And the writer of the article kindly gave me one. This one. Please tell me, oh internets, if I were to hand something like this in as an academic essay, would it be accepted? I had a look at the reference list at the bottom and went "Um.." - maybe I'm turning into a snob, but after reading the
Peer reviewed, academic citation please, not just opinion.
The reply I got was "Google it, bitch."
Yes that's right, asking for demonstrable evidence of a statement made broadly as if it's universal fact draws insults before it draws evidence. Somehow I wasn't surprised by this. A bit of to-ing and fro-ing happened, which involved the writer attempting to imply I have a mental illness and am off my meds (by posing as my mother O.o) and then attempting to turn it around to make me prove that women aren't hypergamous. And some statement about how men have to do something and if they don't they are pussies and if I don't believe that then *loop back to mental illness implications*.
Still no research produced to back up the original statement though. And now someone else has jumped in and wants to know if I'm a woman and if so, do I find lots of men attractive wherever I go.
Leaving the heterocentricity of that question aside, I am wondering why this is relevant. The answer is of course, yes I do find lots of men attractive. Some women too. I thought that was pretty normal - I've yet to meet anyone of any gender that only ever finds one person attractive at any given time. So what does this multiplicity of attraction prove in terms of hypergamy? I have no fucking clue. My guess, using evo-devo logic, goes something like this:
I find lots of people attractive even though I have a partner. Clearly my partner is a beta pussy and I'm out to ride the alpha cock carousel. I'm keeping my options open so that when I find a higher status male I can then ditch my current partner and move up the status ladder myself. TA DA! Hypergamy!
Except, um, believing in alpha and beta is a bit like believing in god and the devil if you're a pagan. And assuming that attraction = love is like saying sheep = cows because they both have cloven hooves and chew their cud. Never mind that, you know - agency. Dunno about these people, but I have this remarkable ability to choose whether I act on an attraction or not. And weirdly enough, I don't find status all that attractive.
And anyone who would label Dr Wheel a 'beta pussy' has not met Dr Wheel. Just saying.
"But Tats, surely that proves your hypergamy! If Dr Wheel isn't beta, he must be alpha, therefore you're moving upwards already!"
Up from where? How does my own status factor into this, hmm? Oh yeah, that's right, my status relies on that of whatever man I'm shagging. Except not. Measures of status in these people's world seem to be about power and money. I have plenty of both - does this make me high status? And will this affect what I find attractive? I am really confused about this hypergamy thing, which is supposed to make life simpler by predicting behaviour based on .. oh wait.. an assumption! An incorrect one at that.
Thing is, what I find attractive has nothing to do with power or money. I do have a bottom line for partners - can support self. But that's not the same as can support me. I'm perfectly capable of supporting myself, therefore all (hypergamy-based) bets are off in terms of what I'll look for in a mate. And, you know, being able to wake up with them every morning and be happy about that, being intellectually, humour-ly, sexually and personally compatible are much higher on my list than some socially-constructed idea of status.
And that's the rub. Hypergamy in women does exist, but it's mostly expressed in societies in which women routinely do not have avenues for their own agency. In these societies, women are generally less educated and more oppressed. In these cases, the only options for many women are to marry a man with status, or starve. The more educated* women are, the more hypergamy declines - without the predicted 'marriage market' problems, no less.
The thing is, many proponents of hypergamy as the natural state of women are also of the opinion that women are not oppressed, that in fact men are oppressed by Teh Evol Feminists. To which I say "So which is it? The research demonstrates that hypergamy is a product of oppression - to insist that women are hypergamous is to admit that women are oppressed. If women are not oppressed, then they are not hypergamous. Again, which is it?"
The reply: "I am beginning to think you are autistic."
At which point I rested my case because there's no need to say more, is there?
 Ooh ooh, there's a final shot from said person: "Then get the fuck out, douchebag. I’m not here to play pattycake with a child. If in your experience women prefer low-status males, then simply support this claim. I provided you with one of the best links which support female hypergamy, and you disregard it on grounds that it is not “scientific”. What do you want, e = mc squared? Pythagorean theorem? You won’t get it. Hypergamy is not a geometric “proof”. It is a notion that since knowledge itself is uncertain and unstable, it is the tendency of females to the seek out the most resourceful males. It is a “theory”, not a “theorem”. We are not speaking of individuals here, but of women in aggregate, so spare me this NAWALT defense, you won’t find anyone who buys it.
Now go away you autistic little shit. Fuck off."
*ROFL* Successful troll is successful! (only i wasn't really trolling la la la)
* Yes, that's an academic paper, with graphs, tables, statistical analysis and OMGPROPERREFERENCING!
tl;dr I had a weak moment on the internet and engaged with evo-psych True Believers.
And yes, that 'citation' provided actually did state 'men are simpler' as an attempt at an academic argument.