We humans are hardwired to behave in ways that on average were adaptive for the bulk of our evolutionary history. Given that our ancestors had to cope with variable environments (albeit variable in fairly constant ways) it would be surprising if key behaviors associated with mate selection were not sufficiently variable to accommodate the kind of alterations common in our ancestral environment.

Thus we know that the most powerful attractor is status/wealth, because this indicates the ability to provide above-average resources for offspring and the survival of offspring is of course a primary requirement for any creature. This is why short fat old billionaires can readily acquire slender young companions, should they choose to do so (and most do).

The attractiveness of "classical masculine features" depends heavily on environment. A high-threat environment leads to tall strong men being selected preferentially because they are more likely to be able to protect their mate; conversely when in a low-threat environment, more androgenous males are preferred, presumably because this reduces risk of violence from one's male partner.

The list of non-variable and variable qualities is quite long, but readily subject to empirical validation. Articles that merely make empty assertions about tertiary characteristics (such as "confidence") are not very interesting.