Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
*** Dimorphism and Sex Roles
The relationship between
*** dimorphism and sex roles
among hominids
is based in a distant evolutionary beginning.
The most basic reason for this relationship
is the fact that females
give birth to, and breastfeed young,
whereas males cannot physically do this.
An argument for the existance
of *** dimorphism
is that competition between males
to secure a genetic line,
whereas females are assured
of passing on their genes every time.
There is also speculation that
sex roles have created *** dimorphism.
The genetic and physical basis
for the segregation of the sexes
at a fundamental level
does not explain a culturally enforced sex roles - or gender roles.
While there is a definite link between
*** dimorphism and basic sex role functions
such as breastfeeding early hominoids,
there is no strong connection for *** dimorphism and sex roles
(or gender roles) in humans.
Humans have used
this culture to surpass the need
of biology -
for example,the woman does not
need to be the primary care giver
or gatherer, and the man does not
necessarily have to be the hunter
or protector.
The basic *** differences and functions
of male and female hominoids
may have caused initial differences in sex roles,
but would not have created the present-day gender roles
constructed primarily by culture.
In 'The Female Animal'
ELIA lists numerous possibilities
as to why *** dimorphism
arose within hominoids,
including early maturation of females
and thus earlier and longer reproductive cycles.
This may be an explanation
for the presence of *** dimorphism
with human kinds early ancestors,
and consequently in most present day hominoids.
The early maturation of females
would mean that
females who naturally matured earlier
would be sexually selected,
thus passing on the genetic material
for this trait.
Eventually all females would be maturing at an earlier age,
and thus would be smaller due to this early maturation.
Males would need to
be larger to compete
with each other
for the chance to mate with a female
and thus passing on the genetic material.
Traits such as agression and psysically larger
size would then be selected for by default.
So, most hominoid females
would be smaller, and most hominoid males, would be larger.
Due to this difference
in female and male
physique, it may have been
more convenient for the two sexes
to assume their assorted gender roles,
thus creating the basis for the sex roles
present today.
Another possible explanation for
the evolution of the sex roles
and *** dimorphism is that
sex roles created *** dimorphism -
that is, mans role as hunter predisposed him
to stronger muscles and a larger build,
and woman's role as caretaker predisposed
her to a smaller frame.
This explanation is the reversed order or appearance of roles in
form, however, does not justify or explain the existance
of current
gender roles such as
'public man / private woman'
where women do the majority of
unpaid or private work,
or the assumtion that males are
better equipped to handle certain
situations such as politics.
As EPSTEIN puts it "no one disputes
that males and females
possess different reproductive biological organs
and secondary *** characteristics
But there is considerable debate
as to whether they have different basic
emotion and congnitive attributes as well".
GROSS points out that
sex roles and *** dimorphism show
no signs of being connected
when studied in the closest
ape relatives to humans.
This means, after taking
away the constraints of human culture,
a direct connection between *** dimorphism and sex roles
still cannot be seen;
therefore it is highly unlikely
that they are related in any real sense.
Or, to put it another way, the physical differences
between the sexes do not account
for the social differences.
So in conclusion, while it is difficult
to prove whether
sex roles created *** dimorphism,
or if sex roles were a natural adaptation
stemming from a need to survive,
it is obvious that sex roles
did not arise purely from *** dimorphism.
As stated earlier, it has been shown
that there is no direct connection between *** dimorphism
and sex roles with apes,
and using these hominoids
for a culturally-free comparison,
it is highly possible that *** dimorphism
holds no strong relationship to
sex roles for humans either.
Even if there was a connection
between *** dimorphism
and sex roles for humans in the distant past,
there is no reason now to continue
this connection.
The differing secondary sex traits between
male and female humans are becoming
less pronounced as well as having been made almost redundant
by technology.
For present day humans any disadvantages
encountered by a *** dimorphic species
can now be resolved by applying our
advanced intelligence and flexible culture
to the problem.
Therefore by considering the previous
information it is quite clear that sex roles
and *** dimorphism are not strongly connected
for either apes or humans.