"I am not a sociologist but I know that this academic field is plagued with feminists.  I don't care what anyone's point of view is, but when they make up words like ""hypergyny"" (which is only used by academic sociologists), the word should at least make common sense and be backed by evidence.  ""Hypergyny"" fails on both counts.

""In the U.S., women’s hypergynous tendencies allow higher status men to be functionally polygynous.""

Why only in the US?  Not only in the US, and not only among humans, but generally, high status males reproduce more.

""In some cultures, women are expected to marry a spouse who is more economically, socially, or politically powerful. Known as hypergyny, this practice is common in India.""

This makes it sound odd for women to desire higher status men, while the truth is that this is essentially universal, just as it is universal that men prefer physically attractive women.

""Though an expected social norm in America, hypergyny is slowly being replaced by isogamy, marriage between equals, and the marrying 'down' of woman. Many anthropologists ascribe this to increased gender equality between women and men.""

This is pure nonsense.  As I pointed out, it is simply impossible for women on average to marry up.  No evidence is provided for the above statement because it is impossible for it to be true.  The above is simply a lie designed to make it sound like feminism in America has promoted equality, when nothing could be further from the truth.

My point of view, which probably does not belong in Wikipedia, is that feminism has caused American women to become sluts, having lots of sex with high status men outside of marriage and ignoring men of their own status.  I can also reference academic papers backing up this point of view.  If the section on ""hypergyny and isogamy"" is to remain, then I should be free to add a section expressing my point of view.

  

Ah, here's the thing: You cannot edit Wikipedia based on ""what you know.""  All content has to be drawn from reliable sources, which a scholarly journal certainly is.  Whether it's an academic term or not is irrelevant to whether it belongs in the article.  
Just as an aside, arguing against peer-reviewed published works on the use of the hypergyny concept on the basis that ""you know differently"" is not going to work here. I do agree with you though that some better sources are necessary for the statements in the second paragraph.  

The only source sited in the whole section is a book review published on the web, not an academic paper with peer review.  This is hardly a reliable source.

If the term ""hypergyny"" is going to be used, it should be made clear that it is an term of academic sociologists, and not a term in general use.  And there should be at least one reference to a truly reliable source containing the term.

I just noticed that the second paragraph of this section is a copy of a blog entry.

  

If someone wants to replace this text, there are numerous reliable sources that use the term hypergyny.  One of the sources I gave above would probably work.  We do agree, however, on the need for sources and the second paragraph, which fails WP:Vthough I'm pretty sure the blog took from Wikipedia, not the other way around.  I'm not really clear on why it matters whether JoeJohn Q. Public uses the term or not; it's not like we do this with articles relevant to physics, geology or biology. (PS: Since you hinted that you're new to talk pages, I took the liberty of indenting your responses with a couple of colons; adding a colon to each subsequent response nests the exchange and makes it easier to follow.)   

"