The facts of life are that women choose men for mating, raising potential children and protection.
Women generally choose a mate who is at least equivalent to them or higher and it's
more often than not, men who are higher in the hierarchal ladder who are chosen. It's rare that a
woman marries down when seeking a mate. Mating sites like Tinder, show this to be the case.
In the past, however, women also acted to stratify their societies to even out the mating pools. Outside the lofty realm of kings building strategic alliances (and often even then), women had more agency than is usually thought in managing the mating pools for their children.
In the lives of normal people (blacksmiths, cobblers, farmers, and other working folk) matchmakers were usually women working in concert with mothers determining best arrangements, with the mothers of daughters certainly aiming upward, counterbalanced by mothers of sons avoiding going too far downward. Mothers created the invitation lists for debutante balls, Quinceaneras, and such events in which young men and women were introduced to their specific mating pools. Generally speaking, there were choices available, and the women at least narrowed those choices to appropriate social economic strata and social respectability. Women made sure that all their sons and all their daughters (at least the respectable ones) had fair opportunity to mate within their strata.
Even into the 50s and 60s, when mating pools were essentially determined by neighborhood residencies, it was wives who generally had the final say of where the husband and wife settled down, thus influencing the mating pools of their children.
That's broken down with the advent of online dating, which is likely the first time in history that young women of all social strata could compete for the men in the top social strata, and men of the top social strata could freely dally with women far below their own social strata.
Upvote
0