I am not a sociologist but I know that this academic field is plagued with feminists  I dont care what anyones 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 US womens 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 heres 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 its an academic term or not is irrelevant to whether it belongs in the article   Just as an aside arguing against peerreviewed 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 WPVthough Im pretty sure the blog took from Wikipedia not the other way around  Im not really clear on why it matters whether JoeJohn Q Public uses the term or not its not like we do this with articles relevant to physics geology or biology PS Since you hinted that youre 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