(crossposted at The Pursuit of Harpyness)
A drably colored peahen has her pick of peacocks with whom to mate. The peacocks flash their gaudy plumage, just begging to be the one she chooses. In the animal kingdom, females set the rules, and males will do whatever it takes - elaborate dances, fancy ornamentation, serenades - to make them happy.
Charles Darwin was the first scientist to recognize that it's almost always a species' females who select mates; he outlined his theory of sexual selection in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. The males compete with each other for the females' acceptance. But even as recently as the 1970s, people balked at the notion of female choice. According to Evolutionary biologist Michael Ryan, "One writer even said that all you had to do was look at our own species to see that females had no input whatsoever in mating decisions."
Here in the human world, we women are the ones doing most of the "peacocking." Dyeing our hair, painting our faces, wearing uncomfortable yet "sexy" outfits, getting breast implants. Oh, sure, women do those things "for themselves," not to attract men! But why would doing those things be personally satisfying if not partly because they are accompanied by social approval and patriarchal praise? How often do you see a really hot man with a plain Jane on his arm? How often do you see the reverse?
How did we humans manage to flip sexual selection completely on its head? I know the answer is "patriarchy, duh," but I'm still curious about exactly how. Women's eggs are scarce and men's sperm abundant, just like in the animal kingdom. Maybe our advanced intelligence allowed men to strip women of their perceived selection power, using their superior physical strength to enforce the rules.
From Socialogical Images comes this German advertisement for Men's Health (reads "It's all about men") that suggests they think everything a woman does is done in an effort to attract them, and that women's masochism is funny and flattering.
Early and often, women are hit with the message that they're nobody until a man - any man - chooses them. See: the offerings "for women" at your local cinema. Knowing that we human females are relatively alone among our non-human sisters adds an extra layer of meaning to the word "backwards."
For further reading: Animal Attraction
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Strut Shamer.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11714
There is no "in the animal kingdom".
Humans, just like all other animals, display some sexual dimorphism. But it's as varied across the species as you would expect for a set of adaptations.
Some animals have large, powerful females (many species of spider, praying mantis and so on). Some have larger males (gorillas, elephant seal). The ridiculous extreme is taken with the anglerfish, in which the male is a mobile penis that latches itself onto the female for survival --- literally having no proper digestive facility of its own.
If you really must take social advice from other animals, the chimpanzees and gorillas which comprise our closest cousins mostly seem to live in patriarchal tribes. As usual, bonobos buck this trend, but that's what they're for, right?
The patriarchal nature of chimpanzee and gorilla social life is subject to debate. As more women become active in the sciences, much of the female primate behavior that was overlooked by male scientists is discovered, suggesting that female primates have more control, and are more active in establishing the social dynamic, than was previously thought. Which demonstrates that your preconceptions shape both your observations and your interpretations of what you observe...
While I agree this is true, gorilla males have been known to kill the children of a female in order to make her his mate. How do you think this contributes? Does this make it a patriarchy? Or is this just a Gorilla making a tribe safer?
Yeah, that's one of the things that was focused on in the primate studies I've mentioned. The males do have this tendency, but this dynamic is largely controlled by the females in a number of ways.
It was initially thought that the females mated exclusively with the "alpha" male through his control of the group. This is still a commonly held misconception in our culture. Male researchers tended to view the males as agents, and therefore observe more of their actions, and the females as passive objects, thus overlooking much of their behavior. Studies that were done by both male and female scientists showed that the females tend to mate with more partners than the males, and that the non-alpha males mate more often than the "alpha" male, whose time is primarily occupied with maintaining his dominance. The females know that the "alpha" male will prefer his own offspring, but they cannot predict which male will be in control, or how long he will maintain that control. So they "sneak" away from the group and mate with every male they can find. That way, whoever becomes the next "alpha" male will think that her offspring is also his. This is the behavior that female scientists picked up on that the males had missed.
Also, in chimpanzee groups, violent or antisocial behavior from adolescent males is often policed by groups of adult females, who will surround a male who is picking on another chimpanzee, yelling at him and slapping/biting him until he gives up and retreats. (similar behavior is emerging in the groups of orangutans on the Animal Planet show where they're living in groups for the first time...) Infants who have attracted the negative attention of a new "alpha" male are also often protected this way, as a couple of the adult females will grab the baby and retreat with him/her, while several other females circle around the male (also yelling/slapping/biting at him), keeping him distracted and irritated until he finally gives up and moves on. The "promiscuity" of female chimpanzees and gorillas was supported by recent DNA studies that showed that being the "alpha" male did not increase the chances that the infants in the group were your biological children, and, in some cases, it decreased the chances, since the "alpha" male is so busy that he mates less often than the other males who hang out on the fringes and mate opportunistically. So all the tripe about alpha males being more successful genetically, etc is a 19th- and 20th- century male scientific fantasy. And although it's true that many of the more visible forms of social control are male-dominated in primate groups, claiming that the males are completely dominant overlooks a lot of other types of social control and power.
"Male researchers tended to view the males as agents, and therefore observe more of their actions, and the females as passive objects, thus overlooking much of their behavior."
I read about this in National Geographic; it is so interesting.
I am not offering up any conclusions about human mating behavior, but asking a few (unanswerable?) questions based on what I've learned and observed. It's something I find puzzling and I'm looking for a good discussion on it.
I think it's absolutely fascinating what we've been able to learn about ourselves from observing a closely related species. Not just about social behavior, but about the dangers of personal bias as well. ;)
The going hypothesis is that they do it (it's been observed in other species too, like lions for example) so that the female won't spend her own resources raising another male's offspring when she could devote them to raising his. Also, in some species, the female is not receptive to mating and may not even ovulate when she has current offspring to raise. Killing her existing offspring both induces her to be ready to mate with him and ensures she will give her undivided attention to his babies. It's nothing personal against the female and not really intended to punish her for mating with anyone else, just pure selfishness on the part of the male to ensure he gets his chance to procreate.
Does "subject to debate" mean anything here?
Unless you can produce evidence that refutes the extensive literature on everything from average size and weight of adult gorillas to defensive strategies, I'll just have to assume "no".
The "extensive literature" to which you refer is a product of a patriarchal culture. Scientists were and still are predominantly male, and raised in a culture with strictly gendered categories and attitudes, which inevitably dictate the preconceptions of researchers, the questions they ask, the interpretations they impose on their findings, etc. Scientists are not raised by wolves, and their attitudes and prejudices will be reflected in their work. However, when researchers approach the subject with a more open mind, and as the scientific community becomes more diverse, new facts about primate behavior emerge. I understand that this feels really threatening to a lot of people, and letting go of outdated aspects of your worldview is always stressful.
On a side note, if physical size and weight always determined the social power of an individual, the world would look quite different than it does today. Physical power is one component of social power, but to think that it accounts for everything seems quite naive and oversimplified.
I'm not so sure. It is much easier for a woman to go into a bar and successfully find a one-night stand than it is a man. A man is more likely to be turned down by women than than the other way around. And even in the olden days men asked women to marry them, and she could say no (hopefully). Anyway, for the last few generations were short of men due to all the world wars, so women had to compete for men, but nowadays with our jobs and equal numbers, men are having to work harder again. At least that is what my mum says.
I've always wondered about this. I'm interested in birds and have compared the sometimes extreme display features in males to the decorative aspect of femininity. Like you said, it's comparable but different in origin... makeup, graceful mannerisms, beautifying-rather-than-practical dress, etc are all products of culture, not female physiology.
But it's such an important part of culture, such artificial things are sometimes treated as though they are part of female physiology... I've heard comparisons of humans and X animals made by both men and women assuming the human female to objectively be the "beautiful" sex, you know, like the peacock, forgetting that makeup and feathers are not equivalent.
Even a natural feature like long hair, which both sexes have if allowed to grow, is treated like some uniquely female biological display feature, and the fact that men are expected to cut it short is forgotten (although this is also to do with man-as-norm woman-as-other). Then you get bizzare examples like the weird flesh heels from the Beowulf movie.
Unfortunately, I don't have any particulary specific answers as to how this came to be, especially since I'm not great at history or anthropology. My vague speculation tells me it is to do with the male gaze, so only women's beauty is really appreciated... limiting women's movements physically and seeing them as delicate, which would allow them to dress in impractical, beautifying clothes, at least. Or having their options in life be marriage or prostitution, so attractiveness is of utmost importance if any man is to marry them...
I can't say any one of those things was a historical constant across all cultures. I suppose I'm really just expressing my general "patriarchy!" answer in more words.
Maybe our advanced intelligence allowed men to strip women of their perceived selection power, using their superior physical strength to enforce the rules.
It kind of hurt me to read this sentence. I don't think this is what you meant, but it tells me that oppressing women is a sign of advanced intelligence and that women don't have this advanced intelligence to thwart the men's efforts to oppress them.
Oh no! I did not mean that men had advanced intelligence compared to women. Now that I re-read that, I should have added that they have the superior physical strength to carry out their desire to oppress us.
Because men just never have to "strut" and display anything to attract a woman's attention, right?
Men never have to display that they have a lot of money, or a nice car, or fancy clothing, they just have to stand around and all the women fall at their feet, begging for their phone number.
Oh, wait...
Humans, while still primates and animals, are separate from the "animal kingdom" because of that advanced intelligence.
If you want to fall into the animal kingdom, you'd have to start accepting things like rape for any reason at any time (hey, the animal kingdom does it!), a new guy killing your current boyfriend because he wants to have sex with you instead, and much more.
Point is, women still hold most of the power within the dating scene, because really, I don't see women chasing down men for their numbers or to ask them out on dates. It's quite the opposite. Men are continually subject to review, every time they stupidly, foolishly supplicate themselves to a woman in the hopes of gaining her favor.
Wow. Just, wow.
I guess I didn't read the OP as advocating a "return" the the "animal kingdom." But it's interesting that you did.
I think that a thoughtful person can critique the ways that a patriarchal culture requires both men and women to "perform" in order to be considered attractive. I also think that critiquing the script that women are supposed to follow does not amount to attacking men, or claiming that life as a man is all peachy keen. Most feminists view patriarchy as damaging to both women and men. But SarahMC is right that women are socialized to value themselves based on their attractiveness, and ultimately attachment to a man, whereas a man is thought to be valuable based on his own merits. I'm not sure why pointing that out is problematic.
Well, the OP referenced the animal kingdom repeatedly, and how we "managed to turn it on it's head". Which sounded to me like "How do we get things back how they're supposed to be?"
Which is bad enough on it's own, assuming that there is ANY way things "should be" is problematic.
I think that a thoughtful person can critique the ways that a patriarchal culture requires both men and women to "perform" in order to be considered attractive.
And a matriarchal culture wouldn't? An egalitarian culture wouldn't?
It's not as though perfect equality would suddenly mean attraction was a thing of the past, you know.
I also think that critiquing the script that women are supposed to follow does not amount to attacking men, or claiming that life as a man is all peachy keen.
She made it sound as though women are the ones continually supplicating themselves to the other gender, which is patently false.
How many men throw themselves to the wolves, day in and day out in the hopes of getting a date? I mean, honestly. Come on.
The dating game, as we know it, is a power struggle for both men and women. Both have power and both are surrendering their power.
Lets look at the prototypical dating scene: a woman sits at a bar and waits for a man to come up and flirt/ask for her phone number.
The man has power as the Chooser. If he does not find the woman attractive or she is off putting for whatever reason, he does not have to choose her and she will be left alone for the night. The woman, as the passive one, does not choose which men come up to her, but she does have the power to choose who to give her phone number too.
So no, men are not throwing themselves to the wolves to try to get women's numbers. Both are leaving themselves open to rejection, one (the man) is just allowed to be an active participant in that rejection, the woman is passive.
The dating game, as we know it, is a power struggle for both men and women. Both have power and both are surrendering their power.
Fair enough, but there is no power in being the supplicant. None. Being the "gatekeeper", as it were, holds power. It's why, personally, I believe that feminists aren't ever seen advocating more equality in who asks who out. That would be a loss of power, and feminism doesn't usually speak for women abandoning any power.
The man has power as the Chooser. If he does not find the woman attractive or she is off putting for whatever reason, he does not have to choose her and she will be left alone for the night. The woman, as the passive one, does not choose which men come up to her, but she does have the power to choose who to give her phone number too.
Ah, but as the "Chosen", you have power simply because everyone has no choice but to come to you. As the supplicant, you abandon power, because you have to continually be the one approaching, being rejected, and repeating.
So no, men are not throwing themselves to the wolves to try to get women's numbers. Both are leaving themselves open to rejection, one (the man) is just allowed to be an active participant in that rejection, the woman is passive.
Not as such. If a woman tells a man he's not rich enough/car isn't nice enough, that is active, cruel rejection. If someone simply doesn't approach you, that's not rejection as such.
If it is, then men are doubly rejected. Both actively, by women telling them to fuck off, and passively, by never, ever being approached by any.
Actually, last I checked, feminism is all about women's agency. A feminist woman (who's heterosexual) would gladly go up to a guy she's interested in and ask him out. But then she tends to get rejected cause she's being 'too forward' or 'too manly'.
Also, a woman who is just sitting there is a 'supplicant' as well. She's put a lot of effort into her appearance in the hopes that a man will be attracted to her enough that he'll want to talk to her. So yes, both are supplicants and both are 'gatekeepers'.
The dating game, especially the version with men as hunters and women as the prey, are a power *dynamic*, you're either giving up power or claiming it depending on which stage of the game you're at.
Waiting around isn't being a supplicant.
Constantly going up to people, in the hopes they may favor you, is being a supplicant.
A feminist woman (who's heterosexual) would gladly go up to a guy she's interested in and ask him out.
That's funny. I once dated a self-proclaimed feminist, who insisted that I pay for every outing.
In my entire life, I'm sure I've passed by hundreds of feminists in various social situations, and I'm sure at least one of them had forgotten her glasses, and found me attractive.
Yet never has a single woman asked for my number. Mind you, I wouldn't give it to her anyway, but the point is, I'm fairly certain many, many men can report this exact same situation. Even in the most progressive of cities, in the most progressive of states, they can report the same.
Then you're just not paying attention. For starters, you might check out several recent posts on Feministing (one was by Samhita, and several others were posted by community members) on the restrictive norms of heterosexual dating, and what feminists can do to change them.
Yeah, a post from someone who says that being in a couple is "self obliteration", is really someone who should be dispensing romance advice.
I'll pass on that.
Your isolated counterexamples and ad hominems are so devastatting that I just can't keep up with you, and must bow out.
No doubt the fact that you've never been asked out by a woman means that no feminists, anywhere, have ever advocated for change in our society's dating practices. I stand corrected. Thank you for educating me.
And your claim that we should dismiss everything Samhita says about dating simply because she made a negative comment about heterosexual relationships in general is transparent and laughable. You're clearly not interested in genuine constructive dialogue, which leads me to conclude that you're a (bitter and misogynistic?) troll. As such, I don't really have the time or energy to continue interacting with you, although I am sincerely sympathetic to the rejection and unhappiness you've experienced. Patriarchy is damaging to everyone, and changing damaging cultural practices is in everyone's interest.
That's funny. I once dated a self-proclaimed feminist, who insisted that I pay for every outing.
This can be explained in two ways.
1. Feminists are not a hivemind.
2. There are a lot of women out there who know that something is wrong, but don't have words or theory for it yet. I fell under this category in high school, before I did a lot of feminist reading. Unfortunately, one common trap to fall into is to trash men, expect chivalry, and think it's empowering us. Media leads us into this, too, as a junk food substitute for real empowerment and equality. It's pretty smart of them, really- you think you've got men under your thumb, when really all you're getting is the crumbs of a social structure that oppresses women. It sounds as if your date was one of those women who bought into that mindset, which is no excuse for her behavior, but it also means you can't use her as an example of a typical feminist. Sorry.
"one common trap to fall into is to trash men, expect chivalry, and think it's empowering us. Media leads us into this, too, as a junk food substitute for real empowerment and equality."
SUCH a good point. Should be shouted from rooftops.
Perhaps feminists aren't asking you out because they can smell your bullshit a mile away.
Or, perhaps, as I've been told, I'm "unapproachable". Or perhaps they buy into the "men should do the asking" stereotype.
I don't know, and frankly don't care. I'd reject one if she did ask me out. Feminist or not, mind you.
Though, I do love that any disagreement is "bullshit". How would you like if everyone told you that anything you said, thought, or had an opinion on was "bullshit"?
It's why, personally, I believe that feminists aren't ever seen advocating more equality in who asks who out.
Sigh, strawman arguments are terribly boring.
We've had many posts on Community where we discuss the dating norms and gender essentialism.
I believe that feminists aren't ever seen advocating more equality in who asks who out.
Then you're just not paying attention. For starters, you might check out several recent posts on Feministing (one was by Samhita, and several others were posted by community members) on the restrictive norms of heterosexual dating, and what feminists can do to change them.
If all the women in your life are only interested in your car and your paycheck, perhaps you're mingling with the wrong crowd. None of my friends give a fuck about how much a man makes or what kind of car he drives (which may explain our continued existence just over the poverty line well after grad school...), but we will reject/mock a man who has a giant ego based on his paycheck and flamboyant display of wealth/debt. Rather than lusting after him and his wealth, we generally suspect that he has to display it so prominently in order to compensate for some other *shortcoming.*
I realize that in our culture women are perceived as a monolothic group that share one set of values, but that simply isn't how it works in reality.
I just wanted to chime in and say thanks to you and everyone responding for having this discussion, even if it's somewhat off-topic and I disagree with a lot of what you say. I've noticed this being brought up from time to time by men on feminist blogs, and for some reason I find it very interesting and want to know more about why men feel that the current system disenfranchises them.
One thing to consider- are you bringing this up because you truly want to advocate for a more egalitarian model of dating, or are you saying something more like "men have it bad too, therefore we shouldn't worry about either"? For most commenters here, the goal is improving the way society works for both women and men, and saying that both genders lose out and therefore it's fair is rather dismissive.
As far as your claim that feminists never advocate for more equality in this area, I agree with Zee that most heterosexual feminists would have no problem asking a guy out, and some of us even encourage our friends to stop thinking in a traditional "he has to approach me" mindset and do the same. It's not really in my top ten Most Important Feminist Issues, but it does get me going when a supposedly feminist friend of mine insists that it's the guy's job to make the first move, and in my ideal world, all of these decisions would be less tied up in power issues in the first place.
Finally, one more thing- men who use arguments like this usually tend to assume an attractive female. If the man who continually approaches women and gets rejected is on the bottom of your totem pole, where does the woman who never gets approached stand? She's not even supposed to approach men, and if she does manage to surmount all those cultural expectations and ask a guy out and she still gets rejected... well, that doesn't give her any more power than your hypothetical guy. (My theory is that unattractive females are so insignificant in the minds of guys who argue this stuff that it's like they don't even exist, but feel free to contradict me.)
Your isolated counterexamples and ad hominems are so devastatting that I just can't keep up with you, and must bow out.
What ad hominems? That means an attack against the person making the argument, instead of their argument. Which I have not done.
No doubt the fact that you've never been asked out by a woman means that no feminists, anywhere, have ever advocated for change in our society's dating practices. I stand corrected. Thank you for educating me.
No, my point was that it's not just me, it's the majority of men. While you may point out a feminist advocating for such changes, someone else can point out 10 that aren't changing that particular setup.
While they may want more equitable relationships, they might not necessarily want to change the dynamics of the initial introductions.
Just as a hypothetical, if women were doing the majority of the asking, you realize that men would start to apply the same standards to women as women do to men, right? Women would start being called out for being harassers, and various other things, for approaching men, the way men are demonized for approaching women.
And your claim that we should dismiss everything Samhita says about dating simply because she made a negative comment about heterosexual relationships in general is transparent and laughable.
When someone shows themselves to be biased, I can't take them as a neutral source of information.
You're clearly not interested in genuine constructive dialogue, which leads me to conclude that you're a (bitter and misogynistic?) troll.
So, you label me based on what, exactly? Look, I hate to break this to you, but disagreeing with you, and/or having a civil argument/discussion doesn't make one a "misogynist". Throwing that term left and right makes it lose all meaning.
It's incredibly obnoxious to just say "Oh, that person disagreed with me, or holds a different opinion. That means they hate all women!".
It's also a cop-out way to dismiss a human being as irrelevant.
Although I am sincerely sympathetic to the rejection and unhappiness you've experienced. Patriarchy is damaging to everyone, and changing damaging cultural practices is in everyone's interest.
Actually, I'm quite content, and don't suffer any such rejections. I enjoy being single, and intend to remain so. I critique the dating game, much like I critique religion. I'm an atheist, so I enjoy jabbing at religion, etcetera. I find relationships suffocating, disgusting, and laughable, and apply the same scrutiny to them.
You can think it's born from sexism, or whatever else, but it's mostly from observation and wondering what drives people to engage in the behaviors they do.
Rather than lusting after him and his wealth, we generally suspect that he has to display it so prominently in order to compensate for some other *shortcoming.*
So, whilst it is wrong to denigrate a woman based on certain parts of her body not being big enough, doing the same to a man is acceptable? I really hope you aren't being serious, and are making your statement in jest.
I realize that in our culture women are perceived as a monolothic group that share one set of values, but that simply isn't how it works in reality.
Men are given the same treatment.
One thing to consider- are you bringing this up because you truly want to advocate for a more egalitarian model of dating, or are you saying something more like "men have it bad too, therefore we shouldn't worry about either"?
It's more of a thing along the lines of when women say men should walk a few in their shoes.
I don't really care if the model of dating changes, stays the same, or explodes, personally. It's all academic to me, really.
ut it does get me going when a supposedly feminist friend of mine insists that it's the guy's job to make the first move
That's the point I addressed earlier. That even with feminists a great deal of them will advocate all sorts of change in the world, but leave dating largely alone.
(My theory is that unattractive females are so insignificant in the minds of guys who argue this stuff that it's like they don't even exist, but feel free to contradict me.)
Well, how does one argue that? You can't expect people to suddenly start wanting physical relationships with someone they aren't physically attracted to, but that's neither here nor there, and frankly, way too off topic, even for my straying topicality.
B.) You need to read what some feminists have to say before you declare that we x, y, z. Feminists strive to do away with stereotypes and eliminate gender roles - what exactly did you think we were up to?
Basically declaring that men x, y, z.
Whoa, most of the things you're responding to in that comment weren't said by me. Take it up with Rachel_in_WY.
I don't really care if the model of dating changes, stays the same, or explodes, personally. It's all academic to me, really.
And that was my point. These things really matter to women, but whenever we talk about them, men will come in and complain that they lose out too- not because it matters to them, but mainly for shits and giggles, or to derail the conversation. Which is a real shame, because like I said, I am really interested in how our current model is less than ideal for men AND women.
Well, how does one argue that? You can't expect people to suddenly start wanting physical relationships with someone they aren't physically attracted to, but that's neither here nor there, and frankly, way too off topic, even for my straying topicality.
You're misunderstanding me, and since I have no idea where you even got the idea that I said anything like that, I have to think that you're doing it willfully because you don't want to hear what I'm really saying. What I SAID was that unattractive women are invisible to men like you- not only in relationships, but anywhere else. You identify so strongly with the plight of men deemed unattractive by women, but it never occurs to you that women deemed unattractive lose out in exactly the same way, because you're not used to considering them as human beings. To understand such a thing does not require that you want to have sex with these women, and I'm not sure where you got that idea.
What ad hominems? That means an attack against the person making the argument, instead of their argument.
Poisoning the Well is a form of ad hominem argument in which you claim that nothing a person says is believable because of some other thing s/he has said or done. You dismissed anything Samhita might have said about dating based on her comment about hetero relationships. In doing so, you made an ad hominem and refused to engage or respond to my points. Demonstrating how much of a waste of time this is.
Whoa, most of the things you're responding to in that comment weren't said by me. Take it up with Rachel_in_WY.
I know, but if multiple people say things, I just tend to click my reply at the bottom of the list of statements, and respond to everyone in sequence. Sorry for the confusion on that.
And that was my point. These things really matter to women, but whenever we talk about them, men will come in and complain that they lose out too- not because it matters to them, but mainly for shits and giggles, or to derail the conversation. Which is a real shame, because like I said, I am really interested in how our current model is less than ideal for men AND women.
Oh, it's not for shits and giggles, or to derail. I find I make valid points that are oft-ignored, or pushed aside as "less important" or less valid.
It's academic to me, because I'm not part of the whole "dating game". If it personally affected me, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm not allowed an opinion on it.
What I SAID was that unattractive women are invisible to men like you- not only in relationships, but anywhere else. You identify so strongly with the plight of men deemed unattractive by women, but it never occurs to you that women deemed unattractive lose out in exactly the same way, because you're not used to considering them as human beings.
Please refrain from making assumptions about my thoughts and opinions. If I express something directly, feel free to assume it's my opinion. If I don't, please don't make conjecture.
Poisoning the Well is a form of ad hominem argument in which you claim that nothing a person says is believable because of some other thing s/he has said or done. You dismissed anything Samhita might have said about dating based on her comment about hetero relationships. In doing so, you made an ad hominem and refused to engage or respond to my points. Demonstrating how much of a waste of time this is.
I've seen numerous sexist posts by Samhita, as well as ones that I found to be uncomfortably offensive in other ways. I'm sorry, but I don't care for her way of saying things.
I wasn't conjecturing- your whole point made it clear that you hadn't considered the possibility of an unattractive women and how all this might affect her. The whole "human beings" thing may have been a rhetorical flourish, but the basic idea remains. But since you're refusing to respond to my points, I'm going to have to agree with Rachel that this is pointless, and respectfully bow out.
Which points am I not responding to? It's funny you make such statements, when you throw various assumptions about my character in my direction.
Why so much concern for unattractive women? Why no concern for unattractive men? I've noticed, though, this site is somewhat infamous for speaking of the plight of the unattractive woman, while making a dozen articles talking about how unrealistic any movie where Seth Rogen gets a date is, because of how unpleasant he is to look at, and how no one would want him.
Shrug.
I totally agree with the spirit of your comment; there's definitely a power struggle involved in dating, and our culture hands a lot of our power over to the men in our lives.
However, speaking as the devil's advocate here from a purely biological standpoint, just because a female is passive, waiting for the male to approach her, doesn't mean reproduction is being driven by male choice. For one thing, even in female-choice driven scenarios, males still employ a certain criteria; basically, they will lean toward a mate that looks healthy enough to ensure healthy offspring (that said, I'm still adamantly of the opinion that the beautiful/healthy female ideal in our culture has been driven seriously askew). There are scenarios where female choice is the main factor, but the male is the one who approaches her. He may have to do some sort of dance, or a song, wrestle with her, or strut around to show off, and then she accepts him or rejects him based on that. Yes, he exercised his own choice in approaching her, but ultimately he's just looking for any healthy female, while her criteria may be a lot more specific.
Yes, that's true, but the way I see it (and forgive the analog here) in the hunter-prey scenario (and it works out the same way with either gender being either one) you've got this basic game play: Prey sits and waits, looking as inviting as possible. Had probably spent a decent amount of time trying to look gamely. The prey has given up almost all of its power at this point and is waiting for someone to initiate. Without that initiation (because of unattractiveness) nothing happens, the prey is rejected. If a hunter comes along, find the prey attractive, the flirting process begins. The hunter exercised power in choosing which of the many prey to attend to and during the flirtation process the prey gains all of the power and gets to chose whether or not to accept the hunter.
And sadly that's really oversimplified, because you have to add in the power discrepancies between individuals of varying hotness (a really hot guy/girl asks an unattractive guy/girl), possibilities for forced interaction/sexuality, and, eh, alcohol and loud music. Makes for a very deep and confusing power dynamic. Also, fascinating.
Jesus, calm down a bit. Where did I (or anyone else here) say that attraction is a bad thing? Where did I advocate for a matriarchal culture? And who said anything about "more natural" practices? Critiquing the scripts your culture dictates does not amount to pining away for the old days, when things were more "natural."
If you don't like discussions that critique cultural practices then I'm not sure why you're on a blog like feministing.
Yawn.
A.) I am referring to physical "strutting." Again: How often do you see a gorgeous man with an unattractive woman?
B.) You need to read what some feminists have to say before you declare that we x, y, z. Feminists strive to do away with stereotypes and eliminate gender roles - what exactly did you think we were up to?
Based on my own experience and observation, I would hypothesize that human reproduction is still somewhat more dependent on female choice. Of course, it's not so cut and dry as that with humans or even lower animals. In some reptiles, female selection is considered the driving force, but males employ one of three different mating strategies in order to ensure they leave behind offspring. There are the "dominants" who act as an alpha male in a territory consisting of multiple females, the "mate guards" who find one female and focus on her, fending off any other male who comes near her (incidently I've heard it said that this is the strategy that may have later evolved into marriage in humans; food for thought, huh?), and the "sneakers" who have no territory and simply steath around looking for a female who is unguarded by any other male. Without going into too much detail here, it works sort of like a game of rock-paper-scissors.
Female selection itself is also thought to have more to do with general fitness and aptitude for survival than anything having to do with appearance. The reason that such flashy males (as with peacocks) are able to attract so many females is because their flashy appearance puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to predators. In fact, in many species, the male who has the most exaggerated version of the "disadvantage trait" is usually the one the females find most attractive. This is because he's been able to survive to adulthood with this disadvantage. Because of this, the females figure that he must have something worth adding to their own offspring to give them the best chance to survive and reproduce.
You do make some excellent points however; we're the only species I know of where females make such an effort to attract a mate. Humans were rather unique back in the day because unlike many other animals, human females have "secret estrus", meaning they are nearly always ready to mate and males have no overt way to tell when they are ovulating. It's thought that this may have evolved as a strategy to get multiple males to contribute resources to a female and her offspring (i.e., he has no idea which of them are his, so he contributes to all). Obviously, once people got a better handle on the sex-reproduction connection, and somebody got the bright idea to lock down his female mate(s), this backfired. I would say the dissonance we have here is more due to social constructs than biology.
"the "mate guards" who find one female and focus on her, fending off any other male who comes near her (incidently I've heard it said that this is the strategy that may have later evolved into marriage in humans; food for thought, huh?),"
It's very likely, considering male chimpanzees have been observed doing something similar (leading ovulating females off into the forest and staying there with them as long as they can or until they're no longer in estrus, whichever comes first).
Female selection itself is also thought to have more to do with general fitness and aptitude for survival than anything having to do with appearance. The reason that such flashy males (as with peacocks) are able to attract so many females is because their flashy appearance puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to predators. In fact, in many species, the male who has the most exaggerated version of the "disadvantage trait" is usually the one the females find most attractive. This is because he's been able to survive to adulthood with this disadvantage. Because of this, the females figure that he must have something worth adding to their own offspring to give them the best chance to survive and reproduce.
I have some problems with the handicap/disadvantage trait. If this were really the case, wouldn't human men have also evolved so that handicaps became desirable? Afterall, you could say the same thing for a middle-aged, one-eyed, one-legged man. Since he has survived to adult-hood while having this disadvantages, he would be the prime target for single women everywhere. Procreation will cause the one-eyed, one-legged gene to go on for a very a long time in the gene-pool.
Also, I am unsure exactly when peacocks start "sprouting" their colourful tails. But if they have it at a very young age, wouldn't this mean that the offspring of the peacock is in a way, paying the price for his father's attractiveness? If the child peacock had the same defensive prowess of his father in avoiding predators, that would be alright, but it doesn't seem to be logical. This would mean that the peacocks are very Spartan in their upbringing, and they don't really care whether their male children get eaten by predators or not.
Just think of male human peacocks as men who spend money on stupid shit. Clothes, watches, cars, alcohol, drugs, hair gel and cologne.
He is not using that money to improve himself academically, fiscally, or whatever. It is a mating display designed to attract certain mates.
Steven brought up a good one above. Another analogy of the disadvantage trait in humans would be the much-bemoaned stereotype of females in patriarchal culture to be attracted to "bad boys". The men who fall into this category may not have jobs or money to support/feed/house themselves, they may exhibit antisocial behaviors that are no doubt detrimental to their ability to function in society, and/or they may do drugs or participate in other risky behaviors (ex: Kate Moss and Pete whatshisname). One way of looking at this phenomenon would be to say that women socialized in patriarchal settings are drawn to men who get away with breaking the rules. Another way to look at it would be to say "Damn, you'd think this guy would've been knocked out of the gene pool by now. How has he survived this long?"
Also, re: the peacocks. Yes, the male offspring do pay the price for their fathers' disadvantage. Male offspring may or may not get picked off by natural selection as they reach sexual maturity if they lack the appropriate talent for survival. I don't believe the tails display until they are sexually mature, but one could argue that the longer the male manages to live as an adult, the more offspring he will have the opportunity to sire, thus improving the odds that he'll have grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Female offspring will not inherit this particular disadvantage trait, and thus have nothing to lose here.
Economist like to get their laws of demand and scarcity into everything, and they have done so with dating.
They claim that even a small numerical imbalance, such as a having 107 women to 100 men would make the seven potentially unpaired women competitive in finding a relatively scarce (amusing equal numbers of the men and women are not lost to the dating scene through being gay, asexual, not interested, blah blah blah).
Those seven women cause a cascade affect throughout the female population causing the whole population to compete at higher levels for scares males. I would guess that socially, the males would then expect that all women take competitive steps, and those that don't really are not trying to attract a partner.
None of this indicates that the male population does not compete for female partners, just that the competition is less intense.
If you want the men to be more competitive in attracting partners, the gender ration needs to change so that there are less women them men.
Or so say'th some economist.
I always thought that was a factor in dating too, but it doesn't seem to always hold up. I always lived on the west coast before moving to Wyoming. In Seattle and LA the male-to-female ratio seems pretty balanced, whereas here there are a lot more men. I mean, generally in the bar, women are outnumbered 2-to-1. So you'd think the men would be way more competitive and the women more choosy. But instead the women here are uber-competitive, and really, openly target men who are clearly already attached. And the more attractive his wife/gf is, the more they target him. It's bizarre. I've often done my male friends a favor by going out to the bar with them, hanging out for about an hour, and then leaving. They will almost always "hook up" after I leave, and, according to them, their chances of hooking up if they were seen with a woman earlier in the evening are at least doubled. We discovered this on accident, because I just tend to hang out with men, and they noticed the increased attention they got if I was with them and then left. Then there's the open and aggressive attention many women pay to my partner when we're out together, right in front of me. I really don't get it (although I don't feel terribly threatened by it), but it ensures that I'll never make many female friends here, and I'll never really feel like I'm "from here," which may be a good thing. But that's another topic...
Sex ratio has a pretty powerful effect on human mating systems. In countries where there are more women than men, there are higher rates of premarital sex, more births without marriage, etc. In societies where there are more women, the reverse occurs.
Basically the sex that is rarer is in greater demand, so they can exercise their preferences more strongly.
I think a study of different cities in the U.S. with different sex ratios would be really interesting.
What you're describing sounds a little different, which is "That guy has a really amazing girlfriend, so there must be something amazing about him. I'm gonna go after him because he's way better than the mass of schlubs I'm surrounded by".
Yeah, I get the whole supply and demand thing, which is what makes the dynamic here seem so strange to me. For some reason the women here are so competitive, and play all these little games, and it seems like beating out another woman for a man is more important to them than how attractive the man actually is. I'm sure that the women who have hooked up with my male friends were totally smug about the fact that they had bagged "my man" behind my back. It seems like the men should be competing for women who are clearly attached (which they do somewhat, but no more so than in other places I've lived) rather than the other way around.
But you're probably right. Maybe the fact that so many of the male-dominated jobs here involve a lot of isolation (mining, trucking, oil field jobs, the railroad) means that a lot of the men aren't really great at interacting with women (as if it's rocket science), so by going after men who you've seen interact with other women, you avoid the sad awkward ones. I just sort of expect that I can figure out how socially adept they are myself (and sometimes I kinda like the sad awkward ones), so it seems like a strange approach to me.
Sex ratio has a pretty powerful effect on human mating systems. In countries where there are more women than men, there are higher rates of premarital sex, more births without marriage, etc. In societies where there are more women, the reverse occurs.
Basically the sex that is rarer is in greater demand, so they can exercise their preferences more strongly.
I think a study of different cities in the U.S. with different sex ratios would be really interesting.
What you're describing sounds a little different, which is "That guy has a really amazing girlfriend, so there must be something amazing about him. I'm gonna go after him because he's way better than the mass of schlubs I'm surrounded by".
"Sex ratio has a pretty powerful effect on human mating systems. In countries where there are more women than men, there are higher rates of premarital sex, more births without marriage, etc. In societies where there are more women, the reverse occurs."
I read about this in Tim Hartford's book the Logic of Life. But you don't have to go outside the country to see this effect. The African American community has a skewed gender ratio, mostly because of the incarceration of young men. And what do we see? Out of wedlock births, high teen pregnancy rates, higher STI rates including HIV.
"...gender ratios for African Americans at birth are about 102-103 males for every 100 females, by the age range 40-
44, this declines to 86 males per 100 females, whereas white rates are 100:100 for this group."
source:
Marc Mauer
Assistant Director
The Sentencing Project
Prepared for
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
April 15-16, 1999
Washington, D.C.
But instead the women here are uber-competitive, and really, openly target men who are clearly already attached. And the more attractive his wife/gf is, the more they target him. It's bizarre. I've often done my male friends a favor by going out to the bar with them, hanging out for about an hour, and then leaving. They will almost always "hook up" after I leave, and, according to them, their chances of hooking up if they were seen with a woman earlier in the evening are at least doubled. We discovered this on accident, because I just tend to hang out with men, and they noticed the increased attention they got if I was with them and then left. Then there's the open and aggressive attention many women pay to my partner when we're out together, right in front of me.
Hasn't this been explained by the 'people-who-analyze-such-stuff'?
In regards to the first part, where the more attractive the gf/wife is, the more the women will target that man. That was explained by the fact that in our society, while the ultimate pinnacle achievement of a woman might be her beauty, for men it rests in their skill/social standing/power/etc, therefore, for such a pretty woman to go out with a man like that, he must have something special about him (irregardless of his looks, or lack thereof).
It is also the same reason as to the second part, on why men, with a woman "wing-man" often does so well at bars. It tells the other women that these men have already been pre-approved by other women (otherwise, why would you/the women hang out with those guys). Why would you go out with the other single men in the bar, when you have no idea that they've been pre-approved by other women, when you can hang out with those guys that so visibly HAVE already been pre-approved by other women?
As for the third one, why many women show aggresive attention towards your partner while you were out...in my experience, it is slightly different for men. There is like an unacknowledged but understood by all code among men: you never try to steal another man's woman, unless you want to get your ass kicked (or you really are confident you can kick his ass). I am unsure of whether there is a similar code among women, but if there is, it seems less powerful or less understood by women. It has been explained by the people who explain such stuff that women do so because...well, they can. Since we often say women are desperate to find men, and that their beauty is the pinnancle of achievement, would it not make sense that another pinnacle of achievement for women is the ability to seduce men, and thus relatedly, what is even better, the ability to seduce a man that has already been seduced by another woman? This would mean that a woman who seduces a man who has been seduced by another woman would be VERY VERY Good (ie. the most "woman-ly" among all women), as she has the beauty/charm/sexual skills to get any man , even one that belonged to another woman!
Just offering some suggestions as to why you may experience the stuff you mentioned in your post.
Yeah, I was just noting that it seems backward from what the economists model would predict - that the women are so competitive when they're actually in higher demand...
And I get that the whole wing-man dynamic serves as a sort of vetting process, but that just seems strange to me as well, as I tend to trust my own judgment and would never think of factoring in another woman's approval of a man. But maybe I'm just weird that way.
And I think that at times there is a sort of challenge implicit in the behavior of other women when they hang all over my partner and act super flirty right in front of me. I think there is some baiting going on, where I'm supposed to get all bitchy and start screaming or pulling hair or something. My instinctive response is to make a sarcastic comment about how it's getting awfully crowded in here and then walk away. This always results in him following me, thus walking away from the competitor, and resolves the situation without the intended confrontation. It also leaves the competitor looking kind of lame, as he's walked away from her mid-flirt. Sometimes I think I'm just really incompetent at all the little games women are supposed to play because I was always kind of tomboyish and athletic so I never took the time to learn all these little "social skills" involved in the script for women in our culture. In this case my incompetence gets me off the hook, though, so I'm not complaining.
For a nationwide map on gender ratio's
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp
You may have to deselect population and select 'Males to 100 Females 2000' and redraw the map to see the red and blue, and then you have to select the map key to understand it.
The nation-wide trend is definitely skewed towards a the female end of the spectrum. So of course they are conflicting micro and macro forces.
You definitely see men being competitive in area's where there are a lot of men in the population. Have you ever lived near a military base? Every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night new, clean cars prowl the streets, driven by preened peacocks in stylish clothes. Loud musics, ground lights and speed acts as the mating call. It is one of the most obvious mating displays you can see.
In regards to you being a good wingwoman, the fact is by going out with your male friends you show that they have a certain level of quality, that they are not inferior goods.
Very interesting mapping feature! For Laramie, it shows 108-205 males for every 100 females, which is a remarkable range, while the Seattle area shows 96-99. Interesting...
A little off topic...
I think the high range of males (205) is becuase of military bases and jobs where there is an extremely high number of men.
Take Alaska for example. Alaska has about 10% of the Army and Air force stationed here, and a lot of the work in the Bush is done where the industries sex ratio is highly skewed male at remote sites (petroleum development, mining, timber).
I think the military is 1/6th female, so having a fair-sized base (and including the retired population they draw to them) you could see a significant affect on the m-f ratio.
I can't really think of jobs that would highly skew the gender ratio towards female... at least not to the same degree the military is obviously skewed male.
[Sorry for the long essay, but I've been reading feministing for years and almost all the posts on ev psych are generally ev psych bashing, so it was interesting to see one taking a different perspective]
FEMINIST AND EVOLUTIONIST?
The books "The Woman Who Never Evolved" by feminist primatologist Sarah Hrdy and "Sexual Selections" by feminist biologist Marlene Zuk do a good job of presenting answers to the kinds of questions posed in the OP, particularly for individuals who take a hardline social constructionist stance that excludes any acceptance of evolutionary perspectives. For a more general overview of behavior biology, "The Tangled Wing" by Melvin Konner is a great choice. A highly entertaining read is "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation" by Olivia Judson.
THE ORIGINAL POST?
The original post misdescribes sexual selection theory somewhat by focusing on just the physical aspects of sexual selection, and ignoring the sexually selected aspects of human female mate choice that focus do focus on the physical.
SEXUAL SELECTION ACTS ON MORE THAN PHYSICAL TRAITS
In species ranging from insects to elephant seals to humans, females often select males on the basis of resource provisioning. This can be in the form of "nuptial gifts" (small packets of food), females selecting males with larger and richer territories or leks, nests built by males to attract females, females mating with males in exchange for meat, forming friendship alliances with males that provide protection, etc.
Sexual selection produced females that 1) generally seek and produce their own resources; 2) select males that who provide resources and/or genetic benefits to their offspring; 3) Males that provided resources and/or genetic benefits. Females in many species select males, in part, based on the males providing direct benefits to them or their offspring is quite widespread.
So if you are going to apply sexual selection perspectives to human behavior, you have to consider these facts as well.
Obviously the instituational structures, governments, historical exclusion of women from workplaces, and learned ideologies play a major roles in women's preferences for status/resources in males. Across many species, the distribution and availabilty of resources can have dramatic effects on the sex roles in a species.
The question of interest to evolutionary psychologists (like myself) is whether evolutionary perspectives are also useful for explaining these differences and can predict when different ecological conditions will produce different sex roles.
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF SEXUAL SELECTION IN WOMEN
The peacock's tail is sexy because it is associated with testosterone. When you inject birds with T, it burns out their immune system, raises their metabolism, and causes their tails to flourish. It is a "costly signal" - only the male peacocks in the best condition can afford to display these extravagant tails produced by testosterone. Their offspring inherit these traits so females benefit by mating with them.
There are analogs in humans. For example, women's preferences for testosterone-linked traits (muscularity, facial masculinity, etc.) peak when women are ovulating (when they are most likely to get pregnant). This suggests there are evolved hormonally activated mechanisms that can shift women's preferences - a pattern originally noted by feminist primatologists.
Rather than proposing that preferences are fixed or stable, evolutionary perspectives can predict when women's preferences will shift according to their current internal state, their developmental history, the local sex ratio, etc.
WHY THE SEEMING SEX REVERSAL IN HUMAN IN TERMS OF PHYSICAL TRAITS?
With that background, why has physical appearance become some important for women? My guess is that with males controlling a larger proportion of the resources and women excluded from this workplace, this artificially inflated men's choice and limited female choice.
Why are some aspects, like indicators of youth, preferred in females? There is nothing inherent in sexual selection that would create preferences for youth on a wide scale across species. For example, in chimps, the males prefer older females, presumably because younger females have extremely high infant mortality.
The general explanation for human is that we are a special case because we create long-term pair bonds that can last for years and years, and we have particularly fragile offspring. If you are going to mate with someone for a long time, evolution would favor males who chose individuals with high reproductive potential. Imagine 3 sets of ancestral males. Group 1 had a slight bias to prefer younger women, Group 2 had a slight bias toward older women, and Group 3 mated at random with respect to age. Which group would produce more offspring? Probably Group 1.
How is Elaine Morgan's "Descent of Woman" now viewed? I read it when I was very young and not yet exposed to feminist crit. and it had a very powerful impact for me.
How often do you see a really hot man with a plain Jane on his arm? How often do you see the reverse?
How often do I see a really hot man with a plain Jane on his arm?
Probably about the same frequency that I see a Incredibly More Successful Woman with an Incredibly Not so Successful Man on her arm.
Re: Uncommon.
How often do I see the reverse?
I see a lot more pairings where the man is at least as successful as the woman on his arm, if not more so.
While I understand where you were going with this, and I will agree with you 100% that in our society, women, moreso than men are supposed to look beautiful, while in men, good looks are merely a bonus, let us not forget that in your given example, the men must meet certain criteria too as judged by society. Not every man in society has an equal chance of hooking up with a "drop=dead" gorgeous beauty, otherwise, yes, it would be incredibly one-sided and unfair.
It would be fallacious to assume that these supermodel like women are all falling for Men who live in a basement and spend all their time and money playing World of Warcraft and eating pizza out of a box while dressed only in their dakky white tightey whiteys.
Also, I am not American, so perhaps in America, you can see supermodel like women with average Joes in the street everywhere you look. If this so, then I apologize. But speaking as an outsider, whenever we see "NEWS" about Hollywood or America, when we see a beautiful woman with a Plain Joe, either the Plain Joe is the owner of some billion-dollar business, or he has a a good standing in society (established actor, enlightened philanthropist, acclaimed boxer, etc).
So yes, you are absolutely right that American society (and most other societies out there) expect and pretty much value a woman for her beauty alone. But I can turn it around and say that while society might expect women to be pretty and a good mother, it also expects potential male partners to be established in his job (better to be a job with higher prestige than something like say - sewer worker) and social position. It is by no accident that jokes usually abount about men and how they are still in a low position despite their age (just one example would be Scrubs, where Lenny is often derided for being a 40 year old who still delivers the post and dresses in shorts).
If it were really true that any Joe from the street can hook up with what people consider a "beautiful supermodel-like waif", then men would not need to work for any prestige marker at all (maturity, career, social, etc). If beauty is that prized in women, many "average Joes" would just as soon wait around for a "Beauty" to mate with, as their chance of being with a "beauty" would be equal to all other men. And this will be true, because since it would be so simple to be with a "Beauty", they would not go for any woman who does not possess the beauty gene, thus causing all genes without the FEMALE BEAUTY code to die off, thus leaving only the females with the FEMALE BEAUTY code to continue living and surviving.
Regarding "unattractive females" not being approached:
What I've heard seems to indicate that "unattractive females that can't get any male attention at all" really are extremely rare. Hear me out - apparently, facial symmetry (an objectively measurable aspect of good looks) is positively correlated with the number of sexual partners that men claim to have had, but facial symmetry has no correlation whatsoever with the number of sexual partners women claim to have had.
In other words, not-so-good-looking girls get laid just as much good-looking girls, but good-looking guys get laid a lot more than not-so-good looking guys. If you're a fertile female, you can almost certainly find someone to sleep with you; if they have a problem, it's not that they can't get laid at all, they're just not attracted to the men that are willing to sleep with them. (Disagree? Post a personals ad on Craigslist or any "adult": dating site, saying you're looking for casual sex and see how many responses you get. I'd be surprised if any would be worth following up on, but you'll get them.)
For more evidence on this subject, just look at any of the threads on Feministing about street harassment; being unattractive clearly provides no protection whatsoever.
(Incidentally, if there is no cost to asking and being rejected, being in the group of people doing the asking is better than being in the group of people being asked - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem for more details.)
----
As for the "girls like men who already have girlfriends" thing - well, it's easier for two women to share one man's reproductive capacity than for two men to share one woman's reproductive capacity. Sperm is a lot cheaper than pregnancy, and I'd be willing to bet that polygyny was reasonably common in humans' environment of evolutionary adaptedness. In a very real sense, it's often better to be one of the many wives of the Guy In Charge than to be the only wife of the local Butt Monkey.
"In other words, not-so-good-looking girls get laid just as much good-looking girls, but good-looking guys get laid a lot more than not-so-good looking guys. If you're a fertile female, you can almost certainly find someone to sleep with you; if they have a problem, it's not that they can't get laid at all, they're just not attracted to the men that are willing to sleep with them. (Disagree? Post a personals ad on Craigslist or any "adult": dating site, saying you're looking for casual sex and see how many responses you get. I'd be surprised if any would be worth following up on, but you'll get them.)"
I agree with this, but with a caveat. I think using a casual sexual encounter as the benchmark here gives a biased view. Why? Because the social costs of casual sex for women compared with men is a lot higher.
Thus the general trend in our culture is for men to give more weight to casual sex with multiple partners. As a woman, to be considered too unattractive as a potential long-term partner probably holds considerable weight that is likely not lessened by the prospect of knowing that random men, who otherwise won't give you the time of day, will sleep with you in a pickle. This is actually not a source of consolation for many women but rather a source of humiliation and rejection.
I'd also like to see more data about the quality of said casual encounters. I don't want to get anecdotal here, but how many of these encounters consist of, "I was drunk so I let the fugly chick blow me".
I pretty much agree with everything you said here. Women who are less attractive do have more difficulty finding a long-term relationship, and the quality of their partners will be reduced. In humans, female attractiveness affects quality but not quantity of mates.
Anyway, when it comes to human mating, I think we can all agree that nobody has it easy.
For more evidence on this subject, just look at any of the threads on Feministing about street harassment; being unattractive clearly provides no protection whatsoever.
That assumes that street harassment is a way to show attraction towards someone. Which, thinking about it, would be a really a bizzare and rude and frightening way to show attraction towards another person.
Well, there's definitely some kind of sexual component to it, even if it's mixed up with all sorts of scary power issues and male status competition. It has more in common with rape than with dating, but there is a certain kind of desire behind it, even if it does come from a desire to control and possess. (Similarly, being "unattractive" doesn't provide any protection from rape, either.) But yeah, I probably shouldn't be generalizing from predatory behavior to romantic behavior anyway.
Early and often, women are hit with the message that they're nobody until a man - any man - chooses them.
Men get a very similar message, that they're nobody until a woman - any woman - chooses them.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AManIsNotAVirgin
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexAsRite-of-passage
As for the original question - why do human females have to compete with each for males, when this is so rare in the animal kingdom - this seems to have a reasonable answer:
http://www.davidbrin.com/neoteny1.htm
The short version:
"Human females began competing for mates because they needed the kind of competent, collaborative devotion received by female birds -- but which only a fraction of human males seem inclined or capable of delivering."
When you examine the Pleistocene era, it becomes apparent that we have been feed calculated misinformation relative to woman and her prehistoric role. Until the advent of agriculture, and subsequently patriarchy, with its control of woman, she controlled most all activities, including sex. Men were peripheral, as woman was the driving force, the primary engine of both change and development. During prehistoric times, up to the Neolithic (~10,000 years ago), women didn't compete for men, nor did men compete among themselves for access to women--woman simply selected. What we think we know about this era is greatly distorted.
What happened to change the dynamics? It's called the Inversion. It's when woman's sexuality was turned on its head to serve the needs of the emerging 'modern' society. And, it's the subject of our new book. Sex as we know it today, was not the sex of our ancestors.
We have been gathering and studying data from women for over 50 years and if you are a woman interested in adding your voice, simply trip over to www.esybron.org and contribute.
Male peacocking does, indeed, exist in humans.
Some very famous successful examples of the human equivalent of the male peacock tail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Qo1eaWF8c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLxTpsIVzzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE11Zrrp24I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo1npZWR5qk
Why would people do anything so useless as become musicians if it wasn't sexually selected for? ;)