Yeah I don't understand this as well. For mate selection women are appreciated and judged primarily for their beauty, youthfulness and femininity. If a man has a higher purpose, works out, socializes with women, learns to become a skilled conversationalist and becomes great at giving women mind-blowing orgasms, why the heck wouldn't he go for "top-caliber women", that are less common than the average girl (though still more abundant than a top-caliber man).
Women usually do not have the drive to conquer nations, build empires or corporations and "penetrate". I'm sure they are able to, if push comes to shove, e.g. in times of war or other extreme events. But both by society and by their nature (lower levels of testosterone), they're awarded for "seeming" passive. So they marry the king, pop a baby out and have massive wealth and influence behind doors.
But with the modern world, Western women can and do earn their own living and conspicuous consumption is much less of an issue than 100 years ago in the US, or relatively more conservative countries like Turkey or India. If one comes across "gold-diggers" often, I think that says more about the location selection of the male than the game theoretical choice of women.
