As much as I consider myself an excellent writer, I couldn't have said it better than the OP did.
I will add to this a bit... a theory perhaps. It's my impression that is is primarily an issue with *North American* women. I believe the reason for this stems from mass media.
For decades, mass media has always been supported by capitalism. I'm not putting down capitalism. It does what it does. The bottom line is what counts. For decades, the bottom line for marketing through mass media was targeted to those with money to spend. This meant men. Sure, marketing was far more limited compared to today. First it was just newsprint, and then radio.... then television.
Marketing targeted women, more directly and with less confusion about gender roles. I'm not saying this was right or wrong, just that marketing was pretty straightforward for both women and men.
Since then, North American society has continually liberated our views on gender roles. Here we are at a point where women are told they can be and achieve just about anything. And it is true that women earn more money and find themselves in important occupational roles more than ever before. This also means that more women than ever before have money to spend.
And money is what draws the attention of marketing... which turns the weapons of mass media towards women.
But for the mass media, liberated roles aren't good enough. They want maximum effect. From the fringe liberal women to the most conservative housewife.
They achieve this by bombarding women with symbolism that often conflicts. Women are taught from the beginning of their lives an assortment of contradictions in order to appeal to as wide a consumer base as possible... therefore maximizing the consumer potential through the mass media. "Women are strong and independent!" is a theme that is often not all that far away from "Find a handsome, financially stable man to propose to you with a rather large and expensive diamond ring". This is just one of many examples of dichotomies fed to women.
The result is that North American women are taught to believe that they can have Superman and Clark Kent at the same time... or have a bad boy who treats them right... or a wealthy man with a modest view... and so on. Even the perception of what constitutes an attractive male is programmed into women. I saw a woman online who promotes a "BBW" themed night club, and she was posting screen shots from the film "Magic Mike" on her Facebook page. I've seen other women who think that you have to be 6 feet tall with tattoos up and down your arms to be attractive. It makes me think how in the 80's it was about what clothing he wore, and in the 70's "attractive men" had hairy chests and a mustache or even a beard. Today, it's the goatee. Tomorrow it might very well be sideburns again like it was in the 90's.
And the funny thing about it is that men who may very well have been thought of as "attractive" in one decade are totally undesireable ten years later. As for what men find attractive, that hasn't changed in a very long time.... hundreds, thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand years' time. We notice boobs, butt, hips, legs... all those things that offer physical sexual suggestion. We also notice eyes, a smile, complexion, hair, voice, smell... attitude... etc.
Women notice thhat level of detail in men, sure. But with North American women, it is often an afterthought to the programmed images associated with "attractiveness" that the mass media has fed them. With men, we notice a handful of details right around when we notice the more sexually-oriented features. It's a total experience for us. We take yih in at first encounter... all of you.
When considering the internet and dating profiles, that decreases some... and yes, all humans are visual creatueesr. I would think even blind people visualize things in their own way. Certainly the deaf rely on visuals. So naturally, men and women both usually go for the pictures first in profiles. But there is where the similarity ends.
For most men, if the woman is attractive by a human standard, great. Some with immediately message... others will then read the profiles (YES we do!).
For women, it is the OP above said. They go straight for the pics like men do, but when they review the pics they are running the physical appearances through their mass media provided "acceptability filters". Now, some women have less restrictive physical criteria than others.Sometimes this is because a particular woman is less conditioned by mass media; she has resisted the programming and is perhaps more in tune with her own independent thought process and sexuality. For other women, they may simply loosen their restrictions because low self-esteem tells them they aren't food enough for the "David Beckhams" and should just stick to the "Seth Rogans" who at least might have some potential.
So what is the point here? Men are more resistant to programming by mass media when it comes to what they consider to be "attractive"; no matter how much Calvin Klein and much of the fashion community has tried for nearly two decades to convince men that "super skinny is sexy", in the end the returning interest is in women with "curves", because from.the dawn of human ity it's those curves that signify femininity and set women apart from men.
But why can't women be this way? It's ironic, but mass media may have shown us that men aren't nearly as concerned with image as women are.
If image is the foundation under shallow behavior... does this mean that women have a greater potential to be more shallow than men do?
I suppose it depends on your definition of "shallow"... but it seems pretty clear that mass media has fed women a lot of ideas and they gobble it up like a hungry stray dog who just dug its way into a dogfood factory.