That's because you have a fundamental misunderstanding yourself of what the argument is.
The argument is twofold, around biological determinism, which is bullshit.
Men (and here we mean specifically men repeating manosphere rhetorical nonsense) claim that they are biologically hardwired to be attracted to beautiful women of a certain golden proportion and that there is nothing else at play. They double.down with the assertion that this is their evolutionary advantage to make up for sperm being less valuable than eggs and so that is the most important thing in mate selection. Some go so far as to say they are incapable, because of that biological hardwiring to do anything other than pursue beautiful women and they might as well be dead if they can't catch one.
There's some play on all that, but more or less, that's the crux of the argument.
Women are not arguing that men don't find beautiful women attractive. Indeed, as you correctly pointed out, the same dynamic works for us. We find handsome men attractive and will sometimes seek to avoid unattractive men, usually predicated around poor hygiene.
There is no failure to understand that men find beautiful women attractive.
The argument is about the static and imperial nature of "biological hardwiring". In the first place it's demonstrably untrue feom.most of our lived experience, especially those of us who have been around a while.
When I was a young woman, heroin skinny was in. If you weren't heroin skinny or working hard to be heroin skinny you were both ugly and beyond contempt. Invisible, glossed over, invalid, just plain wrong. But then Beyonce Knowles came along and suddenly, almost overnight, magically, thigh gaps were out and thick thighs and voluptuousness was in. I went from being ugly, or at best cute face -- shame about the rest of her to all sorts of weird and unwanted attention and a pack of panting puppies following me around everywhere jumping at the chance to be 'helpful'. It was very disconcerting. I knew I was supposed to find all this attention enjoyable and flattering, but it was most just bizarre. I was still the same.girl.i was two weeks ago when puppy couldn't be paid to ask me out on a date.
So, men and women do generally have a biological imperstive to be attracted to one another, but what makes a woman or man attractive is based on culture and socialization.
I've known since I was a very young woman that womens body types are subject to the whims of fashionability. But you see the same thing looking through history and across different cultures. Easily.
The second part of the argument had to do with evolutionary advantage. This tracks back to that idea about perfect proportions and it being men's way of exercising proportional.evutionsry pressure on women, or whatever. It's a really convoluted mental gymnastics argument not based on a firm understanding evolutionary theory at all. But basically, they're saying they have no choice to consider anything other than looks or primarily looks in mate selection no matter how much women might want them to because they literally, biologically, cannot help it.
This argument is also demonstrably false. First off, you don't have to marry someone to pass your genes forward by getting someone pregnant and most men will have sex with any woman who offers, without reason not to (like marriage to a 3rd person already in place, etc). Secondly, plenty have men throughout history have married for money, safety, alliance/treaty, opportunities for economic advancement, etc. So clearly, they can help it when it benefits them. Love marriages are actually a relatively new phenomenon. Gettinf to choose who you marry is recent I'm the grand scheme of things too. Some cturrs still have arranged marriages where bride and groom do not even see each other till the wedding. So the idea that this has anything in the world to do with evolution or the evolutionary engine is just laughable.
That, in a very long nutshell, is the argument. Basically a claim that argues biological determinism while excluding any other factors like socialization or culture is going to be suspiciously reductive and have massive amounts of bullshit to it and should be looked at skeptically with a long side eye.
Not sure where all this originates but the latest wave of ridiculousness I saw was on TikTok. In fairness, I'm not on Twitter or Facebook and tend to avoid Reddit and bro-casts for the most part. When I see stuff here though, I've usually seen it already played out on TikTok if it made enough of a wave to come to the attention of any of the feminists I follow there.
