The Evolutionary History of Men and Women Does Not Prevent Us from Seeking Gender Equality

March 15, 2022

Author/Author: Ph.D. Beatrice Alba -Lecturer- La Trobe University

Translator/Translator:  Doan Thi Ngoc – Teacher-Lecturer, Hoa Sen University (HSU)

People often think that men are more aggressive and promiscuous than women.

These are just two examples of statements related to the research findings of evolutionary psychologists.

If these statements or conclusions are correct, this raises concerns that our biology may prevent us from moving toward gender equality. However, I argue that THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE INACCURATE and that we need to understand our evolutionary history to overcome gender inequality.

WHAT IS EVOLUTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY?

Research shows that males and females—women and men, including girls and boys—have many psychological differences. The field of evolutionary psychology attempts to explain these differences in terms of biological adaptation. In essence, this means examining the different reproductive challenges faced by the sexes throughout the species’ history and linking them to psychological and behavioral traits.

For example, evolutionary psychologists argue that males are more aggressive than females because they can gain greater access to females by competing fiercely with other males. Men are said to be willing to engage in casual sex with women because they can greatly increase their species by doing so, while women benefit more from being choosy due to their needs for pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Women tend to prefer mates who are taller and have better status because such men are seen as better protectors and service providers. Conversely, men tend to prefer a more physically attractive partner, whose characteristics are considered most attractive in women as signals of greater fertility, such as youth and physical health.

Sexual, physical, psychological, and behavioral differences likely make men more likely to dominate women, and women appear less able to resist male dominance.

However, gender differences are a matter of degree rather than differences of kind. For example, it’s true that biologically, men are naturally taller than women, but that doesn’t mean that women can’t help but be taller than men, and men can’t help but be shorter than women. It’s just that when calculated on average, men are usually taller and women are usually shorter. The same principle applies to the other differences described above.

NATURAL or NURTURE?

Many people reject evolutionary biological explanations for sex differences, preferring to attribute those differences to culture and social context.

However, we find evidence of such gender differences around the world. Furthermore, explaining something as “just cultural” does not explain why a certain cultural norm exists in the first place. It also does not explain why we find sex differences in behavior in many animals other than humans.

There is no reason to think that Homo sapiens is a special case where everything can be explained by culture and nothing by biology. Finally, twin studies show that a large degree of individual differences can be explained by genetics – not just the circumstances in which you were raised and lived.

The rejection of evolutionary explanations for sex differences is often an emotional reaction: people feel uncomfortable with these ideas because the picture they paint of human nature is not beautiful. But the fact that something is unattractive doesn’t make it wrong. Some feminists may worry that such explanations imply that if gender inequality is natural then it is inevitable, and perhaps even justifiable.

DOES NATURAL = NECESSARY?

Regardless of whether you find evolutionary explanations for sex differences convincing or not, is there any reason to worry that they might be true? The biological basis for sex differences implies that gender inequality is “determined” by biology.

If you accept the evolutionary explanation for these sex differences, you might be inclined to conclude that gender inequality is biological. If this is your view, then perhaps you can accept that male domination of females is in some sense “natural” for humans, as it is for many other species, including the closest living relative to us.

But just because male dominance may in some sense be natural to our species does not mean it is necessary. This is a classic case of the “ought” fallacy – the false conclusion that what is required and even “right” is determined by what is natural.

Evolution is a mindless process that does not follow the principles of morality. “Survival of the fittest” simply describes the process of successfully introducing genes into the genome. It operates without regard to what is right or wrong, or what makes us happy. The fact that something may be human nature does not mean it is good, and in many cases, it is the opposite.

UNDERSTAND HUMAN NATURE

It is a mistake to think that an evolutionary explanation for gender inequality is bad news for feminism. Explaining human behavior is not the same as justifying or defending it. But if we want to change our society for the better, perhaps we need an accurate understanding of human nature.

Importantly, evolutionary explanations do not imply that human behavior is “determined” by our genes, and is therefore inflexible. Evolution has given us a preference for foods high in sugar, which is rare in the environment in which the species evolved. But this doesn’t mean we can’t control ourselves and avoid those foods in the modern environment where sweet foods are always available. Our desires for such foods are also flexible; How much we crave them depends on how accustomed we are to consuming them.

We can approach the issue of gender inequality in the same way. Perhaps our evolutionary past favors males dominating females, and females are valued over males. However, accepting history as the source of gender differences is not accepting that it is our future. We are not machines, but have minds and morals, so we are not bound by our instincts or impulses.

Many societies have made progress on gender equality even though they have had to work hard to achieve it. If we want to continue that progress, we must understand the roots of the inequality we want to fight. It will be difficult to change behavior if we are not aware of why we do it . This idea is perhaps best expressed by evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright in his book Ethical Animals:

Understanding the controlling nature of unconscious genetic inheritance is the first step to understanding that – in many areas, not just gender – we are all puppets and our best hope is whether even a partial liberation is trying to decipher the logic of the puppets…

I don’t think I’m spoiling the end of the movie by noting here that the puppeteer seems completely unconcerned with the well-being of the puppets.

The question of gender equality, progress, and justice in all areas requires awareness and understanding of the forces that make us who we are. 

The Conversation newspaper and author Beatrice Alba allowed Gendertalkviet to translate into Vietnamese and post the full text. On behalf of the Gender Talk Editorial Board, we would like to send our sincere thanks to the Author and The Conversation Newspaper for allowing us to republish the full text. The contributions of The Conversation Newspaper and the author are very valuable and meaningful.   

Vietnamese Link: 

Original link:  https://theconversation.com/the-evolutionary-history-of-men-and-women-should-not-prevent-us-from-seeking-gender-equality-88703