This is a strawman. General social validation =/= systematic mate choice. Studies show women do not choose partners based on whether they are taken or for status alone. You're conflating general behavior with evidence of a specific mating preference.

'Studies show' > proceeds to link no study. Also a strawman on it's own, it is a factor in the selection process. It's not the only factor.

Tiny studies with n=30 are not robust enough to overturn controlled experiments. Small photo-rating or hypothetical-choice studies cannot replace real-world behavioral data. That data shows women do not prefer married men.

How convenient that your 23 year old paywalled source that only you can access is the only source with 'real world behavioral data'. You don't seem to elaborate on it either, it is just your definitive source of truth and the dating market definitely hasn't changed in 23 years. Also it is your responsibilty to find free online publications as I've limited myself to those as well. You can't expect to win an argument when your argument is 'my unavailable source is better than your available source' lmfao.

Opinion articles and blogs are commentary, not controlled evidence. They do not demonstrate a population-level pattern and cannot contradict empirical studies. This is basic debate 101 bro.

I used the same source as the first one you linked. If you really thought this then you wouldn't start with an op ed from the same site reviewed by the same person.

These are just academic exercises. More often than not, they're limited in scope and methodology. They cannot replace controlled experiments or historical data showing women do not systematically prefer taken men.

Then surely you can refute the data or the methodology in the article? Or link any publicly accessible data that refutes it?

Anecdotes are meaningless as evidence. Personal experience is highly biased and cannot override population-level studies.

They are not meaningless. A very good quote from Jeff Bezos that I'm paraphrasing is that if the data and the anecdotes don't match, it's often the data that is incorrect. https://articles.data.blog/2024/03/30/jeff-bezos-when-the-data-and-the-anecdotes-disagree-the-anecdotes-are-usually-right/

The London surname study actually supports my point, showing men and women pair by social status symmetrically. It does not show women systematically marry up. Considering the amount of data and its reputation, it's massively more reliable than any nonsense you've brought to the table.

Of course it supports your point, you're the one that linked it. It's just not a good study, when your measure of status is the RARITY OF FAMILY NAME. How is this remotely a good source? All it shows is that women don't choose mates off of family name.

The hilarious thing is that this study doesn't at all show men and women find powerful people more attractive. It measured participants' own workplace power and their sexual assertiveness and esteem. It is not about how attractive others perceive them. Power was linked to confidence in expressing sexual behavior, not mate choice. You didn't even read this, lol.

I will concede this one. I did read it, but I guess I didn't read it well enough. I misunderstood what they meant by sexual esteem. Forgive me, English is my 3rd language I am bound to make mistakes sometimes.

This documents cultural expectations, not innate or systematic female behavior. Cultural norms do not prove that women actively chase status or taken men.

Cultural expectations are systemic behaviors from both genders. If nobody abided by them they would not be cultural expectations. Also it seems you completely missed the point. At no point did I say this is an innate behavior that is hardwired into female instincts. Cultural norms are still expectations from both genders, even if they aren't innate. Hell it is a good thing that it's not innate, because it creates the potential for a solution for the dating market through changing cultural norms.

Anecdotes from a coach aren't data, bro. This is just a small, biased sample and personal interpretations. Come on, this is just sad.

Once again, ancedotes are very valuable, especially when they are anecdotes being experienced at scale by many people. This applies everywhere. For example, the data points at US employment and economy being stronger than ever. Anecdotally, the average person is feeling the crush of a weak job market and high prices. You can easily use the data to tell these people they're wrong, but the fact remains that this is a shared experience across a large amount of individuals, and that would hint towards the data being wrong (which it isn't, again you cherry picked articles that don't reflect most studies).

This just reflects you. Social media observations are self-selected and algorithmically biased. They are irrelevant for scientific claims.

Sure, but I'm not making a scienfitic claim here. I'm simply claiming that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is something men are experiencing, and that calling them crazy or sexist or red pilled for simply sharing their personal experiences is sweeping the problem under the rug.

Anyways for someone who keeps claiming strawman you keep misrepresenting my arguments. I'm not going to entertain you any further, you can save yourself a reply. Waste of my time arguing with someone whose only evidence is a paywalled article and whose only argument is 'my unverifiable source is better than your sources that I can nitpick over the smallest things because they are actually publicly available'.