Gender
A huge subfield in cultural anthropology
Gendered Society
by Michael Kimmel (2008)
Why is it that virtually every society differentiates people on the basis of
gender?
Why is it that most societies are based upon male dominance?
The most egalitarian relationships between genders tended to be
among hunters and gatherers in many [not all] parts of the world.
Different societies have different levels of gender inequality
Kimmel outlines the following questions that typically inform social
science debate.
Why are social, economic, and political resources divided unequally
between genders?
Why do men always get more?
Why is gendered division of labor also an unequal division of labor.
Why are women’s tasks and men’s tasks valued differently?
Gender refers to the meanings that are attached to biological difference
Biological sex varies very little
Gender varies enormously
Two arguments about differences
Biological determinism- a hardwired difference
Differential socialization – men and women are taught to be different
Assumptions
1) Gender domination is inevitable
2) Differences between men and women are greater than between
women or between men
Instead, Kimmel argues:
Gender difference is the product of gender inequality.
Not the other way around.
It is through the idea of difference that inequality is legitimated.
Rule of thumb:
When women contribute significantly to food or resource production …
And when they have control over the fruits of their labor …
Then they are more likely to have higher status and power
Learned difference?
Many egalitarian gender relationships have been replaced by hierarchical
ones
Often the result of Western influences
Different socialization?
One example, the Igbo women in southeastern Nigeria
The Aba Riots (British terminology)
“Women’s War” (Igbo women’s words)
November 1929 over 6,000 square miles
Tens of thousands of women converged on Native Administration Centers
They chanted, danced, sang songs of ridicule
They attacked 16 Native courts
No one was hurt until the British fired on the women, leaving more than 50
dead and many more wounded
Why?
“Making war” for the Igbo women meant to “sit on” or to “make war
on” a man
Sitting on a man was a form of collective women’s power
If he mistreated his wife
Violated market rules
Let his cows eat the women’s crops
Etc.
British did not recognize women’s economic or political power
Before British colonialism …
Igbo women had:
-
Actual and potential autonomy
Economic independence
Political power
A more or less stable balance of male and female power
They were not completely egalitarian, but they had their realm of power
influences
The British brought their assumptions about gender with them.
They created native administration and courts
They created a system of native authority, giving power exclusively to men
1927 women organized throughout the Igbo districts to conduct a Women’s
War
Christian influence and Victorian ideas of appropriate femininity and
masculinity
An Igbo woman who showed talent in business, science, or politics
“had the brain of a man” and was not really a woman
Igbo women were discouraged from continuing their former political and
economic roles
Women became Christian in order to gain admission to schools for their
children (primarily boys)
Western initiatives to improve cash crop farming focused on men
Women still grew their family’s food, but were not offered training and tools
Gender became increasingly differentiated
Gender inequalities increased as women became more economically
dependent upon men
Biological determinism?
Gender difference is the product of gender inequality.
Biological determinism- a hardwired difference?
From Bobbi Low’s Why Sex Matters
Differential socialization – men and women are taught to be different?
Intrasexual selection
Males must often fight one another to gain access to females or in some
way compete with other males.
Intersexual selection is about the male working to get the female’s
attention, rather than battle or physical competition.
Generalizations about Mammals
Gametes are specialized
the sperm is made to get someplace faster, to roam, to hitch up with
another gamete
the egg is made to live longer, preserve energy.
risks such as roaming are counter to an egg’s interests.
Gametes and the sets of behaviors we tend to associate with the
sexes
According to Bobbi Low and others in “Why Sex Matters,” there are
costs and benefits in mammals to:
mating (females are less likely to profit from much mating effort)
parental effort (males expending parental effort do so at a cost to mating
effort)
Male behaviors to get into mating game. Costs can be high.
May need to grow large for physical competition (many primates, deer etc.)
Fewer males are able to get into the mating game
Once a male is in, the payoff curve is steep and additional costs few
Females and reproductive strategy
Their main concern is to have enough resources to effectively raise the
offspring they have.
Mating effort for mammal males
Strategies for securing a mate or mates
He can try to control the females
He can try to control or gather resources useful to the females
He can display for females, independent of resources
He can demonstrate through courtship his ability to be a good partner and
father
Matriarchy
A society or family in which women possess most of the power and
authority.
While there is some dispute among social scientists …
there is no clear evidence of matriarchal societies ever existing in the
world.
There are matrilinear and matrilocal societies, especially among indigenous
peoples of Asia and Africa, but they are not matriarchies.
Why no matriarchies – a theory:
Women rarely can gain clear reproductive advantage through high
stakes power games
It is not that men are bigger and stronger than women.
It is not that women are bound by the constraints of pregnancy, nursing and
child care.
The critical factor behind our sex differences is that resources and
power have different reproductive utility for men and women
Why there have been no matriarchies?
According to Low and others:
Reproduction imperatives have had an impact on female political strategies
and degree of influence.
Greater monogamy (reducing the potential rewards of power for men)
means that politically powerful women become more numerous.
All of this leads to these questions:
Is the desire for ever increasing wealth an example of runaway sexual
selection?
Is war an example of runaway sexual selection?
Lethal traits leading to extinction can arise in sexual selection.
Lethal conflict exits in many species over resources
For humans in early societies, many men fought in wars and mortality rates
could be extreme.
Some probability of winning (which would greatly increase reproduction)
Some probability of losing (which would mean death or disability)
If winning did not include such high rewards, the behavior would
remain rare.
Modern war
Modern war is characterized by rapid change in technology, and unhooked
from individual advantage. (Low et al)
In other primates, the rewards of fighting are reproductive.
In humans, men’s reproductive success varies more than women’s in
most cultures
So physical aggressiveness (sometimes leading to lethal violence) is one of
the most consistent sex differences across cultures.
Cross-culturally, men tend to make enormous, direct reproduction gains
when they acquire power, status, and resources.
Although aggression is likely an instinctive drive favored by
selection, warfare is avoidable.
Humans learn through culture and thus have a flexible response to
ecological conditions.
There is no evidence for a specific gene for warfare. Warfare is biologically
possible but not inevitable.
War and peace begin in our minds. So does accumulating or sharing
resources begin in our minds.
War in preindustrial society differed from intergroup aggression in
other species only in scope
Attacks and escalations by larger groups can be fairly low-cost.
Most war parties arose from disputes about reproductive matters.
Those who participated gained clear reproductive advantage through
prestige, greater wealth, and access to women.
But … what is the reproductive advantage to fighting in a war now?
What of large armies?
In the earliest large armies, people were recruited from a variety of social
classes.
Their leaders fought by their sides.
Fighters were rewarded with land, goods, prestige etc.
Wars in the past were more likely to be fought with relatives and
neighbors over their own land resources.
Cultural influences and an example of another pattern
Cheyenne example
Suicide missions example
The introduction of guns permanently changed the nature of war
less skill and fewer resources needed
risk bearers and profit makers were separated in warfare
a new group emerged: weapons makers, the military industrial complex
was born
lower classes were drafted or recruited
wealthier people found others to substitute for them
Past correlations between warriors’ behavior and reproductive
success seem weak now
Successful leaders organize field units in ways that play on the past kinship
structure of warring groups (brothers, father image, protecting women, etc.)
Leaders play upon the major themes of individual gain: wealth, social
reciprocity, kinship gains, and sexual success.
Few men now engage in combat over resources that are directly
related to their lineage’s success:
armies have become increasingly hierarchical
administrative groups send others to fight
they have to maintain discipline and loyalty in the face of unequal payoffs
more lower income men are recruited or drafted
So why do they serve?
Did they fare better or worse than if they had remained civilians?
No data exists to answer the question
In evolutionary terms, warfare should become and remain common
only when the net fitness of warriors is enhanced.
But now those with the most to gain from warfare suffer lower risks
than those with little to gain. (Jared Diamond, Bobbi Low and others)
A. If this is true, what does it mean socially? B. What does it mean from an
evolutionary perspective?
From The Gendered Society by Michael S. Kimmel (2008)
Gender refers to the meanings that are attached to biological
difference
•
•
Biological sex varies very little
Gender varies enormously (culturally)
Two arguments about differences
•
Biological determinism- a hardwired difference
•
Differential socialization – men and women are taught to be different
Assumptions around these arguments about difference
1) Gender domination is inevitable (It is found everywhere to various degrees and
in various expression.)
2) Differences between men and women are greater than between women or
between men.
Instead, Michael S. Kimmel argues:
•
Gender difference is the product of gender inequality.
•
Not the other way around.
•
It is through the idea of difference that inequality is legitimated.
A rule of thumb
•
When women contribute significantly to food or resource production …
•
And when they have control over the fruits of their labor …
•
Then they are more likely to have higher status and power
1) Is gender inequality inevitable and universal?
a. Is domination of one sex over another wired in biology? What is the argument of
some biological anthropologists such as Bobbi Low in Why Sex Matters? How
does cross-cultural comparison assist in answering that question?
b. Is domination of one sex over another learned through culture? What does the
example of the Igbo women in Nigeria demonstrate about learned inequality?
How does cross-cultural comparison assist in answering the question about
learned domination?
2) Does gender inequality actually influence groups of people to fabricate and
exacerbate concepts of gender difference? Why or why not? If so, how? What are
some cross-cultural examples?