Evolutionarily, using humans as an example, it would make sense that a successful female would produce successful male offspring. If a successful female produced male offspring that weren't successful, the female also wouldn't be successful by definition and would, through evolution, stop being desired by males. Therefore, females are selected for by their ability to produce successful males and thus successful male genes must be the same as successful female genes?
That assumption is wrong. Of course the best thing for an individual's reproductive success is to have as many successful offspring as possible regardless of gender, but in the real world there are sometimes tradeoffs. If an individual had a trait that made, say, their female offspring a lot more successful but mildly impaired their male's offspring's success, the advantage to the female offspring might outweigh the disadvantage to the male and the trait might get passed on, even though it produced male offspring that weren't very successful.
Here is a paper apparently exploring the concept in seed beetles:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/12/21/rspb.2009.2026
However, I've heard that in humans today, males don't like rich females while females like rich males.
You've heard that of humans, have you? Are you sure what you heard actually applied to all humans, and not the humans in one specific society? You say "humans today", do you mean "anatomically modern humans" or "people in the 21th century"?
You really ought to investigate this kind of thing you hear before drawing all-encompassing conclusions about biology or evolution from them. Maybe you were assuming that "in humans, males don't like rich females while females like rich males" was consensus biology; if so, well, it isn't. And given that it isn't, we can't answer your questions based on such a vague claim; you should give a source that explains more precisely what exactly is being said there.
Also, from what I've read, lascivious females used to be looked down upon in the past while lascivious males weren't.
Same thing; I'll also highlight the "in the past" when your previous sentence talked about "today". Evolution works on the scales of hundreds and thousands of generations. Why would you assume evolutionary explanations for social trends that, by your own words apparently, have changed recently?
This suggests that successful males are genetically different than successful females?
In order for those things suggest that, you would need: 1) to establish reliably that the differences you talked about exist, 2) to establish that they have a probable biological basis; one way of establishing this could be to show that they are universal across human cultures, geography and history. If they aren't then it's more likely the explanation is cultural than biological, and 3) to establish that the biological difference is related to individuals being successful, as opposed to being random variation (which happens a lot in evolution).
