REJECTING BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM TO EXPLORE THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
OF GENDER
Decades of research on gender and sexuality, including by feminist anthropologists, have
challenged these old theories, particularly biological determinism. We now understand that
cultures, not nature, create the gender ideologies that go along with being born male, female, or
intersex, and the ideologies vary widely, cross-culturally. What is considered “man’s work” in
some societies, such as carrying heavy loads or farming, can be “woman’s work” in others.
What is “masculine” and “feminine” varies: pink and blue, for example, are culturally invented
gender-color linkages, and skirts and “make-up” can be worn by men, indeed by “warriors” (see
figure 1.4).
Margaret Mead was among the first anthropologists to explore the social construction of gender
cross-culturally in the 1930s. She traveled to New Guinea and studied among three cultural
groups, the Arapesh, the Mundugumor, and Tchambuli, documenting gender expressions and
personalities, describing her findings in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies
(1935). She found that each society had different gender ideologies, and all were significantly
distinct from those in the United States at that time. For instance, among the Arapesh both men
and women had similar temperaments. They were gentle, cooperative, and sensitive to the
needs of others.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
Men as well as women were intimately biological determinism the scientifically unsupported
view that biological differences (rather than culture) between males and females lead to
fundamentally different capacities, preferences, and gendered behaviors. 14 Gendered Lives
involved with parenting and childcare, including infant care. Among the Mundugumor, similar to
the Arapesh, both men and women had similar characteristics. However, the Mundugamor, by
contrast, tended to be aggressive, insecure, selfish, individualistic, violent, and lacking in self-
control. The Tchambuli differed from these cultural patterns in that both male and female
temperaments were distinct from each other. While they were structurally a patriarchal society,
the women tended to be more dominant, impersonal, efficient, and managerial. They often had
the last word in economic decisions and asserted their dominant position frequently and in a
variety of ways (Mead 1935, 252). Men were typically less responsible, less forceful, more
interested in artistic sensibilities and more emotionally dependent.
Mead’s work provided strong evidence against some early twentieth-century anthropology
claims positing that specific gender roles and male dominance were part of our evolutionary
heritage and fixed characteristics of human biology. This gender ideology argued that males
evolved to be food providers—stronger, more aggressive, more effective leaders with
cooperative and bonding capacities, planning skills, and technological inventiveness
(toolmaking, for example). By contrast, females were never supposed to acquire those
capacities because they were burdened by their reproductive roles—pregnancy, giving birth,
lactation, and childcare—and thus became dependent on males for food and protection. These
gender ideologies were persistent and persuasive; indeed, in many societies today, men are
portrayed as active, dominant leaders, and women are viewed as passive, subordinate
followers. Similar stories are invoked today for
Figure 1.4. Wodaabe men (of the Sahel region of Africa) wear makeup and dance in elaborate
dress for an annual courtship ritual competition. Women select the most attractive man to marry.
Dan Lundberg; CC BY-SA 2.0. Key Concepts 15 everything from some men’s love of hunting to
why men dominate “technical” fields, accumulate tools, have extramarital affairs, or commit the
vast majority of homicides.
Strength and toughness remain defining characteristics of masculinity in the United States and
other countries. However, decades of research have altered our views of human sex and
gender and our evolutionary past. As a way to understand the ways humans evolved, many
biological anthropologists look to nonhuman primates for insight, as we share a common
ancestor that is more recent than other animals. For many years primatologists believed that
nonhuman primates live exclusively in male-centered, male-dominated groups and that females
are passive. These assumptions were used to claim that this structure in humans is biologically
predestined and based on our evolutionary origins. However, more recent research has shown
that, in fact, this does not accurately describe our closest primate relatives: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and bonobos. The stereotypes came from 1960s research on ground-dwelling
savannah baboons. It suggested they are organized socially by a stable male-dominant
hierarchy.
The “core” of the group was established through force and regulated sexual access to females,
providing internal and external defense of the “troop” in a supposedly hostile savannah
environment. Females were thought to lack hierarchies or coalitions, were passive, and were
part of dominant male “harems.” This understanding changed with more nuanced research.
Critics first argued that baboons, as monkeys rather than apes,1 were too far removed from
humans evolutionarily to tell us much about early human social organization. Then, further
research on baboons living in other environments by primatologists such as Thelma Rowell
discovered that those baboons are neither male focused nor male dominated. Instead, the
stable group core is matrifocal—a mother and her offspring constituted the central and enduring
ties. Her research also illustrated that males do not control females’ sexuality. Quite the
contrary, in fact: females mate freely and frequently, choosing males of all ages, sometimes
establishing special relationships—“friends with favors.” Dominance, while infrequent, is not
based simply on size or strength; it is learned, situational, and often stress-induced. And like
other primates, both male and female baboons use sophisticated strategies, dubbed “primate
politics,” to predict and manipulate the intricate 1.
Research indicates that humans are more closely related to African apes than monkeys. The
last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans was alive approximately eight million
years ago, whereas Old World monkeys and apes diverged around twenty-five million years ago
(Shook et al. 2019). matrifocal groups of related females (e.g., mother, her sisters, their
offspring) form the core of the family and constitute the family’s most central and enduring social
and emotional ties. 16 Gendered Lives social networks in which they live. Rowell also restudied
the savannah baboons. Even they do not fit the baboon “stereotype,” she found that their
groups are loosely structured with no specialized stable male-leadership coalitions and are
sociable, matrifocal, and infant-centered much like Rhesus monkeys. Females actively initiate
sexual encounters with a variety of male partners. When attacked by predators or frightened by
some other major threat, males, rather than “defending the troop,” typically flee first, leaving the
infant-carrying females to follow behind. Research among primates as well as other lines of
research are helping us better understand the complex relationship between behavior and
biology among male and female primates, including humans. Ongoing research in a variety of
disciplines shows that the biological differences between men and women are less pronounced
than we believed previously.
