Re: Gender and Bipedalism

From: Rick Wagler (taxidea3_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:53:31 GMT

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:V5rUd.48508$Z14.35604@news.indigo.ie...
> In nearly all primate species males and females
> lead very different lives -- with females being
> almost entirely responsible for infant- and
> child-care (including their feeding, tutelage,
> and transport) while males focus mainly on
> defence. There is no reason whatsoever to
> believe that the first hominids to adopt
> bipedalism were an exception to this general
> rule. In most cases the forms of life are so
> different that each gender can, in some ways
> and for some purposes, almost be regarded
> as a separate species.
>
Examples, please. Most primates are not gender
dimorphic to any great degree. Gorillas are the
exception not the rule. And there are no species
where different modes of locomotion are employed
by the two sexes. As for food gathering etc most
species do not differ by sex and in many species
males are involved with infant care. So what well
of wisdom are you tossing your bucket into now, Paul?

> The selective pressures that brought about
> bipedalism must be assumed to have operated
> with much greater force on one gender rather
> than the other. Yet bipedalism must also have
> provided benefits for lesser-affected gender.
> The forces of conservatism are so strong that
> a gender would not change unless it also was
> subject to significant selective pressure.
> Further, the 'forms of life' were (almost certainly)
> so different that the selective pressure may
> well have taken quite different forms.
>
An assertion that needs backup. Got any? ....
[I know, I know....silly question.....]

> The most obvious of the differences between
> the genders, as it affects the switch to
> bipedalism, lies in the transport of infants --
> a strictly female responsibility. The weight
> of a heavy infant would render bipedal
> walking virtually impossible for a female
> hominid; it would certainly rule out bipedal
> running. Such a female would not be capable
> of any bipedalism, unless she had first put
> her infant down.

Does this mean that males would be incapable of
carrying things such as carcasses back to a camp
to be shared with the babysitters? The subtext that
runs through all your stuff - the pathetic, useless,
hopeless female - is quite tiresome.

We must conclude that one
> of the first selective pressures imposed on the
> initial bipeds was to force the females to
> radically change the nature of their infant
> care. At an early stage, they must have
> abandoned the near-universal primate pattern
> of having the infant attached to them on a
> 24/7 basis, and adopted the practice we see
> in modern humans of putting their infants
> on the ground.
>
Do we see very young infants placed on the
ground routinely in h/g cultures we know of?

> What selective pressure could have imposed
> such a drastic change on the behaviour of
> a primate?
>
> This is all against the general background
> that I have outlined here before, where a
> 'chimp' population found itself isolated on
> a tropical island (perhaps as large as Borneo,
> but probably much smaller) created by a rise
> in sea-levels. All predators above a few kilos
> in size would soon die out, and the quasi-
> chimps would descend from the trees,
> expanding into types of habitat previously
> barred to them. The males began to use
> clubs, and would have needed to carry them
> at all times, rapidly enforcing bipedalism.
>
A radical solution to a problem the onerous
nature of which you have totally failed to
establish. Bipeds carry things - lots of things -
including infants.

> But what forced the change in female life-
> style? How and why did they drop the
> pattern of primate infant care, which their
> ancestors had been employing for the past
> tens of millions of years?
>
> I don't think that the answer is too hard
> to find.
>
> Any guesses?
>
How different are the childcare patterns of a chimp
and a h/g group? Establish that first before running
of on a wild goose chase.

Rick Wagler

Relevant Pages

  • Another beloved meme bites the dust
    ... between one female and one male, is an unusual mating system in vertebrates. ... Males of most species irresponsibly take off right after insemination, ... Indeed, according to Luis Baptista at the California Academy of Sciences, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Another beloved meme bites the dust
    ... between one female and one male, is an unusual mating system in vertebrates. ... Males of most species irresponsibly take off right after insemination, ... Indeed, according to Luis Baptista at the California Academy of Sciences, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Another beloved meme bites the dust
    ... between one female and one male, is an unusual mating system in vertebrates. ... Males of most species irresponsibly take off right after insemination, ... Indeed, according to Luis Baptista at the California Academy of Sciences, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Another beloved meme bites the dust
    ... between one female and one male, is an unusual mating system in vertebrates. ... Males of most species irresponsibly take off right after insemination, ... Indeed, according to Luis Baptista at the California Academy of Sciences, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Ann, Laurie, and all the other women here, are rapists
    ... it's because female reproduction has a higher energy cost than ... "In "runaway" sexual selection, the selected trait becomes more ... next wave of the selected sex (usually males) to compete from a new ...
    (talk.rape)