Does that sound like the title of a journal article? Well, I've been reading evolutionary psychology again lately. Among other things, it's the study of how contemporary behaviors may have resulted from evolutionary adaptations during the hunter-gatherer phase of human development. The way we chose our partners then, and the way we learned to present ourselves to potential mates, may still govern our behavior today.
Consider, for example, the issue of age. In general (everything here is a generality; there are always exceptions), women are considered more sensitive about their age than men, and it is considered rude to ask a woman her age. Not so regarding men.
Why would this be? If getting older is bad or undesirable, then it should be equally so for men and women. But that's clearly not the way things work in our culture.
So, what's the deal? Evolutionary psychologists would say something along these lines: With women, age is strongly correlated with reproductive capacity. After a certain point, women simply become incapable of bearing children. At the same point, though, men are still capable of fathering children...and will be for three or four decades after that, too.
From an evolutionary perspective, our primary drive is to pass on our genes. From an evolutionary perspective, then, as women pass into their late-30s, age becomes a sensitive issue for them. If you choose a woman in this age range as a mate, she may not be able to bear children. That makes her a less attractive mate...if, that is, you know her age. So, she and her single sistren in their 30s (or older) begin to withhold that information. Over time, a norm develops under which it is considered rude to ask a woman about her age.
And now you know the origins of that norm...at least from the evolutionary psychology perspective.
Footnote: I wonder if the norm against asking how much money someone makes is the flip side of the age question. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, how much money a man makes--or, back in the day, how much mammoth blubber he brought home--represents his capacity to care for any offspring that might arise out of a union. Men with less money make less attractive mates: not because women are "gold diggers," but because they want to pass on their genes. Other things being equal, a man with more money will be better able to provide for the needs of his mate and their children. This raises the odds of having healthy offspring that go on to have children of their own.
Now, if you're a guy who doesn't have any money--or at least has less than your competition in the mate selection process--this works against you. So, when the question of money comes up, you either have to lie or insist that it's not an appropriate question. Over time, this may be how we developed the norm against asking about someone's income.
Anklenote: Yes, you say, but it's also considered rude to ask women about their income. In evolutionary terms, their resources shouldn't have mattered for mate selection (because men were expected to be the providers). So why would the norm apply to women, too?
My guess is that the norm was probably in place for tens of thousands of years before it was possible for women to be the primary resource providers for their family. For tens of thousands of years, then, there was no need for men to say, "It's impolite to ask a man about his earnings (or mammoth blubber haul)." Men were the only ones who had earnings, so there was no need to distinguish men from women. You could just say, "It's impolite to ask about earnings/mammoth blubber haul."
Could be, anyway.
