Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How culture drives behavior
How culture drives behavior
Similarities between non-human primates and humans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How culture drives behavior
Brettell and Sargent open their book Gender in Cross Cultural Perspectives with a question: What is the role of biology in human behaviour (Brettell and Sargent, 2009, 1). Ward and Edelstein approach this question using cross-species analysis. They compare chimpanzee biology and behaviour to humans. There are four reasons that Ward uses comparisons to chimpanzees. First, because chimpanzees represent our closest genetic relative and second, the social activities and behaviours may be reflective of human ancestors. Third, cross-species analysis is the best way to overcome cultural biases (Ward and Edelstien , 2009, 101). Finally, there is extensive and scientifically recognized body of work on the relationship between biology and behaviour.
Several of the authors also use cross-species analysis and studies to compare humans to animal models of behaviour. When using biological models to explain human behaviour, there is the fear of the justification of sexism (Zuk, 2009, 7). Stereotypes often arise from the animal kingdom (Zuk, 2009, 7).This can pose a problem for accepting biology as an explanation for gender in modern humans. Zuk counters this belief, promoting an understanding of the biology of human sexual behaviour through an examination of animal models (Zuk, 2009, 8). Ehrenberg presents primate models to show the lack of difference biologically between males and females (Zuk, 2009, 17). Ward also uses primate models, specifically chimpanzees and baboons, to illustrate the similarities between humans and animals (Ward and Edelstien , 2009, 101).
Zuk does warn against attempting to use animal models as a single model for the origin of sex roles as the animal kingdom represents a wide variety of sexual behaviours including int...
... middle of paper ...
...roline B., and Carolyn F. Sargent, eds. 2009. Gender in Cross-cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ehrenberg, Margaret. 2009. ``The Role of Women In Human Evolution``. In Gender in Cross-cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Martin, Emily. 1991. ``The egg and the sperm: how science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles``.
Peach, Lucinda J. 2009. ``Gender and War: Are Women Tough Enough for Military Combat``. In Gender in Cross-cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 21-32.
Zuk, Marlene. 2009. ``Animal Models and Gender``. In Gender in Cross-cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ward, Martha and Monica Edelstein. 2009. A World Full of Women, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
To begin, I think it is important to analyze the difference between “sex” and “gender”. Up until researching for this paper, I though that the two terms were interchangeable in meaning, rather, they are separate ideas that are connected. According to Mary K. Whelan, a Doctor of Anthropology focusing on gender studies, sex and gender are different. She states, “Western conflation of sex and gender can lead to the impression that biology, and not culture, is responsible for defining gender roles. This is clearly not the case.”. She continues with, “Gender, like kinship, does have a biological referent, but beyond a universal recognition of male and female "packages," different cultures have chosen to associate very different behaviors, interactions, and statuses with men and women. Gender categories are arbitrary constructions of culture, and consequently, gender-appropriate behaviors vary widely from culture to culture.” (23). Gender roles are completely defined by the culture each person lives in. While some may think that another culture is sexist, or dem...
Wood, J. T. (2011). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. (9th ed ed., pp. 1-227). Boston,MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
...socially directed hormonal instructions which specify that females will want to have children and will therefore find themselves relatively helpless and dependent on males for support and protection. The schema claims that males are innately aggressive and competitive and therefore will dominate over females. The social hegemony of this ideology ensures that we are all raised to practice gender roles which will confirm this vision of the nature of the sexes. Fortunately, our training to gender roles is neither complete nor uniform. As a result, it is possible to point to multitudinous exceptions to, and variations on, these themes. Biological evidence is equivocal about the source of gender roles; psychological androgyny is a widely accepted concept. It seems most likely that gender roles are the result of systematic power imbalances based on gender discrimination.9
The gender binary of Western culture dichotomizes disgendered females and males, categorizing women and men as opposing beings and excluding all other people. Former professor of Gender Studies Walter Lee Williams argues that gender binarism “ignores the great diversity of human existence,” (191) and is “an artifact of our society’s rigid sex-roles” (197). This social structure has proved detrimental to a plethora of people who fall outside the Western gender dichotomy. And while this gender-exclusive system is an unyielding element of present day North American culture, it only came to be upon European arrival to the Americas. As explained by Judith Lorber in her essay “Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender”, “gender is so pervasive in our society we assume it is bred into our genes” (356). Lorber goes on to explain that gender, like culture, is a human production that requires constant participation (358).
In order to understand the present lifestyles relating to different approaches and tactics applied by humans in mate choice preferences, there is the need to refer to Darwin (1859, 1871) evolutionary perspectives. Darwin (1871) sexual selection is the driving force for males and females reproductive quest for their genes survival. These driving forces have been classified into two categories as intra-sexual and intersexual mate selection.Intersexual selection is male sexual selection process whereby males compete with other males and the females choose the strongest as their ideal partner. Intra-sexual selection occurs when the male species fight among themselves and the strongest gain access to females for
However, many of our questions still remain. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the physical aspect of gender differences in humans, otherwise known as sexual dimorphism, it’s evolutionary history in our species, and some behavioral and societal trends that are associated with it. To accomplish this, I will begin by outlining the anatomical structures that are commonly used in measuring sexual dimorphism in our species. After establishing these criteria, I will expand upon the evolutionary history of sexual dimorphism in humans beginning with the anthropoids in the Oligocene and ending with present day trends.
There are many different facets to the nature versus nurture argument that has been going on for decades. One of these, the influence of nature and nurture on gender roles and behaviors, is argued well by both Deborah Blum and Aaron Devor, both of whom believe that society plays a large role in determining gender. I, however, have a tendency to agree with Blum that biology and society both share responsibility for these behaviors. The real question is not whether gender expression is a result of nature or nurture, but how much of a role each of these plays.
This article, titled Common Ground, written by Barbara Smuts, points out the main differences between humans and apes, such as our upright stance, large brains, and capacity for spoken language and abstract reasoning. However, the main point of this article is to emphasize the many similarities that apes share with us. Smuts goes into great detail about how human social and emotional tendencies are very reflective in the family of apes.
Ortner, S. (1996) Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture? Retrieved from http://moodle.csun.edu
Ruby, J. (2005, November 1). Women in Combat Roles: Is That the Question?. Off Our Backs,35, 36.
In his lecture, primatologist Robert Sapolsky explains the uniqueness of humans as well as our similarities to other primates. In doing so, he broke it down into six points of interest: aggression, theory of mind, the golden rule, empathy, pleasure in anticipation and gratification postponement, and lastly, culture. Professor Sapolsky approaches each point with interesting fact-based examples thus allowing me to gain insight on humans and other primates. Sapolsky’s knowledge of primates along with his scientific background allows him to make a clear argument that one cannot simply ignore.
perspective on the concept, arguing that gender is a cultural performance. Her careful reading of
Renzetti, C. M., Curran, D. J., & Maier, S. L. (2012). Women, men, and society. Boston: Pearson.
Martin, Emily. "The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles." Gender, Sex, and Sexuality. New York: Oxford University, 2009. 248-53. Print.
In order to grasp the concept of social construction of gender, it is essential to understand the difference between sex and gender. Biologically, there are only two reproductive genital organs that are determinants of sex: the vagina and the penis. Sex is established solely through biological structures; in other words, genitalia are the basis of sex. Once a sex category is determined, gender, a human categorization socially attached to sex, is assigned based on anatomy. Gender typically references social or cultural differen...