Yes, I do fall on the nature side more than the nurture side. We are "rational", but we are still sexually reproducing animals and we have 600 million years of sexual reproduction evolution and 3 million years of primate evolution behind our behavior.

I think that one of the things our self-awareness as a species gives us is (IMHO) an endless capacity for rationalization. We make up infinite reasons for behavior that is really genetically determined. Mating behavior (sexual selection) is so deeply embedded (IMHO, again) that we really don't have any control over it. Females attract, males approach and females decide. This genetically determined behavior shapes our societies. It's found in both matriarchal and patriarchal cultures in the historical record.

In the end, this may be like all of the religious discussions. Interesting till you've heard and participated in them long enough to know that we'll never have "the answer". Each generation recapitulates them and that's a good thing. Perhaps at some point the rational will overcome the genetic, but it ain't happened yet as far as I can see.

I could be wrong, but I think the argument was not that "women attract/men pursue" in all species in nature but rather particularly in homo sapiens . . .

I'm not sure that it has anything to do with a switch to patriarchy a few thousand years ago, if that even happened, but I'm also pretty sure that this is an hypothesis that can't be falsified. Similar behavior is observed in many species. As you say, nobody knows where the line between nature and nurture lies.

We are lucky that women in other countries are more oppressed than those of us in the states? I guess I should be thankful that I earn as much as 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Thanks for enlightening me as to how liberated we are.

To add more fuel to the fire here, I just came across this article on the gender gap through a friend's FB page.

It is actually a pretty good article. It addressed some issues that i felt were always sort of hidden in the 77c stats.

A patriarchical society is most definitely "nurture" as opposed to "nature". Enough examples exist of matriarchichal societies to show that it is not "genetic" to have male-dominated societies.

So your statement that females of all species are trying to look pretty to attract the males is inaccurate at best. Same goes for females attract, males come, females choose model. It is by no means biologically universal.

I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly. My statement: females attract, males approach, females choose, was meant to apply to the human species. This is the way humans work. All I claim is that this is the basis of the pretty/strong differentiation and that this is genetic.

Indeed, but isn't the discussion about sexual selection rather than about social organization?

Why would prehistoric humans need "pretty" females? Strong, healthy, able to carry, care for, nurture and protect the young, yes. But pretty?

Pretty only became relevant when women became viewed as property and decoration of men.

"Pretty" is a proxy for a lot of valuable characteristics in many species. And, further, it seems to be the kind of thing that is often self-reinforcing in evolution. That is to say - there are many species that use coded signs to determine health and fitness of potential mates. Other members of that species can "cheat" by actually focusing on those characteristics.

Again, this is the case for species that are monogamous (one female mates with one male, such as gibbons), or harem/pack-based (one male for many females, such as gorillas).

But, for species that are polyamorous, with multiple males mating with multiple females (chimps, bonobos, and yes, humans), the whole "focus on desirable traits of a particular mate" thing becomes much less critical for obvious reasons.

I would argue that humans are clearly a species that employs multiple mating strategies successfully. Few are as polyamorous as bonobos, as harem-like as gorillas, or as monogamous as some bird species, but... Everywhere you look, you see a society that has codified one particular strategy as the "right" one, while other behaviors are considered uncouth. And yet many individuals continue to employ the strategy that works for them, even when there is some level of ostracizing accompanying that behavior. I think that's a clear sign that our biology is pushing us to implement the strategy that works for us as individuals, with a large amount of variation within the species.

But without a doubt, we're not as "pretty" focused as many animals. Just about the only things we've developed as eye-catchers is hair, boobs, buttocks, and, well, our eyes. The peacock and the walrus are not impressed.

The argument has been made that our intellect (in particular our speech) is also, in part, a mating tool. But even if you buy that, calling that a version of "pretty" is, I think, a stretch.

GO

I can't tell if you're saying monogamy works pretty well for humans, or not.

I guess I misunderstood you when you said "3 million years of primate evolution tied up in females being pretty and males being bold" Certainly primates are more than just human species, and you are just plain wrong about this mode of behavior being universal in primates.

But even leaving primates aside and focusing on only humans, I STILL think that you are wrong in the "women pretty/males bold" being genetically programmed or innate.

(And that's why a switch to patriarchy is relevant in the context of this discussion)

Why would prehistoric humans need "pretty" females? Strong, healthy, able to carry, care for, nurture and protect the young, yes. But pretty?

What constitutes "pretty" today includes a lot of attributes linked to health and fecundity Same is true of "handsome", but handsome usually includes some characteristics that indicate "strong". That's just the physical aspect of sexual selection.

What constitutes "pretty" today includes a lot of attributes linked to health and fecundity Same is true of "handsome", but handsome usually includes some characteristics that indicate "strong". That's just the physical aspect of sexual selection. It's interesting to think about the behaviors as well. What do males and females DO differently when they're around potential breeding partners? How do you act around your partner? How much of that is just as hardwired as the dance of the Prarie Hen?

I heard a program on NPR this morning about conditions, both behavioral and physical, in animals and humans. Good show. An interview with a cardiologist who wrote a book. Every human condition (disorder, she's a physician) they looked at had an animal parallel. That kind of thing gives one pause about how much of our lives are hard wired and how much of our brainpower is used to rationalize behaviors that we may be able to do little about. A lot of the work in behavioral economics about how people make decisions may also be uncovering hardwired behavior that we always thought was "rational" or "cultural". Turns out it may be just the electrical wiring.

This whole thing about patriarchal/matriarchal strikes me as a way of telling a plausible story about why things are the way they are. Why did we come up with all our origin stories? Is that something that humans just have to do as well? We certainly seem driven to explain things.

What I'm saying is that different people are very different in what they want/need in terms of relationships. I think it is fair to say that as a species, we are among those in which various mating strategies are employed, depending on the individual and the circumstances. There are lots of species like this.

A really cool example is the dung beetle, in which big males fight each other for access to females, while smaller males masquerade as females, avoid the big males, and sneak off with the females. http://www.springerlink.com/...nt/df33laq5vw6r5cnc/

GO

What constitutes as “pretty” in our society today is different from so many societies through the world and through the ages have considered "pretty", it's not a universal biological concept anymore. Consider foot binding in China, how do small feet show that you are a superior mate? In our culture today we value women who are fit and trim, but other cultures value women who are full figured, others women who are fat. One sees vitality, the other sees fertility and the final sees wealth.

I’m sure there is some biological features that are still universally attractive, but humans have more or less overridden the majority of them with what it considers important. Different societies all have different ideas on what is “pretty”. In general it is something that we, as modern humans, have made up.

I find it a little humorous to compare human behavior with the behavior of other species in some ways, especially making the assumption that what humans do (or what we observe) is what works well. Other species by instinct do what works well for their species and don't, for instance, destroy and pollute the environments in which they live. The same cannot be said for humans. So I think the question of whether "various mating strategies" work well for humans is a somewhat open one. That they're employed is certainly incontrovertible.