The problem with saying that curiosity is an advantage for early communities is how then to explain why, for example, it took 1,200 years - 48 generations - for the idea of growing wheat and barley to spread from southern Italy (6200 BC) to the south of France (5000 BC). And it's not because there was no contact between the people either - seashells from Greek beaches have been found in Dutch archeological sites, so there was definitely extensive long-distance trade in Europe at this time. The only explanation I can see is a massive conservatism that's almost inconceivable to modern eyes... because when you're living on the edge of survival, it only takes a couple of adults dying before their time - or wandering off - to threaten the entire clan.
That said, both the Eve and the Pandora myths come from settled agricultural or pastoral societies, not hunter-gatherers. Curiosity is even less valuable to people whose life consists of growing the same crop year in, year out... and while it might be less dangerous in an absolute sense, structured societies have religious, political and social heirarchies which can feel threatened by talk of change. That could explain why the elites of such cultures developed formal myths to explain to people why curiosity was a bad thing.
As for the gender difference, perhaps it's something like this. Curiosity in a [male] leader is good: it's a sign of boldness, risk-taking, innovation, strength of character. Men who aspire to leadership would want to emulate such characteristics; but for the rest, obedience and honour (where 'honour' = always doing what's expected of someone in your social position) are stressed. Since women weren't supposed to aspire to leadership - and from a male perspective, had a dangerous tendency to cluster in little groups talking about who-knows-what - curiosity was always dangerous for them.
no subject
That said, both the Eve and the Pandora myths come from settled agricultural or pastoral societies, not hunter-gatherers. Curiosity is even less valuable to people whose life consists of growing the same crop year in, year out... and while it might be less dangerous in an absolute sense, structured societies have religious, political and social heirarchies which can feel threatened by talk of change. That could explain why the elites of such cultures developed formal myths to explain to people why curiosity was a bad thing.
As for the gender difference, perhaps it's something like this. Curiosity in a [male] leader is good: it's a sign of boldness, risk-taking, innovation, strength of character. Men who aspire to leadership would want to emulate such characteristics; but for the rest, obedience and honour (where 'honour' = always doing what's expected of someone in your social position) are stressed. Since women weren't supposed to aspire to leadership - and from a male perspective, had a dangerous tendency to cluster in little groups talking about who-knows-what - curiosity was always dangerous for them.