Gilligan’s (1982) refinement of Kohlberg’s theory on moral development operates on two theses: (1) females, more so than males, reach moral decisions based on the personalities of the relevant individuals; and (2) female behaviors stemming from moral decisions are based upon “care” and “responsibility for others.” This article accepts the first thesis but argues that the second is incorrect. That is, self-interest—i.e., aiding “blood” kin and/or carefully monitoring reciprocity—rather than “altruism” is argued to be the operant dynamic in forging distaff (...) morality and resultant behavior. Six empirical examples are presented as contraindicative of Gilligan’s second thesis. Finally, it is suggested that selection for the psychological traits of independence and the mastery of subtle social chess yielded ancestral females who had more descendants—us—than did females with alternative profiles. (shrink)

In a parallel truism, everyone alive in the year 2200 AD will be able to trace his or her lineal ancestry to a parental stock in the year 200 AD. This book ...

Independent samples of women were surveyed to test Trivers and Willard’s hypothesis that the mother’s condition and her ability to invest in her offspring affect the (secondary) sex ratio of her offspring. Patterns of sex ratios (number of males per 100 females) were analyzed in conjunction with four attributes of a mother’s microenvironment: level of health in her community, family structure, relative access to resources, and her birthing history. The results inferentially support the hypothesis that the microenvironment of the woman (...) would act to bias the sex ratio of her offspring. These specific data lend support to Trivers and Willard’s general hypothesis. (shrink)