I definitely agree that a large percentage of the hetero guys are looking for “femininity” in their potential mate. What percentage of those women wish their partner to reinforce their own sense of femininity?

My comment may arouse the usual ad hominem critique (e.g. some suggestion that I lack self-esteem and project my bitterness outward), but for the sake of case-study level research, here’s something about a “negative” trait of mine: I’m short, around 171-172cm. I once dated a woman a good 3-4cm taller than me. I really wasn’t bothered, and neither was she most of the time, except when we danced or went to formal functions. Her dressy shoes tended to leave her about eye-level to the top of my forehead or worse, and she finally broke down and confided in me one night that it bothered her. “Oh, who cares what they think,” was my love-struck reply. Her reply: “I don’t care what other people think. I just feel so HUGE.” Further discussion decoded the message: The size differential, especially enhanced by high heels, made her feel unfeminine. All her previous boyfriends had been taller than her. When they danced, she looked up at them. When they embraced, she enjoyed the sensation of a larger body encircling her. This was not an insecure, unintelligent, unattractive, unliberated woman. And to her credit, she learned to look past the matter, and when we did split (amicably), I really don’t think my being shorter than her had anything to do with it. I’ve “learned to love again” as they say, my wife is just about exactly my height (she’s maybe 1cm taller), I’m super happy with my relationship, and if I’m bitter about something, I’m sure not dwelling on it, or nursing any unhealed emotional wounds that I’m aware of.

That said, I don’t think many guys hear something to the effect of “you make me feel unwomanly” and wonder how prevalent that attitude might be. And having other female friends, I asked them for their brutally honest opinions about guys and size. I can’t help it; I’m a curious person. Not a one said they wanted a man much shorter than them. Some of them said they could deal with maybe an inch or so of height advantage, but no matter what the woman’s stature, she preferred a man who was larger than herself, and some said that was a requirement. I’m sure there are women out there who feel completely differently, but I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t a very natural, normal, even predominant mating preference for heterosexual women. Perhaps it’s even instinctual, i.e. an inherited trait.

So, looking at things in the most dispassionate evolutionary light, leaving entirely aside the pejoratives (gold-digger, etc.), might some of the preference that women show for mates who are at least their equal in terms of intellect and/or income potential have something to do with the woman’s self-image? In other words, does being noticeably the man’s superior make the woman feel, paradoxically, less like how she imagines herself, just as the same arrangement might make the man feel less masculine? If so, is it too nuts to wonder if evo-psych hasn’t something to say about that phenomenon?

This reminds me of something I heard about gender asymmetries in human migration. People study this using Y chromosomes, mitochondrial DNA and the like. I think the story was that when one culture invades another, women are more likely to “marry up” and spread genes from the conquered culture to the conquering one.

Yep, this is evident in the genetics of many South and Central American populations, like in this study:

“Admixture analysis of the Colombian populations suggests an asymmetric pattern of mating involving mostly immigrant men and native women.”

rgb: “…the conquered people not usually making it to the lands of the conquering.”

(Mostly) true for Amerinds, but don’t forget the effects of slavery.

It reinforced my impression that men from conquering cultures have always been interested in having sex with cute gals from the conquered culture, while women from conquering cultures are less interested in sex with the conquered men.

Interest, or opportunity? Or both?

But what happens during colonization may be a bit different from what goes on in other situations. Often it’s assumed that most human cultures are patrilocal. Chimps are as macho as anything, and they are even more strongly patrilocal (young females are the ones that migrate). So on the other hand the stereotype is that men travel and “spread their seed” more, and on the other hand they “bring home the bride” rather than the other way around, and these should actually result in contrasting trends in the genetic data. One way to make sense of the data is this hypothesis:

“Analysis of forager populations in the ethnographic record suggests that patrilocality may not have predominated among pre-agricultural humans. The higher female migration rate inferred by some genetic studies may reflect a shift to patrilocality in association with the emergence of agriculture.”

But, I can’t find any links to those genetic studies right now… Can anybody find them?

Hope this helped!

Although you might want to check the variance. Eg if the women are that much smarter than the men present relative to the converse.

It seems to me couples tend to form who date within their own intelligence pools.

So while you may find a very intelligent man with a dumb woman, the success rate for those types of ‘arrangements’ isn’t exactly what I would call great.

-shrug-

Im not sure if women really care one way or the other. I don’t see many smart women willing to date idiots.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Yeah, it’s scary to be honest especially when you see the rejection potential. I agree that you can’t sustain a relationship on mind games.
It’s ironic, though, to see lots of very high quality women – friends, colleagues, students – single and dateless for years while the ..ahem.. more generic women
seem to attract much more romantic attention.

BTW, I’m still waiting on the photos (with captions)!

**********************

rgb on Nov 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pm

#39:

This could also be due to the dearth of eligible single men in the conquered culture after the war. When you add the war widows to the numbers of single women, that must account for a pretty large supply of marriageable females for the incoming (mostly young and therefore more likely to be single) males to choose from. When any kind of long distance travel was slow and hazardous, it would have been much more convenient to find a mate in the new country/ region. Young single women from the conquerer culture must have been in scare supply for either group of men.

I have also come across that one. I assumed it had to do with more males from the conquering culture going to the conquered culture (as soldiers, administrative people were mostly if not exclusively males), and the conquered people not usually making it to the lands of the conquering.

P.S. My wife had a 3.9 college GPA and is now an MBA and successful business director. I am a biology undergrad..

I know I wouldn’t be attracted to my spouse if she didn’t seem smarter, more successful. But the same is for her: She wouldn’t have me if she didn’t think I was smarter than her. And she is troubled when I am not as ambitious than her.

Maybe we’re looking at the wrong point – not why are men looking for equals, but – why are women still willing to accept a position in which they perceive themselves inferior?