A few weeks back we had a discussion over the article written by Marlene Zuk titled 'Animal Models and Gender' discussing the correlation between human and animal mating habits. An idea brought up in the article is that men are naturally dominant, while women are naturally submissive. This thought arises from the animal kingdom and most accept the evolutionary heritage and follow along with a life of oppression. Zuk goes on to tell how the connection between our sexual behavior and that of other species can be liberating rather than restrictive. Marlene describes sexual selection as the differential reproduction occurring because of an individual's ability to acquire the best and/or most mates, not because of survival ability. We see this act in our everyday life with how packed the weight room at Ping becomes on friday afternoons. Before male students get ready for their weekend festivities, they all have extra time to hit the gym. The typical "meat heads" will be in the weight room from Monday through Friday, but others are just going for their weekly buff before heading out. This is a form of sexual selection because the ladies out on the prowl that particular evening will be looking for a male that best fits their needs. Being physically fit could be one of these needs depending on the female. This idea relates to Zuk's article in the peacock experiment. The female peacocks look for males with more feathers, even though it is harder for them to evade predators and fly away to safety. The trait of more feathers evolved because of the females preferring that particular trait to any other. The male versus male competition arises in the weight room and can be related to more feathers because women will be looking for a male figure that has more muscle mass than the next one. The female choice depends on a male having the most ornaments, as Zuk describes. The amount of female offspring is limited meaning females want males with the best traits that can be passed on to their offspring. Men and women are not the same from both a physiological and evolutionary standpoint. A single animal model for the origin of sex does not exist because mammals are less likely to be seen as monogamous creatures in their natural habitat. It cannot be considered cheating if there isn't any norms or laws to be broken.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-14-2011/the-plight-of-muscled-americans
This is a great comparison between mating actions of peacocks and humans, but a contrast exists between the two as well. Zuk speaks to this point by concluding her essay with acknowledging that while evolutionary biology can explain aspects of human behavior, that does not mean that “men and women inherit templates of irreversible behavior.”
ReplyDeleteThis is evident in the peacock example you discussed. The female peacocks do value the ornamentation of extravagant feathers the same way human females take into account the aesthetics of a man’s physique. However, the feathers of a male peacock do not provide an evolutionary purpose, and in fact makes it harder for them to survive in the wild. Muscles on a man, on the other hand, actually provide an evolutionary advantage in society. If humans lived in an atmosphere similar to that of a peacock, strength would be essential to survival, so being muscular shows to females that you are well-suited to protect them and provide them with equally strong offspring.
Peacocks and humans share the notion that they want the best traits to be passed on to their offspring, but the traits in and of themselves are different in this case. In the specific example of males going to Ping on Friday afternoons to get their “weekly buff” is an illustration of males trying to stretch the truth about their biological traits by going out on the weekend looking stronger than they really are. This could be successful in finding a temporary companion, but eventually women will discover that what they saw on Friday night is not an accurate representation of the strength of the male. Further interaction with the male would likely deter them from seeing these males as potential lifetime mates, if strength is a key aspect of what they look for in a partner. Seeing, though, as the males likely are just looking for a short term - even one night - interaction with a female, both sides win in this example.
Couldn't agree more with all three of you. Additionally on all of your points, I am a firm believer that even though people often attribute themselves as being attracted to "more" than what's on the "outside", there exists innate physical attributes that the population as a whole is subconsciously and sometimes even consciously attracted to. Some examples of these attributes include women being attracted to men who are bigger and stronger,for their protection, and men being attracted to women with wider hips, for their fertility and child bearing. In these ways I believe men and women often try to meet physical expectations like these today; ie. men working out. I'm not saying everyone works out to meet these expectations because all people subconsciously feel this way. Many people work out to feel better about themselves and promote self well-being, only that people like Zuk historically refer to humans' long history and animal nature as answering many of the questions we ask about ourselves in a daily manner today. On a final note, we are able to answer questions today about ourselves based on our distant past and relate them to how we act and try to fall in place in our society today. It is because of this that I believe we will continue to break down institutional barriers and relieve ourselves of the constant pressures to meet societal expectations that we don't feel the need to do for just the betterment of ourselves. ie. working out for your health instead of feeling that it is the only way to attract a mate. Ultimately, it has been and will continue to be knowledge and acceptance that has made us see each other for more than what is on the "outside".
ReplyDelete