I sometimes read that the jackpot for women would be to land an alpha for both sperm and provision, but since they can not secure commitment from alphas they will fuck him but then look for a beta provider. The problem with this narrative is that its not entirely correct.

First, note that alpha and beta are classifications of the male hierachy order. And this is why the alpha-beta spectrum is so intuitively clear to men, but not to women - women simply lack the male experience. They have no clear understanding of what is meant by alpha and beta (just ask a group of women, who is more alpha: Putin or Obama. Then compare this with the answer from men).

So if women can not really distinguish between alpha and beta, what are they attracted to? For short-term mating, they are attracted to impulsive, muscular, violent man that doesnt give a fuck about her (the so-called "bad boy"), but for a long-term relationship she will look for stability, financial provision, the ability to share the burden of the upbringing, i.e. someone that really cares about her (the so-called "provider"). Some of these qualities are empirically unlikely to match (which could give reason to believe the fallacy that women REALLY want all qualities in one partner, but are just unlikely to find him), but most qualities are by definition mututally exclusive. This exclusiveness is why the optimal female mating strategy is NOT to find a super alpha that has all desired abilities (because he can, by definition, not exist), but to find a bad boy for short-term mating, and a provider to raise her offspring with.

Keep this in mind the next time you meet a single mom.