mv wrote:
It's an interesting theory, but it makes me wonder: who is constructing these gender roles? Are they somewhat natural (they are not, to me, but then I'm on the spectrum)? Are they reinforced for the greater good, despite not being good supportive constructs, generally?
I would think that females must have evolved to select in favour of mates who are more likely to protect them from poverty during their child-bearing years. A thin wallet would be risking the kids' lives. So I guess it's natural. On the other hand, there have probably been human societies that did things differently, so I think society also has a big hand in the construction of gender roles.
I think societies are changing too quickly for it to be at all easy to know what's currently happening. In evolutionary terms, people behave as they do because it worked for their ancestors........if the environment changes, it might continue to work, or it might not. We rarely know whether we're dealing with an appropriate instinct or an outmoded relic that has been rendered counterproductive.
I would speculate that the female preference for loaded men will slowly become less important as women become economically independent. But unless society gets a lot less competitive, I think it will always be a consideration. You can never have too much economic security for your kids. If you go down, our society won't give you much support.