Are Homo sapiens naturally intended to be male-dominant, based on our evolutionary biology? 🦍

Hello this is Seri 🌸

After explaining why I disgaree with patriarchy, there's another question I often asked myself and want to share with you :

Are Homo sapiens naturally intended to be male-dominant, based on our evolutionary biology?

From an evolutionary perspective, Homo sapiens are not naturally male-dominant in the sense that men should hold inherent power over women. The nature of human societies, especially in early human history, was more egalitarian than many modern or historical cultures suggest.

1. Early Human Societies Were Likely Egalitarian: 

In the hunter-gatherer societies of early humans, there is evidence to suggest that both men and women contributed equally to the survival of the group. Men may have hunted, and women often gathered food and cared for children, but both roles were essential. In these societies, there wasn't a strict hierarchy or patriarchy. Women had significant influence, especially in the family and social networks.

2. Human Evolution and Adaptability: 

Humans evolved to be adaptable, and that means early human societies did not have a rigid or fixed structure when it came to gender roles. Both men and women worked together to ensure survival. In fact, some researchers argue that egalitarian structures were natural because cooperation and flexibility were crucial for the success of small, closely-knit groups.

3. Male-Dominance in Later Societies: 

As societies grew and shifted toward agricultural and settled ways of life, power dynamics began to change. The rise of patriarchal systems can be linked to changes in land ownership, inheritance, and the development of organized state systems, which favored male-dominated hierarchies. These were not a reflection of human nature, but rather a result of cultural, economic, and technological shifts over time.

4. Male-Dominance vs. Patriarchy: 

Male-dominant societies, in the sense that men hold more power or influence, don’t necessarily imply a patriarchy, a system where men have total control over women. Male-dominant societies can still allow women to have significant roles, while patriarchy creates a rigid, oppressive system where women are often denied autonomy.

So, in short: Homo sapiens are not inherently male-dominant. Early human societies were more egalitarian. The rigid patriarchy that we see in many later societies is not rooted in our natural biological design but in cultural developments that grew over time.

How about other primates?

In primates, we see a range of social structures, from male-dominant hierarchies to more egalitarian or even female-dominant groups.

Homo sapiens, as part of the primate family, share this evolutionary flexibility. While early human societies may have been more egalitarian, the development of male-dominant or patriarchal societies was influenced by cultural and environmental changes, rather than being strictly part of human nature. This makes it clear that the notion of male dominance in humans is not biologically "hardwired" but a cultural adaptation that emerged over time. 

While the dynamics in primate societies can vary, it is clear that female primates generally have more autonomy and social agency than women in highly patriarchal or restrictive human societies. In many primate species, females have flexible roles within their social groups, where they can form alliances, challenge dominant males, and make choices that benefit their well-being and that of their offspring.

In contrast, human patriarchal societies have historically imposed strict gender roles that often limit women's rights, freedom, and opportunities. While these social structures are cultural constructs, they can be very restrictive for women, limiting their ability to choose their roles in society, particularly in areas like leadership, sexuality, and workplace.

Thus, the main difference is that female primates, especially in species like bonobos and chimpanzees, are not subjected to the same rigid patriarchal control that is often seen in many human societies. Female primates have more agency in flexible social roles, and they are able to form powerful alliances that allow them to maintain social standing and influence.

---

The question of whether Homo sapiens are naturally inclined toward male-dominance based on evolutionary biology is complex and still debated. However, various archaeological and anthropological sources provide insights into human behavior, social structures, and gender roles that can help answer this question.

1. Paleolithic Evidence:

Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Evidence from archaeological sites suggests that early Homo sapiens, especially during the Paleolithic period, lived in relatively egalitarian societies, with shared roles in food acquisition. For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, both men and women contributed significantly to the survival of the group, with women often gathering plant-based foods and men hunting. There is no strong evidence indicating that these societies had rigid male dominance.

Burial Practices: Some early burials, like those found in the Upper Paleolithic period, show women and men being buried with similar items, suggesting equality in status and respect. In contrast, later societies (e.g., Neolithic) show more distinctions in gender roles and status based on burial offerings, which could indicate more gender inequality emerging with agricultural development.

2. Neolithic and Agricultural Societies:

With the advent of agriculture around 10,000 years ago, societal structures became more complex. Evidence from archaeological sites such as Çatalhöyük (in present-day Turkey) and Jericho (in modern-day Palestine) suggest a mix of male and female leadership in early settled communities. However, as societies grew more hierarchical with the rise of organized farming, trade, and military control, men began to dominate political and economic roles.

Division of Labor: Archaeological sites from early agricultural societies show a growing division of labor based on gender. While women remained responsible for domestic tasks, men began taking on roles related to politics, warfare, and control of resources. This shift could indicate that male-dominant structures evolved alongside the rise of agricultural surplus and property ownership.

3. Anthropological Studies of Contemporary Indigenous Societies:

Studies of modern-day hunter-gatherer and indigenous societies, like the San, Hadza, and !Kung, offer insights into how human societies functioned before the rise of agriculture. Many of these societies exhibit a significant degree of gender equality. While gender roles exist (e.g., hunting versus gathering), women often have substantial autonomy, and decision-making is shared.

These studies suggest that gender equality may be more natural to Homo sapiens than rigid male dominance. In fact, many anthropologists argue that human evolution favored flexibility in social structures, rather than a strict male-dominant order.

4. Biological and Evolutionary Considerations:

Sexual Selection and Reproductive Roles: Some evolutionary biology theories suggest that male-dominant traits may have evolved due to sexual selection, with men competing for female mates. However, this does not necessarily imply societal dominance, but rather differences in reproductive strategies. Women, due to their reproductive roles, may have had significant influence in early societies.

Pair Bonding and Cooperation: Humans are unique in that they exhibit long-term pair bonding and cooperative parenting, which can mitigate male-dominance in social structures. The shared responsibility of raising offspring suggests that both sexes played crucial roles in survival and community success.

Conclusion:

There is no clear archaeological evidence that Homo sapiens are "naturally" just male-dominant. Early human societies, particularly those before the rise of agriculture, seem to have been more egalitarian. The shift to patriarchal structures likely arose with the development of more complex social and economic systems. Evolutionary biology does not definitively support the idea that male dominance is an inherent trait of Homo sapiens, but rather that social structures and roles evolved in response to environmental and cultural factors.

Pic 🖼️ : designed by freepik.