There is evidence from OKCupid etc (and, y'know, the real world) that the two assertions you quoted are true, broadly speaking.
What has this got to do with "putting on his MRA hat"? Does this invalidate the assertions somehow?
What has this got to do with "putting on his MRA hat"? Does this invalidate the assertions somehow?
I'd say it's more a mark of red pill than MRA (although to most people outside the related subcultures, that's probably a distinction without a difference). Basically, the red pill narrative centers on people exploiting their own "sexual market value", with male SMV being determined by wealth and social status and female SMV being determined by youth and sexual inexperience. In this narrative, the most desirable women spend their peak-SMV years "riding the alpha cock carousel" and are "used up" by multiple high-SMV ("alpha") men, then cynically seek out lower-SMV ("beta") men for financial support after they've squandered their SMV, especially if they have children. This is summarized with the catchphrase "alpha fux, beta bux". Things like individual preferences and romantic compatibility don't exist in this model.
This is also behind the modern use of "cuck" as an insult in some subcultures: it's shorthand for describing the beta male in this scenario who is exploited to raise another man's children, and by extension anyone who is perceived as not being appropriately selfish.
Personally I think it's a mixture of both. And also that it doesn't necessarily need to be depressing.
But my question to the grandparent comment was meant to be more like, why should making some fairly uncontroversial (and evidence-backed) assertions require putting on any sort of 'hat' at all?
I'm not saying I agree with all of the red pill philosophy, but it's amazing how some people automatically go on the defensive when this stuff comes up.