by having the daughter in law work for the mother-in-law as long as she is alive, so the mother-in-law is compensated for the loss of output from her son providing for the daughter-in-law.

The daughter-in-law abides by this as she expects that her daughters-in-law in turn, but of course in the meantime she is not that entirely happy.

Another way (less common in poorer areas) to compensate the mother-in-law is for the bride to be given a dowry to the family (that is the mother-in-law) of her husband.