a pondering

I don't know how people tolerate all the creams and makeup on their face all the time. I get in and I want the underwire bra off, makeup off if worn and straigh into comfy clothes if not already wearing them

Then I am happy to be single and to out makeup free.

Sorry, I don't know why that means you can't speculate!

No Slugs, they probably wouldn't.

But you suggested a link between specific biological traits and the origins of patriarchal societies.

I am questioning the link between the specific biological trait you mentioned and patriarchy.

I'm not entirely sure it is the opposite. It seems that it is mostly that way in this country at this time, but in other countries/cultures and in other times it could be different. It is too broad a statement to make about an entire species.

I think though humans (unlike any other species alive at the moment) have the power of conscious thought and so our behaviour here and now is determined by more than innate urges.

That said, my experience is that men and very concerned about their appearance but maybe don't want to let anyone know.

Regarding hidden ovulation I think female bonobos have hidden ovulation - but regular common chimps don't.

On the whole the common chimps society is much more patriarchal than the bonobos.
I think there is far greater sexual diamorphism in the common chimps too.

I don't think that disciplines which look at the interactions between society and biology are frowned upon in general. There is loads of research into this kind of stuff.

There is a very great difference between saying that it was possible for a cultural trait to come into existence within the human species and saying that trait was prevalent when humans evolved.

So cooking for example predates our species. Our biology evolved in a context where we were already cooking. There's no evidence that we evolved in a patriarchal context.

There isn't any evidence that hominid species were patriarchal though, or early humans for that matter.

Fascinating slugs.
As you say, infanticide among other animals, even primates is huge.
Animal females often take multiple mates to prevent this, maybe patriarchal protection of females is how proto-humans evolved to deal with it?

Hidden ovulation isn't something that only happens in patriarchal societies though.

In egalitarian hunter gatherer societies, do men spend less time caring for children than in patriarchal societies? Are there higher rates of infanticide?

There are a number of different things though, aren't there?

1. Being sexually attractive to someone. That is based on a demonstration of good genes which is a. physical appearance: well proportioned body, facial symmetry, signs of having reached sexual maturity (in men demonstrated by broad shoulders as this are the

1. Being romantically attractive to someone. That is based on the man appearing caring, affectionate, sharing interests and personality traits as we do with friends and family members. Often tested by introducing to family members and friends. Purpose of this is see if they will long term invest in their child.

1. Ability to allow us/our children to access resources so we can survive. This last one is the fucked up one. Men are not wealthy and powerful either because they have good genes to make a new human or because they have good parenting skills, so wealth does not cause attraction. The situation where women are denied access to resources unless they have sex with a wealthy man (and only with him) is culturally warping the basis of choosing the right partner. I don't think women are attracted to wealth. I think they make rational decisions to get into relationships with men they are neither sexually nor romantically attracted to for wellbeing/survival, because men control resources, something which is not natural.

Men are competing with other males to attract women.

The displays are coded to indicate power (for increased security) and material resources.

I do not think that wealth, power and aggressiveness are, in any way, displays for the woman's benefit. They are purely for other men.

It's for both.

They are for competition with other males, but it also shows the female that they are a good prospect.

Beauty reflects health and men tend to be attracted to women who display signs of fertility (see research on waist to hip ratio) and to younger women who are most fertile. (which explains middle aged men dumping their older wives, when their children are older too)
And women (well, mostly who are not that self sufficient, and those who don't want to support a male partner) do compete for those men who display signs of wealth and health.

I do not think that wealth, power and aggressiveness are, in any way, displays for the woman's benefit. They are purely for other men

I'm not sure about that. These male displays seems to be about status. I think high status men are generally seen as attractive.

The thing about the peahen is is that she has not evolved to please the male. Because the male doesn't make any investment at all in the offspring. So, he'll mate with any peahen. Sure, he'll find all of them pretty, but the pressure is on him to be pleasing to the eye with evolutionary costly feathers (what do you think how easy those make it for predators?), while the peahen's beauty is rather subtle and evolved to keep her safe.

So, opposite of what people are like ... some women may like how men dress, but men don't dress to appeal to women.

Things are somewhat returning to their natural state, with men now taking more care of their appearance.

I do not think that wealth, power and aggressiveness are, in any way, displays for the woman's benefit. They are purely for other men. (Okay, the wealth might be to attract women, BUT it is wealth gained by exploiting women in patriarchy. It's cheating. It is not like the male eagle bringing the female food to prove his worth.)

Some really interesting posts.

I guess you could argue the policitian look (dull suit) does sort of attract women.
If the bloke is wearing a decent suit the chances are he's in a reasonably responsible job and earns a decent wage. That's what's attractive about him, he has resources.

The younger blokes who don't have much cash behind them yet might have to rely more on their looks if they want to attract women.

Maybe it's just the forums I read (the men's health - well men's and women's health really - ones), but there is a lot of talking about getting good bodies, grooming, shaving or not shaving, waxing, dressing well, etc. And their goal is to attract or "get women".
It doesn't equate to the history or lengths that women have been expected to do over the centuries, but it exists now.

Not sure that a bunch of men not shaving really equates to all the primping and preening that women are expected to do if they 'ever want to catch a man', but you might have a point.

Possibly.

Why are guys growing huge beards at the moment?
Is it beautiful plumage to attract women?
Read a few male forums and the answer is distinctly yes!
But that is mostly younger guys, the "politician look" of dull be-suited boring guy and glamorous, often younger, wife is obviously very prevalent.

Yes, it is deo.

And as I mentioned, human males display signs of wealth, not necessarily beauty. But they display their good genes, as strength and aggressiveness as well. Remember Bridget Jones' famous cock fight?
It's often said these days that men pay more notice to their appearance. Possibly because the game is changing. Females also need to be conquered by looks because they have economic power as well.

Where a pair is needed to raise young, male and females look very similar and behave similarly. Or the male makes nests to prove his value, for example.

Humans are somewhat mixed. A couple is desirable but a village can raise a child. Men are bigger than females, presumably to keep their females from being impregnated by other males and protect their own offspring, but not too big or flashy.

Isn't it about money and power? If you earn quite a bit whatever your sex you can just pick one uniform you wear every day and spend af ew seconds doing basics like washing your face or shaving if you are man and that's it. If instead you need to entice a man and keep one to support you financially then you can't?

I should have linked my previous post to alexpolistigrakia's point that "the male is decorative, because that is how he is. Nature has made him that way, as it were, he doesn't have to make an effort." The bowerbird actually does make the effort, but no, it's not common in nature. And even then, animals aren't thinking about what they do, they just have the instinct to do it, at least that's what we believe about them.

You can find a fair amount of stuff by searching on "peacock feather jewellery". A gift from the male bird to the female human, while we tell the male human that he doesn't need much to catch the eye except himself, just like the peahen. Something to ponder there.