Introduction
The topic of gender differences must understandably be
approached with caution in our modern world. Emotionally
charged and fraught with ideas about political correctness,
gender can be a difficult subject to address, particularly
when discussed in correlation to behavior and social
behavior. Throughout history, many people have strove to
understand what makes men and women different. Until the
modern era, this topic was generally left up to religious
leaders and philosophers to discuss. However, with the
acquisition of more specialized medical knowledge of human
physiology and the advent of anthropology, we now know a
great deal more about gender differences than at any other
point in history. 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. I will conclude this paper by
discussing some of the behavioral traits that have been
thought to correlate with differing degrees of sexual
dimorphism and their plausibility.
Anatomical Structures Used to Study Human Sexual Dimorphism
To discuss sexual dimorphism, one must first define
the term. Webster’s Dictionary defines sexual dimorphism
as “the condition in which differences i...
... middle of paper ...
...
Bindon, Jim
2004 Fossil Hominids. ANT 270 Notes.
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant270/lectures/
hominids1.pdf
Delson, Eric
1981 Paleoanthropology: Pliocene and Pleistocene
Human Evolution. Paleobiology, 7:3:298-305.
Frayer, David W. and Milford Walpoff
1985 Sexual Dimorphism. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 14:429-473
Key, Catherine A.
2000 The Evolution of Human Life History. World
Archaeology, 31:3:329-350.
Mitani, J.C. et al
1996 Sexual Dimorphism, the Operational Sex Ratio,
and the Intensity of Male Competition in
Polygamous Primates. The American Naturalist,
147:6:966-980.
Rogers, Alan R. and Arindam Mukherjee
1992 Quantitative Genetics of Sexual Dimorphism in
Human Body Size. Evolution,46:1:226-334.
Wolpoff, Milford H.
1976 Some Aspects of the Evolution of Early Hominid
Sexual Dimorphism. Current Anthropology
18:4:579-606.
In his peer-reviewed article, “Sexing fossils: a boy named Lucy?,” James Shreeve discusses, in detail, a study on sexual dimorphism and possible speciation in Australopithecines in Hadar, Ethiopia, based on the famous A. afarensis specimen, “Lucy.” In the article, “Lucy’s kind takes humanlike turn,” the author addresses sexual dimorphism and speculates on sex-based differences in behaviors in A. afarensis. The two articles have differences and commonalities with each other in content and both present research methods and conclusions on topics including sexual dimorphism, sex-based behaviors, and speciation in Australopithecines, which receive critical analysis.
"Human Evolution: Hobbit Small, But Not Stunted." Nature 482.7384 (2012): 135. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Stringer, C. B. & Hublin, J-J. (1999). New age estimates for the Swanscombe hominid and their significance for human evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 37, 873–877.
Feder and Park present a list of traits that are used by paleoanthropologists to distinguish the appearance of skeletal features and characterize these changes over time. Th...
Discovering two unknown fossil hominin species at two different locations is incredibly lucky and exciting. However, what is even more incredible is the information we can extrapolate from our findings. The Praenthropus dimorphicus and the Praeanthropus monomorphicus are the two species that we have unearthed the remains of and can effectively detail a number of their respective characteristics. Based strictly on the knowledge of living primates and deductive reasoning, we are able to reconstruct the socio-ecology of both species in terms of their habitat, ranging behavior and territoriality, diet, group size, and mating systems.
Reproduction in Homo sapiens, as in all animals, is a primary driving force and has been elaborated upon since the beginnings of society. Humans must take part in sexual reproduction to produce offspring, thus initiation behaviors can be studied. Commonly, the male makes advances and the female is the selector, or chooses the mate. For humans, this holds true and behavior is modified to maximize competitive receptability. This phenomenon carries across all cultural boundaries and is deeply rooted in the overall behavior patterns in the people of the culture. People try to refine their natural appearance to maximize mating opportunity. The males attempt to enhance features for success in initiation and females compete for receptability completeness.
Particular behaviour and traits are attached with a specified gender. Due to this, the social learning and classification founded on gender are swiftly imbibed into by an individual. Children become aware of the distinction between male and female and definite social responsibility that each gender has to perform in society (Blakemore & hill 2008 , and Goffman 1977 ). Women are often viewed as tender and subtle and men are regarded as more competent to bear pain and rough and tough. Therefore, women are considered as weaker sex. In relationship, the women are the end and men are supposed to be follower or chaser. Women are physically weak and smaller compared to men and physical strength is vested with male realm (Goffman 1977
Shubin, N.H., & Marshall, C.R. 2000. Fossils, genes and the origin of novelty. Paleobiology, 26(4): 324-340.
Australopithecus afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. The distinctive characteristics of A. afarensis were: a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, no chin, more humanlike teeth, pelvis and leg bones resembled those of modern man. Females were smaller than males. Their sexual dimorphism was males:females; 1.5. A. afarensis was not as sexually dimorphic as gorillas, but more sexually dimorphic than humans or chimpanzees. A lot of scientists think that Australopithecus afarensis was partially adapted to climbing the trees, because the fingers and toe bones of the species were curved and longer than the ones of the modern human.
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.
My research strives to answer the presence and degree of interbreeding between Neanderthal and Modern humans. Researchers use different comparisons of the fossil record, phylogenetic, morphological, and genetic methods to explore these questions in more detail. The literature provided many positive correlations to my hypothesis that Neandertals and Modern Humans interbred on a small-scale basis after the dispersal of modern humans from Africa. The literature also predicts a time frame of likely interbreeding. To explore this question it is important to research article’s explaining the statistical, genetic, and physical evidence associated with possible interbreeding.
This article was written to bring attention to the way men and women act because of how they were thought to think of themselves. Shaw and Lee explain how biology determines what sex a person is but a persons cultures determines how that person should act according to their gender(Shaw, Lee 124). The article brings up the point that, “a persons gender is something that a person performs daily, it is what we do rather than what we have” (Shaw, Lee 126). They ...
In “The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over?” Deborah Blum states that “gender roles of our culture reflect an underlying biology” (Blum 679). Maasik and Solomon argue that gender codes and behavior “are not the result of some sort of natural or biological destiny, but are instead politically motivated cultural constructions,” (620) raising the question whether gender behavior begins in culture or genetics. Although one may argue that gender roles begin in either nature or nurture, many believe that both culture and biology have an influence on the behavior.
The evidence for human evolution begins with the australopithecines. All the australopithecines were bipedal and therefore possible hominines. In details of their teeth, jaws, and brain size, however, they modify enough among themselves to be divided into five species: Australopithecus anamensis, A. afarensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, and A. boisei. Genus Homo are also divided in five different spices: Homo erectus, H. habilis, H. sapiens, and H. sapiens sapiens.
Homo erectus is also known for its larger body compared to earlier ancestors. "Past estimates of Homo erectus stature frequently were in the 5-5 1/2 feet (152-168 cm) range for adult males and arou...