This theory is not backed by data. Interestingly enough, it was the fathers who used to arrange marriages and those the ones who preffered rich men.

But when you look at what women choose, you see women liking artist (who are famously poor) or all kinds of men regardless their income. If hypergamy was true, women married to rich men, won't cheat on them with younger, more handsome men with less money. But as we know, women married to rich men who leave him for their younger, hotter "personal trainners" are not that rare. According to "evolutionary psychology" that would never happen, since personal trainners have lower incomes.

Let's be honest here, Elon Musk or Bill Gates aren't considered the "most attractive" men in the world even if they are among th e richest. Instead we have Chris Evans, who is beautiful, handsome and has reputation of doing nice things like visiting children at hospitals. And if the author is going to claim that it is because his money, I want to point out that no, women date broke men who are hot all the time.

Tinder algoryth is set in a way that hide men with less income to women. So women didn't even have a chance to see them and swipe right on them.

The reason we keep hearing about ecolutionary theory even if the analysis is weak is that it is a convenient way to justify sinequality. But even in this article we do see contradiction:

In the thrish paragraph he writes "This hypergamy is genetically coded in women so it isn't optional and can't just be turned off by cultural conditioning or choosing not to".

But latter they admit cultural conditioning affects dating:

"The final nail in the dating market coffin is there new campaigns touting the single lifestyle as optimal".

So basically they admit that culture influences behaviur. They can't even make their mind...

But even if they can't make their mind, they critizice studies that they haven't understand. For example: they confuse "single women being the happiest of all groups" thinking that it is a contradiction with "married people being the happiest". But they fail to see that married men are in the group of "married people" and they compensate for the difference in happyness between married and single women. That is, if single women have a level of happyness of 8, married men of 7, married women 5 and single men of 2. Single people would appear as an average happyness of 5, while married people an average of 6 (more happy) and we would still see single women as the happiest group of all.

I can see why evolutionary psychologist might want to justify the reduction of dating on "women being hypergamous" and not on women wanting men who treat them as equal, do their share of house chores and support them as much as them. That way they can keep justifying prioritizing men's careers instead of taking turns or supporting each other equally. But remember, fathers no longer decide for women as in the past, where men have to ask for a woman's hand in marriage. Women are choosing for themselves and if they not like what they see, they have no problem remaining single (Even if supposedly we have an evolutionary impulse to reproduce!). The fact that the "Martin's Shkrelis" of the world have trouble finding women tells us all, it is not about hypergamy.

And prenups also tell us that women aren't hypergamous. If women were really attracted by income, rich men won't need prenups, since women won't marry them for money and divorce them once they have access to the money ditching the man. Women would be supperattracted to the man and would want to keep having sex/reproducing with those men, not divorce them to get the money and continue their live with both money and a hotter husband. Let's be real here, we do know that women are not hypergamous and that is why we keep seeing prenups and why older men might become jealous of younger "personal trainners". Or why we have tragedies like Ginevra cheating on Arthur, the king, with young handsome Lancelot.

So if you really believe the hypergamy theory, I would call you self deluded, unscintific and illogical. You pre-emptive "call me mysoginist" is just an easy way to try people to not focus on your lack of data and contradictions. But go ahead, explain the need men have of prenups if women would be attracted to "high earners". Why would they divorce a rich husband to go with younger, hotter men who make less than the richer husbands? Acording to evolutionary theory, that is. XDDD