That’s not how evolution works. If your premise is true, how would evolution account for:

why men have so many sperm to spread around willy-nilly every single chance they get and the ability to immediately produce more.

The clear historical records of looks/beauty being relative and defined differently across both time and culture. You make a lot of fatphobic or anti-fat comments but the famous Venus figurines carved in prehistoric times were of markedly obese women. They were revered. Your comments also ignore the evolutionary reason why women have a higher percentage of subcutaneous fat than men.

It seems like if evolution were truly at play here there would not be a need for so many sperm and evaluations of beauty would not be fashionable.

While there is some truth that looks may be an indicator of health or fitness in a potential mate, it is no guarantee. Recall that prior to modern medicine women died in childbirth quite frequently. Being pretty doesn’t prevent that. So looks are not the best indicator of being able to pass your genes forward when you depend on a woman to do so. Therefore evolution would not select for beauty because there’s no meaningful evolutionary pressure to do so. No advantage over the millinia whatsoever.

Finally, if a preference for looks was due to evolution then evolutionary pressure would have lead to everyone being beautiful. Or at least, far more beautiful people than not because that IS how evolution works. Ugly people would not be able to breed and send their ugly genes forth into the future.

None of this is to deny that men have a preference for beautiful women over not so beautiful women. All these points indicate that the male preoccupation with looks is socialized and not biologically or evolutionarily caused.

It’s the same for women. We are socialized to find certain things attractive in a man whether they serve us well or not. It’s not evolution, it’s socialized behavior because of historically being disenfranchised.