Ok, here we go.
The base premise here is that human nature is not a blank slate, and that attraction has hard-wired + cultural components. The extent to which cultural influences usurp hard-wired traits, I am sure, varies a lot from community to community.
About seeking gene quality: while evidently not binary, I do think it's easier to talk about bad quality than good quality. The way I see it, it's not about seeking genetic optimization, but about minimizing genetic pitfalls. I think we both can agree on that phenotype, especially in less developed communities, can provide relatively trustworthy indicators about presence/lack of serious genetic issues: health, symmetry, build and "alpha-maleness" are good examples of them.
Discriminating good gene carriers from bad ones is so important, that the trait of judging genetic quality based on phenotype was probably strongly positively selected in humans.
As for increasing variability through sexual reproduction, Google Scholar offers some papers suggesting a bias within ovulating in favor of good men with phenotypical indicators of "good genes". I don't have access to the full articles, but here they are anyway:
Regarding the pursuit of genetic variation as a way to increase genetic fitness, it would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between mixed ethnicities and attractiveness. I tend to see a pattern where people tend to find exotic people more attractive than average, but that's my perception only.
About access to resources and attractiveness in males:
I also want to, again, stress how closely related status and potential Male Parental Investment are. Granted, the relationship will probably change depending on criteria such as population size, cultural aspects of private property, general resource availability, etc.
The hunter-gatherer community you mentioned could be an exception. But I would be mo+re inclined to think that, even in that culture, a high status does come with some more subtle perks. And any perk which increases access to food, security, comfort, and even leisure time would qualify as Male Parental Investment.
I do believe that men who exhibit typical alpha male character traits is globally considered more attractive that their opposite. Picturing extremes is useful to illustrate this point. I think we can agree on that weak, timid, submissive, insecure men can be labeled as unattractive regardless of culture. Why? My take is that they are simply not "properly equipped" to prosper and therefore offer an attractive degree of MPI.
It would also make sense to expect women who already have access to plenty of resources would be more prone to select long-term partners based on more sophisticated indicators such as academic degrees, or taste in music. Poor women would tend to focus more on access to resources and less on, for example, their philosophical stand on libertarianism.
I think that addressing patterns showing women's apparent bias in favor of a prospective good MPI as more of a cultural construct than a hard-wired trait leaves more questions unanswered than the other way around. and I think it makes complete sense.