Red pillers are obsessed with this notion that women are constantly sleeping with attractive men when they are young and then settling for unattractive incel chumps to marry and use for resources as they get too old. Men on the other hand only care about looks and will marry good looking women regardless of their economic prospects. If this were true, we should find lots of women married to less attractive wealthier men, and vice versa.

A very large meta study (which looked at married couples, dating couples, and speed daters) and included objective measures of looks and earnings prospects (not just self reports) put looks at 16x more important than earnings power for women and men (i.e. no difference in preferences between the genders contrary to red pill claims).
"Perhaps the most important implication of the current review for the field of psychology writ large derives from the metaanalysis. Despite the fact that men and women consistently exhibit sex differences when rating the appeal of physical attractiveness and earning prospects in an abstract ideal partner, the meta-analysis found no sex differences in the association of these two traits with evaluations of an attraction partner or current romantic partner."
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/504114b1e4b0b97fe5a520af/t/5365a745e4b0cbe1c025abd7/1399170885689/Eastwick2014PBull.pdf

With looks so much more important than money, AFBB theory doesn't appear to reflect reality. Men and women both care way more about looks than money in who they marry and date. So the question is why does red pill over emphasize the importance of money? Or alternatively could someone produce a large study of married or dating adults where money/earnings has anywhere near the level of correlation as looks? And self reports on what people say they want is not relevant, I want to see studies of who people are actually with (actual behavior > self reported preferences).