The Evolutionary Theory of Civilization My wife asked me today, a seemingly innocent question: -- Why are fathers more concerned about their daughter's marital choice than mothers are? -- Because they have their own plans for their own genes, and same goes to sons too. -- But why exactly is this discrepancy between maternal and paternal concerns for grand children's genes? A humanities scholar whould dismiss the problem right here: because males are more "assertive", in turn because "toxic masculinity", or "we were kings" -- depending on one's political affiliation. But this is not an answer, it is blame shifting. A real answer requires evolutionary understanding of the phenomenon in question. So here we go again. On the surface there is an apparent concern for the good placement of the next generation of one's genes, but it is indeed invariant for gender. Every human has marital strategy for one's self and for one's children as well, because it is one's own genes are to be taken care of. A marital strategy naturally depends on the gender of the person engaging into a reproductive relations, females use one set of principles to govern the choise of a partner, males use another set, so your parent's strategy for your marriage depends on your geneder, but must be independent from the parent's gender -- both parents have equal interest in your success. Still we observe fathers investing much more effort than mothers in implementing their marital strategies in their children. This problem is not solvable without group selection... (in the sense that E.O. Wilson creates, not to be confused with 19th century "group selection" (http://ee.bestmx.net/PinkerExplained.1.sanitized.pdf)) As I demonstrated earlier (https://theanatomicallycorrectbanana.com/home/2020/2/20/in-praise-of-in-group-preference), sexual partner selection strategy plays a necessary and most impactful part in maintaining group loyalty. In fact, your sexual preference DEFINES what is A GROUP in an evolutionary sense. How else would you define a group? In a practical sense a group is a collection of individuals that are loyal to each other as opposed to outsiders. How can loaylty be expressed in a manner 'visible' to the evolutionary process, i.e. to promote the group's genes over the genes of rival groups? Parochial altruism, exchanging favours, collective hunting, grandmothering, but it all is dwarfed by the in-group mating preference. By engaging in kin-favoritism or helping to hunt a mammoth you may increase your fitness by a tiny fraction, although in a long run small effects multiply, at the same time chosing your mating partner you make a decision to entangle half of your genes with another person FOREVER, that is by far the BIGGEST decision in genes' life -- to whom do you give the gift of your fitness? to a memeber of your own group or an enemy? -- this is the most impactful coice among all group-oriented choices you make. Automatically the in-group mating preference creates artificial reproductive isolation -- which simply can not be ignored by Evolution -- whatever is reproductively isolated to any degree represents a meaningful evolutionary entity. Thus, a group is an (initially) arbitrary collection of individuals of the same specie who maintain among themselves (by means of mating preference) artificial reproductive isolation of some degree from the rest of the specie. The groups are inevitably forced into inter-group competition, therefore selection. In particular the selection of idividuals capable of developing group-oriented strategies increasing group's fitness as a whole relative to other groups in the group rivalry. As I demonstrated earlier still, females achieve maximum individual reproductive success when they practice minimum minimorum of group loyalty, whereas males achieve maximum individual reproductive success when they practice maximum group loyalty (short of premature self sacrifice). No hyperlink needed, for I am going to re-demonstrate it right here. If a tribe was conquered by another tribe and all males were put to the sword, what is a female's best reproductive strategy then? TO SUBMIT TO THE VICTOR COMPLETELY. The more complete is the submission the more children the conquered female produces. This is inambigous evolutionary drive to complete disloyalty, there is no gain for a female to adhere to imagined principles at the expense of her real fitness! This strategy does not work for males, obviously, slain people do not reproduce. The best bet for a male is to achieve this effing victory, or effing die trying. In turn this victory requires some collective effort, and this collective effort requires all expressions of loyalty from discipline to mutual aid, and when the victory is achieved, it is available to everyone alive (and sometimes dead too, because of extended fitness). Thus a male's individual success gets fatally entangled with his group's success. As males are the major beneficiaries of group success and the major contributors to this success, they evolved the sense of loyalty and the habit to BOTHER ABOUT IT all the time (and not without positive results, because evolution). Males are very much group-oriented and they (regardless if they aware about it or not) develop their personal strategies in a manner beneficial to their group (or at least they balance and limit possible detrimental outcomes (in this regard the self awareness should be considered as secondary evidence, such as: a thief KNOWS FULL WELL he is doing evil, even though he goes on with his evil plan, he already possesses a mind that evolved precisely this sense and understanding of "evil", the right understanding, the failure is in not listening to it, but the vast majority of people do listen!)). This dependency on the group's success creates the second motivation for a man to invest in his mating strategy, in addition to the choice of "right partner" for his individual genes he expresses his group loyalty. Then both motivations translate to his mating strategy for his children -- for his children he has the same plan as for himself: a partner with good genes PLUS a marriage that is beneficial for his group. Moreover, his mating choice for himself might sometimes be completely shadowed by the cheapness of sexual contacts, so that under conditions of women abundancy a man safely switches to promiscuity and pays no penalty for this strategy. But this option is not available for him expressed in his children, because this expression is LIMITED to the number of survived children -- there is no contition of abundance -- so he is forced to the strategy of the careful choice, where the both motivations bllosom (selfish and group-oriented). It creates this stark contrast between one's father's own reproductive behaviour and this same father's "recommendations" to his children -- whereas the underlying marital strategy governing his behaviour in both cases is actually the same!!! More to the contrast, women never have an option to switch to promiscuity without penalty, and their investment in their personal mating choice appears outweighing their investment into the mating choice for their children. Still more to the contrast, women lack the second (group oriented) motivation for careful choice, and they are indeed much less militant against their children's bad mating choices. But there is more... The individual reproductive bottlenecks. The male's reproductive bottleneck is the access to fertile females. The female's reproductive bottleneck is her physical capability to produce children. If you meet a lonely woman in a forest, your immediate response is to marry her -- by all means a woman in distress should be saved and put to good use, because pregnancy is expensive, and... what a shame, monopolized by women, a man is wasted without a woman to impregnate. If you meet a lonely man in a forest, you theoretically might consider him joining your tribe under right circumstances, but he is not going to get any of your females either never or for a very long time and only with exceptional contributions to your group's fitness. Thus the apparent contrast between mothers and fathers is multiplied on daughters! A father is already limited in his fitness by the number of children, and in his daughter he and she both lack an option of promiscuity -- she is a bottleneck, her father's genes ARE TRAPPED!!! -- ONLY THE PERFECT CHOICE COULD GIVE THEM ANY CHANCE!!! But I digress... How on Earth is this shit connected to the problem of the evolution of the civilization?! Let's recap our major points: All group-oriented behaviours require group selection (E.O. Wilson "The Social Conquest of Earth") Groups are defined by mating preference (E. Panferov "In Prase of In-group Preference") Males extend their mating choice to their children thus furthering the expression of group affiliation In regard to group-oriented behaviours females evolve disloyalty, males evolve loyalty Now we note that an advanced civilization is founded on a complex system of group-oriented strategies, in essence civilization IS an (overgown?) system of social interactions NECESSARILY beneficial to the whole, thus necessitating for its emergence group selection, and originating from simpler group-oriented bahaviours such as altruism, especially coupled with anti-cheating strategies. (I wanted to give you a hyperlink but I forgot where have I written this article) Therefore everything that lays foundation for a civilization and provides for its evolutionary development depends on males' mating choices as opposed to female mating choices! (May I shout for Kevin MacDonald here?) By impeding the female mating choice males not only removed the opposition to furthering their group loyalty, but also doubled their selective power in favour of their group's self improvement. Call it "patriarchy" if you wish. This is the turning point when the group selection really run amok. Although not being picky maters hthemselves, males are doomed to carry a sophisticated mating strategy, that they can express the best by forcing their mating choice onto their women and their children. This enforcement creates a SPACE for very careful mating choices IN THE INTEREST OF ONE'S GROUP. In "patriarchy" the male gender itself becomes a selective pressure in favour of traits (mostly behaviour) beneficial to a group, and over thousands generations resulting in super thoroughly developed groups called civilizations.