To what extent is gaming culture an imitation of reality but an offense to our masculine DNA? To what extent is feminist corporate warriorship empty materialism and an offense to the female's DNA?
Consider this perspective:
The criteria to determine success of mating strategies can be viewed from different perspectives. Is it number of individuals in the offspring? Is the lifelong happiness of the offspring? Is it likelihood of offspring itself to produce new healhty offspring?
There are various problems here. Consider environments with poverty, teenage pregnancies, single mothers, broken families, and so on. People from these environments tend to have more children and earlier, and the children themselves tend to be even more dysfunctional. This is how populations explode, and this is how crime and poverty is created. Because of their inability to invest in long term strategies, these communities/societies are not resistant to changes in the environment or outside threats. So evolution doesn't really approve, even though the numbers can grow quickly when resources are "abundant".
"Feminist corporate warriorship" as phenomenon tends to produce fewer children, and with higher rates mental/emotional problems due to having less direct and intimate relationships with their parents. Second generation from these parents tend to have few children themselves. Generally, evolution frowns upon this.
I think we can get a glimpse of evolution's (and thus our DNA's) ideal version of marriage (and society) by asking ourselves what sort of behaviour would we wish of our own parents? (In the next life, for example ...)
Societies generally don't conform to that ideal because it requires too much implicit agreement between individuals. What do we do with individuals who are unable to give their children the upbringing necessary for them to be good fellow citizens to my children? The fact that my children will have to participate in the same society as other irresponsible parents' children changes my incentives in mate-selection and parenting. "My children have to be able to succeed in a world where your children have become adults ..."
So it's not just about number of offspring, and it's not just about quality of offspring. It's more complicated and I think it's always been throughout history.
Beyond that, I think most mating decisions are based on ego. I have yet to meet or hear of a female who does not derive her sense of worth and security from either her man
or her professional position, or who doesn't wine about having her "worth" defined by men. A woman who does not act out of ego is incredibly rare. And women are sexual selectors.
Ego is a response to human fears - and these exist in all cultures.
Evolution made women vulnerable and frail specifically for division of family duties. Why else? The love and respect that's required between a man
and a women is a prerequisite for producing healthy children. Man
provides protection, woman provides nurturing and this only works, and will only "feel right", if love and respect is mutual (and not need-based). Children must have this demonstrated to them in order for them to be emotionally fully functioning.
If society takes responsibility for rearing children, then there is no pressure on women to learn to respect men, and there is no pressure on men to be truly caring. Women will then seek to be distracted from their insecurities by various superficial activities - beauty, fame, fashion, casual sex, career, even such things as aid-work. Men will seek the sensation of control - through their careers, admiration, and womanizing.
I feel I'm not really getting my ideas across, but is a rough sketch.
She has a natural propensity for the higher game of bureaucracy and enjoys it, so they decided that he would cut back on his hours and take more of a role with the kids, and she would start investing in the overtime required to step into senior management.
The problem with this approach is that it demonstrates impotent rolemodels to the children. The sons of men who are unassertive with women don't do well. Their daughters learn be distrustful (and maybe have contempt) of men. They won't have healthy models of affection demonstrated to them. The second generation will find it more difficult to mate successfully.
A boss at company does strategically better to promote females if all other things are equal, because it increases the chances of his own male offspring. Basically - it emasulcates at least one other male (the partner and sons of the promoted female) and that means less competition for himself and his own. The whole scenario can be translated into stone-age tribes and it makes sense.
The core of the hardcore feminist arguments is "because we have a modern technological society, evolution and biology don't matter." In a way that is true. If the wellbeing of our children doesn't matter - then what matters? Why not just be the last generation of humans and go off in a giant party/orgy and nuke the entire planet just as we orgasm?
(Weird ending, but here we go ...)