Why are humans and other animals (really all species, except for a few) natually inclined to being sexist??

Question

in most sexual species, the males and females have different strategies. females brains make them want children more than a male(pregnancy in mammals or the production of the egg in birds and reptiles). "and this difference in initial investment creates differences in variance in expected reproductive success and bootstraps the sexual selection processes".unlike a female, a male (except in monogamous species) is not sure if he is the true parent of his offspring are theirs or not. and will be less interested in spending time and energy into something that might not be related to him. "As a result of these factors, males are typically more willing to mate than females" in humans, the part of the brain dedicated to sex is larger in males than that of females, so obviously females are not required to want to mate as much as males.the natural idea of women is that they are the ones who are at fault, the human race already blames the females for everything, even in religion.

Answer 1

It's always nice to get a biased question.

Answer 2

Men are from mars, Women are from venus, The theory that early man was family oriented is probably flawed, in that one male was naturally dominate and had breeding rights in the group. Males of most species must by nature be aggresive if they are going to pass on their genes. Human males did not evolve to be monogamous, it was'nt until religion entered the picture that this became the norm.
Males are willing to mate most anytime that females are available, and it has been my experience that someone is always willing and that goes with other species as well as humans, If that makes the male or female of a species sexist it is by nature and probably will continue as long as there is life on this beautiful world we live on. I do not consider males or females at fault we are all different, physically and psychologicaly.

Answer 3

There is another interpretation to the factors you cite. Females invest a lot more in offspring than do males (usually) and therefore females in many species are more picky about the male they select to father their few children. Males can pass on their genes most efficiently by mating with as many females as possible.

So, the genetic goals are different.

I would change your last sentence slightly to: "the human race already blames the females for everything, usually BECAUSE of religion."

Answer 4

If you look at a lot of species of animals, you'll find that the familial grouping is that of one dominant male and several female mates. The females are anatomically only able to gestate and care for a small number of offspring. The male, however, can impregnate one female and then impregnate another. Males who mated with more females were more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation than those who were not. Once a female has mated, there is no need for her to copulate again, except for pleasure, it won't produce any more offspring until the one currently gestating has been born, and often not until it has been weened. This explains why males usually have a higher sex drive than females. Perhaps we should reconsider our customs of one female for every male?

Answer 5

This is a complicated question, but I'll try... I think the differences in males and females make species more resilient since there are more skill sets to draw from. So natural selection ensured that the hard wiring for these differences get passed to offspring. Also, our hormones affect our behavior, and estrogen and testosterone have different purposes.

Answer 6

O.M.G.

i'd start to bounce your ideas off people at the stage directly after you think of anything cos girl you are some kind of athlete you've run so far with this!

i was laughing at the idea that male unwillingness to parent is relevant to sexual selection are you suggesting somekind of cross species reproduction whereby say sharks start to try to mate with seahorses cos they're better fathers! - superb.

If I could put a star on an answer I'd put one on NotGH3y's answer you are 'on a mad one' with this idea.

I do not wish to discourage your passion which is evident. I admire passion.

Buff.

Answer 7

Species in nature are no more able to be called 'sexist' than they can be called 'Christian' if they display some altruistic behavior, or 'Communist' if they act for the collective (as in a hive or nest).

Sexism in humans may be traceable to certain natural instincts found in other primates ... but that is not a reason to ascribe 'sexism' to those other primates, much less to other animals.

The reason human sexism is bad has nothing to do with whether or not it is traceable to nature. In either case, sexism is wrong.

(Incidentally, when you quote somebody, please include the reference you are quoting from.)

Answer 8

Animals that are bigger or stronger find that they can dominate others. It is an advantage they can use without much thought (if human).

If human, they can use thought to circumvent this natural tendency (women to find other ways of being strong, men to live in a more humane way).

Answer 9

Determining prejudicial (sexist) behavior in animals... What kind of junk pseudoscience is this? Are you or some professor actually getting funding for this crap?!

Go and try to counsel a bear that looks depressed. Your psychobabble misinterpretation will ultimately rid us of your stupidity.

Answer 10

probably purely those that are purely considerable different and childrens or demesticated animals. Like a poodle as an occasion. yet no longer all canines will die in keeping with say. different than that each animal will likely attempt.