Sc2220 lecture 8 2012

Eric C. Thompson
Semester 2, 2011/2012

Where We Have Been…
 History of Gender Studies
 Sex/Gender Distinction
 Becoming Male or Female
 Gender socialization;
paths to learning gender.
 Gender Systems
 Masculinity/Femininity
 Gender as systems of
beliefs and behaviors

Where We Are Going…
 Gender in Popular Culture
 Gender in Advertising
 Popular Culture
 Gender in Social Relations
 Gender and Power
 Gender and Work
 Gender, Here and Now
 Gender in Singapore
YOU ARE
HERE

Today’s Lecture…
 Explanations for Patriarchy
 Three Interrelated Conditions
 Reproductive “Baby Burden”
 Sexual Exchange
 Socioeconomic Conditions
 Additional Explanations
 Superior Talents of Men; Jealousy and Mate Guarding;
Capitalism; Coercion and Use-of-Force; Testosterone
Competition; Culture and Ideology (Patriarchy as a
Conceptual Trap).

Range of Matriarchy/Patriarchy
All things being equal, we would expect a range of societies – from
Highly Matriarchal to Highly Patriarchal.
In fact, we find a range of societies from more-or-less Egalitarian
to Highly Patriarchal.
Very Matriarchal

Very Patriarchal
Egalitarian

Societies That Do Not Exist Societies That Do Exist

WHY?

Explanations for Patriarchy
 #1 Childcare & Investment in Offspring

 #2 Sexual Exchange (Baumeister, et al.)

 #3 Socioeconomic Conditions (Huber)

 **All of these explanations are interrelated – none
explains patriarchy by itself.

Fact: Human Offspring Require Substantial Care,
Feeding and Investment of Resources

(Preferably by Adults)

Investment in Reproduction
 Women on average spend (much!) more time in the
reproduction of children than men on average.
Task Average Female Average Male
Investment Investment
Sexual Intercourse 2 min to 2 hours 2 min to 2 hours

Pregnancy 9 months (1-2 mo. Not applicable
inhibited activity)
Lactation (breast 0 months to 4 years Variable &
feeding) & Childcare Flexible
Total Investment: 43,202 min. to 2 min to 120 min.
(in minutes) 2,188,920 min./child /child

Of Mammals and Mommies
 Mammals are defined by “mammary glands” (for
nourishment of infants)
 In general, mammary glands are (much) more
functional in females than males.
 This creates a very strong tendency in favor of
maternal parenting.
 Many species of fish, frogs and other non-
mammals show a strong tendency toward paternal
parenting.
 Our evolved biology, not a “law of nature”, creates a
tendency toward maternal parenting.

The Problem of Cuckoldry
 Cuckoldry = female sexual infidelity; a male who
unwittingly raises another man’s children.
 Women always know who their children are; men
can never be sure (without DNA testing!)
 How prevalent is Cuckoldry?
 Studies in US and Britain: 5% to 30% of all children are
products of cuckoldry. (Diamond 1992:85-87)
 How to deal with Cuckoldry (for men)?
 Control women’s sexuality, enforce chastity & fidelity.
 Invest in your sister’s children, not your own.
 Don’t invest time, energy, resources in children.

Implications and Consequences
 Under most conditions, women invest more time directly
in raising children than men (possibly limiting their
activity in other spheres, e.g. career building; food
gathering).

 Pregnant and lactating women are marginally structurally
dependent on others.

 Male inputs in parenting are more variable and flexible
than women’s (giving them “bargaining power”).

 There are strong evolutionary incentives – mammary
glands - toward mothering. And somewhat weaker
evolutionary incentives – cuckoldry – against fathering.*
*Keep in mind, these disincentives to “fathering” have to be weighed against
very strong general incentive toward parenting, in mammals, esp. humans.

Investment in Offspring by Itself Does Not
Explain the Patriarchy!!
 In most mammals, females alone take care of offspring
(little or no male involvement in “childcare”). Females
are independent, not dominated by males.
 Social animals show a wide variety of relative male or
female social dominance.
 So, what is special about humans?? . . .

Fact: Human Offspring Require Substantial Care,
Feeding and Investment of Resources

Who is going to do this?

Who’s Taking Care of the Baby!?

 Mommy. Very good choice. But NEEDS HELP!
 Family Dog. Not Recommended.


 Grandma. Good, if not reproductive & still alive.
 The Grandmother Hypothesis: Why we live so long.


 Siblings. Ok but… Must be old enough to do
childcare, but not yet having babies themselves.


 Aunts, Uncles, Friends & Neighbors. Ok but…
 Busy taking care of their own kids!


 Non-reproducing females (or males). Example: Maids
 Only possible in complex, hierarchical societies.


 Daddy. Good, but . . .
 How to overcome the disincentives to fathering?
 How to get daddy to stick around and help out?

Oddities of Human Sexuality
 Hidden Ovulation (Lack of Estrus) (Diamond, Third
Chimpanzee)

 Sex for social bonding, rather than reproduction
(Diamond, Third Chimpanzee)

 Male initiators of sex; Asymmetry in sex drive
(Baumeister, et al.)

Hidden Ovulation
 Almost all female mammals
have an estrous cycle, which
allow both females and males
to know when a female is
ovulating.
 This allows for greater
reproductive efficiency.
 Humans have hidden ovulation
(no estrus).
 Neither males nor females
know when a female is
ovulating. Baboon in Estrus

 Humans have VERY poor
reproductive efficiency!

Sex for Social Bonding
 Sex is costly – time, energy,
danger of getting caught (by
predators or competitors; not
mom and dad!).
 Poor reproductive efficiency (lots
and lots of sex, but relatively few
offspring) does not make sense…
unless something else is going on.
 In humans, sexuality has evolved
to be at least as much about social
(pair) bonding as about
reproduction.*

*Not only in humans, this is true in other species as well, such as
Bonobo Chimpanzees. (Compared to bonobos, human use of sex for
social bonding is simple and primitive!)

Asymmetrical Sex Drive
(Baumeister, Cantanese & Vohs, 2001)
 Sex Drive: Motivation to seek out and engage in
sexual activity; Willingness to expend resources to
achieve this goal.
 Note: Sex Drive is not the same as capacity for sex or
enjoyment of sex; it is only motivation to seek sex.
 All evidence indicates that Men have a higher Sex
Drive (on average) than Women.
 Sex as a commodity (prostitution, pornography): Men
are overwhelmingly the consumers.
 Self-reported sexual desire: On all kinds of measures,
men report greater sexual desire than women.
 Ethnographic record: Men are almost always culturally
expected to initiate sexual encounters. Exceptions are
extremely rare.

Consequences of Sex Drive Asymmetry
 Sex is a “resource” that women can use
 Because of the higher sex drive in men, women can
easily satisfy their desires (sexual access to males
therefore has little or no “value”; it is “free”)
 Sexual access to females is a “limited resource”; therefore
it can be offered in exchange for something else (e.g.
attention, food, affection, money, commitment/fidelity,
etc.)
 See Baumeister and Vohs, 2004 “Sexual Economics”

 What is a man to do?

Sexual Selection
 Both males and females
influence the other
through “sexual selection”
 In most animals, this leads
to evolution of sex-specific
biological characteristics
 In humans, it influences
cultural beliefs and social
Peacocks’ feathers make male
interactions. peacocks beautiful to females.
The most beautiful males are
“selected for” (and pass on their
genes – and beautiful feathers to
the next generation.

Sexual Selection and Exchange in Humans
 “Meat for Sex”
 Because sexual access to women is a limited resource
men (if they want heterosexual sex) must compete for
access.
 Because sexual access to women is “valuable” it can be
exchanged for other resources.
 Men are motivated (more than women) to acquire,
produce or create resources to exchange (for sexual
access to women).
 Relationship to Infant Care: Women can use these
resources to alleviate the (mammalian & human)
burdens of childcare.

Human Pair Bonding & Sexual Exchange System
Surplus Resources
Adult Male Adult Female
Sexual Gratification
Surplus
Resources
This is only one part of human exchange,
sexuality, and bonding systems.
For example, Fathers very commonly give
resources to children (in the absence of any
Infant
relationship to the Mother).
Men and Women very commonly exchange
things other than sex for resources (pure love
does exist; but, it to is only one small part of
the human system).

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Resources
 Intrinsic Resources (part of ones own body and
being):
 Emotions and affection (ability to satisfy the affect
hunger of others)
 Sexual attractiveness
 Labor power
 Extrinsic Resources (not part of one’s own body
and being):
 Material resources (meat, money, bling)
 Social/cultural capital (status, knowledge)

Sexual Exchange & Patriarchy
 If Sexual Exchange Theory is valid, then…
 In order to gain power, women are differentially more
motivated to make themselves sexually attractive to
men. (Why women care more about looks than men.)
 Men are differentially more motivated to acquire
resources they can use to exchange for access to
women. (Why men care about money and status.)
 Women have an initial advantage, in that their
resource in this exchange is intrinsic; but…
 Men’s extrinsic resources are more fungible (can be
exchanged in more ways with more people)
 Men’s extrinsic resources (meat, money) give them
more power than women’s intrinsic resources
(attractiveness)

Love Conquers All
(Just a reminder )
 In general, Human Beings have strong affective
neurological bonds: Affect Hunger Trumps the
Selfish Gene (Goldschmidt). Men and Women
bond with each other, Parents bond with Children.
We are biologically evolved such that our capacity
for love (often, but not always) overcomes our
inclination for selfishness.

 But… Love is only one part of our human
experience.

Asymmetry in Infant Care and Sexual Exchange
alone still do not explain Patriarchy
 The case of foraging societies.
 Studies confirm a relationship between men’s hunting
abilities and sex (or at least reproduction) & women’s
larger investment in childcare.
 Foraging societies are not patriarchal.
 Men do not dominate women & women are not
dependent on men.

Modes of Subsistence
(Huber 1999)
Modes of Subsistence Key Variables
 Foraging
(Hunting & Gathering)  Economic Dependence &
 Horticulture Independence
(Shifting Cultivation)
 Herding  Distribution of Valued Goods
(Nomadic, Seasonal Migration)
 Agriculture  Militarization & Hierarchy
(Plow, Intensive Cultivation)
 Industrial
(Mass Production)
 Post-Industrial
(Mass Consumption)

Foraging (a.k.a. “Hunting & Gathering”)
Economic Distribution Use of Force
Independence Of Valued Goods & Warfare

All able-bodied Childbearing limits No institutionalized
adults can supply women from hunting; warfare; disputes
their own food. men usually control settled by moving
distribution of meat
(prestige food)

High gender equality. Some greater male prestige from
hunting. More hunting => greater male prestige.

Horticulture (Digging Stick, Hoe, Shifting Cultivation)

Small groups are Childbearing limits Institutionalized
economically women from clearing warfare sometimes;
interdependent. land; but this activity land becomes
High contribution does not confer much temporary property;
of women’s labor. status to men. more deadly with
metal technology

Great variation in gender inequality.
High contribution of women’s labor => high status;
High warfare => low status for women.

Herding (Nomadic, Seasonal Migration)

Women excluded Childbearing limits Institutionalized
from important women from herding; warfare common;
subsistence tasks; men usually control raiding for food
High dependence distribution of meat surplus, animals and
on men. (prestige food) slaves.

Very high gender inequality; High status of men;
women have low status and high dependence.

Agriculture (Plow, Intensive Cultivation)

Childbearing limits Surplus production Institutionalized
women from controlled by small warfare common;
plowing; Women (male) elite; men land becomes chief
relegated to usually control form of wealth;
domestic sphere & inheritance of land; extreme politico-
very dependent “ownership” central military hierarchy.

Very high gender inequality; High class inequality.
“The plow had a devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people… yet the
plow depressed women’s status more than men’s.” (Huber pg.74)

Industrialization (Mass Production)

Large groups are Surplus production Institutionalized
economically inter- controlled by warfare common;
dependent; Women bourgeois (male) elite resources and
significant in work- capital chief forms
force; upper class of wealth; politico-
women domestic military hierarchy.

High gender inequality; Very high class inequality.
Class hierarchies more extreme than gender.

Post-Industrialization (Mass Consumption)

Large groups are Surplus production Institutionalized
economically inter- controlled by warfare common;
dependent; Women professional elite; resources and
significant in work- Shifting emphasis to capital chief forms
force; High prestige consumption rather of wealth; politico-
work less physical & than production. military hierarchy.
more flexible.
Low(?) gender inequality; Very high class inequality.
Class hierarchies more extreme than gender.

Conditions of Patriarchy (Summarized)
 #1 Childcare & Investment in Offspring:
 Human, mammalian offspring create a “baby burden”
for women.
 #2 Sexual Exchange (Baumeister, et al.)
 Intrinsically valuable female sexuality is exchanged with
men for extrinsic resources.
 #3 Socioeconomic Conditions (Huber)
 The consequences of sexual exchange vary under
different socioeconomic conditions
 The patriarchal tendency results from the combination
of these conditions.

Additional Hypotheses
 Superior Talents of Men (Strength, Intelligence)
 Jealousy and Mate Guarding
 Patriarchy is a result of Capitalism
 Coercion and Use-of-Force
 Testosterone Competition
 Culture and Ideology (Patriarchy as a Conceptual
Trap).

Superior Talents of Men
(Such as Strength, Intelligence)
 Theory: Men have some form of superior talent
(strength; intelligence) that allows them to
dominate women.
 Popular, but weakly supported
 Physical strength is not strongly correlated with
Social Dominance in humans.
 Most other differences (e.g. in IQ) between men
and women are marginal at best.
 Overall, such explanations are based in weak
evidence and vastly over-simplified thinking.

Jealous, Mate-Guarding
 Theory: Patriarchy is an expression of male evolved
psychology, aimed at “mate-guarding” (so women
don’t mate with other males).
 Jealous mate-guarding is a cultural expression of
patriarchal (patrilineal) logics; but the link between a
specific evolved male psychology and patriarchy is very
weak.
 The evidence for a specific male-type jealousy is
equivocal at best.
 Does not explain the variation found in the patriarchal
tendency. (Why are some societies egalitarian and
others patriarchal?)

Patriarchy is a result of Capitalism
 Theory: Capitalism causes patriarchy (e.g. Hearn,
Mies).
 Marxist-feminist argument, which takes several forms
(Hearn: “Human tithe”; Mies: Global capitalism).
 Problem: Patriarchy clearly precedes capitalism; and
appears to be more severe in agricultural societies than
industrial-capitalist ones.

Coercion, Use-of-Force
 Theory: Men dominate and control women through
violence and use-of-force (primarily to control and
access their sexuality).
 This contrasts with exchange theory based in
persuasion (but which can be coercive, if women have
no independent means of subsistence).
 Coercive use-of-force and persuasion through
exchange are not mutually exclusive; they can (and
probably are) both at work in producing patriarchy.
 Question: Which is more primary in explaining the
patriarchal tendency?

Violence and Exchange Compared
Coercive Use of Force Persuasion by Exchange
 In some societies, rape and  In many societies, rape and
violence are regularly used to violence are seen as
control women. aberrations.
 There is a correlation between  Patriarchy persists even in
political-military hierarchies societies where militarism is
and patriarchy. not extreme.
 If true, men are fundamentally  If true, men fundamentally
misogynistic; they seek to love (or at least desire) women
control and dominate women. rather than hate them.
 If coercive use-of-force is  Coercive use-of-force may be
broadly effective, why is explained as an outcome of
exchange needed at all? unrequited love.

Testosterone Competition
 Theory: Testosterone drives men to compete more
aggressively than women; therefore men “win” over women
and obtain higher positions in status-hierarchies.
 Proposed by Steven Goldberg (Why Men Rule)
 Problems:
 Does not explain the range of egalitarian-to-patriarchal
societies.
 Reductionist and over simplified.
 Maybe a contributing factor, but weak as a primary
explanation

Culture and Ideology
(Patriarchy as a Conceptual Trap)
 Theory: Patriarchy is primarily cultural or ideological
– due to beliefs that men are superior to women and
that favor men over women (e.g. in education, jobs,
inheritance, etc.)
 This is the most common and popular theory in
contemporary Gender Studies.
 It does not explain the patriarchal tendency – why are
only men able to benefit from cultural biases and not
women? Why are some types of societies (agricultural)
and not others (foragers) prone to patriarchy?

The Relationship of Cultural
Systems to Patriarchy
 Culture and Ideology (Belief Systems) can support and
perpetuate patriarchy; but they are not the primary
cause of patriarchy.
 Cultural and Ideological systems can also thwart or
reduce patriarchal tendencies (e.g. matrilineal
Minangkabau inheritance patterns)
 Focusing on culture, ideology, or beliefs alone – as
most gender and feminist theory does – fails to
recognize the reproductive, sexual and socioeconomic
conditions of patriarchy.

Summary…
 Three primary conditions explain the patriarchal tendency:
1. The Baby Burden, 2. Sexual Exchange, 3. Socioeconomic
Systems

 Other conditions may contribute to the patriarchal
tendency; but are not primary causes.

 Question: How do the three main conditions above play
out in Singapore today? How do they vary from other
societies (e.g. those mentioned in readings by Watson-
Franke, Kandiyoti and Huber)?

 Next lecture… Consequences of sexual exchange and the
patriarchal tendency.

Sc2220 lecture 8 2012

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (18)

Similar a Sc2220 lecture 8 2012

Similar a Sc2220 lecture 8 2012 (17)

Más de socect

Más de socect (18)

Último

Último (20)

Sc2220 lecture 8 2012