(Photo: Kunstpalast Duesseldorf)
Lucas Cranach the Elder’s painting The Unequal Couple (Old Man in Love) illustrates exchange in the marriage market. An unusually looks-challenged old man, holding a gorgeous necklace, embraces a beautiful young woman, who seems pleased with the arrangement.
Nearly 500 years ago, Cranach recognized that in the marriage market men typically exchange their earning ability for a woman’s looks and reproductive ability. That is probably less true today than in Cranach’s time (early 16thcentury), but the evidence shows it is still partly valid.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
A more prosperous society reduces the power of the wealthiest. That’s why we see fewer marriages like that, and fewer people volunteering to work in sweatshops.
What’s your evidence?
It’s not the level of prosperity, but the degree of economic inequality, that will determine the degree of exploitation/exploitability. If the society is rich, but wealth is concentrated in the hands of one (or a few) individual(s), you’d better believe the resulting power imbalance will be abused. This reveals THE fundamental flaw in the neocon-conservative corporatist world-view.
In the 16th century, it wasn’t the wealthy old man marrying a poverty-stricken peasant. He was marrying a much younger, but probably still upper-class, woman.
But, in response to Nick, her upper-class dad was trading her away for the power/prestige/wealth/influence that the older gent could provide to the family. Either the family needed to form an alliance, was down on its luck, or was trying to rise in social stature. Either way, there was an imbalance that favoured the ugly older dude.
I can’t help but notice that there’s a distinct resemblance between Hamermesh and the old man! A distant relative, perhaps? She seems to like your beard
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
To turn this into an interesting blog post, you could have included links to studies showing how men tend to signal wealth and resources during mate attraction, while women tend to signal attractiveness and willingness to procreate.
And then there are the usual follow-on discussions that could have been linked to about the mismatch between our modern conceptions of marriage and our “lizard brain” impulses, and how we (to a certain amount of success, but imperfectly) use higher reasoning to navigate this mismatch, both at an individual level and at a cultural level.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Does the “lizard brain” understand the concept of jewelry? Hunter-gatherers don’t have portable valuables. There is no reason for women t0 be evolved to be attracted to men who have access to gold or precious stones. Does the man in that picture look like someone it would be a good idea for the women to have babies with in a hunter-gatherer society?
Well, duh, the “concept of jewelry” is an efficiency improvement over dragging over an elk carcass to throw at her feet. This guy is signalling to her that he can feed her and clothe her and house her and provide for all her needs and the needs of her children. When we were hunters and gatherers we did it in a more direct way, which, if I am to read your point correctly would suggest a much younger, fitter, manlier man. The “lizard brain” is definitely smart enough to view a piece of jewelry as suggesting this man possesses more than enough prowess in securing all the necessary resources.
This different behaviour in men and women also explains the persistence of the gender pay gap: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/gender-pay-gap/
I actually don’t find the woman in the painting beautiful at all, though.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
3
You’re not a 16th century German.
She has long, fully colored hair, which implies good nutrition for several prior years. She has wide hips, which implies lower probability of death in childbirth. The shape of the cheeks and jaw suggest a full head of teeth – a rare and sexy feature in the 16th century. All that healhty exposed skin without blemishes mean both good nutrition and that she skipped all sorts of diseases included smallpox and measles.
..in a word, smokin’ HOT.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
1
You got it! I’ve read historical books where women with faces like frying pans were considered great beauties simply because those faces were unblemished, no scars from smallpox. Good health was sexier than any amount of (primitive) cosmetics or strange clothing. When age 40 was considered OLD…young n’ healthy was the way to go. And marriages were arranged for politics and profit, not for loooovvve….old rich geezer? A real catch!
I don’t have much of an opinion on the girl one way or the other, but I definitely ‘t think the necklace is not “gorgeous”.
I was thinking the same thing myself. But then I considered the age gap, put myself in the shoes of the much older gent, and realized that, from his vantage point, she is a pretty darn good catch.
” That is probably less true today than in Cranach’s time”….
That is probably less true today that it was prior to The Pill.
Seems like many middle to upper middle class women want a man to provide them with economic security. At least, that is the way it is among the 30′s and up crowd in my town. But Surely, I would imagine this would depend upon homelife. My dad was a controlling son of a gun. Alot of tension in the house as a result. My husband is a sweet heart. He tells me that I am spending too much and usually, I come around to agreeing with him i.e., when he is correct. and when I don’t, I speak my mind. Not all relations are grounded upon the economics of exchange. in my case, we take care of one another in the ways that we each need it. And generally this works for us. But there is one thing that makes it work. We respect each other and that is the bottom line. I take what he says to heart. Would not have it any other way.
First off, let me say that I am happy for you and that the situation you describe sounds pretty good. So please don’t take this as an attack on your comment. It’s just that you haven’t provided enough information in your comment to justify the statement that not all relationships are grounded upon the economics of exchange. If you make the same amount, or more, as your husband then his advice to not spend it too profligately is truly something that you can weigh the relative merits of and either accept or reject. If, however, he is the prime income earner, then you are indeed in a relationship that is grounded in the economics of exchange, you are just lucky enough to have a spouse that does not use the economic imbalance as a tool to impose his will upon you. Sounds like a good man. And also one lucky enough to have a spouse that appreciate that goodness. Cheers to the two of you.
Dear No Malice Intended;
Indeed, it is the reverse. I did not marry my husband for his money. When we married, he was earning more than I, but not enough. I had to and wanted to work in my profession. Would not have had it any other way. But We both went with the ebb and flow of our different work situations. There was a time (around 8 days when I worked as a waitress and failed miserably at it). We both sold antiiques that we collected in order to make ends meet. It just happened that my husband’s uncle did help us out with a gift. Then, there was a time when his income far surpassed mine. Now, it is just the reverse. We have always treated one another with respect. But I don’t think it is a matter of luck, But of circumstance. We both went through rough times in our lives and don’t take the importance of mutual respect for our somewhat different individual life experiences for granted. We are a good match.