Why do women prefer bright colors while men typically do not?

[Khantazm]

Why are women more brightly "colored" (whereas in other animals males usually are)?

So, possibly I'm looking for the explanation according to Richard Dawkins, but I'd welcome all points of view. Why do women dress more brightly (when men still do the courting), while in other animals the sex that is courting is more bright (and loud)?

 

[Hermes0128]

In my opinion, our society is more complex than animal societies and the relationships are more complex, so the "courting rituals" are more complex. People aren't just looking for someone to mate with, they are looking for someone they are personally and emotionally compatible with, to the ends of being able to sustain a relationship for many years. I think some women dress brightly because they want to attract the type of person that is drawn to the personality they present - I think they're informing males of the criteria they're looking for in order to comfortably maintain a relationship long enough to raise a child.

 

[arildno]

So, possibly I'm looking for the explanation according to Richard Dawkins, but I'd welcome all points of view. Why do women dress more brightly (when men still do the courting), while in other animals the sex that is courting is more bright (and loud)?

Do they, as a general historical rule??

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So, possibly I'm looking for the explanation according to Richard Dawkins, but I'd welcome all points of view. Why do women dress more brightly (when men still do the courting), while in other animals the sex that is courting is more bright (and loud)?

I don't agree that as a general rule across all human societies women dress up and men pursue. Is there any literature on this?

 

[Darwin123]

So, possibly I'm looking for the explanation according to Richard Dawkins, but I'd welcome all points of view. Why do women dress more brightly (when men still do the courting), while in other animals the sex that is courting is more bright (and loud)?

I conjecture that it has something to do with the way that chromosomes determine sex. In animals where the gender is determined by the chromosomes, a pair of sex chromosomes determines the gender of the individual. There is usually one sex chromosome that is very small which the other sex chromosome doesn’t cross with. I’ll call that the unsocial chromosome. The other sex chromosome is large and tends to cross with other sex chromosomes like it. I’ll call that the social chromosome.

One gender has a matched set of sex chromosomes, which is called the homozygous gender. By matched, I mean that it has a pair of social chromosomes. The other gender has a mismatched set of chromosomes, which is called the heterozygous gender. By mismatched, I mean that it has one social chromosome and one unsocial chromosome.

The more ornamented gender is usually the heterozygous gender. I conjecture that is due to natural selection on the gene level. If two copies of the same gene are in the same individual, then the genes can augment each other. Therefore, genes in the social chromosome have a fitness incentive to pair with genes in another social chromosome. So genes that make ornamentation and which make the attraction toward the ornamentation have a better chance to survive than genes that don’t attract the corresponding chromosome.

Mammals are different from birds. In mammals, the male is the heterozygous gender. The male has an XY pair of sex chromosomes, and the female has an XX pair of chromosomes. Among mammals, the female tends to be the more ornamented gender. In birds, the female is the heterozygous gender. The male has a WW pair of sex chromosomes, and the female has a ZW pair of sex chromosomes. Among birds, the male tends to be the more ornamented gender. In both cases, the homozygous gender is the more oriented.

There are some other animals where the male is the homogenous gender. It appears to me that the homogenous gender tends to be the more ornamented.

I don't remember where I heard this conjecture. It may have been from Richard Dawkins, but I am not sure. In any case, it is a "gene centric" conjecture. The idea is that the genes in chromosomes that cross over to other chromosomes are more likely to be beneficial to copies of themselves.
Here are some links associated with sex chromosomes. The first presents the hypothesis that I just stated, although it doesn’t go into it in great detail.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mank-group/images/reprints/2011Evol%20DosageComp.pdf
“Is it possible that in ZW taxa, where the sex-determination system is predicted to favor the evolution of exaggerated male ornaments through female choice (e.g., birds and butterflies: Reeve and Pfennig 2003; Kirkpatrick and Hall 2004; Albert and Otto 2005), incomplete dosage compensation has enabled differential gene expression in males and females of other Z-linked loci important in sexual dimorphism to occur? To date, there are no data available linking gene expression levels of such sexually selected traits in butterflies and birds to examine this possibility.”
This link just says that in most animals other than mammals, the male is the homogenous gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
“The ZW sex-determination system is found in birds, reptiles, some insects and other organisms. The ZW sex-determination system is reversed compared to the XY system: females have two different kinds of chromosomes (ZW), and males have two of the same kind of chromosomes (ZZ). In the chicken, this was found to be dependent on the expression of DMRT1.[22] In birds, the genes FET1 and ASW are found on the W chromosome for females, similar to how the Y chromosome contains SRY.[11] However, not all species depend upon the W for their sex. For example, there are moths and butterflies that are ZW, but some have been found female with ZO, as well as female with ZZW.[20]”

 

[arildno]

I don't agree that as a general rule across all human societies women dress up and men pursue. Is there any literature on this?

Indeed.
In strongly patriarchal societies, like current islamist regimes, or ancient Rome, the women are, in their PUBLIC appearance to be kept in intentionally drab clothing.

It is, by the way, my personal opinion that the (relatively speaking) humungous, exposed penes of the human males have developed in this way, as result of sexual selection.
In particular, I believe that, because there are numerous physical disadvantages with exposed testes and penis, and that this vulnerable trait cannot have been developed unless there was a strongly selective advantage for this peculiarity of the human male.

 

[Khantazm]

Thanks, Darwin123, although you lost me there a bit (maybe not a bit) with my layman background. I think I got the gist of it. It appears rather far-fetched, even though I'm partial to the gene-centric view of evolution. I think I'll have to ponder it.

As for generalizations, I do appear to recall (or maybe confabulate) that whoever it was he spoke about ornamentation in modern European women specifically... So... Yeah, if it's the XY thing it's long been overridden by culture... So I could have met it in a less biology-related book by that author. It could even have something to do with feminism.

P.S. Darwin123, you don't happen to have a pop-sci version of your conjecture?

 

[nitsuj]

It is, by the way, my personal opinion that the (relatively speaking) humungous, exposed penes of the human males have developed in this way, as result of sexual selection.
In particular, I believe that, because there are numerous physical disadvantages with exposed testes and penis, and that this vulnerable trait cannot have been developed unless there was a strongly selective advantage for this peculiarity of the human male.

Are you joking?

 

[arildno]

Are you joking?

Nope.
The development of the male penis in the human being is completely anomalous relative to every other primate.
In particular in the features of its relative bigness (a gorilla male has, typically, a penis size of whopping..7 centimetres) and exposedness (most have them protected within their bodies, rather than dangling about).

Thus, it seems to me analogous to the male peacock's silly, but ostentatious feathers.

 

[Darwin123]

Nope.
The development of the male penis in the human being is completely anomalous relative to every other primate.
In particular in the features of its relative bigness (a gorilla male has, typically, a penis size of whopping..7 centimetres) and exposedness (most have them protected within their bodies, rather than dangling about).

Thus, it seems to me analogous to the male peacock's silly, but ostentatious feathers.

Here is a study where my conjecture is put to the test, and fails. Ahh well, they are only fish.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560031/
“Theory predicts that the mechanism of genetic sex determination can substantially influence the evolution of sexually selected traits. For example, female heterogamety (ZZ/ZW) can favour the evolution of extreme male traits under Fisher's runaway model of sexual selection. We empirically test whether the genetic system of sex determination has played a role in the evolution of exaggerated male ornaments in actinopterygiian fishes, a clade in which both female-heterogametic and male-heterogametic systems of sex determination have evolved multiple times. Using comparative methods both uncorrected and corrected for phylogenetic non-independence, we detected no significant correlation between sex-chromosome systems and sexually selected traits in males. Results suggest that sex-determination mechanism is at best a relatively minor factor affecting the outcomes of sexual selection in ray-finned fishes.”

Okay, I am now prepared to take your conjecture more seriously.

If the large size of the human species is an ornament for attracting attention, then I believe that its purpose is to intimidate other males more than to attract females. I notice that men tend to refer to their penis size when they discuss aggression. Men compare penis sizes when preparing for conflict.
I conjecture that penis size is not very important to most women. There may be women who prefer large penis sizes. However, they are not quite as vocal about it as men who are preparing for a fight.

Here is an article that says that many sexual ornaments have a dual use: to attract females and to signal aggression. It says that generally the aggression signal is often more important in a dual use ornament. I keep on hearing words for penis associated with violence rather than sex.

Here is a link proposing this conjecture.

http://cprg.psy.unipd.it/pdf/BERGLUND%20et%20al_1996_Armaments_BiolJournLjnnSoc.pdf
“Moreover, our model may more satisfyingly than traditional ones explain how trait honesty and trait genetic variance are maintained: theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that such honesty and variation are more easily maintained under male-male competition than under female choice.”

 

[arildno]

One of the penis theories in great vogue is the "semen displacement theory", in that length of the penis and the critical shape of the penis head is highly effective in scooping out foreign, competitive semen from the vagina.
See Scientific American on this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus

Note that this theory is a direct competitor to the sexual display/selection theory, in that it claims to substantiate a direct natural selection theory, although I don't think it explains very well the exposed vulnerability of the human penis&testes.

 

[arildno]

"Here is an article that says that many sexual ornaments have a dual use: to attract females and to signal aggression. It says that generally the aggression signal is often more important in a dual use ornament. I keep on hearing words for penis associated with violence rather than sex. "

Now, slapping each other with one's own flaccid variety hardly brings about injuries in a competitor.
However, if penis size can be seen to be roughly correlated with, say, muscle mass or threshold of pain, then its display function could have a rather unveiled threat component as well.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Thus, it seems to me analogous to the male peacock's silly, but ostentatious feathers.

In defense of the male peacock, it so happens that their “silly, but ostentatious feathers" form a parabolic reflector that directs infrasonic thrums below 20 Hz generated by the male for long distances through thick shrubbery. Most probably this adaptation has evolved to summon more potential mates using infrasound.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341606/title/Peacocks_ruffle_feathers,_make_a_rumble

Cheers,
Bobbywhy

 

[Khantazm]

^That's fascinating.

Continuing with cock-slapping, humans appear to be the only mammals without a bone in the penis... Which somehow contributed to the hypothesis of sexual selection of penis characteristics last time I read about it.

 

[ImaLooser]

So, possibly I'm looking for the explanation according to Richard Dawkins, but I'd welcome all points of view. Why do women dress more brightly (when men still do the courting), while in other animals the sex that is courting is more bright (and loud)?

In the case of birds the female is very vulnerable during nesting and has to stay hidden, so bright colors would be a big disadvantage. Fish are sometimes this way too.

With other animals the color seems to be the same.

With humans it depends on culture. Sometimes men are the bright ones. But usually women are more colorful. I'd say it because the men usually chooses the woman, and she needs to attract attention. Predation is not a problem these days.

 

[arildno]

In defense of the male peacock, it so happens that their “silly, but ostentatious feathers" form a parabolic reflector that directs infrasonic thrums below 20 Hz generated by the male for long distances through thick shrubbery. Most probably this adaptation has evolved to summon more potential mates using infrasound.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341606/title/Peacocks_ruffle_feathers,_make_a_rumble

Cheers,
Bobbywhy

Absolutely fascinating to see a direct adaptive advantage of this!
I have bought into the rather simplistic, but traditional explanation of sexual selection here, that the strongest male is he who can cope with the strongest handicap.

Great that you offered me a new perspective here!

 

[Khantazm]

With humans it depends on culture. Sometimes men are the bright ones. But usually women are more colorful. I'd say it because the men usually chooses the woman, and she needs to attract attention. Predation is not a problem these days.

It's counter to reality like this. In the cultures, where the man has the most power to choose, women are the drabbest (Islam, say). Whereas liberated European women, who don't bend that much to the man's will, dress much brighter... Although in societies and strata of those societies which are the most liberated men catch up to women... Hm... Okay, I think I've grabbed a thread and I'm not sure I don't even need to show the end of it, because it seems pretty obvious. I'll dare but a hint: in societies where men have the most power they don't like women to challenge it so they enforce female drabness so women aren't prominent <end hint>.

 

[256bits]

It's counter to reality like this. In the cultures, where the man has the most power to choose, women are the drabbest (Islam, say). Whereas liberated European women, who don't bend that much to the man's will, dress much brighter... Although in societies and strata of those societies which are the most liberated men catch up to women... Hm... Okay, I think I've grabbed a thread and I'm not sure I don't even need to show the end of it, because it seems pretty obvious. I'll dare but a hint: in societies where men have the most power they don't like women to challenge it so they enforce female drabness so women aren't prominent <end hint>.

You have to answer the question whether human females dress to impress males to acquire a mate or other females to gain status, or to just impress themselves. In can also be argued that men in certain societies initiate and the woman choose. In other societies, the family will do the chosing and acceptance of a suitable mate for the prospective young male and female.
With regards to your hint, is your argument that drab clothing is actually a suppression of females within society rather than a suppression of vanity - one could also argue that with all members of a society being dressed in a comparable attire, it would be more difficult to express an attraction to a particular individual based solely on looks.

In addition, men and woman both enforce suitable attire, whether it be drab or colorful, with the verb enforce having a different strength level depending upon which society and culture you are a member of.

 

[Khantazm]

Okay. Makes sense if it's the bride's family that's doing the choosing, not the groom. Or family, anyway. Also makes sense if grandmothering plays as important a role in humans as I've recently read (here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...encedaily+(ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News) )... So many fascinating conjectures! And quite possibly all valid to mutually limited extent.

Someone needs to write a book, or suggest one to me with all of them included.

 

[alan2]

How did this go from the original question to a discussion of penises? Oh, men. Women are bright because they feel the need to impress other women and they are not afraid of their young being eaten by predators.

 

[Khantazm]

Yes, but why aren't women bright in all cultures? (Okay, this begins to sound sexist-racist, but I hope everyone understands that I'm using the word in the perfectly literal sense.) And are then Western males afraid of their young being eaten by predators?

 

[Bobbywhy]

Okay. Makes sense if it's the bride's family that's doing the choosing, not the groom. Or family, anyway. Also makes sense if grandmothering plays as important a role in humans as I've recently read (here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...encedaily+(ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News) )... So many fascinating conjectures! And quite possibly all valid to mutually limited extent.

Someone needs to write a book, or suggest one to me with all of them included.

The link you’ve provided about “the grandmother hypothesis” does not address the question of how a male and female “choose one another”. It only conjectures longevity genes may be propagated to more descendents by grandmothers helping their daughters produce more children.

Your proposals
1. “women dress more brightly (when men still do the courting), and
2. “I'll dare but a hint: in societies where men have the most power they don't like women to challenge it so they enforce female drabness so women aren't prominent <end hint>”.
3. “In the cultures, where the man has the most power to choose, women are the drabbest (Islam, say)”
lack traceability to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature.

There are more than 20 Islamic countries and many more Islamic communities throughout the world totaling over one billion women (and another billion men). There exists a wide spectrum of traditional dress codes among these women, from totally covered to European-style jeans. So it seems inaccurate to claim “Islamic female drabness” without any documentation.

More importantly, most of these societies you refer to do not allow individuals to choose a mate as many westerners do. In my experiences in more than ten of these cultures marriages are arranged by families when boys and girls are babies or very young children. As they grow towards puberty they know exactly who will be their husband or wife. This means the colorfulness or drabness of women’s appearance and "men's power to choose" have no bearing whatsoever on mate selection for these groups.

Cheers,
Bobbywhy

 

[Khantazm]

Okay okay, don't ban me, I was just thinking aloud.

My thought about grammas was that in humans the extended family may be even more important for reproductive success of the offspring than the mother and father, so it makes sense that it's the extended family where you'd have to look for color. Or origins of dressing-up attitudes.

Anyway, this problem turns out to have a much (MUCH) more complex answer than I hazily expected to get, based on that book.

Sorry for my amateurishness.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Khantazm, No worry, no one will ban you for such posting.

You’ve raised an important issue. You’ve also asked about a book that explains mate selection. Here is a well-regarded textbook, edited by some of the most respected workers in the field of Evolutionary Psychology. The articles are written by serious and well-published contributing authors.

“The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture”
edited by Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby

See especially chapter III, “The Psychology of Mating and Sex” which contains these articles:

"Mate Preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and Intrasexual Competition" Author: David M. Buss, and

"The Evolution of Sexual Attraction: Evaluative Mechanisms in Women" Author: Bruce J. Ellis, and

"The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Chattel" Authors: Margo Wilson and Martin Daly.

Here’s a technical paper that may interest you:

"The Evolutionary Psychology of Human Mate Choice: How
Ecology, Genes, Fertility, and Fashion Influence Mating
Behavior" Authors: Jon A. Sefcek, MA, Barbara H. Brumbach, MA, Geneva Vasquez, MA, and Geoffrey F. Miller, PhD

Abstract:
The recent incorporation of sexual selection theories into the rubric of Evolutionary Psychology has produced an important framework from which to examine human mating behavior. Here we review the extant empirical and theoretical work regarding heterosexual human mating preferences and reproductive strategies. Initially, we review contemporary Evolutionary Psychology’s adaptationism, including the incorporation of modern theories of sexual selection, adaptive genetic variation, and mate choice. Next, we examine women’s and men’s mating preferences focusing on the adaptive significance of material, genetic and fertility benefits, and their relationship to environmental characteristics. Following this, we consider human mate choice in relation to non-adaptive preferences. This discussion ends with a look at context effects for individual differences in mate-preferences and reproductive strategies.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...a2fcfaf4647c4e&bpcl=35466521&biw=1366&bih=660

This is a good overview of the subject. Note the references at the end for your further research:

“Evolution, Sexuality, Mate-Selection, and Begging Methodological Questions”
Author: Heath Sommer
http://www.heathsommer.com/21.html

Cheers,
Bobbywhy

 

[arildno]

The link you’ve provided about “the grandmother hypothesis” does not address the question of how a male and female “choose one another”. It only conjectures longevity genes may be propagated to more descendents by grandmothers helping their daughters produce more children.

Your proposals
1. “women dress more brightly (when men still do the courting), and
2. “I'll dare but a hint: in societies where men have the most power they don't like women to challenge it so they enforce female drabness so women aren't prominent <end hint>”.
3. “In the cultures, where the man has the most power to choose, women are the drabbest (Islam, say)”
lack traceability to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature.

There are more than 20 Islamic countries and many more Islamic communities throughout the world totaling over one billion women (and another billion men). There exists a wide spectrum of traditional dress codes among these women, from totally covered to European-style jeans. So it seems inaccurate to claim “Islamic female drabness” without any documentation.

More importantly, most of these societies you refer to do not allow individuals to choose a mate as many westerners do. In my experiences in more than ten of these cultures marriages are arranged by families when boys and girls are babies or very young children. As they grow towards puberty they know exactly who will be their husband or wife. This means the colorfulness or drabness of women’s appearance and "men's power to choose" have no bearing whatsoever on mate selection for these groups.

Cheers,
Bobbywhy

I would just say that it was myself that brought up the issue of drabness of female clothing in strict patriarchal cultures as a COUNTERPOINT to the then asserted premise, namely that women IN GENERAL were clother more brightly than men. In THAT context, the argument is valid.

 

[Bobbywhy]

I would just say that it was myself that brought up the issue of drabness of female clothing in strict patriarchal cultures as a COUNTERPOINT to the then asserted premise, namely that women IN GENERAL were clother more brightly than men. In THAT context, the argument is valid.

You are correct. I failed to even consider your post when I was commemting on the OP's.
Excuse me, please. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Cheers,
Bobbywhy

 

[arildno]

You are correct. I failed to even consider your post when I was commemting on the OP's.
Excuse me, please. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Cheers,
Bobbywhy

I think, though, that you pointed out some pertinent facts, namely that "Islamic dress" is not (a) uniform, nor that we have sufficient basis to say that patriarchal cultures generally are characterized by drabness in female clothing.

However, what I DO think may be a fairly good assumption is that perceived drabness of female clothing implies an underlying patriarchal culture.

The "essential" patriarchality of such clothing lies in wishing to minimize women's ability to attract suitors/lovers other than those acceptable by fathers, brothers and of course, by already existing husbands/lovers.
Other patriarchies might choose different strategies to gain the same effect rather than through strictures on female clothing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

However, what I DO think may be a fairly good assumption is that perceived drabness of female clothing implies an underlying patriarchal culture.

I don't think that's a safe assumption. In the Indian sub continent clothing can be very "colourful" and not "drab" and yet women's rights in that region are not high.

IMO this thread is problematic because the premise hasn't even been demonstrated to be true and the majority of do not include any published material to discuss. I advise we strive to correct this.

 

[arildno]

I don't think that's a safe assumption. In the Indian sub continent clothing can be very "colourful" and not "drab" and yet women's rights in that region are not high.

No, you are being illogical.
To say that drab clothing implies patriarchial culture does NOT mean that non-drab clothing implies non-patriarchiality.

A valid counter-argument to what I said is that a norm of drab clothing can be found in non-patriarchal cultures as well.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

A valid counter-argument to what I said is that a norm of drab clothing can be found in non-patriarchal cultures as well.

There are non-patriarchal cultures?

 

[arildno]

There are non-patriarchal cultures?

Now, you are trolling, and that is unbecoming of a moderator at PF.
Simply admit that you were illogical.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Now, you are trolling, and that is unbecoming of a moderator at PF.
Simply admit that you were illogical.

I didn't deny that I made a mistake, if you'd like it implicitly then yes you are correct. But I'm not trolling, even in countries in which there is no legally backed patriarchy (i.e. men and women are nearly equal in law) there is often still a culture of patriarchy. I asked you a serious question because I'd be interested in seeing a country where this wasn't true.

Regardless we are again getting away from the fact that the premise of this thread hasn't even been demonstrated to be correct. Let alone be linked to traits observed in the animal kingdom. The fact that we're trying to compare sexual dimorphism for the purposes of mate attraction with human fashion should be an indicator that this is a thread that needs a rethink of it's assumptions (or at least a careful outlining of them).

 

[arildno]

Glad you admit a mistake.
And YES, you are absolutely right that if we should be very strict, it is meaningless to say that cultures that exist are EITHER patriarchal or non-patriarchal, just about every culture that exists is patriarchal to SOME DEGREE along a number of parameters.
These parameters might, as you say, be of more informal character rather than institutionalized in law, and neither should we make the facile assumption that cultures in which ONLY informal patriarchality exist necessarily are LESS patriarchal in practice than a given country where patriarchal laws ALSO exist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this, I still think that given a group of parameters for patriarchy, formalized as laws or not, and that are conceptually independent from the issue of female clothing, we will find that cultures that ARE characterized with normative ideals of drab female clothing will score high on the patriarchal end of these other parameters.

And, conversely, cultures that score consistently low on patriarchy on these parameters will NOT be found to have much of normative ideals of drab female clothing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Given this, I still think that given a group of parameters for patriarchy, formalized as laws or not, and that are conceptually independent from the issue of female clothing, we will find that cultures that ARE characterized with normative ideals of drab female clothing will score high on the patriarchal end of these other parameters.

And, conversely, cultures that score consistently low on patriarchy on these parameters will NOT be found to have much of normative ideals of drab female clothing.

What is normative on a world stage? I'm wary of us taking a very narrow western-centric view here.

Again I'd like to get back to the fact that the OP is trying to mix fashion with mate attracting sexual dimorphism, I feel this is what we should be addressing before we try and answer a question that could be (and at the moment I think it is) conceptually flawed.

 

[arildno]

What is normative on a world stage? I'm wary of us taking a very narrow western-centric view here.

I don't get any of this. Western-centric?

If people in a given culture advocates that women ought to appear in public in drab clothing, it is irrelevant whether people in OTHER cultures regard that particular clothing as drab or not.
Instead, what you have there is a local NORM of drabness of female clothing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't get any of this. Western-centric?

If people in a given culture advocates that women ought to appear in public in drab clothing, it is irrelevant whether people in OTHER cultures regard that particular clothing as drab or not.
Instead, what you have there is a local NORM of drabness of female clothing.

My point is that even though it might be drab by western standards they may not consider it so. Your exact words were:

cultures that score consistently low on patriarchy on these parameters will NOT be found to have much of normative ideals of drab female clothing.

Which doesn't make sense if we take normative to mean normative within a culture rather than between cultures.

To get back to the OP I feel these points need to be addressed:

- What is the role of fashion in mate selection and how does this differ from other roles of fashion and other factors in mate selection?
- How does the answer to the above compare to the sexual dimorphism for mate selection in other animals?

Once those question have been answered then we can address any perceived differences. With the thread title as it stands it seems to assume that the role of fashion in human societies is primarily for women to select male mates and this is directly comparable to sexual dimorphism in other animals.

 

[arildno]

"Which doesn't make sense if we take normative to mean normative within a culture rather than between cultures."
Yes it does.
Because having local (aesthetic) standards of drabness (all cultures have their own) and whether or not dressing drab is a normative issue within a culture are distinct issues.
---------------------------------
You will always, in every culture, women who dress drably. For example those who have not the same aesthetic standards than the prevailing ideas. Or, because it is regarded as morally proper that they dress like that.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"Which doesn't make sense if we take normative to mean normative within a culture rather than between cultures."
Yes it does.
Because having local (aesthetic) standards of drabness (all cultures have their own) and whether or not dressing drab is a normative issue within a culture are distinct issues.
---------------------------------
You will always, in every culture, women who dress drably. For example those who have not the same aesthetic standards than the prevailing ideas. Or, because it is regarded as morally proper that they dress like that.

Are you trying to say that if we had a patriarchy test that in countries that scored low we would find that the majority of women would dress in a fashion deemed not to be drab by that culture's standard? Because that's not what you said before but it seems to be in the spirit of it.

 

[arildno]

"Are you trying to say that if we had a patriarchy test that in countries that scored low we would find that the majority of women would dress in a fashion deemed not to be drab by that culture's standard? "
No. But that you wouldn't find a NORM towards drab clothing as a specifically moral ideal.
------
For example, you could have a society that diffuses what is drab/nondrab on basis of how local elite women tend to clothe themselves, clothing that is economically unattainable for poor women (but might well be part of their own aesthetic standards). The peasant woman dresses drably, not because there is any moral pressure that she dress like that out of propriety reasons, but because nondrab clothing are unattainable to her for economic reasons.
Such a society need not in principle be patriarchal, although a majority of women dress drably, even in their own view.
---------------------
There are many different reasons why a particular woman dresses drably, what I have said is that whenever you have the situation in which drab clothing is advocated as, typically, the normative ideal, THEN you will find patriarchy instituted on a number of other parameters as well.
------------------------------------
To take ANOTHER, previously common reason for drab dressing, is when cclothing was intimately connected with class.
For example, some types of clothes were forbidden to be worn by non-nobles, and even vice versa.
This is most definitely a normative ideal relative to clothing, but not, as such, relative to patriarchy as such.
Violating class standards is different from violating gender standards.

 

[Khantazm]

Okay... Thanks, Bobbywhy, for those references.

I don't completely understand what is going on, but... I'm going to clarify my stance (hopefully, along the right lines).

First, I think drabness is lack of decoration such as jewelry; relatively monochrome clothing; and subdued colors, such as gray, brown, black. In essence, what people mean when they refer to drab females in birds.

Second, I don't think my question was... Wait. Also, I didn't invent the question. It was posed similarly in the book. Also also, I may or may not have realized that my view of Islamic cultures was a stereotype.

Now, second. I don't think my question involves fashion. Or, rather, it's about either culture-wide trends (if there are such; but great difersity may be a trend in itself), or wide-spread tradition. Which I take to be less about an individual's choice and more about genetics... or subconscious... or memetics... Okay. So, when I put it like this, it seems to pertain more to history than to biology. But it's not my fault!

Third, I'm not a scientist, so I'm very bad (as in, I wrote my graduation paper entirely off Wikipedia) at references to peer-reviewed journal articles.:shy:

 

[Ryan_m_b]

First, I think drabness is lack of decoration such as jewelry; relatively monochrome clothing; and subdued colors, such as gray, brown, black. In essence, what people mean when they refer to drab females in birds.

The difference here is that in the case of birds and most animals we're discussing sexual dimorphism, the biological differences that allow said organisms to attract a mate. But in the case of humans we're discussing cultural traits so we're already going to have to be careful with any comparison because whilst there obviously is an overlap in purpose between biological decoration and fashion there isn't always.

Now, second. I don't think my question involves fashion. Or, rather, it's about either culture-wide trends (if there are such; but great difersity may be a trend in itself), or wide-spread tradition. Which I take to be less about an individual's choice and more about genetics... or subconscious... or memetics... Okay. So, when I put it like this, it seems to pertain more to history than to biology. But it's not my fault!

It's a sociology question trying to mesh with a biological phenomenon. These are notoriously tricky IMO because they are so easy to come up with a theory that is superficially correct and so easy to be completely wrong.

With regards to this question you're delving into why humans have fashion. Why is it that we wear items with no practical value that in many cases are arguably detrimental to the practical side e.g. high heels. Is it always to attract mates? Is it to conform to societal standards? Is it for self-image and expression? Etcetera.

Finally along these lines I'd be wary of trying to frame women's clothing and decoration in terms of attracting mates. Done wrong that kind of thinking fuels victim blaming in rape culture.

Third, I'm not a scientist, so I'm very bad (as in, I wrote my graduation paper entirely off Wikipedia) at references to peer-reviewed journal articles.:shy:

Start with something simple like Google Scholar to find published articles. Use whatever search engine you prefer to look up the journals they are published into get an idea of credibility (beyond looking at things like impact factors).

 

[arildno]

I agree with Ryan_mb that it isn't, to begin with, a very fruitful approach to try explaining codes on dress in terms of biology.
That is a level of specifity (and too short of a time frame) that natural selection arguments cannot shed much light on.
------------------------

 

[Khantazm]

Thanks for your information, everyone, this has been, in fact, very enlightening.

Another point has occurred to me. Fashion may be a sociological issue, but in my experience matters of appearance (of a person, a picture, a flower arrangement) are very biological, i.e. they rely a lot on intuition (although it may be different in professionals) which, I think, is an expression of low level processes much closer to genetics, than math is, say. Anyway, couldn't account for cultural differences this way, because inter-individual genetic variation appears to be higher than inter-race (people). Also, hey, I've just started learning Google Scholar, so don't judge me for my lack of references (I tried, though)... Oh, wait. What do you think about that: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.short ?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Another point has occurred to me. Fashion may be a sociological issue, but in my experience matters of appearance (of a person, a picture, a flower arrangement) are very biological, i.e. they rely a lot on intuition (although it may be different in professionals) which, I think, is an expression of low level processes much closer to genetics, than math is, say.

Remember that just because the reason behind a choice isn't clear or is attributed to instinct does not mean it is genetic in origin. The interaction between your genome and the environment throughout your life creates your phenotype which includes your psychology.

If a person's taste in fashion (or anything for that matter) was purely decided on a genetic level then no one would ever change their taste, let alone have the continuous changes in all fields of fashion that we see today.

 

[Darwin123]

I don't think that's a safe assumption. In the Indian sub continent clothing can be very "colourful" and not "drab" and yet women's rights in that region are not high.

IMO this thread is problematic because the premise hasn't even been demonstrated to be true and the majority of do not include any published material to discuss. I advise we strive to correct this.

The mother-in-law can be very powerful in some cultures where women "don't have rights". There are all sorts of power.

As far as women dressing up is concerned, I think that it is more a matter of how much choice the man has rather than the woman. We are talking about a dress code as applied to the mating game. Therefore, women will dress up in cultures where the man has choice.

In some Islamic cultures, not all, marriages are completely arranged by the parents. In that situation, the man doesn't have much of a choice either. Men may dominate in all sorts of ways, but they don't choose the girl they marry.

Under that situation, it doesn't really pay for a woman to dress up. Her sex appeal can't make the man she wants marry her. If she dresses up, then it is a sign that she wants sex without marriage. Thus, dressing up shows that she is a loose woman.

Just because a society is highly patriarchal doesn't mean the man is free to choose. In the societies that you are talking about, the man may specifically be told NOT to choose a woman according to sex appeal. Sex appeal is what concubines are for. The concubines may very well dress up.

I think Oriental women often dress up even in traditional societies. I think that is because the final choice of who the man marries is made by the man.

 

[Khantazm]

Remember that just because the reason behind a choice isn't clear or is attributed to instinct does not mean it is genetic in origin. The interaction between your genome and the environment throughout your life creates your phenotype which includes your psychology.

If a person's taste in fashion (or anything for that matter) was purely decided on a genetic level then no one would ever change their taste, let alone have the continuous changes in all fields of fashion that we see today.

I did not mean it like that. Or, possibly, I still was wrong in my assumptions. Basically, what I consider closer to genetics is subconscious, that which goes on under the hood of our awareness of conscious choices (if I may employ a bit of a figure). Not in the way that genetics determines what you choose in fashion, but sort of the fact that you can't construct a good argument for why you chose it... Okay, it's not genetics, my wrong. Just subconscious is much better. And that's kind of a territory references for which would be unattainable, because of our little understanding of the phenomena.

Anyway, psychology and sociology, not biology.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As the premise of this thread has been shown to be, if not flawed, incomplete there's no reason for it to remain open.