Understanding why men and women relate to each other the way we do requires peeling back the layers of customs, taboos, social mores, etc., to look at the physical human animal. To best understand the human animal, we must examine the conditions under which we evolved and how those conditions manifest themselves into our daily lives. Doing this gives us a completely different picture of what a truly healthy relationship looks like because it begins with the most fundamental building blocks available and goes from there to its own conclusion.

This is the first in a series of articles that will look at human sexuality and relationships from a purely evolutionary point of view and will compare and contrast that with the many layers of confusion that civilization has added on top of our evolved instincts. As you read, put aside your preconceived ideas of right, wrong and political correctness. Pretend that you’re reading about a completely different species if you like. Ask yourself how what you learn has already manifested itself in your life every day and in the lives of those around you. Above all, enjoy the ride… and remember, no matter how good or bad your current relationship situation may be, it is a direct result of instincts that have been evolving for millions of years. You, dear reader, are on the cutting edge of human evolution and are building on a legacy that extends back at least 5.5 million years. What a neat position to be in!

———————————————————————————–

I firmly believe that “women’s work” is a very real thing driven by biological imperatives that are hard-wired into our genetic code. Yes, this is a sexist remark in that I am discriminating (making fine distinctions between) based on gender. This should not be confused with chauvinism (claiming the relative superiority of either gender). To me, the concept of gender-based roles falls squarely in the “separate but equal” camp. By this I mean that men and women are built for entirely separate tasks, both of which are equally necessary for maximizing the odds of successful reproduction.

Why Women?

Sexual division of labor exists because our children are born completely helpless and take a long resource-intensive time to mature. It is simply impossible for a human mother to leave her infant behind while she goes off to hunt. Unable to feed itself, the infant must unmistakably communicate its needs to the mother. Nothing says “easy lunch” to a predator quite like a crying infant. Older children can walk on their own and gather their own food, with some help, but remain vulnerable until reaching sexual maturity. Someone must therefore remain with the child at all times.

I’ve done my share of hiking with my son, Logan, starting when he was too small to walk. His weight on my shoulders slowed me down, particularly when he would fall asleep leaning to one side in his carrier. His stamina has increased exponentially since then and he can usually take on steep 5-mile treks. I say “usually” because it’s getting harder and harder to carry him along with my normal burden of food, water, warm clothing, etc. It’s like driving with the brakes on, this from someone who isn’t normally worried about predators, foraging, or finding shelter. Mothers living before the days of waterproof-yet-breathable synthetic fabrics, ergonomic child-carrying backpacks, packaged rations, and forests cleared of most carnivorous animals had rough passage.

Why mothers? The wide hips that allow their babies’ large skulls to pass through during birth come at a price of reduced speed while men don’t have that impediment. A woman’s sensitive breasts resting squarely in the middle of her largest bodily mass are easy- and extremely painful- targets, making women less suited for fighting than men. It makes little evolutionary sense to have one parent give birth and the other nurse the infant because this would increase the vulnerability of both genders with no discernible benefit. As long as one gender is slower and more vulnerable, having that gender remain at home to care for the young while the other hunts makes the most sense. The same adaptations that make childbirth and feeding the child possible also make ongoing survival more difficult. In humans, women fall into this category.

Win-Win

Children require an astonishing amount of food. At nearly eight years old, Logan goes through groceries with gusto. Feeding him is a bit like ceaselessly shoveling coal into a ship’s boiler. I can only imagine the carnage to ensue once he hits puberty! My point is that a lone human in the wilderness must devote significant time and energy to finding food, as any survival show will demonstrate. Finding enough food for two while burdened with a heavy, hungry, and noisy child that both scares prey and attracts predators is a tall order indeed. It stands to reason that having one parent dedicated to finding food is a great idea, especially when that food comes in the form of densely packed calories rich in protein and electrolytes. If the hunter has a clean, dry, and warm place to come home to then it is so much better. The hunter benefits from having a home worth hunting and fighting for where he can return to rest and recharge, and mother and children benefit from the food in addition to their own foraging. It truly is a win-win scenario.

The proverbial “bacon” that Dad brings home has another benefit: More food allows earlier weaning, which allows the mother to have more children in a given time frame than a woman lacking this support. Having more children boosts the odds of passing on genetic material to another generation and thereby winning the great game of life. This kind of collective, mutually dependent living allows both partners to do more and with greater efficiency than they could alone. It also requires both partners to have a stake in the outcome. A woman must be able to rely on a man to share the fruits of his labors and a man needs to be at least reasonably certain that the children he is feeding really are his own.

Monogamy

Welcome to the wonderful world of monogamy where a woman makes herself available to one man and one man only to ensure that the man will have a vested interest in both her well-being and the conception and well-being of any children. It is no coincidence that human males have smaller testes than our freewheeling chimpanzee and bonobo cousins who have zero concept of monogamy. For them, the biggest balls win because they can out-produce the competition and increase the odds of winning the evolutionary jackpot by securing a genetic legacy. Monogamous humans with slow-growing children have no need of large testes because our sperm need not compete with that of other males.

This may sound good in theory but life isn’t quite that simple. Next week, we’ll look at the uneven investments that men and women make in the reproductive process.

Rate This Post:

Did you like this article? Submit it to your favorite social bookmarking sites:

About The Expert

On our About the Expert page, you can learn more about the author, including contact information and other posts they've written. About Anthony Hernandez.