This is part one of my response to this video

1. Hypergamy

So the first point she makes is that women are not actually attracted to dark triad men, because there are confounding factors that influence attractiveness that are not controlled for. This is a reasonable thing to say, however I don't think that what she is saying isn't that much of disagreement to what Jordan Peterson and David Buss were discussing in that video clip that she played. I think she is misinterpreting the point that Jordan Peterson and David Buss were making in this [video] ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXJlYjyHujI).What they were saying is that dark triad men exhibit certain traits that women find attractive like confidence for example.

They also explain that these dark triad men may fake reciprocity, and competence in order to fool women. They don't seem to even be arguing that women like men who are rude, what they are saying is that dark triad men are attractive to women because they display certain positive traits that women are attracted to, and because they are more willing to be deceptive by hiding their negative traits. She brings up this study as evidence to support her argument. This paper is about dominance which is not exactly the same thing as having dark triad traits and mostly has to do with confidence and assertiveness. Also, even they don't rule out the idea that dominance can be attractive they just challenge the idea that is the only thing that is appealing to women.

The findings from the three studies suggest that college-age women do not find dominance a desirable characteristic in a man when considering him as a potential dating or romantic partner. When compared against a hypothetical man who does not possess dominant characteristics, the women find the man without these characteristics more appealing. Moreover, very few women identify dominant as a preferred characteristic for either a dating or romantic partner. Although these findings challenge the conclusions drawn from earlier research, we are quick to point out that the data do not rule out the possibility that dominance may play a role in the mate-selection process in a manner consistent with the parental investment model. Nor do we want to imply that evolutionary personality theory does not provide insights into the mateselection process. On the contrary, there are a number of studies that find support for predictions for mate selection based on an evolution theory analysis (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield, 1998; Feingold, 1992; Speed & Gangestad,1997). What our findings do challenge is the conclusion that women find dominance by itself an appealing characteristic when selecting dating or romantic partnersThen they explain that the women in their study found assertiveness and confidence attractive, but that they may have also imagined that dominant men would be violent and demanding towards them.

Returning to the original question, do women prefer dominant men? Although we argue that the empirical evidence in support of this position is weak, we also suggest that it would be premature to dismiss this notion entirely. We believe our findings are in line with the analysis provided by Jensen-Campbell et al. (1995). Because dominance is a complex construct, knowing only that a potential mate is dominant is of limited value in predicting mate preferences. We also need to know how that characteristic is expressed and other relevant information about the potential partner. For example, a dominant male can be demanding, violent, and self-centered. He not only may dominate other men, but may treat his romantic partner the same way. Our findings suggest that something akin to this description may have been what our participants imagined when they responded to the materials in each of the three studies. However, dominance can take many forms. For example, our participants found assertive and confident men attractive. Men who dominate others because of leadership qualities and other superior abilities and who therefore are able and willing to provide for their families quite possibly will be preferred to potential partners who lack these attributes.

So this study doesn't really go against anything Jordan Peterson and David Buss discussed in their video. As a matter of fact, this study seems to be in agreement with what they are saying. Women like the positive traits that dark triad men exhibit like confidence, but dislike the traits they may be hiding. Next she responds to Jordan Peterson's video discussing hypergamy and brings up this study that supposedly shows that hypergamy is on the decline in Europe which is a more developed country. The problem with this study and other studies like it is that it is only looking at education and is not looking at income. Socioeconomic status is not determined by education alone, income is very important,and arguably more important since there are plenty of high status people who never went to college. There are other studies showing that even though women are dating down in terms of educational attainment, they still continue to date up in income. This study shows that women tend to marry up in income more when they have equal or greater education then their husbands.

When considering how education and income jointly shaped assortative mating patterns, I found that men and women tended to avoid status reversal in mate selection. Log-linear analyses showed that the tendency for women to marry up in income was generally greater among couples in which the wife’s education level equaled or exceeded that of the husband than among couples in which the wife had less education than the husband. Moreover, the variation in the tendency for women to marry up in income across educational pairings of spouses did not change between 1980 and 2008–2012. Thus, the status characteristics of marriages in which the wife’s education level equals or exceeds that of the husband remained traditional in recent decades in the sense that such marriages still occurred primarily when women instead married up in income.

There is also this study that addresses her point about men earning more then women.

We use Swedish register data and study couples who have their first child together. We refer to a multi-dimensional view of status and use indicators of social class background, income, and occupational prestige. We find that in hypogamous unions, women tend to have a higher social class background and occupational prestige, but lower income than their partners. The income gap between partners is not simply a consequence of the gender wage gap, but driven by selection into different union types. Men and women who form hypogamous unions are negatively selected in terms of their income.

This study she cited does not disprove hypergamy either.

The results partially supported Hypothesis 2: although men's and women's preferences for a mate with good financial prospects did not change, men and women in less developed countries rated a potential partner's status and education and intelligence as more important, relative to ratings provided by individuals in more developed countries. The failure to find support for a shift in preferences for good financial prospects might be attributable, in part, to the fact that men and women in less developed countries are less wealthy, and thus are not able to secure mates who do have good financial prospects. They might instead place increased importance on related characteristics that are attainable in potential partners in less developed countries, such as status and education and intelligence, a speculation corroborated by the current results. In addition, in less developed countries financial prospects may be less important indicators of resources than the possession of cows, sheep, and goats, for example, which those in high status may possess.There is no difference in women's preference for good financial prospects, instead they just go for characteristics related to resource acquisition that may be are more attainable and more indicative of their partners ability to acquire resources.

This is not evidence that hypergamy no longer exists in more developed countries.Then she claims that people in these developed countries are choosing a spouse later in life in and are having less kids because they are choosing a spouse based on others things like emotional needs. I don't actually completely disagree with her, but I think she is really deemphasizing women's preference for men with good financial prospects and is leaving out the fact that women's empowerment in more developed countries also enables them to act on their hypergamy. This study shows that there are not enough economically attractive men for women to marry.Another example of hypergamy is shown in this study which shows that Chinese women were marrying men from Hong Kong more often because they had higher income then men from mainland China.

We study the rise in marriages between residents of HK and China following the handover of HK to China in 1997. Cross-boundary marriages accounted for almost half the marriages registered in HK in 2006. Because of large differences in male income between China and HK, marriages of HK men with Mainland women outnumbered those of HK women with mainland men sevenfold. Following the handover, HK women had lower marriage, higher divorce and higher emigration rates. These outcomes are predicted by our matching model and contradict the hypothesis that cross-boundary marriages were driven by rising education of HK women. The evidence supporting the existence of hypergamy is numerous and can't just be explained away by factors that are outside of women's control. Women clearly have a preference for men with higher socioeconomic status.

2. Monkey branching

In this section of the video she shows clips of other videos that are taken out of context and then constructs this strawman arguement that these people never made in the videos. These videos are either just men explaining what monkey branching is, or talking about how women can get alot of money through divorce, and how that could incentivize them to divorce.

I didn't see anyone in these videos claiming that the reason women initiate divorce more is to monkey branch to a higher value man, but I will address her arguement anyways. She brought up an article talking about the reason why women get divorced more when they get promoted. The article references a study that suggests that this is due to a mismatch of expectations when the woman is promoted and unequal childcare. The study does not say who initiates divorce. Know I do think that there may be some marriages were men are not doing their fair share of work which contributes to or leads to divorce, but I don't think this is generally the case because if you look at this chart you will see that the difference in total work between Swedish men and women is not that big and Swedish men do a good amount of unpaid work. We also have to keep in mind that they include categories like shopping and volunteering in the surveys used to collect data on unpaid work.

I don't think these categories should be included because they may include things that the person chose to do not things that are necessary that would be considered work. Also, the study is specifically looking at women who get promoted so I don't think it can be used to make a generalization about why women initiate divorces more. Lastly there are plenty of other factors that can contribute to or lead to divorce, and it is pretty much impossible to point out one particular thing that causes divorce.

This study gives some potential reasons why women initiate divorce more, and I think it provides a more compelling explanation. Next she brings up this video were Jordan Peterson is talking about how some women get in a monogamous marriage and cheat with a high status man. Here she also plays a short clip of this video that is taken out of context, and either misinterprets or misrepresents what Jordan Peterson is saying. She brings up a study showing that women cheat at similar rates to men as way to refute this argument, but Jordan Peterson never said that women cheat more than men in the first place in the video. She then makes the point that cheating is not the norm, but when you look at the entire video Jordan Peterson says that cheating is not the norm so she is not actually arguing against him.

She also seems to think that Jordan Peterson was suggesting that there is a shift away from monogamy when he never said that or suggested that. he was simple saying that polygamy would destabilizesociety. I think she is misinterpreting what monkey branching is. Monkey branching is basically just another term for what is known as mate switching in evolutionary psychology. The mate switching hypothesis is just an explanation of the primary motivation for women to have an affair. It's not about how often women cheat or anything like that. The mate switching hypothesis suggests that the most common reason for why women cheat is to partner with a man who is better then her current partner. This could be due to the fact that her current partner's mate value has decreased for whatever reason(ex.job loss, abuse,etc),because her value has increased, or because there are better alternatives on the dating market. Here is a quote from the paper.

A man's mate value depends on more than just his physical condition. A woman's mate could lose status within the group, be a bad father,fail as a hunter, begin to abuse her or her children, initiate affairs, or prove to be infertile. Under any of these circumstances, a woman's partner may provide more costs and fewer benefits—that is, be lower in mate value to her—than when their relationship initially formed.Mate-switching mechanisms would benefit a woman by motivating her to pursue the highest value partners she could attract and retain.Another circumstance that may render mate switching beneficial is when the woman experiences an increase in mate value. This could occur through several pathways. A woman could ascend in status, either through her own deeds or through her associations. She could acquire new knowledge or skills that make her a more beneficial partner. And perhaps more subtly, she may become unencumbered by an element of relationship load that she previously possessed, such as a child by another man—perhaps as the child matures, requires less investment, or becomes partially or fully adopted by kin or other alloparents (Daly &Wilson, 2000).Independent of her or her current partner's mate value, better alternative mates may become available who were not available when she selected her initial partner, presenting new benefit-accruing opportunities. Ancestrally, this could occur in several ways. A fusion of two smaller groups into one larger group could open up a new pool of potential mates. A higher value man might become unmated, rendering him newly available on the mating market.

In the paper there is alot of evidence to support this hypothesis. Here is a quote from the paper that explains why the mate switching hypothesis is the best explanation for the motive behind the majority of affairs that women have.

current leading hypothesis for why women have affairs posits that women have adaptations for securing investment from one man while cuckolding him in order to obtain good genes from an affair partner—the dual mating strategy hypothesis (see Gangestad &Haselton, 2015, for a recent articulation and evidentiary summary). Evidence in favor of this hypothesis includes: (1) Woman's mate preferences shift to more bodily masculine and behaviorally dominant men when ovulating, presumed markers of genes for developmental stability and strong immune functioning (two recent large-scale studies, however, have failed to replicate ovulatory shifts in preferences for masculine faces (Muñoz-Reyes et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2014), so this crucial hypothesis- relevant finding is currently in doubt); (2) women's increased sexual fantasies about men other than their regular partner when ovulating, presumably motivating sexual congress with extra-pairmen who possess good genes; (3) men's increased mate guarding ofpartner when she is ovulating, presumably a co-evolved male adaptation to counteract female infidelity during the fertile phase; (4)women whose primary partners are lower in mate value show stronger shifts in attraction to other men around ovulation (Gangestad,Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2005; Larson, Pillsworth, & Haselton,2012). The dual mating hypothesis posits that sexuality with a woman's regular partner functions to secure his continued investment, whereas sexuality with the affair partner is hypothesized to secure superior genes. However, these findings could alternatively be explained by mate switching adaptations designed to track a woman's own mate value, which peaks at ovulation (Buss &Shackelford, 2008); women might use this increase in mate value to leverage a switch to a man higher in mate value than her current partner.Thus, the mate switching hypothesis provides an alternative explanation for why women have affairs—namely to provide mate insurance,to cultivate backup mates, to assess the viability of a switch, to render the transition back into the mating market easier, or to trade up to a new partner who is less cost-inflicting, more benefit-bestowing, or higher in mate value than their current partner.Several pieces of empirical evidence are consistent with the mate switching hypothesis, but cannot be easily explained by the dual mating strategy hypothesis. First, relationship dissatisfaction is one of the most powerful predictors of women's actual infidelity, but not men's infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1985, 1992). Second, relationship dissatisfaction predicts women's sexual interest in other men both during the fertile and luteal phases of the ovulation cycle (Gangestad et al., 2005). This finding is consistent with infidelity functioning for mate switching, but it cannot be explained by the good genes hypothesis. Third, women's expressed benefits of extra-pair mating include (a) finding a partner more desirable than their current partner, (b) making it easier to break up withtheir current partner, (c) being able to replace their current partner,and (d) discovering other potential partners who might be interested in a relationship (Greiling & Buss, 2000). Fourth, the contexts that women report would incline them to EPC matinginclude a partner who cannot hold down a job, meeting someone more successful thantheir current partner who seems interested in them, and meeting someone who is willing to spend a lot of time with them (Greiling & Buss,2000).Fifth, 79% of women who have affairs report falling in love with their affair partner, in contrast to only a third of men who have affairs (Glass& Wright, 1985, 1992)—an emotion hypothesized to come online primarily in long-term mating contexts (Buss, 2006). If the primary function of female infidelity was simply to secure superior genes from an affair partner, falling in love seems both superfluous and costly by potentially interfering with securing continued investment from a woman's regular partner.D.M. Buss et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 143–149 147Sixth, the qualities women want in an affair partner are very similar to those they want in a long-term committed mate (Kenrick, Sadalla,Groth, & Trost, 1990; Greiling & Buss, unpublished). These include a minimum 70th percentile rank on being dependable, emotionally stable, successful, honest, intelligent, mature, and unselfish. These six clusters of empirical findings are consistent with the mate switching explanation for female infidelity, but appear difficult to explain with the good genes hypothesis for female infidelity.Moreover, one meta- analytic study of actual non-paternity rates put the figure at only 1.7% (Anderson, 2006). A second meta-analytic study that included studies of unknown methodology put the figures slightly higher, at 3.7% and 3.1% (Voracek, Haubner, & Fisher, 2008). And a large scale study in Germany found an even lower nonpaternity rate of 0.94%(Wolf, Musch, Enczmann, & Fischer, 2012). It is possible, of course, that nonpaternity rates were higher in ancestral environments, and studies of more traditional cultures may shed light on this issue. The vast majority of women, perhaps 97% or more, appear to be securing both genes and investment from the same partner, which would seem to pose an empirical problem for the dual mating strategy hypothesis.Of course, the good genes and mate switching hypotheses are not mutually exclusive or inherently contradictory. A small minority of women in delimited contexts could successfully implement a dual mating strategy and secure good genes from an affair partner, while other women who have affairs are implementing one or another variant of mate switching. We suggest that the mate switching hypothesis provides a more parsimonious explanation for the function of infidelity for most women.

When you look at the totality of evidence, I think it is logical to conclude that "monkey branching" is actually a real thing. This is where the manosphere gets this idea from, it is based on evidence it's not just something that they came up with.

3. Evidence from dating apps

So she starts of by showing that the OkCupid blog has a chart showing that women message less attractive men more often then men message less attractive women.There is already a comprehensive post addresing this claim so I won't spend time on this one.Next,she claims that women are more selective because of the increased risk of violence and pregnancy.This doesn't make sense though because how will you determine how safe a guy is based on just looking at his profile picture and bio .The only way you can do that is by using his looks and the limited info you have to determine how "safe" he is.What i think is actually going on is that women have higher levels of sexual disgust for men they don't find attractive so they avoid swiping on those men and swipe on attractive men.The fact that women also have higher baseline levels of sexual disgust could also help explain why they are more selective. Also, I just don't see how women are jeopardizing their safety by swiping right on the wrong guy, It's not like these guys get teleported to their exact location after they swipe right on them. I highly doubt women are fearful at the swiping stage of the process of meeting men through these dating apps,and she did not provide direct evidence of this or really compelling evidence. This doesn't seem like a plausible explanation for why they are more selective about who they swipe right on. However she uses this an explanation for the massive disparity in right swipes between men and women while overlooking other more convincing explanations. Another explanation is that women may select men with a better education more often.

The preference for hypergamy is confirmed when comparing the situation of hypergamy directly to the situation of no hypergamy. Indeed, when considering all subjects, they are 26.5% more likely to (super)like an evaluated profile that is higher educated than themselves, compared to when that is not the case. This effect is driven by the female subjects, who (super)like higher educated profiles 92.2% more often, while this effect is not significant for the male subjects. These findings are in line with those of Whyte and Torgler (2017a), who found, using data from a classic online dating website, that women are more likely than men to contact a potential partner with a higher education level.

Now, could what she is saying play a role in women swiping left more often? Possibly, but she doesn't provide convincing evidence to show that this fully accounts for the difference or even accounts for a significant portion of the difference. This arguement seems even less convincing when you look at something like this.These women were clearly not afraid to talk to these men who even stated that they were criminals. This is because you are not in any imminent danger when swiping on profiles and messaging people.so again, I am highly doubtful that fear is a factor when women choose who they swipe left or right on.After this she brings up the chart showing that there are more men who reported being sexless then women.To counter this she brings up a bar graph that shows that there is a higher proportion of men sleeping with 3 or more partners then there are women.She thinks this disproves the claim that there are more sexless men then women when in reality it supports this claim.A larger minority of men having sex with multiple partners is what you would expect if there were more sexless men then women.This means there are more women sleeping with the same men which results in more men being sexless then women.I'm not really sure how she interpreted the graph that way.

4. Rape culture

So next she talks about the 1 in 5 claim.She makes an arguement for why the NCVS is less accurate and undercounts rape,and she uses the NISVS survey to back up the 1 in 5 claim.She starts by comparing the two defintions which are pretty similar except for the fact that NISVS defintion includes alchol or drug- facilitated penetration.She then argues that because the NISVS uses behaviorally-specific questions it makes people more comfortable admitting that they have been victimized,while the NCVS uses the words rape and sexual assault.She also claims that the staff administering the NCVS survey was not trained on how to speak to people about rape and sexual assualt,but doesn't explain why this makes a difference and what specific things the NISVS interviewers were trained to do that the NCVS ones were not trained to do.She then claims that after the screening question about rape was asked no other questions were asked.Lastly,she brings up a report by the national research council discussing the weakness of the NCVS survey.

Alot of the criticisms of the NCVS survey are seen as potentially leading to undercounting, but the alternative may also potentially lead to inflated statistics. This pilot test conducted by the bjs addresses some of the criticism of the NCVS,and points out methodological problems with surveys like the NISVS.so I will be quoting thispaper alot. So first let me address the use of behaviorally specific questions vs questions using the word rape and sexual assualt.I agree that asking respondents if they have been raped is somewhat ambigous and could possibly lead to undercounting, However what she leaves out is that the respondents also fills out an incident reports as well. So it's not just them being asked that question alone,they also get to describe in detail what happened to them. This is arguably the biggest strength of the NCVS that she overlooked.This in my opinion makes the NCVS a much better survey because you don't just leave it up to the interviewers to determine what is rape,but you also incorpate the victims experience of what happened. Another downside of these behaviorally specific questions is that they can pressure people to answer in the affirmative.

As is stated in the Pilot Test report, “By asking multiple questions about related behavior, respondents may feel pressure to answer in the affirmative.”16 The report adds, “Survey methodologists have found that asking more questions that mention the targeted or related behaviors will produce higher rates of reporting.”17

This is one of the major criticisms of the NCVS in the report she brought up.I think it is also important to point out that panel did not examine both surveys so they could not come to a conclusion about which one is better. This is a quote from the report

It is important to note that the panel did not perform the same in-depth examination of the error structure of the other surveys for measuring rape and sexual assault because of limitations of time and resources. Presenting findings focused on the NCVS does not imply that the panel believes that the other surveys have fewer errors: the panel did not examine them carefully and so cannot draw overall conclusions about their error structures.

Another major criticism of the NCVS is that the survey is framed as a crime survey, and not a health survey.It is debatable which would be better,but framing a survey as a health survey could also lead to inflated statistics because they could answer yes while recalling an incident that was not an actual crime.

The Pilot Test was not administered as a crime survey. The Pilot Test report says that the “Pilot Test was introduced as a survey about health and safety, and the questions do not refer to any acts as being criminal.”18 This is problematic for a survey about crime, specifically about the crimes of rape and sexual assault. Since the survey did not portray events in a crime context,many women reported actions that they did not consider to be criminal; that they did not regard as rape or sexual assault.

There are other criticism of the NCVS,but these were the ones she mentioned.So as you can see it is possible that NCVS is undercounting rape because no survey is perfect, but at the same time it is also very likely that the NISVS and other surveys like it are inflating the statistics. Another major weakness of the NISVS is the low response rate which could be due to sampling bias. This could mean that people who were victims of rape were more likely to take the survey then people who were not victims. This would lower the generalizability of the statistic because of the unrepresentative sample.

So overall there are strengths and weakness to each survey, but like I mentioned before I think the biggest strength of the NCVS is the fact that is the fact that it uses incident reports. Here are some quotes from the pilot test showing that what can often be classified as rape using these behaviorally specific questions may not be considered rape by the respondent.

VI.Problems with inability to consent

The Pilot Test report states that “the two elements that defne an incident as a crime” are “the use of physical force” or the “inability to consent” due to alcohol intoxication or drug use.2424See p. xl in Pilot Test report. The survey’s classifcations based on inability to consent, however, sometimes difered from what the respondents said about their own ability to consent. In 21% of all incidents that the survey classifed as completed rape due to inability to consent because of alcohol or drug use, the survey respondent said she was not unable to consent. At other times, the survey’s classifcations based on inability to consent led it to characterize actions as crimes that the legal system would unlikely regard as crimes. One respondent to the survey said that while she was drunk, a man was “trying to have sex with me. I told him to stop and he did.” Elsewhere on the survey, she said that no force had been used, that she had not been the victim of a crime because he “stopped when [I] resisted,” and that he had stopped “immediately.” Nevertheless, because she was drunk, the survey classifed this incident as attempted rape involving inability to consent.

III. Not incorporating women’s views on crime.

Women’s own views about whether they had experienced a crime were disregarded by the survey’s classifcation scheme. This raises concerns about whether the survey adequately took into account women’s thoughts about the nature of the incidents in which they were involved. Indeed, most incidents that the survey classifed as rape or sexual assault were not thought byrespondents to have been rape or sexual assault. Less than one-third (32%) of incidents that the survey described as rape or sexual assault were thought by the women involved, at the time those acts occurred, to be crimes.19 Breaking out rape and sexual assault separately, 41% of incidents that the survey classifed as rapes, and 19% of incidents that the survey classifed as sexual assaults, were regarded as crimes by those who actually experienced them. Among certain types of crimes, 18% of incidents that the survey classifed as attempted rape in the form of oral sex, 11% of incidents classifed as attempted rape in the form of digital penetration,20 and 0% of incidents classifed as attempted or threatened sexual assault involving inability to consent, were regarded as crimes by those who experienced them.21

Overall, she did not debunk the NCVS she only critiques it.It is still unclear which survey is better, but in my opinion the NCVS is better overall because of it's large sample size, high response rate, and the use of a two-step interview process.