Leaving aside the value of protein, fighting over gathering ground is just as plausible as fighting over hunting ground.Enuja wrote:2) Gathering was probably a much better way to get food than hunting was in many hunting/gathering societies.
Weren't the vast majority of differently structured societies (in the sense of differently structured from what came after) memetic dead ends? Matriarchal tribes did not become matriarchal developed societies; they vanished.Enuja wrote:4) We know from archeology and anthropology that different hunter/gather societies were structured very differently (our ancestors didn't just make one set of decisions that had one set of evolutionary outcomes).
Then why did Xenophon write the Oeconomicus?Enuja wrote: 5) The cultural ideal of women = homemaker and man = breadwinner is a super-recent Western culture invention. In Europe and American before the Industrial Revolution, marriages were economic alliances and the creation of a household economic unit where both members "worked" hard in the home/farm. Women as "homemaker" was part of the devaluation of household work as men left the home and worked in factories and as professionals.
The economic alliance is probably tied for the most important component of early marriage with child-rearing, but it's pretty clear throughout the history of developed societies that there has been men's work and women's work, and men were considered the head of the household. Men's work was probably not drastically more valuable than women's work until the industrial revolution, and it's clear that men and women had different spheres of management instead of the man always giving orders. But the consideration of women as political equals, even on frontier farms who were the most receptive to that message, took over a decade of work.
As for Me321's musings: that's the unscientific way to go about it. The scientific way is to ask, "can we tell what percentage of our ancestors were men?" Through DNA research I don't pretend to understand, we can- and humans have roughly twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. That is, the average number of men that had successful offspring is about half that of the average number of women that had successful offspring.
Now, we can't spring from that to "and thus all sex/gender stereotypes are true!" Instead, we can just get an idea of what sort of effects are reasonable. Increased risk-taking compared to women is a sensible male trait- the men that do win win big, but if you're not a big winner, you're a dead end. Increased investment in children among women compared to men seems like it would come about because men, on the whole, have more children to invest in than women.
Note that these are all comparative, and averages among reproductively successful men. The great example here is intelligence- there are no credible explanations why the average of men's and women's intelligence should be different. Any intelligence gains among genes carried by males will go into both males and females in the next generation. However, there are credible reasons to believe that the variance among men and women is different- and thus more males will end up both in prisons and in academia. If the intelligence of fathers is higher than the intelligence of males in general, however, it makes sense to suspect that the intelligence of fathers will be higher than the intelligence of mothers, presuming the same 2-1 mother-father ratio. If that's not the case in modern society (I suspect but do not know that the ratio of mothers to fathers is closer to 1-1 now than 2-1), then we should see the effects caused by that 2-1 ratio slowly disappearing over time.