> Low-status males that have the most to lose due to a hierarchical reconfiguration are responding to the threat female competitors pose.
This seems to imply that females are seen as competitors in a male hierarchy. But competitors for what, exactly? Male hierarchies establish a dominance scale, and as the study recalls:
> Even in modern day society, dominance and not attractiveness is associated with college male mating success
(italics mine)
So the position in a male hierarchy largely influences male mating success. What does the position of women in the same hierarchy influence? Even if it improved mating success (and this is debatable), it would improve mating success with men, that is, partners the other males are not interested in. In other words, for a male only the position in the male hierarchy should be relevant, not the position in a global hierarchy.
On the other end, competition should be fierce among males as it's strictly the male hierarchy that determines mating opportunities. But this is at odds one of the results of the study, that women are the target of most abuse while interactions among males are much more guarded.