The root of the root of the root of it all

If you’ve ever wondered about the source of gender roles, gendered behavior, and gendered thinking, you might want to look for the answer in cell biology. Most people recognize the roots of inequality in the division of labor between female caregivers and male providers, but why did the cookie crumble in that particular way? Why do women give birth? Of all the sexual and asexual reproductive methods, why is this method dominant and what affect does it have on us today?

In Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene he theorizes that the unit of evolution is not species or individuals, but genes. In this theory, the key evolutionary changes happen at the point in the reproductive process where one phenotype is expressed over another in a certain trait – ie. the gene for blue eyes over the gene for green eyes, or the one for height over shortness, etc.

According to Dawkins, way back in the primordial soup when proteins first began linking to form the chains that would become DNA, two dominant replication strategies developed. Some protein chains would replicate with reckless abandon as many times as possible in the hopes that some would survive. While others would expend energy building protection for their replications, and hence replicate less frequently but with a higher survival rate. Through cross-replication, the two strategies played off each other and increased the nich role played by the other, until they became mutually dependent and distinct groups – males and females.

So when looking at the goal of life as having as many babies as possible, ideally individuals would depose their replicated genes and walk away to go depose more elsewhere. But someone has to stick around to make sure the new genes survive to reproduce. And because the female has already invested more energy in the offspring (building protection) than the male, she can’t walk away, but he can, leaving her in a poor negotiating position.

At first this glance this seems to indicate women are fundamentally disadvantaged and condemned to life of home-making for philandering mates. But on closer examination, women have developed two major strategies to deal with this situation, which are clearly observable across the animal kingdom.

1) The first requires a male to invest in the offspring before copulation – ie. Build a nest or bring food. But this strategy relies on the compliance of all females. If all females withhold sex until a nest is built, men will build nests. If some females cheat and offer sex for free to get a better mate, the males will go to them and the holder-outers will have no choice but to give in.
2) In the second strategy females give up on males contributing to child rearing and choose instead to copulate with the male with the best genes - hence the deer with the biggest antlers enjoying a harem of females while doing nothing to help raise the kids. This strategy results in intense competition among males – in sometimes otherwise useless characteristics (like the size of a peacock’s tail)

When you think about how these strategies play out in the human world, it starts to explain a few things. Like the high-school jock strategy of showing-off good genes vs the nice quiet guy proving he could be helpful. And the different girls who are attracted to the two different types of males. And most interestingly, for me, the anger that good, home-making women have displayed throughout history towards ‘loose’ women who offer sex without any initial investment, and hence reduce the buy in for everyone. 