This is the standard refrain. But it just doesn't seem to cut it for me. Many of the points don't seem to logically follow.
Originally posted by Dogrock:
Men adorn themselves with the things they believe attract females, i.e. power, wealth. Personality traits are sometimes aggressive to achieve these ends. Women adorn themselves with "flowers" and personality traits are often compliant.
So why is it different for men? Why wouldn't traits of power and wealth be attractive to men given that the driving aim is to seek the highest probability of producing offspring which will have those traits? It doesn't follow. Given, that the desired outcome suggests that both male and female parents would most desirably have those traits, or probably more exact, traits of health and longevity, it seems to even out and again leaves the question, "well then why do women adorn themselves more than men?".
However all that is changing as men and women are reversing roles and so it is that men are now starting to wear the "flowers" and women the dark power suits. Men do whatever will enhance their changes of procreation, women do whatever will give them the "best" offspring. But I think evolution is so long and winding that applying it to a local time or place is not always wise.
Men doing whatever will enhance their chances of procreation, and women doing whatever will give them the "best" offspring, makes it seem like it would be men who adorn themselves more. See what I mean? It doesn't logically follow.
