Regrettably, traditional gender roles persist even in very egalitarian societies. Getting rid of it entirely would require complete gender equality, which doesn’t yet exist. However, the counter-punch is that evidence of a lingering gap actually supports our case: the difference is only narrowed to the extent that gender equality is attained. But gender equality isn’t considered to be one of these factors, since even in relatively gender-equal societies, the gap between men and women’s preferences is only reduced, not eliminated.
To be fair, evolutionary psychologists acknowledge that cultural factors and local customs can affect how people choose their partners. If genes determine our mating preferences, how is it that these supposedly hardwired instincts erode in line with societies’ and individual’s gender-egalitarianism? This evidence points to some serious flaws in the evolutionary psychologists’ narrative. The more gender-unequal men’s personal attitudes, the more they prefer qualities in women such as youth and attractiveness and the more gender-unequal women’s attitudes, the more they prefer qualities in men such as money and status. However, research carried out in nine nations proves the opposite. But if mating preferences are biologically predetermined, individual sexism shouldn’t have an impact. Of course, sexism varies within each society, and a nation’s overall level of gender-equality doesn’t necessarily translate to gender-equal attitudes among individuals. As with Josh and Mia, Finnish men are now more likely than Finnish women to select partners based on their high level of education. In more gender-unequal nations, such as Turkey, women rate the earning potential of partners as twice as important compared with women in the most gender-equal nations, such as Finland. The trend is directly tied to increasing gender equality, as women gain greater access to resources and opportunities in business, politics and education. The results from the research are clear: mating preferences among men and women look increasingly similar. Wouldn’t we expect these changing relationship mores to make a dent in the mating preferences of straight men and women? Or are we still at the mercy of our biological destiny, as evolutionary psychologists claim?
As recently as the 1980s, female flight attendants in the United States could be fired if they got married, and women’s right to vote wasn’t universally enforced in Switzerland until 1990. However, there has been a tectonic shift in gender roles over the past 50 years. ‘Our evolved psychology of mating, after all, plays out in the modern world because it is the only mating psychology we mortals possess.’ (There’s little historical or intercultural research on LGBT mate preferences such questions are clearly important, but sadly there isn’t yet sufficient data to examine them properly.) ‘Nevertheless, the same sexual strategies used by our ancestors operate today with unbridled force,’ as the psychologist David Buss put it in The Evolution of Desire (2003). Sure, the rituals of modern mating look very different to those of our ancestors. In the distant past, this behaviour was adaptive, and so evolution selected and encoded it in our genes, forever. Men, meanwhile, are mostly concerned about a woman’s fertility, for which beauty and youth serve as helpful cues. Their argument is that women have a primeval urge to hang on to wealthy men to provide for their children during the long period of pregnancy and childrearing. Many evolutionary psychologists put this trend down to the power of innate biological drives. Women, meanwhile, are more likely to prioritise money and status over youth and beauty. Currently, the desire for a young, attractive partner of the opposite sex tends to be more prevalent in men than in women. This scenario probably sounds strange, and it should: I’ve invented an anecdote about how the heterosexual dating scene might look 100 years in the future. It was the norm, after all, for men to be the ones to ‘marry up’. Mia’s mere MA was a bit of a sticking point. Josh, meanwhile, had been dreaming of a cashed-up woman with high ambitions, status and education, ideally with a PhD (or two).
#What men want vs what women want plus
Still, he wasn’t her usual ‘type’ – the type that was much younger than her, plus athletic and handsome to boot. That didn’t really bother Mia, since Josh’s personality more than made up for it. Josh was the primary caregiver for a child from a previous marriage, and his financial prospects were dim. Their relationship blossomed, but doubts crept up on both of them now and again. Josh loved Mia’s wit Mia delighted in Josh’s warmth and ready smile. On their first date, Mia and Josh talked as if they’d known each other for years.