Outline and evaluate one or more evolutionary explanations for gender (4+16)

One evolutionary theory of gender is mate selection. This claims gender role behaviours are related to ensuring the survival of ones genes. It states men have evolved a greater desire to have causal sex in order to produce as many offspring as possible to pass on their genes. Men look for specific features in women to ensure they can reproduce and have healthy offspring, for an example, it would be considered attractive for a woman to have large hips which are perfect for child bearing and a small waist which indicates they are not already pregnant. Other desirable features would be red lips, cheeks and good skin and hair as this would show the female is fertile and healthy and can produce healthy offspring. According to this theory, men also chose a younger mate as it means they are more fertile. Females also engage in mate selection and seek signs of healthiness e.g. a strong jaw and broad shoulders. This indicates the mate is most probably a successful hunter/provider as he is strong. However, they are more concerned with the number of resources the mate has due to infants demanding exclusive care for many months after birth thus meaning women cannot provide for themselves during this time. For this reason, it is important to the women that the relationship is monogamous so they can ensure most/all resources are for herself and her infant. If she believes another woman has access to her resources this can lead to aggressive mate guarding behaviour to warn of the competition and to keep the resources for herself. In hunter gatherer societies resources would be meat, in modern day societies this would be money so that the child can have a better diet, education and/or lifestyle. This ensures that her offspring is healthy and survives and her genes can be passed on through her infant.

Numerous statistics support this idea of careful mate selection and aggressive gender behaviour to ensure the survival of your genes and offspring and that they get the most resoucres. For an example, it is statistically far more likely for a step parent to kill a child than a biological parent. This links back to the theory as a the biological parent is less likely to kill their own child as they want their genes to pass on and the step parent wants the resources for their own biological family. However, statistics such as these do mean this theory is socially sensitive. Some may try to manipulate the justice system and claim they are not liable for their aggressive behaviour as they are a ‘victim of evolution’ and therefore are not responsible for their actions. This leads us to question whether this theory is slightly deterministic as it claims we do not have free will. Despite this, this evidently does not justify inexcusable behaviour which is why this is not a valid defence in court.

Further support for mate selection is provided by Buss’s findings. He found that of the 10,000 men and women from 37 different cultures from a wide diversity of ethnic, religious, political and economic groups that on the whole, women (more so than men) desired mates who were ‘good financial prospects’. This links to the idea within the theory that women desire a partner with ‘good financial prospects’ so that he can provide for herself and her infant. In contrast, Buss found men placed more importance on physical attractiveness and typically wanted women who were younger than themselves. This supports the theory of mate selection as it would suggest men are more focused on attractiveness and age because it relates to a women’s health, fertility and their ability to carry their offspring. On the whole, it implies males and females have evolved to have different preferences in mates and carefully select their mate in order to better the chances of the survival of their genes. Dunn and Searles’ shiny care study also supports mate selection as an evolutionary explanation of gender. They found women were more attracted to a man sitting in a Bentley than in a Ford Fiesta (the men in each photo were considered equally attractive). Whereas, the car the women was in did not affect how attractive they found the female. This also suggests women seek resources and men seek attractiveness in a woman in order to successfully pass on their genes.

Our confidence in Buss’s findings and the theory is heightened due to the large sample size of the study. The sample being so vast and involving many different groups within society means the results are more valid, reliable and representative of others meaning they can be generalised to others. However, the same cannot be said for Dunn and Searles’ study which consists of only those from Cardiff. This affects the original theory and findings as it is only applicable to those from Cardiff. 33% of people in Cardiff live in poverty, so they may have been more attracted to the money associated with the Bentley that those from other areas. Had the study involved those from affluent, middle class and poorer areas the results may differ. Despite this, Dunn and Searles’ results follow the same trend as Buss’s which would suggest the findings are accurate and that mate selection is a valid evolutionary explanation of gender.

Despite the supporting findings, the explanation as a whole can be criticised. The theory is reductionist because there is nothing to explain homosexuality. If gender behaviour was driven by reproductive strategies alone, as mate selection suggests, then only same sex relationships would exist. This is evidently not the case; therefore, gender behaviour must be influenced by social or cultural factors. It is also incredibly sexist to claim that women cannot provide for themselves and would prefer to find a wealthy and successful man than to make their own money. It also does very little for the reputation of men by claiming them to be promiscuous and shallow. In fact, human choose mates based on other factors including personality and shared interests.

In conclusion, although there are some findings which support mate selection as an evolutionary explanation of gender, it is rather flawed. It does not comply with many of our modern day society’s norms, for an example homosexuality, anti-sexism and not excusing unacceptable behaviour. Based on this, this theory alone does not provide a valid explanation of gender. Perhaps if it was updated to include how humans have evolved today then it would be more widely accepted e.g. if it suggested humans now engage in careful mate selection to increase our status or personal wealth.