Human Dimorphism and Sexism
By Michael McGehee at Jan 05, 2009
I just read the most ridiculous comment: "Human dimorphism suggests that some degree of male ownership over females existed during human evolution..."
This is poppycock.
I have always taken it as being the opposite, especially considering the role of sexual selection. I mean, look at myspace.com or go to a bar and you see what I mean.
The "natural" (for current lack of a better word) power in sexual relations is largely skewed to women's favor and it is through the use of certain social constructs to undermine that, IMO, that we see "male ownership."
And it is not just humans. A common feature in the animal kingdom is male display for female favor.
Look at the "birds of paradise" or ducks or gorillas or certain species of fish or reptiles. The dimorphism of almost all species is that males have extravagant features that are designed to gain female attention and favor. The bird with the best call and/or plumes will get the mate; the moose with the biggest rack of antlers will get the mate (though sometimes this may prove disadvantageous since the antlers can be too weighty for survival).
My point here is that if we are looking to the sciences for explaining sexual relations we should pay closer attention.
What I see, and I could be wrong, is that women largely have "nature" on their side but it is through social constructs used to undermine that that we see the kinds of sexism that delegate women to certain "tasks" or to glass ceilings in jobs (I mean, why was it even necessary to ask "Is America ready for a woman president?") or pay differences (another disturbing thought is: Why is it that outside of jobs that subvert women to men - i.e. strippers, prostitutes, "personal assistants"*, etc - jobs that are predominantly held by females consist of low wages?) and so on.
And if I am right then this is much better news than if male dominance was biologically driven. This means that such societal practices can be replaced.
*In the recent copy of the Fort Worth Weekly and on the back page I saw an advertisement where a "handsome" man was "seeking" an attractive, young, blonde woman between 18-35 to be his "personal assistant." He promised good pay, travel and made it clear that a sexual relationship would be required. I was absolutely revolted at this .