In the last blog, if you haven\u2019t figured it out, \u201cXY\u201d stands for \u201cmale\u201d; \u201cXX\u201d stands for female, I mean, feminist; and \u201cXY over XX\u201d stands for one type of \u201cgender bias\u201d.<\/p>\n
Everything in the last blog points to \u201cgender bias\u201d as a \u201ccultural\u201d issue, rather than a \u201cbiocultural\u201d conundrum.\u00a0 In several places in chapter 7, Wiley noted that the disputed differences in social relations were due to culture, not nature (biology).<\/p>\n
Chapter 12A in An Archaeology of the Fall<\/em> presents a hypothesis in evolutionary psychology that undermines the assumption that \u201cgender-bias is exclusively cultural\u201d.\u00a0 Plus, it does so at the start of a re-imagining of the Story of the Fall.<\/p>\n The hypothesis concludes that male-female pair-bonding was one adaptation of the Homo<\/em> genus (maybe around 3 million years ago).\u00a0 This adaptation evolved in the format of a bargain:\u00a0 The bonded male would provide for the bonded female & her (and presumably his) children.\u00a0 The female would provide hard-to-fake guarantees of her fidelity, which consisted in (culturally formatted) exhibitions of \u201csubmission\u201d to the male\u2019s \u201cauthority\u201d (which were accompanied by demands for provisions).\u00a0 In this bargain, both the male and the female would guarantee their own reproductive success (that is, that their genes were passed on to the next generation).<\/p>\n These adaptations relied on behavioral variability.\u00a0 Those who were more psychologically suited to the bargain were more reproductively successful. \u00a0Those who learned to disguise their cheating were also selected.\u00a0 So the selection pressure never quit.<\/p>\n Traditions also varied, favoring the cultural evolution of hard-to-fake signals of female fidelity.<\/p>\n This biocultural evolution changed the hominid body.<\/p>\n For example, male and female size differentials are not that large for the Homo<\/em> genus.\u00a0 If the cultural-based guarantee (of female fidelity) had not worked, larger size differentials would be expected (with a different sociality than male-female pair bonding).<\/p>\n Another example, female ovulation is concealed in our genus.\u00a0 Is concealed ovulation a biological or cultural trait?\u00a0 Or is it a biocultural trait?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the last blog, if you haven\u2019t figured it out, \u201cXY\u201d stands for \u201cmale\u201d; \u201cXX\u201d stands for female, I mean, feminist; and \u201cXY over XX\u201d stands for one type of \u201cgender bias\u201d. Everything in the last blog points to \u201cgender bias\u201d as a \u201ccultural\u201d issue, rather than a \u201cbiocultural\u201d conundrum.\u00a0 In several places in chapter […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-science-of-original-sin"],"yoast_head":"\n