Okay, so the article on evolutionary biology and feminism is available as a pdf just by searching the title “The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy.” It’s by Barbara Smuts. But in the article she presents six hypotheses for why patriarchy may be evolutionary/biology. I thought they were interesting so here they are:
1. Among ancestral hominids, female ability to resist male aggression was comprised by reduced social support from kin and female allies. She suggests we were similar to non-human primates social structures with female dispersal away from kin and weak female-female coalitions as common place. It’s unknown why we have this pattern of dispersal, but it makes sense that our relationships would be more strained among those we did not grow up with.
2. Over the course of human evolution, male-male alliances become increasingly well-developed. These alliances were often directed against females, and they increased male power over females. Apparently male-male alliances against females also happen in the animal kingdom and involve groups of males ganging up on fewer or solitary females. She argues that in species where males are larger than females, even with equal numbers males would be at an advantage. With effective male-male alliances established and violence against females occurring, male power over females is reinforced. As we say all the time, not all men need to be violent to keep women afraid or “in their place.”
3. Over the course of human evolution, and particularly since the advent of agriculture and animal husbandry, males gained control over resources that females need to survive and reproduce. This increased male ability to control and coerce females. She states that in all other primates, females sustain themselves and do not rely heavily on males for resources. So one aspect in which humans differ is the extent of food sharing, which could in turn be used against females as well and in the process strengthen the formation of male-male alliances. Agriculture, animal husbandry and settling exacerbate all of these issues and give males more incentive to secure control of females. Regardless of how hard women worked, they often lost control over the products of their labor. On smaller plots of land men were more easily able to control and monitor women. With more intensive resources being invested, men had more incentive to make sure offspring were their own. And with more resources at men’s disposal, they could make it more costly to resist male domination.
4. Over the course of evolution, male sociopolitical arrangements increased the variance in male wealth and power and perpetuated family differentials across generations. As a result of increasingly unequal relationships among men, women became increasingly vulnerable to the will and whims of the few most powerful men, and women’s control over their own sexuality was greatly reduced. There is a positive association between male-male power differentials and the extent to which women are controlled and dominated. Coercive strategies of reproduction become more viable as less powerful males do not interfere with more powerful males. As powerful men monopolize control over women, several things may happen. 1) A shortage of women at the bottom, which may lead to more coercion, 2) an inability of less powerful, less coercive males to provide females with material benefits due to the male-male hierarchy and 3) inability of females to freely choose mates due to male control over females.
5. In pursuing their material and reproductive interests, women often engage in behaviors that promote male resource control and male control over female sexuality. Thus, women as well as men contribute to the perpetuation of patriarchy. Due to male control, it is not always as beneficial for females to ally with each other over males. There are strong incentives to invest in males and particularly resource rich ones. Son preference and male-biased inheritance patterns are a part of this. It is often more beneficial for a family to have a son than a daughter and therefore, this cycle of male investment continues.
6. The evolution of the capacity for language allowed males to consolidate and increase their control over females because it enabled the creation and propagation of ideologies of male dominance/female subordinance and male supremacy/female inferiority. Once language evolved, male-male alliances, male control over resources, and male-male hierarchy likely all increased. She argues that men’s use of language to subordinate women is a natural extension of our pre-linguistic history, one that allowed for further elaboration of male control over females. Although language is unique to us, male motivation to control females is not. Patriarchy is therefore a product of reproductive strategies which in humans have undergone “unusually effective elaboration.”
I’d be really interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on it! There’s definitely some things she touches on that I hadn’t really thought of before.
kianamaiart
germansingergirl
baratheonpilled
izzy806
andulkaphoto
blakekathryn
vaporwave
