Anonymous,

I find it funny that most feminists and feminist supporters tend to be liberals, the group you'd think would be most in tune with evolutionary facts

I don't mean to be cynical, but "feminism" (and other forms of "progressivism") and "facts" frequently have little to do with each other. When you believe everyone is socially malleable (as those who believe in government power must) you don't like to hear that there certain limits to your utopian dreams.

The dirty little secret of "societal evolution" is that human society has been around a long, long time, and certain social forms have worked better than others. Successful social forms essentially out-competed their rivals.

So we have marriage, family, and other social institutions as we see them today because social "evolution" has tried all the other alternatives, and the societies which adopted these forms were ultimately more successful.

So the grand irony here is that what are now called "conservative" values are actually the product of thousands of years of societal competition -- and yet the people who say they're in favor of science and evolution (not to mention the well-being of humanity as a whole) are also the first to wish to remove these well-tested and proven-successful forms.

I do agree with the above that there is a huge aspect of evolution being overlooked here. Back in the early days of human existence it was very important for a woman to pick a mate who would give her offspring the best chance of survival. We honestly see that quite a bit in animals too. The need to do the same, on the other hand, is not nearly so strong in men during those times. I don't think that's a trait that we as a species have been able to dump.

But I do hope there's more to attraction then being financially secure and healthy because those are two things constantly in flux with humans.

I imagine that women typically don't seek out men who are "below" them or that represent insecurity and I imagine that on the whole it's not politically correct or nice to admit to doing that.

I have a friend who's always been more interested in what the husband/ boyfriend does and what tax bracket he's in. Her own boyfriend is represents stability and security in that way. They decided to have a child, but only after they bought a house together and saved $20,000. However she won't share any assets with him other than the house because she wants to keep all of her stuff separate "just in case" and she's still working by choice. All that being said her and her boyfriend are very happy together with their daughter. Being financially secure is still very important to her.

I don't know how that ulitmately fits into the studies but I do know that she thinks I'm dumb. I guess because my choices don't look very stable from the outside. My wonderful husband has a career in a field where jobs can appear and disappear very quickly, we've joined all of our financial assets, and I've quit my job to have a baby (and we didn't save any money ahead of time). I don't have any "just in case" money hidden away. But we have a very happy marriage and family even during some hard times. Contrary to the study my initial attraction to my husband was actually a shared enjoyment of Douglas Adams.

My epileptic brother met his wife at a time when he was working part time waiting for work as an electrician to pick up again (which it never did). While he did eventually get a job he hates to support them, my sister in law still has to work in order for them to support their children. She is at times the sole bread winner because of my brothers health issues. My brother is not someone who meets what women are "looking" for as far as security goes). He also is very happy with his marriage and family.

I guess the point is that these studies can point out what from an evolutionary stand point does factor into initial attraction. But honestly what makes it work is a whole lot more. Which makes these studies useless.

You know Tim, you've often said that you don't mind if someone else is better off if you're also better off. And not to justify envy, but doesn't this article possibly suggest that the value in wealth is, to some degree, relative rather than absolute?

Or perhaps the desire for a wealthy mate is less important for more already wealthy, educated or high status couples? There's some evidence for that, I think.

Or perhaps the desire for a wealthy mate is less important for more already wealthy, educated or high status couples? There's some evidence for that, I think.

Actually, I seem to recall it's quite the opposite: that even wealthy women seek out men who fit the profile of "provider" as they see it. I seem to recall some finding that this didn't vary with the woman's income: even wealthy women wanted to "date up", provider-wise.

Regarding your thought about relative comparisons and happiness...

Just to frame things, up front, I'd like to mention that I tend to think of happy-making and unhappy-making things as separate categories.

I would posit that most people aren't as likely to be happy if their basic needs (as they understand them) aren't being met. This can include a lot of things, some which are defined in relation to how we were raised, and others around us.

For example, if I'm the only guy at a party who's wearing shorts and an old T-shirt, and the others are wearing suits and ties, I'm probably going to be uncomfortable -- and thus "not happy". Not because I define my happiness relative to other people's wealth, but because we are social animals, and a desire not to be singled out negatively is a basic component of a healthy human being's mental outlook. (It keeps us from doing all sorts of stupid things.)

You might note that I'd be equally unhappy if I were at a water park, and I were wearing an extremely expensive suit while everyone else was wearing old swimsuits and torn T-shirts.

In the case of some random woman who fits the rule above, perhaps she wants a husband who is more of some things than she is. More taller-er, more richer-er, more stronger-er -- more provider-y. Less afraid of spiders.

Again, this has a relativistic element, but I'd suggest it's because there might be a mental checkbox entitled: "My husband provides for and protects me." The checkbox itself is not relativistic, but the way she assesses it must be, just as my example about fitting in must be. She loves to feel she actually needs her husband, and he may also love to feel needed and useful. (I sure do.)

Going back to my framing point above, I think it's entirely reasonable to be unhappy when basic needs aren't being met (even when those are defined relative to a group or situation) or when unavoidable pain is being caused. See again the water park example.

But that's different than the statement you've cited from me, where I'm potentially being made unhappy because someone is dressed (for example) better than me. I'm fitting in, I'm doing fine. It just bugs me that there are a small number of people who are doing better than I am -- perhaps much better. How dare they!

That's envy, which is different than the pain of not fitting in, or feeling like your girlfriend isn't validating you enough, or your husband isn't braver than you are regarding spiders, or whatever.

Basic needs sometimes necessitate comparisons with other people; but when basic needs are being met, you can define yourself as "happy" at that point, or you can start worrying about keeping up with the Joneses and landing that trophy wife -- and/or being royally hacked off if some people have something optional which you don't.

One last thing I'd like to toss in here; a tangent: I expect some people's "soak the rich" anger really is a masquerade for their own envy -- like the kid who would rather a toy be destroyed than let another one have it.

But there are others who I think may suffer from some internal anger, from something else, and that anger is looking for something to fixate on, something to justify it.