Discuss the evolutionary theory of gender development
Discuss the evolutionary theory of gender development (8+16 marks)
The traditional picture of evolution is of a man being the hunter and a woman being the gather and child bearer. The role division may have evolved because women would have spent most of their adult life either pregnant or producing milk or both. If a woman spent time hunting this would reduce the groups reproductive success, hence why they are left to grow crops and make shelter and clothing to contribute. Not only does this complementary division of labour enhance reproductive success, but it is also important in avoiding starvation – a further adaptive advantage. This way their reproductive success is still high and they have an alternative way to survive.
Kuhn and Stiner (2006) stated that the Neanderthals didn’t survive because they didn’t follow these rules. Both genders hunted and evidence from the skeletons of the females show that they suffered in injuries. This would have affected their rate of reproduction. There was no evidence to show that they had any farms and with both genders hunting, we can assume that there was no on farming. This means no alternative food supply and because they were well built, people needed a lot of nutrition to feed them. When they had trouble hunting, they starved and could not survive.
One major weakness with the division of labour theory is that is it reductionist. It reduces an aspect of human behaviour to just one factor; evolution. This means that it ignores the rest. This is an over-simplification of complex human behaviours and processes; however, it is necessary to so this to operationalise variables adequately, and to control for extraneous variables. This does not take into account the genetic factors that occur in gender development which have been proven to play a huge role.
This view put forward has been criticised for being determinist as it implies that men and women have little choice or control over their behaviours; women are
The traditional picture of evolution is of a man being the hunter and a woman being the gather and child bearer. The role division may have evolved because women would have spent most of their adult life either pregnant or producing milk or both. If a woman spent time hunting this would reduce the groups reproductive success, hence why they are left to grow crops and make shelter and clothing to contribute. Not only does this complementary division of labour enhance reproductive success, but it is also important in avoiding starvation – a further adaptive advantage. This way their reproductive success is still high and they have an alternative way to survive.
Kuhn and Stiner (2006) stated that the Neanderthals didn’t survive because they didn’t follow these rules. Both genders hunted and evidence from the skeletons of the females show that they suffered in injuries. This would have affected their rate of reproduction. There was no evidence to show that they had any farms and with both genders hunting, we can assume that there was no on farming. This means no alternative food supply and because they were well built, people needed a lot of nutrition to feed them. When they had trouble hunting, they starved and could not survive.
One major weakness with the division of labour theory is that is it reductionist. It reduces an aspect of human behaviour to just one factor; evolution. This means that it ignores the rest. This is an over-simplification of complex human behaviours and processes; however, it is necessary to so this to operationalise variables adequately, and to control for extraneous variables. This does not take into account the genetic factors that occur in gender development which have been proven to play a huge role.
This view put forward has been criticised for being determinist as it implies that men and women have little choice or control over their behaviours; women are