As I started reading, my first hypothesis was that women often rely on the opinions of others. As a man, if I am trying to attract a woman, she will probably check with her best friend, whether the friend approves of me. If the friend thinks that I am unworthy, too bad. Thus, to increase my chances, I should impress the friend first. But there is a chance of misunderstanding; either of them may conclude that I am actually interested in the friend, and that may ruin my chances with the first woman. So the safest approach is to impress the men nearby. If I succeed, they will provide the evidence that I am worthy, and the woman I am interested in may act on that evidence. Even if she asks her best friend, the friend may be influenced by the attitude of the other men.
(But this doesn’t work with the genders reversed. Men typically want beautiful women, and they evaluate it by looking at them; they don’t care what other women think about who is hot. So why would women care whether other women see them as hot?)
The second hypothesis is that dating is an inherently risky business, especially for men. If I start talking to a woman some other guy also wants, he may react by punching me. So the first step is to figure out whether I am safe. This is partially about physical strength, but mostly about who would join whose side if a fight started. If I am respected by other guys, I am free to approach women; even if someone decides to punch me, it is unlikely that I would be killed by a group of guys attacking me at the same time. Also, if I am physically strong, the other guys are less eager to choose the opposing side.
This second hypothesis seems not too different from your conclusion. Having a hierarchy is a part of maintaining the social fabric. The socially optimal outcome is some compromise between tyranny and equality. Something like “each man can have one woman (or at most four women), but the strong guys choose first”.
With genders reversed, women are less likely to kill each other on the spot, but they will remember, and will kill each other (or each other’s children) when a good opportunity arrives later. So, ultimately, similar concerns.
> dating is an inherently risky business, especially for men
I don’t want to start an oppression olympics, but it feels important to note that the risk to women of men getting violent or stalkerish at some point in the dating process is much higher than the risk to men of another man attacking them for being interested in the same woman. (and I think this has always been true, including in the ancestral environment)
Oh, I agree! I was focusing on the part why would it make sense to seek approval from the same sex.
(I think that in the ancestral environment, some stalkers would get beaten up by other men. But that would not be universally reliable, and would depend on social status.)
As I started reading, my first hypothesis was that women often rely on the opinions of others. As a man, if I am trying to attract a woman, she will probably check with her best friend, whether the friend approves of me. If the friend thinks that I am unworthy, too bad. Thus, to increase my chances, I should impress the friend first. But there is a chance of misunderstanding; either of them may conclude that I am actually interested in the friend, and that may ruin my chances with the first woman. So the safest approach is to impress the men nearby. If I succeed, they will provide the evidence that I am worthy, and the woman I am interested in may act on that evidence. Even if she asks her best friend, the friend may be influenced by the attitude of the other men.
(But this doesn’t work with the genders reversed. Men typically want beautiful women, and they evaluate it by looking at them; they don’t care what other women think about who is hot. So why would women care whether other women see them as hot?)
The second hypothesis is that dating is an inherently risky business, especially for men. If I start talking to a woman some other guy also wants, he may react by punching me. So the first step is to figure out whether I am safe. This is partially about physical strength, but mostly about who would join whose side if a fight started. If I am respected by other guys, I am free to approach women; even if someone decides to punch me, it is unlikely that I would be killed by a group of guys attacking me at the same time. Also, if I am physically strong, the other guys are less eager to choose the opposing side.
This second hypothesis seems not too different from your conclusion. Having a hierarchy is a part of maintaining the social fabric. The socially optimal outcome is some compromise between tyranny and equality. Something like “each man can have one woman (or at most four women), but the strong guys choose first”.
With genders reversed, women are less likely to kill each other on the spot, but they will remember, and will kill each other (or each other’s children) when a good opportunity arrives later. So, ultimately, similar concerns.
> dating is an inherently risky business, especially for men
I don’t want to start an oppression olympics, but it feels important to note that the risk to women of men getting violent or stalkerish at some point in the dating process is much higher than the risk to men of another man attacking them for being interested in the same woman. (and I think this has always been true, including in the ancestral environment)
Oh, I agree! I was focusing on the part why would it make sense to seek approval from the same sex.
(I think that in the ancestral environment, some stalkers would get beaten up by other men. But that would not be universally reliable, and would depend on social status.)