Second, “invests more heavily in reproduction” does indeed refer to rearing the offspring in addition to the gamete costs. Species in which the male is more involved in rearing the young generally see less differences between the sexes. In the rare species in which the male raises the young, the female is sometimes the member who does the mating dances and such.

In terms of modern society, I would argue that the norm has come from the patriarchal society of Europe in which wealth is passed down to the sons, while it is up to the daughters to become appealing to a desireable male. In this case, it is the male who expends resources to raise the offspring, not the female.

Through this framework, I would argue that progress has been made, largely through the efforts of the feminist movement. That women are able to summon resources similar (if not always equal) to men allows a more even ground on who is responsible for wooing the other, and while perhaps the preening is not equal, in our society, it is the norm that each member of a coupling has chosen the other.

@Smoslyn: I don’t get this from my friends (actually I had one friend say something to that effect when we were like, sophomores in college, so I like to think she’s gotten over that) but I’ve gotten that from older female relatives so I just quit discussing men with them altogether, even in passing, even hypothetically.

For the sex that invests most heavily in reproduction (usually female), the principle constraint on reproduction is access to resources (food, water, habitat such as nesting grounds, etc.). For the sex that invests less heavily in reproduction (usually male), the principle constraint on reproduction is access to the sex that invests more heavily.

[to clarify, "invests more heavily in reproduction" is regarding gamete production, not caring for offspring, as this was formulated to explain mate selection in animals, not just people]

This is what a lot of you have been talking about, however, it is important to note human females can only reproduce for a certain amount of time (until menopause). Cross culturally, regardless of other socially constructed definitions of beauty a culture may have, all cultures value signs of youth, and regard them as beautiful. This is evolutionarily advantageous. Males are attracted to females exhibiting signs of youth because that youth signals greater fertility and longer potential for reproduction.

This is also why it is common to see women with men much older than them, again, cross culturally. Women do not value signs of youth as much because there is no male equivalent of menopause.

That is already probably more than you wanted to know, but if for some reason you want more, let me know and I can probably point you to some of this original research and/or theory work.

Unfortunately I still get this now. People think I’m ridiculous because I want all of the same things guys expect from women in a man (i.e. good looks coupled with intelligence and personality). God forbid I should want something more than to be like those hot tv housewives who settle for fat losers :\

And taking initiative has always proven fatal for me since I “scare them away” with being so overt. I’ve actually been told that being so upfront in what I want sexually is a turn off for guys. But it’s okay for them upfront with me. *rolls eyes*

Anyway, I will forever look at this blog when I’m feeling down about myself, and remind myself that it isn’t me- it’s patriarchy.

Sexual selection has been turned on its head because women were trying to attract the men they actually wanted, instead of the men that they were eventually sold to.

2. Only if you assume there to be a single, perfectly uniform hierarchy of class, rather than multiple, shifting and interlocking hierarchies based on different types of “capital.” Which I don’t.

3. Racism as evolutionarily advantageous. Wow, chief. I’m pretty sure you don’t mean it the way it reads, but still: wow. Quite apart from that, you’re again conflating (as evo-psych proponents do) economic/social advantage with evolutionary advantage.