to think that men and women ARE different?

[bejeezus]

I hold feminist views, erring on the side of radical feminist. I dont call myself either, as Im not well read enough, I dont think...

Its an on going theme...that people accuse Mumsnet of being a misandrist site. I dont believe it is; and I agree that the misandrist POV would be those saying 'its because he's a man' 'men do that' etc etc when OPs accuse their OHs of not doing fair share of cleaning/childcare/going to strip clubs etc etc. And the man-supporting POV would be'hes a grown up, of course he should do his fair share' etc etc

BUT...SOMETIMES....I think there ARE valid reasons, that the men in question may appear to be, but not be, useless;

For example, women have evolved to have better peripheral vision and ability to multi-task than men, because of them predominantly doing the childcare

For example 2; my dad and numerous other men I know, who are not sexist or useless in any way cant find things. My dad often calls my mum or one of us to help him-if something is 'not where it usually is'. I dont know the evolutionary (or other) basis for this, if there is one, but in this case it isnt because they believe it to be womens work at all

LRDtheFeministDragon,

game theory says a bit about that.
Women invest a lot more than men in producing babies: 9 months, plus lactation. Women are less likely to dump their children than men. So, men (on average) are more likely (not likely, but more than women) to move on to the next fertile female.

But it is difficult to raise a human child without the help of a man (or at least enlarged family - more difficult to come by in pre-historical times), and humans do tend to stay in stable couples or family groups.

If you look at species where females leave their eggs to be fertilized by males, it is the males who are left caring for the children. Because they were the last there and are literally left holding the babies.
Similarly, most species with long term couples have young that require quite a lot of input from both parents for a long time.

You've never seen a sacristy, have you lueji!
I have, but not, I admit, in a male monastery.

My dd can't find things. She's a girl. She's 12. My dh can't find things either.

There are sex differences, but not those in OP.

What does the amount you invest in a child have to do with moving on to the next fertile female? A woman could move on to the next fertile man without abandoning her child.

Well, physically men and women are vastly different, and there is a tendency (for e.g.) because of genetic differences for men to be more prone to certain behaviours/diseases etc than women, and vice versa. For e.g. there are proportionally more males than females with aspergers/autism

So yes, men and women are different.

But seahouses - the women would then end up with another child to look after, which takes a lot of effort and resources.

Sorry, but no, CailinDana.

The expression of the genes is not conditioned by being female or male if they are in the X chromosome. It's just that in females, the good copy is enough to produce the required protein, and males only have the bad copy.

When we talk about gene expression, we mean whether a protein is produced or not.

Most genes in the X chromosome don't even have much to do with sexual determination or dimorphism.

AA, yes, women tend to have more than one child. It doesn't take more energy and resources if the children have different fathers than if they have the same father.

I don't see what male or female fidelity has to do with this.

A woman could move on to the next fertile man without abandoning her child.
Women do.

But she still has to care for the child, as AbsofAwesomeness mentioned.

And, perhaps, not surprisingly quite a lot of men prefer childless women. Hence trading the middle aged wife for a younger (fertile) model.
And the value given to virginity in many traditional societies. (and yes, there will be exceptions)

Fair enough, then perhaps it's more accurate to say that whether the mutation affects the phenotype of the person is sex linked.

Now also mentions the higher rates of child abuse and infanticide by stepfathers...

Game theory is a theory, though - not proof (and certainly not proof men and women are different.)

Why do you think an extended family would be harder to come by in prehistoric times?

Lueji So, men (on average) are more likely (not likely, but more than women) to move on to the next fertile female.

I cna see how this works if you are gorillas, where one male is obviously different than the others, but human males seem pretty alike.

(a) so whats in it for the women to mate with these transient human males?
(b) surely the offpsring of responsible parents have a better chance of survival?

Fair enough, then perhaps it's more accurate to say that whether the mutation affects the phenotype of the person is sex linked.
Yes, but indirectly.
Not because of the sex, but because of the chromosome copy number.
A XXY male with a faulty copy would not be affected, and it would still be male.

Unless I've missed something ( in admittedly skim reading the thread ) I'm surprised nobody has mentioned testosterone and oestrogen.

abs - physically men and women aren't vastly different, though?

If you look at us, all you see is men are (by and large) a bit furrier, and a bit taller with slightly different faces and different genitals (which are tucked away between our legs.

So, one of two abandonment possibilities here:

1. Father gets woman pregnant; father does not do childcare. If women need help for their child to survive in a prehistoric society, what is the evolutionary purpose to men of creating a baby that is then going to die?

1. Father looks after child for a while. Father abandons child. This makes even less sense. Now the father has invested in a child and is then abandoning it to die.

And how is any of this even practical when you are living in the same community that does many things collectively? You're sat there, skinning a deer or whatever, your child is five foot away, and you go, no, I'm shagging some woman who isn't your mum, so you can't talk to me anymore.

It is all a bit implausible isn't it/

MrGin - I assume people who mentioned hormones are including those.

Gorillas don't strictly move on to the next female, they have harems, Wasbi.
They (their territories) can support a number of females.

I also don't follow most of your logic.

b) is correct, and that's why human society is mostly composed of stable pairs
a) "bad boy" males possess attractive genetic qualities (ie. they spread their genes better, and so our children are also more likely to produce more offspring) - as an example, my errant BIL is on his current 6th child, whilst the homemaking other 2 brothers have only had 3 children between them...
Amazing how many of we fall for the bad boys - check the Relationship board.

Game theory is a theory.
As gravity and evolution are theories.
It's a framework that explains observations and has survived scrutiny because it is generally correct and no better alternative has been proposed.

It is also a generic term, but that assumes that most behaviour is conditioned (not sure if right term) by calculations of pay and risk. (doves vs hawks is a simple model)

Hiya Gin - I mentioned hormones. I think it brings about a huge difference to how people act. Not only between the sexes, but also within individuals, male and female.

Men are bigger, have a higher muscle to fat ratio, tend to be taller, and hairier. Those are the physical characteristics that you can see. That's not going into neurological differences which aren't immediately apparent but can cause differences, like the higher likelihood of men to have aspergers/autism than women or a higher likelihood of being a sociopath. That's quite a few differences.

SeaHouses, you are correct.

It doesn't make sense. And MOST human couples are monogamous. But some are polygamous (Men have the resources, women tag along, babies don't die).

Most cheating men don't really dump their children, they just have other secret families.

Many small tight "primitive" communities indeed are not fussy about who fathers who because they share resources.

In a way, the benefit system does make it easier for dads to dump their children because they know they will be cared for.

1. Father gets woman pregnant; father does not do childcare. If women need help for their child to survive in a prehistoric society, what is the evolutionary purpose to men of creating a baby that is then going to die?
In prehistoric societies women didn't need THAT much help (they collect food, more than men hunt meat), but to produce a baby, a man just needs to have sex once. He can have sex with 100s of women without great effort. If only 10 % survive, that's 10 children for the total cost of 100 (ok, maybe a bit more) nights of sex.
For some reason, male adulterers seem to have fitter sperm than faithful males (husbands).
A woman is stuck for 9+ months. She is lucky if she can produce 10 surviving children with male support.

Not really, not in the context of other species that really do have bigger physical differences.

I think the neurological ones are open to interpretation too, aren't they? Older research about autism puts the figures at something like 10 males for every female diagnosed; more recent research brings the figure down, and people point out that women with asperger's/autism present differently from men. It could be diagnostic.

It also follows that it's usually women who are fussy about who they sleep with and often end up being responsible for contraception. :(
We have the most to lose.

lueji, in your prehistoric society, how does a pregnant woman, not to mention a woman in labour, protect and feed herself alone?