The whole marrying up/marrying down and saying farming is "more advanced" is some weird post-hoc teleology. Research suggests that hunter-gatherers had better diets and were taller and more robust than their early agrarian counterparts. Agriculture likely ended up "winning" from a combination of factors, including a changing climate, the extinction or reduction in population of the megafauna, and the greater specialization afforded to sedentary populations, but it makes sense that hunter-gatherer men would've been the more attractive option while they were around.
History
Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.
c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting
Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).
When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.
Historical Disinformation will be removed

What i've read suggests the farmers taking over was less a matter of extinctions (that was the onset of the holocene iirc), climate shifts or even specialisation (the linearbandkeramik peoples that displaced the huntergatherers were still entirely rural without evidence of specialisation afaik).
The big advantage in favour of the farmers' expansion was their sheer numbers/density and the fact that by creating their ecosystem (a field farm) they rapidly destroyed the basis for the huntergatherers existence (the forests). Periods of peaceful coexistence lead to the slow erosion of the forest, and war lead to them being overwhelmed by numbers and taking losses they couldnt replace.
This also brings to mind how, say, the mongols weren't just pastoralist nomad warrior-merchants, they were a broader civilization that included sedentary agricultural populations with which there was considerable back and forth movement and the divide between them was more about class than these being two distinct cultures. Like Genghis Khan spent his early life in the sedentary, agricultural class of that civilization before his fortunes turned around and he began his meteoric rise as a warrior and warlord. Being able to own the livestock and gear required for pastoralist life and having the status to be part of their ranks was a prestigious and aspirational thing for that civilization because they were broadly an elite warrior and merchant class.
One can almost wonder if there wasn't sometimes a similar dynamic during that gradual transition from hunting and gathering to horticulture and agriculture, with having the support structure, knowledge, tools, and ability to rove around being a more prestigious and exclusionary role within a broader civilization that also had people starting to settle down and eke out their survival with more limited resources but constant, secure shelter. There's also the fact that I believe the consensus is shifting towards hunter gatherers around that time not merely exploiting natural resources but maintaining and tailoring wide stretches of land to better accommodate themselves, albeit in a more limited fashion than what agrarian civilizations would later do, so the groups that are moving around more could well still be planting and harvesting certain crops albeit ones that don't require as much tending or squeeze as much utility out of a given stretch of land.
The DNA says the got married, huh?
Once you get married, acetylation of key histone H3 and H4 lysines, and H3K36me3 facilitate the process of inscription of "my mother in law is the worst" jokes
so you're saying the marrying down phenomenon where some educated woman from a family of professionals marries some grunting, hairy-knuckled guy in a mud hut eating grubs and woodbark has been going on for a while in evropa.
So there's hope for me after all.
❤️
As a gnome I feel personally attacked