Neither one is shallow - they are Human Biology 101. Our subconscious minds make decisions about potential mates based on these factors and there is exactly zero point in criticizing either men or women for doing so. Attraction based on these factors is not a choice, and not something we can change by pretending they aren't important.
I disagree. Women in other cultures do not appear to posess the same degree of mercenary glee that has been displayed with such glaring glee to date on this thread.
Agreed.
Qualifying a prospective mate by looks, for example, is evolutionary shorthand for genetic quality and health.
What appears beautiful to us is that which reflects performance, so it is not superficial.
Humans are bidpedal: hence buttock muscles and structure are very important.
And hence the sexual interest of both sexes in buttocks.
Broad shoulders in a man help him to wield weapons, hence a woman's attraction for broad shoulders.
Long legs in a woman help her to flee danger.
Hence the attraction for long legs.
However our inborn conceptions of beauty can be modified by other inborn tendencies and by experience.
One such inborn tendency is to want what others want, as such a mate would likely generate offspring that would be wanted in turn, thereby helping to pass your genes along.
An example of choice modified by experience would be the association of a certain physical appearance with a painful memory.
Despite what subversives tell us, men and women are different, and so men and women place different emphasis on looks and other things.
For example, a woman's interest in a man may not have to do with his genetic contribution, as she may be interested in him primarily as a protector and provider for her existing offspring or of those she hopes to have by the handsome milkman or married millionaire boyfriend--
And so she will be less interested in her husband's looks and more interested in his wallet and/or social standing.
This all gets complex, and so I'll leave futher discussion for another day.
Whether or not "they are Human Biology 101," does not address the question of shallowness. It's an incidental objection.
It also presumes a deterministic quality for this "unconscious" drive toward your predetermined conclusion without ever addressing the numerous issues that tend to weaken your main contention (i.e. distaste for male facial hair, preference for petite women, poolboy syndrome, et al)
Claiming it makes zero point to criticize is nothing but dismissing the role of society and culture in pairing, arguably a more weighty factor than some vestigial programming.
Attraction based on these factors is not a choice, and not something we can change by pretending they aren't important.
Attraction may not be a choice, but that was never my point. My point was choosing a mate, and presumably, there is a choice to be made.
Personally, I think it's a bit "magic wand-ish" to conflate the atavistic attracting power of certain physical characteristics with the purely cognitive process of sizing up a guys bank account. "The ability to provide" is a concept only superficially similar to "picking the strongest breeder" in the same way a motorcycle and a bicycle are only superficially related.