Thoughts on Natalie Angier's "Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin"
Responding to Natalie Angier's "Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin"
In “Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin”, Natalie Angier writes that one of the premises of evolutionary psychology is that “Women are naturally attracted to high-status men with resources”. Angier argues that this statement is not accurate for all women. However, she does not describe how it is inaccurate or offer any examples on the subject. I would like to contend that while certain parts of human attraction are affected by biology, such as pheromones, who a woman is attracted to is largely a matter of preference.
Some women are attracted to money and power. There are certainly gold-diggers out there, but there are male ones as well. Yet, when a woman first meets a man is she already or immediately aware of the size of his pocket book? There are some occasions where the answer is yes, but there are also plenty where that is not the case. A man may be wearing a five-hundred dollar suite, but they may be the only one he owns or he could have rented it. I certainly had no idea that my husband’s grandparents were filthy rich and he would receive a large inheritance. I did not find this out until we had already fallen for each other and were quite serious.
There are plenty of other things that play into attraction including attitude, appearance, intelligence, creativity, and common values which all women judge the importance of when selecting a mate. Some women may prefer an intelligent philosopher whose ideas cannot pay the bills. Other women may prefer a man who has a lower income than themselves so that they can have the power in the relationship. It’s a woman’s prerogative and she can follow her heart rather than her genes if she so chooses.