Gender Chauvinism and the Division of Labor in Humans

GENDER CHAUVINISM AND THE DIVISION OF LABOR IN HUMANS LESLEY LOVETT DOUST* andJON LOVETT DOUSTt Among human cultures a consistent theme exists in the pattern of male-female division of labor. According to Van den Berghe's text of human social biology, "in virtually all societies, men have monopolized war, hunting, fishing, and running public affairs, and women have primarily nurtured young children . . . carried water, gathered fuel, harvested fruits and nuts, and transformed food for general consumption (grinding grain, cooking, preserving meat)" [1, p. 53]. Some claim that the relevance of sex to the division of labor in human society is one ofthe few great generalizations ofcultural anthropology [2]. Despite the gains that are being made in terms of the appointment of women to high office, it seems to us that, in America, individual reaction to a chauvinist status quo still varies widely, from endorsement or acceptance to rejection and impatience. Here we examine various explanations of the present division of labor and power between the sexes. We suggest that differences in male and female behaviors—and gender-based discrimination —have arisen from the expression ofdifferent reproductive strategies of the sexes, compounded by cultural differences pertaining to environmental resources and socioeconomics. We describe a biosocial view that places the human organism within a complex cultural environment . A number of writers recently have sought to expand the study of the nature of man to include females (e.g., Hrdy's The Woman That Never Evolved [3] and Hubbard's "Have Only Men Evolved?" [4, pp. 7-35]; see also the papers in Wasser [5] and Small [6]). As evolutionary biologists come to appreciate that males and females ofa species can be confronted The authors thank the following for helpful comments—Elaine Brighty, Paul Ewald, Roger Masters, Glen Schubert, and Bill Zimmerman. *Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts 01075. tAmherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002.© 1985 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved. 0031-5982/85/2804-0445$01.00 526 I Lesley Lovett Doust andJon Lovett Doust ¦ Gender Chauvinism by different selection pressures, favoring different (and sometimes conflicting ) behavior, it is easy to see how a "battle of the sexes" might be joined. One manifestation of the conflict of interests between males and females might be the imposition of male control over the reproductive and political activity of women. For example, issues of abortion and reproductive rights are significant focal points on the current American political agenda. There are a number of avenues of analysis that include, in differing degrees, attempts to explain existing patterns of division of labor. First there is the class of argument founded on genetics and the measure of man (or mismeasure, as Stephen Gould [7] has put it). This allows the viewpoint that gender-based inequities are biologically justifiable— applying a kind of social Darwinism to support chauvinistic behavior. A second kind of interpretation develops an ecological dimension to the biological perspective, recognizing and indeed emphasizing the influence of the environment on the development of male and female roles. When we consider the environment as a force shaping human behavior, we are less concerned with the physical environment of the individual than with the cultural environment provided by society. Humans being, above all, social beings, this interpretation emphasizes enculturation as an explanation for the present status ofwomen. The social inequality of women may therefore be read as a symptom of prejudice persisting from the past but as nevertheless open to change, rather than being writ in stone (or DNA). A third viewpoint could involve acknowledgment of some underlying differences between modal males and females that are amplified and conditioned by societal expectations and that ultimately may be expressed as preferences by adult males and females for particular tasks. Biology and Natural Selection No one has ever isolated a pure genotype. The phenotype or actual appearance of an individual is shaped by the continuing interaction between genes and environment, an interaction that begins for us with development of the fertilized egg and finally concludes at death. Most models ofgene action and individual development are interactionist and invoke the concept of epigénesis. As Richard Lewontin, the Harvard population geneticist, has put it, "genes do not determine characters...