Women and men did not evolve separately from each other. That's not how the evolution of a species works. Natural selection might favour a species wide predisposition to selecting mates that seem most likely to bear healthy offspring and provide for offspring, but this cuts both ways because the female would be doing part of the providing as well.
Generally this seems to preselect for healthy, attentive parents who are able to fulfill both their nutrition needs and that of their offspring. The thing people forget about human beings is that "culture" can transmit change much more quickly than the time it takes for a favourable mutation to arise and propogadate itself in the general population. Genetic evolution in human beings is very slow and because we do not have the same natural survival pressures that many animals do it is hard to tease out whether some behaviour traits we have are there because they help survival or are merely neutral when it comes to survival.
The evolutionary biology description of "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with the common conception of "fitness" or "being fit." To be considered fit by evolutionary standards one only has to have the most offspring who survive to adult fertility and propogate their genes. Whether one creature propogates as opposed to another is often as much luck as physical fitness.
Nowadays I don't think there is much of a connection between wealth and large amounts of offspring that survive until adulthood to propogate their genes. If anything I notice wealthy people tend to have small families, but that is just anecdotal evidence. Historically there might be a precedent for wealthier people having bigger families, but I'm not sure.