Premium
Sexual Selection, Parental Investment, and Sexism
Author(s) -
Travis Cheryl Brown,
Yeager C. P.
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
journal of social issues
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.618
H-Index - 122
eISSN - 1540-4560
pISSN - 0022-4537
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1991.tb01826.x
Subject(s) - sociobiology , credibility , objectivity (philosophy) , sexual selection , psychology , inclusive fitness , selection (genetic algorithm) , parental investment , social psychology , investment (military) , developmental psychology , epistemology , computer science , artificial intelligence , ecology , political science , biology , pregnancy , philosophy , genetics , politics , offspring , law
The application of sociobiological concepts such as sexual selection and parental investment to the understanding of human behavior has been accorded credibility by the appearance of scientific objectivity, but has also contributed to a persistent sexism that is detailed in this paper. Basic assumptions of sociobiological theories of sexual selection and parental investment are outlined, and both the theoretical limits and contradictory data associated with these concepts are reviewed. We argue that the persistent widespread adherence to simplified and often erroneous models derived from these concepts reflects a social construction of gender that is relatively independent of the facts. Several mechanisms by which this social construction is accomplished are discussed, including androcentric reference points, prejudicial language, biased selection of examples, deprecation of environmental and contextual factors, and differential application of standards of evidence.