Speed dating nebraska
My hunch is that women's and men's choices might never completely converge.The key difference is likely to come down to the demands of breastfeeding following the birth of a child — an activity that's energy-intensive, time-consuming, and quite difficult to integrate with paid work, at least as work is currently structured."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.) However, there has been a tectonic shift in gender roles over the past 50 years.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.Their relationship blossomed, but doubts crept up on both of them now and again.Josh was the primary caregiver for a child from a previous marriage, and his financial prospects were dim.However, the counter-punch is that evidence of a lingering gap actually supports case: The difference is only narrowed to the extent that gender equality is attained.Getting rid of it entirely would require complete gender equality, which doesn't yet exist.
In the distant past, this behavior was adaptive, and so evolution selected and encoded it in our genes, .
This evidence points to some serious flaws in the evolutionary psychologists' narrative.
If genes determine our mating preferences, how is it that these supposedly hardwired instincts erode in line with societies' and individual's gender-egalitarianism?
What if a society actually did achieve perfect gender equality?
Would women and men hold essentially identical partner preferences?