|
I don't buy the notion that women were more selective. This looks to me like a man-vs-man issue, as it almost always has been throughout history. Harems, for example, were not an example of women being selective; they were an example of one man having more power than the rest. Same with the sister-wives in traditional Mormon culture. Evolutionarily, women seek safety and food for themselves and their children before sexual satisfaction. So if one man beats all the others into submission--either physically or economically--the women don't really have a choice. They're already completely beaten both physically and economically (we don't know for sure about 8,000 years ago, of course, but I think it's fair to extrapolate from the last 2,000 years of recorded history).
The answer, of course, is to give the women all the money and power. Then you would see the most egalitarian sexual distribution possible.
|