Why do humans care so much about how human females look?

We all know that women’s appearance is a way bigger deal than men’s in our society.

But I had to ask myself — why?

In most every land-dwelling vertebrate, the males are arrayed in splendor, their flashiness being key to attaining mates. To paint broadly: because babymaking is relatively cheap for males (the biocost of a few drops of sperm), their goal would be to get more mates. By contrast, females who pay dearly to make a baby, would have the goal of getting better mates.

Therefore, the males have to be arrayed in splendor to convince females that they’re the best. Females, by comparison, dress for utility (i.e. full camo), to give them the best bio-savings to pay the immense cost of reproduction:

The shiny one is the dude-bird, demo-ing his genetic superiority. The camo one is the lady-bird, hunkering down for efficiency and utility.

I had to ask myself, how did we humans get it switched?

 

I don’t have any solid conclusions. I do, however, have 3 loosely held guesses:

GUESS 1: Humans are particularly skilled at extraction.

When humans get in positions of power, they’re extra good at getting what they want from whatever — or whoever — they have power over.

Just look at nature. When we establish our power over nature, boy do we establish it, and we extract, pollute, whatever-the-heck-we-want. Our intelligence drastically elevates our extraction capabilities.

In most species, the males, no matter how much physical power they attain, cannot ask their females to put on make-up or dress more sexily.

GUESS 2: Monogamy means males too must select for quality instead of quantity.

To the degree that society, for whatever set of reasons, manages to enforce some modicum of monogamy, it becomes diminishingly viable for males to increase their progeny by increasing numbers of mates, so instead, males (like females) must now optimize their progeny by trying to pair with a female of the highest possible quality. That means ladyfolk would now have equal motivation to look biologically awesome as males. And then Guess 1 or Guess 3 takes it from there to create the women-body-idolatry we see today.

Undermining Guess 2: Cardinals are monogamous.

GUESS 3: Males get and use stuff to get mates. Females weren’t able to.

Males, due to physical advantages, have historically used possessions to display bio-virtue, which can make sense in societies where possessions lends greater advantage than physique, and females, excluded by society or physiology from various workplaces and the acquisition of stuff, stick with visual appeal as a strategy to display bio-virtue.

Any or all of these 3 factors could be at play.

I will say this: factors 1 and 3 are naughty, naughty factors. I do not like them. I do not want them to have sway. Especially #1. And factor 2 is semi-disproved by… cardinals. So there’s almost surely some funnybusiness at play here.

In other words, I don’t see a real sensible, healthy reason why we should be way more focused on female appearance than on males. And I’m rather uncomfortable with said level of focus.

And I say this as someone who IS way more focused on female appearance. Who sees it as normal for “men to be visual” and “women not to care as much how men look”. Someone who IS visual… but why?

What are your ‘causal’ thoughts? (or casual, you know, it’s whatev.)

I refrained from calling these guesses “hypotheses” because I don’t really intend to test them thoroughly. Just throwing them out there, wanting to hear your thoughts.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Why do humans care so much about how human females look?

  1. I have some guesses, but I’ll leave those aside to first share two observations about your article.

    #1. At one point, you say you have two guesses. Then you list three things.

    #2. You make a lot of generalizations about humans. But are you sure that these things are true of “humans,” rather than just being true of the culture with which you’re familiar? That is to say, in a matriarchal culture (for example), would we see the same issue(s)? There’s just a little more universalization than I’m comfortable with.

    Like

    1. #1. Oh. right. in a hurry.

      #2. It’s more generalization than I’m comfortable with either. That’s why they’re loosely-held guesses. And also why I go asking for guesses / opinions / actual-well-formed-perspectives from others at the end of the post.

      #3. Dish. (See the end of #2)

      Like

  2. DAVE LICK SAID:
    I have some guesses, but I’ll leave those aside to first share two observations about your article.
    #1. At one point, you say you have two guesses. Then you list three things.
    #2. You make a lot of generalizations about humans. But are you sure that these things are true of “humans,” rather than just being true of the culture with which you’re familiar? That is to say, in a matriarchal culture (for example), would we see the same issue(s)? There’s just a little more universalization than I’m comfortable with.

    I REPLIED:
    #1. Oh. right. in a hurry. Fixed now.
    #2. It’s more generalization than I’m comfortable with either. That’s why they’re loosely-held guesses. And also why I go asking for guesses / opinions / actual-well-formed-perspectives from others at the end of the post.
    #3. Dish. (See the end of reply #2)

    Like

    1. DanielSchulzJackson OHHHHHHHHHHHHH, So “dish” means “share your opinions”. I get it now. That was not immediately clear to me previously. Perhaps a less mis-interpretable verb could comprise your request in the future? =)
      That said, I am definitely also interested in hearing David’s thoughts…..

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s