The “Sex Role” Concept: An Overview and Evaluation
“Sex roles” are intuitively associated to stereotypic female and male sexual strategies and in biology, the term “sex role” often relates to mating competition, mate choice or parental care. “Sex role reversals” imply that the usual typological pattern for a population or species is deviates from a norm, and the meaning of “sex role reversal” thus varies depending upon whatever is the usual pattern of sex-typical behavior in a given taxon. We identify several problems with the current use of the “sex role” concept. (1) It is typological and reflects stereotypic expectations of the sexes. (2) The term “sex role” parses continuous variation into only two categories, often obscuring overlap, between the sexes in behavior and morphology, and variability in relation to ecological circumstances. (3) Common generalizations such as “sex role as seen in nature” mask variation upon which selection may act. (4) The general meaning of “sex roles” in society (i.e. “socially and culturally defined prescriptions and beliefs about the behavior and emotions of men and women”) is contrary to biological “sex role” concepts, so that confusing the two obscure science communication in society. We end by questioning the validity of the “sex role” concept in evolutionary biology and recommend replacing the term “sex role” with operational descriptions.
KeywordsMate choice Mating competition Sex roles Sexual selection Sex role reversal
We are most grateful for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript from Patricia A. Gowaty and anonymous reviewers, discussions with Lotta Kvarnemo, Patricia A. Gowaty, Marlene Zuk, and participants in the OIKOS 2006 workshop, the 2008 Gender perspectives on sexual selection workshop in Uppsala, and the symposium on the Ecology of sex roles in Perth 2011. MA and IA were supported by the GenNa-program, funded by the Swedish Research Council, at the Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University. I.A. was also supported by a Grant from the Inez Johansson foundation, and M.A. by a Grant from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
- Ah-King, M., & Nylin, S. (2010). Flexible mate choice. In M. D. Breed & J. Moore (Eds.), Encyclopedia of animal behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Ah-King, M. (2011b). Biologins paradox: föränderliga kön och rigida normer. [The paradox of biology: Flexible sexes and rigid norms.] Lambda Nordica, 4, 26–52.Google Scholar
- Ah-King, M., & Ahnesjö, I. (2012). Vad kan vi lära av biologisk forskning om “könsroller”? [What can we learn from biological research about “sex roles”?] Tidskrift för genusvetenskap, 4, 51–56.Google Scholar
- Ahnesjö, I., Forsgren, E., & Kvarnemo, C. (2008). Variation in sexual selection in fishes. In C. Magnhagen, V. Braithwaite, E. Forsgren, & B. G. Kapoor (Eds.), Fish Behaviour. Enfield: Science Publ. Inc.Google Scholar
- Altmann, J. (1997). Mate choice and intrasexual reproductive competition: Contributions to reproduction that go beyond acquiring more mates. In P. A. Gowaty (Ed.), Feminism and evolutionary biology, boundaries, intersections and frontiers (pp. 320–333). New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
- Anderson, W. W., Yong-Kyu, K., & Gowaty, P. A. (2007). Experimental constraints on mate preferences in drosophila pseudoobscura decrease offspring viability and fitness of mated pairs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 4484–4488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Anselmi, D. L., & Law, A. L. (Eds.). (1998). Questions of gender: Perspectives and paradoxes. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- Fritzsche, K., Arnqvist, G. (in press). Homage to Bateman: Sex roles predict sex differences in sexual selection. Evolution. doi: 10.1111/evo.12086.
- Ganetz, H. (2004). Familiar beasts: Nature, culture and gender in wildlife films on television. Nordicom Review, 25, 197–213.Google Scholar
- Gowaty, P. A., Anderson, W. W., Bluhm, C. K., Drickamer, L. C., & Kim, Y. K. (2007). The hypothesis of reproductive compensation and its assumptions about mate preferences and offspring viability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15023–15027.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gross, M. R., & Sargent, R. C. (1985). The evolution of male and female parental care in fishes. American Zoologist, 25, 807–822.Google Scholar
- Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry and the myth of the coy female. In R. Breed (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119–146). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Maddison, W. P., Maddison, D. R. (2010). Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.73 http://mesquiteproject.org.
- Small, M. F. (1993). Female choices; Sexual behavior of female primates. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Tang-Martinez, Z. (2010). Bateman’s principles: Original experiment and modern data for and against. In M. D. Breed & J. Moore (Eds.), Encyclopedia of animal behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
- Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Williams, G. C. (1975). Sex and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar