It would appear to me that it is difficult being a woman. Not because of period pain (although I'm informed that is unpleasant) but due to the fact that what constitutes an alpha male is convoluted and forever changing. Granted whom heterosexual men find attractive also evolves, but far more gradually. This truth is ever present, but is even more pronounced when looking at periods of history that were deep in socio-economic flux. A classic example being Bill Gates. I don't know, but I suspect that he didn't get many dates in High School.
Regarding social mobility, it strikes me that in today's society it is still better to be a successful man than a successful woman, but conversely it is more beneficial to be an unsuccessful woman than an unsuccessful man. In short, the risk is higher for a man, but so is the reward. This it would seem, merely indicates how far our societies have yet to go before being equal.
Something I have noticed, is that risk-takers, from the developed West at least, aren't dying out anymore; they're just getting laid. A French Lothario in the 18th century would probably have lost a duel before his 25th birthday. Now, an arrogant man can be as outrageous as he likes, chase after women he shouldn't, and probably survive without a kicking. Certainly in my part of the world, bar room brawls are out of fashion.
It has become clear to me that women always like being chased, but do not necessarily like getting caught. To differentiate between the 2 circumstances is key. I learned this dichotomy through practice rather than study.
When women do wish to be chased- and caught, it can be quite absurd just how elaborately they will set up a situation that will be conducive for them to be 'taken'. It is like seeing a mouse painstakingly set up a trap with cheese and everything, only to coerce itself. There is a certain type of woman who would never dream of saving time by simply throwing herself in the trap.
Of course, if the woman has been 'taken', no matter how intricate the process, then she is not cheating; the offending individual is the 'bad man', it is not her fault. From conversations with females, I gather that the preference is to reward a guy that is 'special' by taking it slow, and to punish a guy they don't like by fucking him, which is exactly the wrong way round. And of course, if the woman doesn't like him, then there's absolutely no possibility of her becoming emotionally attached, and it's all just harmless fun.
But no matter what the situation, whether the woman wants to be chased, caught, and taken, she will always salvage something from the circumstance to service her ego; no matter how vulgar the praise or unattractive the man. Not uncommon is for a woman to shoot the messenger but have sexual intercourse with the guy who sent him.
The messenger is undoubtedly the more shy of the two. If a shy man is promiscuous, then they are judged, yet a serial 'player' is deemed just 'like that'. A good many females profess to find shy men attractive, especially in movies, but a tragedy is only romantic if somebody else is watching. If the tree falls in the woods alone, it is merely sad. Most women will not walk across a busy bar to speak to a shy male on the off chance that they will find his personality attractive, any more than the average male will do the same for a female that is aesthetically ugly.
Romance is illusion + ambiguity. I think more women understand this than is usually given credit for, and realise that a necessary skill of being involved in infatuation is the ability to lie and be lied to.
And that concludes my notes on the subject. It could of course, all be nonsense. I feel that those with the most wisdom on the nature of women are not heterosexual men or women, but rather, highly intelligent homosexual males.
In particular, I would recommend reading the works of Oscar Wilde. You may perhaps have heard of him.