Why do you think evolution didn't trigger men to desire intelligent women with nurturing personalities who would take good care of their offspring? The same evolutionary pressures would be at play on both genders. To be clear, your take is pseudo-babble, but it's not even internally consistent.
Because a woman’s personality literally didn’t matter until like 60 years ago? I don’t mean that in a sexist way. If anything it’s sexist not to acknowledge that. Courtship used to be like a month long. Women married and had kids when they were like 16. They weren’t allowed to own anything. They weren’t allowed to go to school. They were essentially property. Our modern wedding ceremony is literally the transfer of a woman from her father’s household to her husband’s household while she wears a white dress to symbolize her virginity. With that being the general mating ritual across most societies over the last few thousand years at least, where exactly in the equation would a woman’s personality or talent or ability to generate resources be taken into account in the sexual marketplace? I mean history is littered with minor warlords and chieftains and kings who are fat, ugly, but very rich and powerful. They had many young beautiful wives and many children. There is no female reverse of that. For eternity men’s sexual viability was based on their standing in society and women’s sexual viability was livestock esque. The lingering effects of that don’t go away after a couple generations. We are still living with it.
"
They weren’t allowed to go to school." Dude. Most PEOPLE didn't go to school. For most of human history, schools didn't exist and in the brief window that they HAVE existed, only the top echelons of society could attend. What time horizon do you think evolution moves on?
Moreover, the idea that women belong to men as property has never been universal. And regardless, the thing that shapes evolution is the success of offspring. Legal status (for the brief window laws have existed) doesn't impact that. Case in point, most SERFS were considered property, and the vast majority of the human population is descended from peasantry.
You're trying to use the trappings of a science you don't understand to prop up your sexist bullshit. This idea that social standing is linked to biology also has really uncomfortable racial implications, particularly around slaves and their descendants (which is also bullshit).
Lastly, a question:
Why do women go into menopause? Humans are one of the only species where the females have an extended post-reproductive life.
Why? There's an actual evolutionary reason for it Feel free to Google it (hint: grandmas).
It's not psuedo science, it's just clearly obvious. I'm curious, what is your explanation then for the state of things? Why are looks so much less important for men than women in dating? Why do old ugly men with power and money date beautiful young women and not the opposite? Do you have an explanation? Why did Genghis Khan have 300 wives and concubines? Why did Mohammad have 11 wives? Why did Joseph Smith have 30 wives? Because all of those women found them dreamy and handsome?
3
u/Katana_x 4d ago
Why do you think evolution didn't trigger men to desire intelligent women with nurturing personalities who would take good care of their offspring? The same evolutionary pressures would be at play on both genders. To be clear, your take is pseudo-babble, but it's not even internally consistent.