Women care about money and education but it's not as if they're all the same. Some care a lot about humour, confidence, hell even artistic abilities. Yes some broke musician can appear very sexy to some women even if he isn't a great provider. Some even care a lot about looks just like men. Women vary quite a lot by who they consider mating potential.

It's important not to confuse individuals with populations.

This is one of the biggest problems when talking about things like this. People make statements about populations and others refute them using observations about individuals. Of course individuals are different, but individuals have very limited control over society. We are not a bunch of unrelated individuals, we are a society. The top level comment is talking about society.

It seems clear to me that society is much more aggressive about controlling male-normative instincts, which are characterized as violent and isolationist. Consumption and financial mating, however, are encouraged and enforced by every level of our social hierarchy. These instincts could also be controlled.

Controlling male instincts is advantageous for everyone. Men are basically told to stop fighting each other and work together. In return they get the chance to have one wife and a decent way of life. It's a big win for most men. Women also benefit from the technology and societal improvements that come about as a result of not being at war all the time.

If you controlled female instincts what would you achieve? You tell women to date a poorer man. A less attractive man. A less intelligent man etc. What do they gain from this? Nothing. It's all sacrifice with no gain.

It comes down to positive enforcement versus negative enforcement. Positive enforcement is always more effective in the long run.

You haven’t met enough women that held out too long for the perfect man, and now clasp desperately to one they secretly despise. There are benefits to acceptance and satisfaction with less.