As usual, you've rearranged wording to change meaning in a way that suits yourself.
The word "overwhelmingly" was used in this context: "Overwhelmingly, participants said those with more masculine features were likely to be risky and competitive and also more apt to fight, challenge bosses, cheat on spouses and put less effort into parenting."
Then the article says: "Despite all the negative attributes, when asked who they would choose for a short-term relationship, women still selected the more masculine looking men."
Did you MISS the words "short-term relationship"?
Nope! "Those with more feminine faces were seen as good parents and husbands, hard workers and emotionally supportive mates." Sorry, neither this article or the others backup your claims that: "The sociological analysis shows that inevitably, they want to marry someone richer, more powerful and more able in some important way than they are. /...And, conversely, as a statistical average, women tend to reject men whom they see as merely "equal" or *gasp* "lower" than they are in the socio-sexual hierarchy. It's the classic, "We're just friends," or "I couldn't date him...he's like my brother!"
I'm not cherry-picking by summarizing what the articles said and were focused on, to show that they don't support your claims. Take responsibility for your own lame failure to provide applicable resources, and for the bloated nature of your spew.
Right, no need to bother with your usual load of distorted guff.
I'm simply speaking the truth about your behavior. You mangle concepts and interpretations to suit yourself. And you have proven yourself to be a sneaky and dishonest person in the process, while projecting an arrogance totally unbefitting of your twisted positions and claims.
This is a good demonstration of how you operate with information, whether it be mainstream or religious. You can't be credible when you do stuff like this.