The Economist: "Fighting off rivals may be responsible for masculine traits"

Submitted by anthony on Sat, 2010-05-22 19:50

Article here. Excerpt:

'WHEN two drunken men fight over a woman, alcohol and stupidity may not be the only things at work. Sadly, evolution may have shaped men to behave this way. Almost all of the traits considered to be masculine—big muscles, facial hair, square jaws, deep voices and a propensity to violence—evolved, it now seems, specifically for their usefulness in fighting off or intimidating other men, allowing the winner to get the girl.

That, at least, is the contention of David Puts, an anthropologist at Pennsylvania State University, in an upcoming paper in Evolution and Human Behavior. Dr Puts is looking at how sexual selection gave rise to certain human traits. A trait is sexually selected if it evolved specifically to enhance mating success. They come in two main forms: weapons, such as an elk’s horns are used to fight off competitors; and ornaments, like a peacock’s tail, which are used to advertise genetic fitness to attract the opposite sex.
...
It is a disturbing idea to modern minds, harking back to old stereotypes about violent cavemen battling with clubs while a passive woman, fetching in furs, waits helplessly to see who will win her. But Dr Puts emphasises that evolutionary biology is not destiny. Regardless of our evolutionary past, in modern societies men and women freely choose their mates. However, understanding the evolutionary pressures that made men the way they are could help us better understand male violence, including murder, domestic abuse, gang violence and perhaps even warfare.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Oh yeah, that too is somehow the fault of men.

The Economist has become like a publication from Harvard crossed with the WSJ. The Harvard side definitely is dominant.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2010-05-22 20:27

I saw this storya little while ago. Honestly, aside from his school of thought the Guy just seems like an idiot.

Basically he draws his conclision from physical sexual dimorphism. No duh men men are stronger and women have more fat but that doesn't mean men have that strength to fight each other for a mate. Aside from the fact that women must sacrifice prowess to be baby makers, all of men's strength would be explained by their need to hunt, build, and explore. All of which require male COOPERATION, especially hunting, which is a male only thing. Making the hunting weapons and expanding technology (another male thing) also required cooperation. These are things the ram, which fights for mates, doesn't need to do.

Competition, especially human competition, isn't just physical. Women are socially very aggressive and even equally physically aggressive in the family (he's too old school to know). Men especially have long lasting friendships and are willing to die for one another.

He goes on to give other gross simplifications/generalizations.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Sun, 2010-05-23 01:06