Women and fancy cars....

Post Reply New Topic

I just explained what survival of the fittest means in the quote that you posted. Animals with traits that are more likely to produce healthy offspring that in turn reproduce themselves = fittest.

Who even said anything in this thread about women depending on men? Social status and high resources as being desirable traits doesn't in any way indicate that the partner is unable to survive on her own or needs those things. Women can have resources and social status too, you know and males can also find that desirable.

"Natural" is a meaningless term to me. Everything occuring in the universe is natural.

Sorry I guess I missed because I still don't see it. But now that I'm going back into this thread now I see what you mean.




I guess because I was looking at your earlier claim.






I don't disagree here. Hoewver it is interesting how humans define what is acceptably natural and what is natural.

I still don't see how "survival skills can translate to money or career in modern society" = women depend on men?

Hmm. If fancy cars and other symbols of wealth are a modern proxy for a man's ability to survive and care for others (in a survival sense), and many women unconsciously gravitate to that signal, then maybe I should drive one of my nicer cars on a date... If by chance that date one day led to children, then maybe I should aim to pass on both my survival genes and this hypothetical woman's "gold finder" genes (don't like the "digger" connotation)?

Just thinking out loud... Most of my brain still says rent a Honda for at least the first several dates.

most societies in prehistory were not polygynous. that study only looked at societies where men already hold the majority of wealth and power, and assessed what women desired from a lowered position.

prehistoric societies were largely egalitarian. NOBODY held the wealth and NOBODY held the power over the rest of the society. men and women were most likely equal - even physically. in fact, men and women are very close in size compared to to the sexual dimorphism of other primates. if it were always the strongest hunters who mated instead of most of the men in a group, then men in our society would be twice the size of women because that's what we would be selecting for.

women did not depend on men for hunting skills. people can obtain complete proteins from eating a variety of vegetables and legumes. meat is awesome but not completely necessary. and in the long winters, it is both dried meat and the gathered food that stays preserved for people to eat.

the study you linked is doing a "flintstonization" of society. they back-attributing modern cultural norms onto prehistoric societies. this is extremely inaccurate. i do think that there are cultural factors that lead some women to mate with richer men, but it is not biological.

that is reductionistic and does not factor in any recent research that points to the fact that natural selection can happen on a sperm/egg level.

Why should it when that wasn't what we were talking about?

you are talking about how women choose mates, and you are incorrect in your assumprtions.

Just because natural selection can occur at a sperm/egg level doesn't mean it doesn't occur at a mate-selection level.

So you don't believe in evolution then?

it does occur at a mate selection level as well. but it isn't just based on finding a good caregiver. there are many, many other factors involved.

i believe in evolution, yes. if you do some research, you'll see that it is not as simple as you were painting it.

Why does everything have to be black and white?? I said people and animals (not just women) tend to choose mates with various qualities that will help ensure the survival of their offspring. That is what evolution is at a base level. Traits that are superior for survival, reproduction, aquisition of resources, etc are propogated. Resources CAN be one of the indicators of a spuperior specimen. NOT the only one. I did not say it was simple or that wealth is the main factor. I don't understand why everything is so polarized.

no, the bolded part is not correct. natural selection does not work that way for a variety of reasons. the survival of our offspring is not of paramount importance in our mate choice. our genes do not guide us to pick a certain person like that - your perspective actually empowers evolution as though it was a thinking being that selects our mates for us.

it's not even a conscious factor for a lot of people, much less determined by natural selection.

Its not conscious. Its instinctual. We call it attraction.

we are not necessarily attracted to the people who make the best parents or who would be the best providers.

Agreed.

Natural selection doesn't realy occur in mate selection, after all horrible horrible people become new parents every day. Love is often illogical so there for mate selection is also illogical. Natural Selection is basicly "the strong survive and the weak....well don't" but when it comes to mate selection what is strong and what is weak is so open to the individual and the culture they're in thats its real hard to define the two.
And there are some people who are very attracted to what their culture would find as "weak".