Skip to content
Model
The Sex Wars Costs
The economic and social costs of “sex wars” are rooted in structural conflicts over survival strategies shaped by reproductive differences. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, . While part of this difference may be attributed to non-paid baby care, this gap may highlight the costs of conflicts in traditional relationships over ownership of DNA, offspring memory, social and tangible assets extortion by manipulated of transactions of the couple.
The study of Y (male) chromosome reproduction over the last 75,000 contributes to the following speculations on the reproduction strategies conflicts.
Women, as the primary incubators of offspring, leverage their reproductive scarcity to A) drive , while simultaneously B) from non-alpha males.
To overcome investor resistance, strategies have evolved that reduce transactional transparency, such as emotional and less logical communication, and sunk-cost tactics like child hostaging to manipulate prices in relational transactions to facilitate transfer of assets.
Alpha males, meanwhile, aim to maximize genetic spread while assisting females in extracting resources from less-dominant males. This dynamic leads investing males to enforce restrictions on female exposure to alpha males, often through incentives like homemaking roles, reinforcing the wage gap and constraining women’s professional output.
While the sexual selection benefits of the above strategies have diminished with the introduction of constraints such as religious norms, contraception, and DNA testing, this does not imply a proportional reduction in costs. Instinct-driven strategies that fall short of contributing to the value creation in sexual selection may still generate unnecessary and avoidable costs.
Key strategies to reduce the costs of the “sex wars” :
The strategies to enhance the social currency alpha (we are not yet able to change own DNA, but we are able to change the more important part of the survival information - social currency) :
Same-sex couples earn approximately 17% more than opposite-sex couples (11.5% could be attributed to the kids wage gap which is a mix of the conflicts costs and unpaid babycare)
A) Females drive sexual selection toward high-value “alpha” DNA
Over 75,000 Years: Males 4x Less Likely Than Females to Pass on DNA, with Top 25% of Men Fathering Nearly All Surviving Offspring—Extreme Cases Show 1 Male to 15 Females Ratio.
B) Females securing investments from non-alpha males (to secure expansion of offsprings as per the below examples).
Top 33% by Asset Ownership Double and Displace Low-Ownership Group Within Three Generations (for Squirrels and Hyaenas). Humans’ assets should have higher share of social currency such as their networks and survival strategies - more vulnerable to the sex wars conflicts comparing to tangible assets.
PS. Example of transfer pricing manipulation:
Person A pays $100 on behalf of Person B at her request, even though it is not obligatory or part of a contract. In return, Person A expects to receive social currency (e.g., a “gratitude note”) to be reciprocated later. While the price of $100 bill is not easy to manipulate, Person B may claim the gesture caused negative consequences worth -$200, turning the balance of the gratitude note into -$100. In essence, the “gratitude note” is counterfeited into a liability by adding a minus to the price of the note. Counterfeiting money carries penalties of up to 20 years in prison, yet the analogous counterfeiting of social currency often goes unpunished, enabling widespread misuse to transfer assets from A in such transactions.
Ref.
Zeng, T.C., Aw, A.J. & Feldman, M.W. Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck. Nat Commun 9, 2077 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04375-6
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.