Evolutionary theory predicts women should choose badly behaved males. Popular songs and movies reveal that women lust for badly behaved males. Everyday casual observation shows that women do choose badly behaved males.
This is going to be hard to accept for some.
It is easy enough to attempt a point-by-point refutation of what you've said, on the order of:
You claim that this is what evolutionary theory predicts, but the people who should know don't say things that aren't PC.
Anecdotal evidence!
Anecdotal evidence!
Actually they say things that violently politically incorrect in difficult to read scientific language
"Eppur si muove"
But precede and follow the political incorrectness by saying things that are politically correct in easy to read unscientific language, indeed, deliberately anti scientific, religious sounding language, language that has intentionally has the sound of a religious catechism.
Similarly, similarly, Jay Zwally, having found that Greenland ice is increasing in thickness and continues to cover the same area as always, has been forced ever since to wander the earth crying "Repent, repent, the end is near, the ice is melting. Melting, melting, melting, I tell you.", while continuing to publish scientific papers that if you read them very carefully, still say the Greenland ice is getting thicker, though now he phrases it much more obscurely.
And similarly similarly, Nei and Takezaki, of the Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics were so careless as to publish in plain English that some human races were more evolved than others, and that the genetic difference between human races was large and comparable to the genetic difference between species, then publicly recanted and repented, and ever since have loudly and frequently proclaimed in plain English that there is no genetic difference between races, all differences between races (presumably including skin color) are purely cultural and environmental, that races are merely social and cultural convention, while continuing to publish papers that if you read them very carefully, and understand the obscure and cryptic scientific jargon deployed, actually say …
In the twenty first century, genuine science has gone underground to hide from the inquisition, and speaks in difficult to decipher code.
I think, though, that we can all agree that this particular "refutation" is dishonest. (The problem is that while it is valid in saying "this isn't quite proof", it isn't sufficient to be a disproof in its own right of common sense. Then there's the favorite, "oh, you asserted something, so that makes it false unless you can prove it".) So I think the problem lies elsewhere. Such as in the definition of "badly behaved males".
Think "The Log-Driver's Waltz" instead of "Leader of the Pack".
The claim is not that women want men who will abuse them and cheat on them. (Shall I cite "These Boots Were Made for Walking" and "Half as Much"?)
The claim is rather that they want a man who is rugged and masculine, rather than weak and effeminate - because they want a man who is capable of defending them.
Possibly, but my impression is that females are not merely unimpressed by rugged and protective masculinity, but incapable of recognizing it when they see it.
Your theory presupposes they are patrolling for a mate, rather than a fling. They primarily go with the bad boys for a fling.
They don't want a man who abuses them and cheats on them, but it looks to me that they do want a man who abuses and cheats on other women. Observe that a wedding ring is no impediment, and possibly a considerable advantage, in picking up women, and a wing girl an enormous advantage.
The relative diversity of mitochondria as against Y chromosomes indicates the number of males among our ancestors was about half the number of females among our ancestors.
Also, another problem is that "typical female behavior" is being used as shorthand for "typical female behavior, unmediated by an excess of cultural conditioning; that is, female behavior in the lower social classes".
My observation is that educated women are no better behaved than working class women in terms of the males they get with. The only large difference is that they are more apt to have abortions and less apt to bring random thug spawn to term. Female lawyers are notorious.
In a marriage where housework is divided equally, or in a reasonably fair fashion, rather than being divided into man's work (taking out the garbage, unplugging the drains, mowing the lawn, and barbecuing meat) and woman's work (almost everything else) the wife will stop sleeping with the husband, and very likely once in a week or so the wife's lover drops in to bang her on the main bed, rough her up a bit, take her money, and leave a mess for the husband to clean up.
The only marriages that survive are marriages that are substantially patriarchal, and for a marriage to be substantially patriarchal, the husband has to be able to shrug off extreme pressure and dire threats by his wife.
Now you might think that all those women going after death row killers are just a tiny minority of sexual weirdos - but you will not find one marriage where housework is strictly shared and rotated, except the husband sleeps on the couch, and the wife is banging a bad boy who would never share the housework. Women who will not have sex with a man who truly treats them as equals are *not* a small minority of sexual deviants, but the overwhelming majority.
The politically correct do not in fact act as if they have internalized political correctness. The average liberated woman would bang King Robert the Weasel as if she was a barn door in a high wind, without asking him to remove his blood covered boots first.
