Is Evolution Sexist?

[JohnR7]

Are some of the theorys of evolution sexist? One theory I heard was that as man and women evolved there was only so much food available to them. Sometimes they would walk up to 1200 miles in a year, so according to the theory they had to conserve energy. So the men devoted their energy to developing strenth for hunting, and the women devoted their energy to producing heat to stay warm at night. So men and women became dependant on one another. The women needed the men to bring home the bacon, and the men needed the women to keep them warm at night.

Then there was the theory that men evolved into hunters, but the women did the gathering. They would weave baskets and collect fruits, nuts and berrys as they traveled along. Even the women would keep the seeds and in the spring they would find a nice muddy patch to throw the seeds into, so the next time they walked though that area, they had food to eat.

So you have evolutionary theorys that men and women evolved a little different, but in a way that compliments each other. Does this then make evolution sexist, in that according to many evolutionary theorys, men and women evolved somewhat different and not the same?

 

[LadyShea]

I don't think thats evolution and no, it's not sexist. Sexism is a an attitude or belief, not a characteristic of the natural world. That lionesses don't have manes or that male black widow spiders are just "sperm donors" isn't sexism.

Your questions seem to be about gender roles which would be more in the anthropology area rather than biology

 

[Zadok001]

Depends on your definition of "sexist," of course. Theories of human evolution postulate that our sexually dimorphous nature is an evolved trait; i.e., such theories effectively say "Women and men are different." Such a claim is not, to my view, sexist until a normative qualifier is added.

(In other words, evolutionary theory tells us that men and women are different. This is self-evident from the most passing of inspections. We're built differently. That's not sexist. It would be sexist if it said "Men and women are different, and men are better." But it doesn't. It only asserts the existance of differences which are quite clearly visible.)

 

[LorentzHA]

Are some of the theorys of evolution sexist? One theory I heard was that as man and women evolved there was only so much food available to them. Sometimes they would walk up to 1200 miles in a year, so according to the theory they had to conserve energy. So the men devoted their energy to developing strenth for hunting, and the women devoted their energy to producing heat to stay warm at night. So men and women became dependant on one another. The women needed the men to bring home the bacon, and the men needed the women to keep them warm at night.

Then there was the theory that men evolved into hunters, but the women did the gathering. They would weave baskets and collect fruits, nuts and berrys as they traveled along. Even the women would keep the seeds and in the spring they would find a nice muddy patch to throw the seeds into, so the next time they walked though that area, they had food to eat.

So you have evolutionary theorys that men and women evolved a little different, but in a way that compliments each other. Does this then make evolution sexist, in that according to many evolutionary theorys, men and women evolved somewhat different and not the same?

No, not sexist...that is an explanation for what took place 10 Million years ago, if you read the above carefully it is almost identical to what MEN preach in Churches TODAY as a "Christian lifestyle"

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

I laughed out loud when i read the bit about men needing women for body heat at night... hahaha.

Anyways, a more serious approach to the question. A woman in her third trimester isn't going to be able to sneak up on an animal and run it down. Once the baby is born it is incredibly dependent on it's parents for support, this support comes from the mother in the form of milk. The mother must be with the baby to feed and care for it, she is the only one physically equiped for it. While the mother is caring for the baby she is also free to do less physically demanding tasks. Gathering and such can easily be done with a baby strapped to your back or left with the other females of the tribe since you never leave close proximity and will be there when the baby needs you.

In this situation a man is useless. There's nothing we can do in this situation that women can't do just as well. So we have two options. We can either twiddle our thumbs and play with the baby or go out and hunt so the tribe doesn't starve to death.

It's not that women aren't normally physically capable of hunting with the pack, it's that rearing a child is such a time consuming and specialized task that only the female can do it. If the species is to survive then the child must be cared for and the male must support the female so she can in turn support the child. This is the only way a primitive tribe society could work. If all the females went out to hunt and the males stayed home with the kids all the babies would either starve to death or be incredibly sickly because it's impossible for the males to care for them while the females are away. If anything it's sexist towards men!

 

[Godzman]

Gender roles are important, they shouldn't be evil, like a man should be manly and a woman should be womanly, a man should be a gentleman, and a woman should be a lady, unforturnatly we are not perfect so we fail sometimes

 

[Arikay]

an interesting aspect to that is that its possibly more sexist to the men. Since after sex, the men are more expendable than the women. The women are needed to care for the children, and the men arent totally needed (ok they are, but less than the women).

Then again, it comes to a point of equality. The women have to deal with childbirth, but the men have to go out and hunt and possibly deal with being food.

I laughed out loud when i read the bit about men needing women for body heat at night... hahaha.

Anyways, a more serious approach to the question. A woman in her third trimester isn't going to be able to sneak up on an animal and run it down. Once the baby is born it is incredibly dependent on it's parents for support, this support comes from the mother in the form of milk. The mother must be with the baby to feed and care for it, she is the only one physically equiped for it. While the mother is caring for the baby she is also free to do less physically demanding tasks. Gathering and such can easily be done with a baby strapped to your back or left with the other females of the tribe since you never leave close proximity and will be there when the baby needs you.

In this situation a man is useless. There's nothing we can do in this situation that women can't do just as well. So we have two options. We can either twiddle our thumbs and play with the baby or go out and hunt so the tribe doesn't starve to death.

It's not that women aren't normally physically capable of hunting with the pack, it's that rearing a child is such a time consuming and specialized task that only the female can do it. If the species is to survive then the child must be cared for and the male must support the female so she can in turn support the child. This is the only way a primitive tribe society could work. If all the females went out to hunt and the males stayed home with the kids all the babies would either starve to death or be incredibly sickly because it's impossible for the males to care for them while the females are away. If anything it's sexist towards men!

 

[Godzman]

men and women are equal just in different ways

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

That line about it being sexist towards men was just a joke. It just seems that men are more important because we get the glory jobs. We're out there stalking wild animals, fighting for our lives, just so we can feed our family. That makes an interesting read! Women's role in primitive societies is just as important as the mans, albeit less exciting. Without the man out hunting the children would lack proper nutrition when they're old enough to eat meat and the mother wouldn't be able to properly nurse them when they're young. Without the mother there to protect and teach them social skills they'd be bumbling idiots incapable of working together. If it weren't the way it was the human race would have went extinct within a few generations.

 

[JohnR7]

A woman in her third trimester isn't going to be able to sneak up on an animal and run it down.

A lot of women now a days work right up to when they have the baby. Then they only get three months off after they have the baby.

But I think your right. We tend to look at our "modern" world and that is a different place from the way it has been for the last 5000 years. People had lots of children, because often children died, and the ones that survived were required to take care of their parents in their old age.

It is not uncommon to breast feed a child for three years. So if a women has 5 or 6 kids and spaces them apart every three years, that is going to take up a good chunk of her life, just raising the kids.

Of course in resent years, someone changed the rules. Now women can get a education, and often they only have one or two kids. Things are different from the way they use to be.

My wife grew up in a family of 7 people and they got by on what would amount to about $300 a month by todays standards. That did not go very far when they had to pay school fees and buy school supplies. She use to dream about buying a can of spam or a candy bar growing up. But there was just no money to buy it with. But eventually, all of their sacrifice paid off, and she got a good paying job by their standards.

Now, she does not feel any need to have 5 or 6 kids to take care of her in her old age, because one child can get a education and make more than enough money to take care of her. Also, she has invested in a lot of her money in her nephews and nieces to pay for their education. So she knows if need be, she could move in with any of them and they would take care of her. So, we live in a different world than we lived in 50 or 100 years ago.

So maybe a women in the third trimester may not be able to get out there and hunt. But in todays world, when that child is weaned, she does not really need to have another one. She is free to get out and join the hunt if that is what she is wanting to do.

Also, somewhere along the way, someone figured out if you hurd all the animals in to a corral, you do not have to hunt them anymore. when you get hungry, just go grab one. People figured out a way to quit having to hunt the animals down, and they began to hurd the animals. Even the men began to turn the animals into work animals to pull the plow or pull a wagon. At least 4 or 5000 years ago, when the Hittites invented the wheel. Or 100 years ago, when Harvey Firestone reinvented the wheel.

If your wondering how 7 people got by on $300 a month. Her dad was a inspector for the health dept. Because they had trained him to be a medic in the army. So he was able to get a hold of powdered milk from the American government. She use to love to eat the powder. Then of course they had their rice and fish and whatever veggies they could raise and they had some fruit trees there. So she was actually pretty healthy.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Yeah, modern society transcends the natural rules. No longer are restricted by nature and just barely surviving. We control nearly everything except for the weather and I'm currently working on that, bwahahaha. Uh, anyways today's "hunt" isn't physically demanding. A pregnant woman can easily go to her office job and can be back soon after having the baby. Children can get by with a lot less parental supervision by being put in day care, being with the grandparents, or going to school. Granted day care isn't always the best option for the childs developement it can be a positive experience and allows the mother to work to support her child on her own. She doesn't have to be there to breast feed, just use some baby formula. The social enviroment has changed so much that those old ways of survival are actually detrimental in our current enviroment.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], I just agreed with John on something relating to evolution! Somebody shoot me and put me out of my misery!

 

[JohnR7]

Somebody shoot me and put me out of my misery!

We can shoot you with power from on high and fill you up with joy, peace and contentment. Any misery you ever had will flee far from you.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Sorry John but I'll have to pass on the shrooms.

 

[LorentzHA]

Sorry John but I'll have to pass on the shrooms.

 

[LorentzHA]

Sorry John but I'll have to pass on the shrooms.

This is FUNNY!! I laughed out loud after reading this

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Oh! That muchroom is a 1-up! It will grant me an afterlife!

up down up down left right left right A B A B select start! Now I can live forever!

Oh nos! I've been brainwashed by videogames, suddenly have the urge to hijack cars and go on a shooting spree.


BTW I just spent the past two hours writing an analysis on the operation of a Krytron triggering circuit so I'm not feeling well.

 

[JohnR7]

I can live forever!

You can live forever if you want. But you got to really want to. So many people do not seem to want to live out the life they have, much less add to that, so they can live forever.

 

[BillyBuerger]

up down up down left right left right A B A B select start! Now I can live forever!

Oh nos! I've been brainwashed by videogames, suddenly have the urge to hijack cars and go on a shooting spree.

Thanks for the laugh. I guess I've been brainwashed too. Except it B A, not A B. I never understood why the buttons were backwards. (B) (A) instead of (A) (B). Contra was a great game. And yet I never felt the need to go on a shooting spree. Sorry, back on topic.

Evolution is not sexists. Just as religion is not per say sexists. People are sexist (and racists, etc...). They use whatever reasoning they can find to rationalize their sexism. For example, someone thinks men are better than woman. Hey, in the bible it says that a woman should not speak in church. Therefore the bible says that men are better! Or evolution says that men evolved to be stronger. Therefore evolution says men are better.... NO! People can find justifications for most anything. That doesn't make it right.

(Although I still don't understand that passage about woman not speaking in church. I suppose if it take it in the right context it's not sexist. But it sounds suspicious to me)

 

[JohnR7]

Evolution is not sexists. Just as religion is not per say sexists.

Evolutionists maybe sexist, and that is going to have a impact on their theorys. But I was for the sake of discussion actually willing to look at if evolution did take place, then how did the male and the female evolve different and yet together.

As far as religous people being sexist, that is based more on what people believe. I was at a party once and there was a women there that wanted me to know that she was a stay at home mom and her husband would not allow her to go out and work.

When she could not get a reaction out of me, because I really did not care, then she started to tell me she did have a job, she just worked out of the house.