Why gentlemen prefer blondes and women prefer millionaires
Arriving at tonight's Darwin lecture, a little disconcerted to have to fill in a 'truth' questionnaire about what qualities you look for in a long term partner.
With my long term partner sat next to me.
More later...
OK. Now it's later.
Very interesting lecture by Helena Cronin and interesting conversations afterwards. The essential theme was what do the male and female of the species look for in a partner and how does that reflect in society today.
The questionnaires (see above) were quickly analysed and reinforced the much more detailed research Cronin used as a basis for the lecture. The findings were broadly these. Both men and women - in all societies, In all countries - rank intelligence and humour as the two most important attributes in seeking a partner.
After that display of unanimity the sexes diverge. Men look for attributes - facial attraction, body, caring personality - which can be analysed as relating to youthful child-bearing. Women are much more interested in financial resources, power and experience. Attributes which confirm the man as provider.
Where women themselves are providers and have crashed through the glass ceilings, they still look up the ladder for a partner rather than down. I can hear the howls from those individuals for whom this isn't true, but this research can only look at averages. The fact that the oldest individuals in the world are invariably men doesn't detract from the fact that, on average, women live longer.
The two areas of discussion which provoked some debate were the relative competitiveness of the sexes and evolutionary pressure and homosexuality. The question of homosexuality has not been well determined in the theory of evolution. The two current hypotheses are that the evolutionary pressures that result in homosexuality are either left over from dealing with pressures which no longer exist, or are residual effects of other pressures.
Given that these hypotheses (or others) have yet to be resolved this area of debate was very thought provoking.
As was the reaction of Cronin, a self confessed left wing feminist, to the suggestion that the only reason women aren't as competitive as men is because they aren't allowed to be. She swatted this argument aside and then followed it up with plenty of supporting evidence. The basics are that women don't have to keep competing to get one bloke to father a child but men have to be competitive to be that father.
However, having said that the most compelling evidence is how competitive the sexes are when there is no need to be. Cronin gave hilarious examples of the pointless competitiveness of the male and the bemused females simply getting the important stuff done. From the trawl through the Guinness Book of Records to the macho financiers who brought on the credit-crunch the lecture was littered with examples of real and compelling differences in the competitiveness of the sexes which are used when picking a partner.
The one area where Helena Cronin wasn't in tune with her audience was over the number of partners. She proposed with all the weight of scientific study behind her that men would want lots of partners to increase his impact on the future gene pool. Women on the other hand are limited to the number of children they can bear and so why would any women want want more than one man?
A lot of the predominantly female audience seemed to take a slightly different view.
