Biology Is Destiny In The Context Of Gender Development
Terri Melvin
What do you understand by the term ‘Biology is Destiny’ in the context of
Gender Development? Discuss theories for and against.
How do women become women? How do men become men? Are we assigned our gender roles at birth, or do we become male or female over time? Simone de
Beauvoir (1965) said “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman”. This means that women learn over time to be female and men learn to be male. Is this assumption correct? Or are we given a gender role based on our anatomy, genetic and hormonal make up? Biological determinists claim that human behaviour and social organisation are biologically (genetically) determined. Cultural determinists on the other hand, assume that human behaviour and our evolutionary success …show more content…
rests on adaptation to our environment which relies on cultural learning. I will be looking at these theories in reference to gender development to determine if in fact gender is inborn or acquired.
In this essay I will be attempting to show the differences between these two opposing ideas and the implications it has for men and women today.
I will compare examples of ’masculine’ and ‘feminine‘ cross-culturally and briefly talk about inequality within gender and how this has emerged and changed through time.
The distinction between sex and gender is a fairly recent distinction in itself. The
American psychoanalyst Robert Stoller (1968) was the first to make the distinction between sex and gender. He made the rather obvious observation that the vast majority of people can be placed into either sex according to their genitalia and other secondary sex characteristics. It is due to these differences that women are capable of bearing and suckling children while men are generally stronger and more muscular.
Stoller said:
“Gender is a term that has psychological and cultural connotations, if the proper terms for sex are ‘male’ and ‘female’, the corresponding terms for gender are ,’masculine’ and ‘feminine’; these latter might be quite independent of (biological) sex (Stoller,
1968, p.9) .
It would therefore be wrong to assume that being a woman guarantees that she is
‘feminine’ as it would be wrong to assume a man to display ‘masculine’ traits. It …show more content…
does not always follow that girls are caring and compassionate and that boys are aggressive and competitive.
In very simple terms this implies that our sex is determined by biological factors and gender is something that we learn. Gender is socially constructed and is the meaning that society assigns to sex. Richard Mulcaster (1581), headmaster of the famous
Merchant Taylors School commented: “Nature makes the boy toward, nurture sees him forward”. Even though nature plays a role in defining sex and gender, nurture plays the greater part in helping society define the two terms.
So it is widely accepted that it is ‘natural’ for men and women to behave differently and there are many theories and thoughts surrounding this. The two main schools of thought further explore the idea that we are biologically destined, in terms of sex and gender, are theories which support the idea that we are biologically determined versus the intervention of cultural/social construction, through such things as primary and secondary socialisation, which mould and create who we become.
Biological Determinism is centred around the premise that biology is the sole determinant of who we are as a person, based on whether we are male or female and the characteristics that each of the sexes possess. The term biological determinism buys into the idea that certain behaviours are justified and there is little that we can do to change what biology has predestined for us.
Sociobiology, which was first, developed by E.O.Wilson (1975) and was later applied to sex and gender by David Barash (1979) is loosely based on Darwin’s theory of evolution whereby humans have evolved through a process of natural selection. This is a process which involves men and women specifically choosing the strongest and fittest mate in order to survive as a species. Sociobiologists strongly believe that behaviour is governed by a genetic instruction to maximise the chances of passing on genes to future generations by way of breeding, thus ensuring offspring survival.
Barash suggests that men and women occupy different social roles. This he explains by way of the contrasting reproductive strategies that men and women employ. In short, men produce millions of sperm in there life time whereas women usually produce one egg at a time and invest much time and energy into each offspring. She is therefore choosy about her mate while he will be more concerned in ‘sowing his seed’ ensuring species survival. The theory suggests that it is purely this need for procreation and a passing on of his genes that gives the male a reason to exhibit promiscuous sexual and aggressive behaviour. Barash says “it pays men to be aggressive, hasty, fickle and indiscriminating. In theory, it is more profitable for women to be coy, to hold back until they can identify males with the best possible genes.” Barash refers to the advantages for men in ‘playing fast and loose’, and having a ‘love ‘em and leave ‘em’ attitude. Wilson then goes on to suggest this is the explanation for rape by males!
Critics would say that it is wrong to assume a direct link between patterns of inheritance and behaviour in humans as there is no scientific evidence to prove this exists. Human behaviour is shaped by environment and not by instinct as in the animal world. Ruth Bleier (1984) accuses sociobiology as being ethnocentric. To assume that females are ‘coy’ and males ‘aggressive’ the world over is naive. Oakley
(1972) points out that there are many societies where women frequently take the initiative in sexual relationships and to describe them as ‘coy’ would not be fitting.
Sociobiology attempts to explain ‘universal’ human behaviour which is far from being universal. A further criticism is that the evidence used to support their theory is selective and is taken largely from the animal world. For example, it ignores all examples of animal species where the male exhibits aggressive and dominant behaviour. Many Feminists have little regard for sociobiology and see it as a somewhat fraudulent attempt to provide ‘scientific’ justification for male power. I would suggest that apart from the rather sexist outlook this theory embraces, the way it attempts to justify rape and male sexual promiscuity is worrying, due to its almost condoning connotations. Neither does it have any explanations for behaviours such as homosexuality, transgender or voluntary celibacy.
Tiger and Fox (1975) say that men and women are programmed by ‘programmers’.
Women are programmed to be the bearers of children and men are hunters and gatherers. They suggested this led to a perfectly natural division of labour between the sexes, as is the view of anthropologist G.P.Murdock (1949). However, Murdock argued that it was biological differences such as physical strength of a man and the
fact that women bear children. He believed that it is simply sheer practicality that leads to gender roles. He said, due to biological differences between men and women, the most efficient way to organise society was through a ‘sexual division of labour’. Murdock did a cross-cultural survey of 224 societies, ranging from hunting and gathering to modern-nation states. He looked at the roles assigned to men and women and discovered that tasks such as hunting, lumbering and mining to be predominantly male roles and cooking, vegetable gathering, water carrying and repairing clothes to be tasks assigned to females. Due to child bearing and nursing the woman is tied to the home and her physique limits her to less strenuous activities.
Murdock found evidence of this sexual division of labour present in all of the societies he studied. He concluded that “the advantages inherent in a division of labour by sex presumably account for its universality”.
Those that support the biological view of gender determination make some valid points with evidence to support their claims but the same can be said of the cultural constructionist view of sex and gender. Ann Oakley (1974) fiercely rejects this notion of natural division of labour. She says “Not only is the division of labour by sex not universal, but there is no reason why it should be. Humans are diverse and endlessly variable. They owe their creation to human inventiveness rather than invincible biological forces”. She also pointed out that Murdock ignored his own evidence. Of the 224 different cultures he studied, in 14 of those societies women were either exclusively or jointly involved in lumbering and that in 36 societies women were solely responsible for clearing land. These two activities would usually be credited to men by biological theorists, due to physical strength.
So Ann Oakley (1974) can use a biologist’s investigation to support her own theories even though she has opposing views. Oakley believes that primary socialization contributes greatly towards the specialisation of gender roles in modern industrialised societies. Boys and girls are socialised into a set of behaviours based on expectations considered appropriate to masculinity and femininity. For example, girls are given dolls, soft toys, and mini domestic objects and appliances to play with, as girls are encouraged to rehearse their expected adult roles as mothers and housewives. Boys, on the other hand, are given toys, which encourage more practical, logical and aggressive behaviour; for example, guns and bricks. She also talked about ‘verbal appellations’, such as, ‘you’re a naughty boy’, or ‘that’s a good girl’ leading children to identify with their gender and to copy adults of the same gender. She argues that a child’s self concept is shaped by ‘manipulation’. Mothers tend to pay more attention to girls’ hair and dress them in a ‘feminine’ way. Exposure to different activities and media stereotypes both contribute to portraying men and women to their traditional social roles. So messages we receive as children verbal or not constantly shape us according to our culture/environment. Indeed this theory has also been criticised in the following way: it does not account for explaining why it is in most western society’s men and not women take the dominant role; recent studies have shown that there is not a rigid pattern to the occurrence of set gender roles but in fact a huge variant within individual societies.
This brings me to the second part of my essay where I will look at the idea of gender development, through the eyes of the Anthropologist, in order to examine a more universal picture. The following evidence, which looks cross culturally, will further examine the development of gender and how it adapts itself within each society, as
suggested by the cultural constructionist view. In other words how is ‘feminine’ and
‘masculine’ experienced in non western societies?
Social anthropologist Margaret Mead (1930’s) carried out an ethnographic study of variations in gender roles. The study was based on field work in three different societies in Papua, New Guinea: The Arapesh, Mundugumor and Tchambuli people.
Mead found dramatic differences in the ways boys and girls are treated. She discovered that the Tchambuli people socialised their male children to be artistic, creative and sentimental. The men were peaceful beings, prone to sit around the village gossiping, making themselves look pretty and they generally took over the role as the female gender. The women on the other hand, with heads shaved, had assumed the lead in most matters, and were competitive and aggressive. They were the hunters and conducted all the trade necessary for their village. Mead concluded that it was a
“classical gender role reversal”. She found that Arapesh men and women both acted in a mild, gentle and responsive manner, similar to that of the western notion on femininity. Mundugumor men and women were both inclined to aggression, conducting warfare in a competitive fashion. Mead’s work provided strong evidence to support the idea that gender is a cultural definition of the differences between men and women. Kottak, (421) said “We can see that the gender roles vary with environment, economy, adaptive strategy and types of political system”.
Colin Turnbull carried out an anthropological study on the Mbuti Pygmy, traditionally a hunter and gatherer society, of the Ituri forest, in what is today north-eastern Congo.
Speaking of the Mbuti women Turnbull says: “She has a full and important role to play. There is relatively little specialisation according to sex. Even the hunt is a joint effort. A man is not ashamed to pick mushrooms and nuts if he finds them, or to wash and clean a baby. A woman is free to take part in the discussions of men, if she has something relevant to say”. Womanhood among the Mbuti is the same as motherhood. The Mbuti do not refer to gender when they refer to children. All children are ‘miki’. Grandparents are all ‘tata’ (elders). The words do not distinguish between male and female children or elders. The only time the Mbuti distinguish between male and female is when speaking of parents. The identity of a woman is different from that of a man because a woman is a mother but in every other way they are equal. Among the Mbuti the women choose the men and the dwelling is seen as belonging more to the woman.
Many Agta women of the Philippines are proficient hunters (Estioko-Griffin1985,
1986 & Griffin 1981, Goodman 1985). They hunt with bows and arrows, machetes, knives, traps and dogs. They regularly hunt wild pig and deer; women alone or in groups kill almost 30 percent of the large game. What is interesting about this study is that it disproves the ‘expendability’ theory which supports the idea of a universal general division of labour whereby men tend to do the dangerous work in society because they are more expendable; reproduction need not suffer as long as fertile women have sexual access to men. This study was also important as it demonstrated that women, child care and hunting were not incompatible with each other. Hunting women would be accompanied by nursing babies. Agta women did not suffer lower reproductive rates and neither was there any evidence of a higher infant mortality rate when compared with non hunting women. It is true to say that they always hunted in large groups, were never very far from home and were accompanied by dogs that would assist in the hunting and protection of the women and babies. Estioko-Griffin
describes the hunting escapades of one of the women: “I recall the time she ran a
deer for two days, until its feet were raw and bloody and exhaustion had slowed it to the point it could be shot...” So in some societies women can not only be mothers but also hunters.
“Gender is not natural and God-given but socially created” (Eriksen 126). Strathern
1988, (p.69) says that in determining what gender is we need to look into “the social and cultural construction of gender… (and) the relationship between constructions of maleness and femaleness”. Gender development has many components and it is very specific to a particular society and its environment, ideologies and economic needs.
With this in mind if we consider gender to be a cultural definition of the differences between men and women, it follows that as culture changes, so do these definitions.
In western culture we have seen a turning point during the Second World War, when women were called to leave the traditional role of housewife and assist the war effort by taking up jobs in factories. Gender specialists point out that in the last 50 years, or more, roles for men and women have changed dramatically. There are various reasons for this. Education is now at a more balanced standard whereas in the past boys were given a huge advantage. Globalisation and changes in industry have had a knock on effect on our gender roles. Machismo is no longer needed in the work place due to increased technological advances; therefore, women in western society can now compete with men on a more equal basis. Due to birth control, the sexual revolution and the right to abortion women can now choose if and when they have a child and whether they wish to work and have a career. The stigma that a women’s place is in the home is no longer applicable in today’s society. In my view there is still some distance to go before women can be truly equal though.
Social attitudes of the Darwinian Theory are reflected in western culture even today.
A ‘double standard’ on men’s and women’s sexuality has arisen by the social disapproval of women’s sexuality. Taken from Llewellyn-Jones’ (1982 p 52) book titled ‘Everywoman’ an excerpt on ‘cultural myths about sex’ describes some consequences of Darwinism on sexual attitudes of sexuality. Llewellyn-Jones writes,
“nice girls don’t have sex”, also that “she is unfeminine unless she marries and becomes a mother” and “sex is a mans responsibility…women should make themselves available to their husbands when he requires a release of sexual tension”.
Yet social expectations of men’s sexuality are different, men are encouraged to “get lucky”, score, pick up and are inclined to compete with peers about sexual conquests”.
Such socially constructed norms as this are responsible for the inequality between the sexes. The anthropologist Michelle Z. Rosaldo (1974) argued that women’s subordination is a consequence of a division of labour between the public and the private (or domestic) world. Rosaldo argues that while females are tied to the home due to biological differences it is not that which limits them but the interpretation it gives: this ’interpretation’ ties them to the raising of children and the general domestic sphere. Men are free to roam the public sphere and are more connected with the abstract rather than the personal. They are well acquainted with politics, religion and authority and use this to their own benefit to exercise power over the domestic units that affect women’s lives. The Mundurucu (Murphy&Murphy 1985) lend their selves to this theory. In the village the Mundurucu women and children live in huts and all the men live together. The men’s house is a construction which is more like a large leaning supported by poles without walls and looks out on to the village where he can monitor events and make important decisions involving the whole village. The
woman’s place is in the home and out on the fields. Linda Imray and Audrey
Middleton (1983) argue that women’s work is devalued in the public sphere as well.
When women take paid employment outside the home their job is often devalued and regarded as being of less importance. Feminists believe that women’s subordination has always been a universal feature of human society. They believe this inequality is largely due to biology or rather its interpretation. There are numerous different opinions that attempt to explain the roots of women’s inequality but it seems to me that this inequality is less apparent within non western societies and yet we take much comfort in being described as a ‘civilised society’!
From the commentary above it is clear that there are many theories for and against the concept that “Biology is Destiny”. There is no disputing that sexually men and women are different. However, depending on the viewpoint you take and the society you look at gender roles can be viewed as reversed. Traditional male roles are performed by women in certain societies and the opposite is true in others. The only consistent factor in all societies is that child rearing is the domain of women. In this context biology is in deed destiny. Across all cultures you do not see a definite relationship between gender and roles. In conclusion, although many people simply believe that the gender roles that exist in society are natural or that they are the result of biology or even Gods will, would in my opinion be wrong. Gender is of course cultural and is learned through primary socialisation and environment. Gender roles in western society today seem undefined. The nuclear family may take many different forms: a child may have parents of the same sex, women can have a child via a sperm bank, and men can adopt children. The traditional role of man as provider and woman as housewife/mother is no longer obligatory and is inter-changeable according to ones needs. Gender is just as clearly undefined in non western societies. The only similarity between us and non-western society, in referring to gender, is in our biological make up. As to the ways of our lives human experience is immensely varied and changeable.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Ember, 1999.Anthropology (Prentice Hall)
Eriksen, T.H. 2001, Small Places, Large Issues (Pluto Press)
Estioko-Griffin, A, OP CIT p 220 ‘Anthropology’- Contemporary Perspectives
Haralambos & Haralambos, 2004, Sociology Themes and Perspectives (Collins)
Keesing, R.M & Strathern A.J. 1998, Cultural Anthropology (Harcourt Brace)
Mead, M. first pub.1935 Sex and Temperament In Three Primitive Societies
Turnbull, C,
The Forest People
WEBSITE: www.newint.org www.worldclass.net
What do you understand by the term ‘Biology is Destiny’ in the context of
Gender Development? Discuss theories for and against.
How do women become women? How do men become men? Are we assigned our gender roles at birth, or do we become male or female over time? Simone de
Beauvoir (1965) said “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman”. This means that women learn over time to be female and men learn to be male. Is this assumption correct? Or are we given a gender role based on our anatomy, genetic and hormonal make up? Biological determinists claim that human behaviour and social organisation are biologically (genetically) determined. Cultural determinists on the other hand, assume that human behaviour and our evolutionary success …show more content…
rests on adaptation to our environment which relies on cultural learning. I will be looking at these theories in reference to gender development to determine if in fact gender is inborn or acquired.
In this essay I will be attempting to show the differences between these two opposing ideas and the implications it has for men and women today.
I will compare examples of ’masculine’ and ‘feminine‘ cross-culturally and briefly talk about inequality within gender and how this has emerged and changed through time.
The distinction between sex and gender is a fairly recent distinction in itself. The
American psychoanalyst Robert Stoller (1968) was the first to make the distinction between sex and gender. He made the rather obvious observation that the vast majority of people can be placed into either sex according to their genitalia and other secondary sex characteristics. It is due to these differences that women are capable of bearing and suckling children while men are generally stronger and more muscular.
Stoller said:
“Gender is a term that has psychological and cultural connotations, if the proper terms for sex are ‘male’ and ‘female’, the corresponding terms for gender are ,’masculine’ and ‘feminine’; these latter might be quite independent of (biological) sex (Stoller,
1968, p.9) .
It would therefore be wrong to assume that being a woman guarantees that she is
‘feminine’ as it would be wrong to assume a man to display ‘masculine’ traits. It …show more content…
does not always follow that girls are caring and compassionate and that boys are aggressive and competitive.
In very simple terms this implies that our sex is determined by biological factors and gender is something that we learn. Gender is socially constructed and is the meaning that society assigns to sex. Richard Mulcaster (1581), headmaster of the famous
Merchant Taylors School commented: “Nature makes the boy toward, nurture sees him forward”. Even though nature plays a role in defining sex and gender, nurture plays the greater part in helping society define the two terms.
So it is widely accepted that it is ‘natural’ for men and women to behave differently and there are many theories and thoughts surrounding this. The two main schools of thought further explore the idea that we are biologically destined, in terms of sex and gender, are theories which support the idea that we are biologically determined versus the intervention of cultural/social construction, through such things as primary and secondary socialisation, which mould and create who we become.
Biological Determinism is centred around the premise that biology is the sole determinant of who we are as a person, based on whether we are male or female and the characteristics that each of the sexes possess. The term biological determinism buys into the idea that certain behaviours are justified and there is little that we can do to change what biology has predestined for us.
Sociobiology, which was first, developed by E.O.Wilson (1975) and was later applied to sex and gender by David Barash (1979) is loosely based on Darwin’s theory of evolution whereby humans have evolved through a process of natural selection. This is a process which involves men and women specifically choosing the strongest and fittest mate in order to survive as a species. Sociobiologists strongly believe that behaviour is governed by a genetic instruction to maximise the chances of passing on genes to future generations by way of breeding, thus ensuring offspring survival.
Barash suggests that men and women occupy different social roles. This he explains by way of the contrasting reproductive strategies that men and women employ. In short, men produce millions of sperm in there life time whereas women usually produce one egg at a time and invest much time and energy into each offspring. She is therefore choosy about her mate while he will be more concerned in ‘sowing his seed’ ensuring species survival. The theory suggests that it is purely this need for procreation and a passing on of his genes that gives the male a reason to exhibit promiscuous sexual and aggressive behaviour. Barash says “it pays men to be aggressive, hasty, fickle and indiscriminating. In theory, it is more profitable for women to be coy, to hold back until they can identify males with the best possible genes.” Barash refers to the advantages for men in ‘playing fast and loose’, and having a ‘love ‘em and leave ‘em’ attitude. Wilson then goes on to suggest this is the explanation for rape by males!
Critics would say that it is wrong to assume a direct link between patterns of inheritance and behaviour in humans as there is no scientific evidence to prove this exists. Human behaviour is shaped by environment and not by instinct as in the animal world. Ruth Bleier (1984) accuses sociobiology as being ethnocentric. To assume that females are ‘coy’ and males ‘aggressive’ the world over is naive. Oakley
(1972) points out that there are many societies where women frequently take the initiative in sexual relationships and to describe them as ‘coy’ would not be fitting.
Sociobiology attempts to explain ‘universal’ human behaviour which is far from being universal. A further criticism is that the evidence used to support their theory is selective and is taken largely from the animal world. For example, it ignores all examples of animal species where the male exhibits aggressive and dominant behaviour. Many Feminists have little regard for sociobiology and see it as a somewhat fraudulent attempt to provide ‘scientific’ justification for male power. I would suggest that apart from the rather sexist outlook this theory embraces, the way it attempts to justify rape and male sexual promiscuity is worrying, due to its almost condoning connotations. Neither does it have any explanations for behaviours such as homosexuality, transgender or voluntary celibacy.
Tiger and Fox (1975) say that men and women are programmed by ‘programmers’.
Women are programmed to be the bearers of children and men are hunters and gatherers. They suggested this led to a perfectly natural division of labour between the sexes, as is the view of anthropologist G.P.Murdock (1949). However, Murdock argued that it was biological differences such as physical strength of a man and the
fact that women bear children. He believed that it is simply sheer practicality that leads to gender roles. He said, due to biological differences between men and women, the most efficient way to organise society was through a ‘sexual division of labour’. Murdock did a cross-cultural survey of 224 societies, ranging from hunting and gathering to modern-nation states. He looked at the roles assigned to men and women and discovered that tasks such as hunting, lumbering and mining to be predominantly male roles and cooking, vegetable gathering, water carrying and repairing clothes to be tasks assigned to females. Due to child bearing and nursing the woman is tied to the home and her physique limits her to less strenuous activities.
Murdock found evidence of this sexual division of labour present in all of the societies he studied. He concluded that “the advantages inherent in a division of labour by sex presumably account for its universality”.
Those that support the biological view of gender determination make some valid points with evidence to support their claims but the same can be said of the cultural constructionist view of sex and gender. Ann Oakley (1974) fiercely rejects this notion of natural division of labour. She says “Not only is the division of labour by sex not universal, but there is no reason why it should be. Humans are diverse and endlessly variable. They owe their creation to human inventiveness rather than invincible biological forces”. She also pointed out that Murdock ignored his own evidence. Of the 224 different cultures he studied, in 14 of those societies women were either exclusively or jointly involved in lumbering and that in 36 societies women were solely responsible for clearing land. These two activities would usually be credited to men by biological theorists, due to physical strength.
So Ann Oakley (1974) can use a biologist’s investigation to support her own theories even though she has opposing views. Oakley believes that primary socialization contributes greatly towards the specialisation of gender roles in modern industrialised societies. Boys and girls are socialised into a set of behaviours based on expectations considered appropriate to masculinity and femininity. For example, girls are given dolls, soft toys, and mini domestic objects and appliances to play with, as girls are encouraged to rehearse their expected adult roles as mothers and housewives. Boys, on the other hand, are given toys, which encourage more practical, logical and aggressive behaviour; for example, guns and bricks. She also talked about ‘verbal appellations’, such as, ‘you’re a naughty boy’, or ‘that’s a good girl’ leading children to identify with their gender and to copy adults of the same gender. She argues that a child’s self concept is shaped by ‘manipulation’. Mothers tend to pay more attention to girls’ hair and dress them in a ‘feminine’ way. Exposure to different activities and media stereotypes both contribute to portraying men and women to their traditional social roles. So messages we receive as children verbal or not constantly shape us according to our culture/environment. Indeed this theory has also been criticised in the following way: it does not account for explaining why it is in most western society’s men and not women take the dominant role; recent studies have shown that there is not a rigid pattern to the occurrence of set gender roles but in fact a huge variant within individual societies.
This brings me to the second part of my essay where I will look at the idea of gender development, through the eyes of the Anthropologist, in order to examine a more universal picture. The following evidence, which looks cross culturally, will further examine the development of gender and how it adapts itself within each society, as
suggested by the cultural constructionist view. In other words how is ‘feminine’ and
‘masculine’ experienced in non western societies?
Social anthropologist Margaret Mead (1930’s) carried out an ethnographic study of variations in gender roles. The study was based on field work in three different societies in Papua, New Guinea: The Arapesh, Mundugumor and Tchambuli people.
Mead found dramatic differences in the ways boys and girls are treated. She discovered that the Tchambuli people socialised their male children to be artistic, creative and sentimental. The men were peaceful beings, prone to sit around the village gossiping, making themselves look pretty and they generally took over the role as the female gender. The women on the other hand, with heads shaved, had assumed the lead in most matters, and were competitive and aggressive. They were the hunters and conducted all the trade necessary for their village. Mead concluded that it was a
“classical gender role reversal”. She found that Arapesh men and women both acted in a mild, gentle and responsive manner, similar to that of the western notion on femininity. Mundugumor men and women were both inclined to aggression, conducting warfare in a competitive fashion. Mead’s work provided strong evidence to support the idea that gender is a cultural definition of the differences between men and women. Kottak, (421) said “We can see that the gender roles vary with environment, economy, adaptive strategy and types of political system”.
Colin Turnbull carried out an anthropological study on the Mbuti Pygmy, traditionally a hunter and gatherer society, of the Ituri forest, in what is today north-eastern Congo.
Speaking of the Mbuti women Turnbull says: “She has a full and important role to play. There is relatively little specialisation according to sex. Even the hunt is a joint effort. A man is not ashamed to pick mushrooms and nuts if he finds them, or to wash and clean a baby. A woman is free to take part in the discussions of men, if she has something relevant to say”. Womanhood among the Mbuti is the same as motherhood. The Mbuti do not refer to gender when they refer to children. All children are ‘miki’. Grandparents are all ‘tata’ (elders). The words do not distinguish between male and female children or elders. The only time the Mbuti distinguish between male and female is when speaking of parents. The identity of a woman is different from that of a man because a woman is a mother but in every other way they are equal. Among the Mbuti the women choose the men and the dwelling is seen as belonging more to the woman.
Many Agta women of the Philippines are proficient hunters (Estioko-Griffin1985,
1986 & Griffin 1981, Goodman 1985). They hunt with bows and arrows, machetes, knives, traps and dogs. They regularly hunt wild pig and deer; women alone or in groups kill almost 30 percent of the large game. What is interesting about this study is that it disproves the ‘expendability’ theory which supports the idea of a universal general division of labour whereby men tend to do the dangerous work in society because they are more expendable; reproduction need not suffer as long as fertile women have sexual access to men. This study was also important as it demonstrated that women, child care and hunting were not incompatible with each other. Hunting women would be accompanied by nursing babies. Agta women did not suffer lower reproductive rates and neither was there any evidence of a higher infant mortality rate when compared with non hunting women. It is true to say that they always hunted in large groups, were never very far from home and were accompanied by dogs that would assist in the hunting and protection of the women and babies. Estioko-Griffin
describes the hunting escapades of one of the women: “I recall the time she ran a
deer for two days, until its feet were raw and bloody and exhaustion had slowed it to the point it could be shot...” So in some societies women can not only be mothers but also hunters.
“Gender is not natural and God-given but socially created” (Eriksen 126). Strathern
1988, (p.69) says that in determining what gender is we need to look into “the social and cultural construction of gender… (and) the relationship between constructions of maleness and femaleness”. Gender development has many components and it is very specific to a particular society and its environment, ideologies and economic needs.
With this in mind if we consider gender to be a cultural definition of the differences between men and women, it follows that as culture changes, so do these definitions.
In western culture we have seen a turning point during the Second World War, when women were called to leave the traditional role of housewife and assist the war effort by taking up jobs in factories. Gender specialists point out that in the last 50 years, or more, roles for men and women have changed dramatically. There are various reasons for this. Education is now at a more balanced standard whereas in the past boys were given a huge advantage. Globalisation and changes in industry have had a knock on effect on our gender roles. Machismo is no longer needed in the work place due to increased technological advances; therefore, women in western society can now compete with men on a more equal basis. Due to birth control, the sexual revolution and the right to abortion women can now choose if and when they have a child and whether they wish to work and have a career. The stigma that a women’s place is in the home is no longer applicable in today’s society. In my view there is still some distance to go before women can be truly equal though.
Social attitudes of the Darwinian Theory are reflected in western culture even today.
A ‘double standard’ on men’s and women’s sexuality has arisen by the social disapproval of women’s sexuality. Taken from Llewellyn-Jones’ (1982 p 52) book titled ‘Everywoman’ an excerpt on ‘cultural myths about sex’ describes some consequences of Darwinism on sexual attitudes of sexuality. Llewellyn-Jones writes,
“nice girls don’t have sex”, also that “she is unfeminine unless she marries and becomes a mother” and “sex is a mans responsibility…women should make themselves available to their husbands when he requires a release of sexual tension”.
Yet social expectations of men’s sexuality are different, men are encouraged to “get lucky”, score, pick up and are inclined to compete with peers about sexual conquests”.
Such socially constructed norms as this are responsible for the inequality between the sexes. The anthropologist Michelle Z. Rosaldo (1974) argued that women’s subordination is a consequence of a division of labour between the public and the private (or domestic) world. Rosaldo argues that while females are tied to the home due to biological differences it is not that which limits them but the interpretation it gives: this ’interpretation’ ties them to the raising of children and the general domestic sphere. Men are free to roam the public sphere and are more connected with the abstract rather than the personal. They are well acquainted with politics, religion and authority and use this to their own benefit to exercise power over the domestic units that affect women’s lives. The Mundurucu (Murphy&Murphy 1985) lend their selves to this theory. In the village the Mundurucu women and children live in huts and all the men live together. The men’s house is a construction which is more like a large leaning supported by poles without walls and looks out on to the village where he can monitor events and make important decisions involving the whole village. The
woman’s place is in the home and out on the fields. Linda Imray and Audrey
Middleton (1983) argue that women’s work is devalued in the public sphere as well.
When women take paid employment outside the home their job is often devalued and regarded as being of less importance. Feminists believe that women’s subordination has always been a universal feature of human society. They believe this inequality is largely due to biology or rather its interpretation. There are numerous different opinions that attempt to explain the roots of women’s inequality but it seems to me that this inequality is less apparent within non western societies and yet we take much comfort in being described as a ‘civilised society’!
From the commentary above it is clear that there are many theories for and against the concept that “Biology is Destiny”. There is no disputing that sexually men and women are different. However, depending on the viewpoint you take and the society you look at gender roles can be viewed as reversed. Traditional male roles are performed by women in certain societies and the opposite is true in others. The only consistent factor in all societies is that child rearing is the domain of women. In this context biology is in deed destiny. Across all cultures you do not see a definite relationship between gender and roles. In conclusion, although many people simply believe that the gender roles that exist in society are natural or that they are the result of biology or even Gods will, would in my opinion be wrong. Gender is of course cultural and is learned through primary socialisation and environment. Gender roles in western society today seem undefined. The nuclear family may take many different forms: a child may have parents of the same sex, women can have a child via a sperm bank, and men can adopt children. The traditional role of man as provider and woman as housewife/mother is no longer obligatory and is inter-changeable according to ones needs. Gender is just as clearly undefined in non western societies. The only similarity between us and non-western society, in referring to gender, is in our biological make up. As to the ways of our lives human experience is immensely varied and changeable.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Ember, 1999.Anthropology (Prentice Hall)
Eriksen, T.H. 2001, Small Places, Large Issues (Pluto Press)
Estioko-Griffin, A, OP CIT p 220 ‘Anthropology’- Contemporary Perspectives
Haralambos & Haralambos, 2004, Sociology Themes and Perspectives (Collins)
Keesing, R.M & Strathern A.J. 1998, Cultural Anthropology (Harcourt Brace)
Mead, M. first pub.1935 Sex and Temperament In Three Primitive Societies
Turnbull, C,
The Forest People
WEBSITE: www.newint.org www.worldclass.net