Recently, Arizona University conducted the following study; 407 students involved a heterosexual relationship were asked to look at profiles of seven opposite sex targets who were either (a) highly physically attractive and highly dominant, (b) highly physically attractive and low in dominance, (c) average in physical attractiveness and highly dominant, or (d) average in physical attractiveness and low in dominance. After looking at the profiles, the subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire which asked several questions about their own relationship. The purpose of the study was to see if exposure to any of these conditions would effect the way the subjects viewed their own partners. The following results were reported: "as predicted, females' judgements were more influenced by the dominance of the male targets than by their physical attractiveness (which had no effect). Second, also as predicted, male subjects were influenced by the physical attractiveness of the female targets. Third, and unexpectedly, male subjects were influenced by female physical attractiveness only when the women were of low dominance."(Kenrick, p. 214) The results of this survey make intuitive sense. In our society, most of us have grown up with such stories as Beauty and the Beast, where the young beautiful woman falls in love with the raging, powerful beast, and Cinderella, where the prince falls in love with her when she is transformed from a straggly servant to a beautiful and refined woman.

Of course everyone is familiar with the scenario of the "damsel in distress", where the weak and helpless, yet beautiful woman is in great danger, and can only be saved by the powerful and brave, masculine hero. In fact, similar themes are prevalent throughout our culture's history, in literature, myth, and film. So what exactly does the study at Arizona University prove? The coordinators of this study introduced their research report with the following abstract: "Consistent with earlier research,... These data support predictions derived from an evolutionary model and suggest that such models can be used to generate testable hypotheses about ongoing social cognition." The "evolutionary model" being referred to is Darwin's theory on sexual selection. According to this theory, the higher investment an animal must put into its offspring, the more selective it will be about choosing a partner. This theory, when applied to humans, indicates that since both males and females have a large investment in their children, they are both selective. However, since the resources that they invest are different, they each value different characteristics when looking for a sexual partner. The results of the study at Arizona University certainly correspond with this theory. The fact that the women seemed to favor the more dominant men, and the men seemed to favor the more physically attractive(and less dominant) women can be used to support the evolutionary analysis. However, one must question whether the evolutionary theory should be accepted as the actual explanation for these results.

This evolutionary concept of sexual selection has been adopted by evolutionary biologists and sociobiologists. Edward O. Wilson defines sociobiology as " a scientific discipline and, as such, is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of social phenomena (including sexual and parental behavior) in all kinds of organisms, up to and including man." (53). The sociobiologists have used it in attempt to explain the social behavior in both animals and humans. Sociobiologists place most of their focus on an animal's tendency to try to maximize its genetic fitness. Since the act of mating and reproduction plays such a fundamental role in the maximizing of genetic fitness, the fact that sociobiology (and evolutionary theory) places a lot of stress on gender roles and mating behaviors certainly makes sense. What seems to be the general agreement among sociobiologists is that it is in the male's genetic interest to have more than one mate, while it is in the female's genetic interest to be monogamous. "There remains to be one important sense in which men and women will tend to be, respectively, exploiter and exploited. As a marriage progresses, the temptation to desert should--in the average case--shift toward the man." (Wright). The Sociobiological theories about gender roles and relationships, when it comes to humans, raise quite a bit of controversy. While the rationale may make sense, it is certainly hard to accept that things are the way they are because that is how we were biologically destined to be. The strongest arguments against the sociobiologists, and rightfully so, are feminist ones. How can we accept that our cultural roles in society are actually genetically determined? If the results to the study above were truly a reflection of where we have arrived in our biological evolution, the feminist plight would be devastated. The implications would be that traditional gender roles that have existed are a result of our biological evolution, and are genetically determined. Therefore, to act against these roles would be to go against our own nature. Were women biologically granted the role of eternally playing the damsel in distress? In contrast to the sociobiologists' favoring of the theories of sex evolution, there are arguments that assert that there is no true scientific basis for this assumption, and that it is merely a theory/ philosophy created by sexist, androgeno-centric (male centered) men. The resounding question is, which argument is the right argument, or perhaps, to state it more appropriately, the more right argument?

To begin this exploration, let us go back to the experiment conducted in Arizona. It is one of the many studies that report results supporting the following generalization; that men favor attractive, more passive women, and women favor powerful , successful, more domineering men. In many societies, including our own, their seems to be a tradition that husbands are often significantly older than their wives (the older the man, the more powerful and experienced, the younger the wife, the more healthy and fertile). Even in our society, it was not until recently that is has become acceptable for a woman past her early twenties to be married (while it has always been acceptable for men of any age to remain single). In other cultures, women are expected to get married at much younger ages, such as thirteen and fourteen, while their husbands may turn out to be one or two dozen years older. As stated earlier, the Sociobiological argument behind this finding is that the more an animal invests in its offspring, the more selective it will be about its partners. Furthermore, it is important for the animal to ensure as much successful procreation as possible. Robert Wright claims that "Not only have males evolved to compete for scarce female eggs, females have evolved to compete for scarce male investment." This explanation backs up the theory that suggests that because women have a limited supply of eggs, and they must invest themselves a great deal in pregnancy, giving birth, and raising a child, they search for someone who not only has good genes, but who will also prove to be successful and powerful (to provide safety and protection), and a seeming desire to commit to raising a family. Good looks, which are usually associated with health and youth, aren't as important to women because men are able to procreate for most of their lives. Men, on the other hand, because they have an endless supply of sperm, and a much greater time span in which to use it, are less concerned with settling down, and are more concerned with attractiveness (the insurance of fertility). Women are not fertile their whole lives. The younger they are, the more likely the chance they have of having healthy babies. Edward Wilson praises Darwin for his contribution to the knowledge and understanding of "sexual differences and courtship behavior" in both humans and animals.(62). One of the emphasized points made both by Darwin and other scientists ( including the sociobiologists) is that one major difference between males and females is that males would have a much greater gain if they compete for mates (a female can participate in a much more limited number of fertilizations than a male can). According to these observations, how are courtship behaviors to be explained? Wilson states, "males of species with intense sexual selection are typically reckless, boastful, and very intolerant of being cheated. In reference to the human case, we may note that adultery is the leading cause of murder in more primitively organized human societies." He goes on to say that it is to the females advantage to be discriminating, "flirtatious to attract many suitors, but at the same time , coy, reticent, and perceptive in order to mate with the best of males."(65) He then explains that the "best" of males can be defined as powerful and competent as well as the most likely to make the commitment to rearing children. The shy and helpless damsel in distress awaits her big, strong and powerful hero to take care of her. Psychobiologist Robert Wright adds to this evolutionary theory by saying that not only do males compete for scarce female eggs, but females, (in species that require high male parental investment) compete for male investment which is apparently scarce. It is quite distressing to think that women are truly in the more vulnerable dependant state because thy are at some sort of biologically determined disadvantage to men.

While these Sociobiological theories, originated in Darwin's discussion of sexual evolution, appear biologically possible, many find them difficult to accept. They have raised much controversy and discord among scientists and non-scientists alike. It is true that since Darwin's theory on evolution began to circulate, many authors and theorists used his theories to argue that women searching for equality and desiring to go out and work were going against their nature, and that it would set back the evolution of the human race. However, there are huge discrepancies in this manner of thinking. When we apply evolutionary theories to human behavior, the pieces don't exactly fit. If everyone's purpose is to "maximize" our "genetic survival", than what is the explanation for the large number of people who limit the number of children they have, or who choose not to have them at all? Anne Fausto-Sterling, in the introduction to her book, Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men, asserts;

Today, too, many scientists respond to the issue of sexual equality and the social and political upheaval that has accompanied it by offering us their insights, suggesting in all sincerity that, however well intentioned, the women's liberation movement and its fellow travelers want biologically unnatural changes that would bring grief to the human race. Sociobiologists, for example, suggest that our evolutionary history effects our most intimate relationships. Man's natural sexuality sends him in search of many sex partners, making him an unstable mate at best, while woman's biological origins destine her to keep the home fires burning, impelling her to employ trickery and deceit to keep hubby from straying... In general these scientists emphasize difference, the biological logic of male-female conflict, and the dim prospects for change. (Fausto-Sterling, p.4).

The argument that Fausto Sterling is making is a poignant one. It is hard to believe that scientists feel that they can determine that the women's movement is perhaps harmful to the human race and that furthermore, as bleak as the traditional role of women seems to be, it is what has been genetically determined inclination and is therefore somewhat justifiable. It has been pointed out that Darwin's theory of sexual selection, which is still an integral part of contemporary biological theories, was introduced during the birth of feminism. In The Politics of Women's Biology, Ruth Hubbard expresses strong adversity to Darwinism and Sociobiology for their sexism and ethnocentrism. Hubbard chooses specific passages from The Descent of Man to illustrate this point;

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman-- whether requiring deep thought reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and the hands...We also may infer... that if men are capable of a decided preeminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman....[Men have had] to defend their females, as well as their young, from enemies of all kinds, and to hunt for their joint subsistence. But to avoid enemies or to attack them with success, to capture wild animals and to fashion weapons requires the aid of higher mental faculties, namely, observation, reason, invention, or imagination. These various faculties will thus have been continually put to the test and selected during manhood. (Descent of Man, p873-4).

Clearly, what is being expressed here is highly problematic. Darwin sets forth what seems to be a highly sexist and opinionated point of view that is in danger of being taken for fact. It would be very convenient to discover, in times dominated by male chauvinism, that men are in fact intellectually superior to women due to their biological history. Yet again, we see the damsel in distress scenario being supported by scientific explanation. It is the powerful, knowledgeable man's job to protect the dependant woman who is incapable of taking care of herself. Hubbard goes on to mention Darwin's argument that it is very fortunate for women that men pass on their biological traits to their daughters so that their minds aren't completely dull; "Men's mental and physical qualities were constantly improved through competition for women and hunting, while women's minds would have become vestigial if it were not for the fortunate circumstance that in each generation daughters inherit brains from their fathers"(Hubbard, 97). Hubbard makes a direct connection between Darwin's sentiments about male superiority and the Victorian standards that were dominant at the time he was writing. There is a definite correlation between his evolutionary explanation of the differences in men and women's behavior, and the sexist bias of the time in which he was writing-- that men are active, assertive, competent, and woman are passive and obedient. In fact, this is a very important point because we can not ignore the role that culture and society play in creating differences in behavior.

Although evolutionary theorists and sociobiologists seem to take the issue of society's role of reinforcing these differences into account, they tend to overlook it. Fausto- Sterling argues that sociobiologists say that their purpose is to find out why things are, so that they can facilitate social change, but then they end up endorsing the fact that things actually aren't so bad the way that they are. What Darwin had attempted to do was to distinguish the biological causes for differences in behavior and roles in society. However, as Hubbard states, "There is no way to sort out the biological and social components that produce those differences in societies in which people, as groups, do not have equal access to resources and power and hence live in different environments." During the first few decades of this century, the theory of sexual selection lost popularity because many of Darwin's arguments could not be proved to be legitimate. However, sexual selection has recently made a come- back and is often cited. This reinforced support of Darwin's theory carries with it the same favoritism that existed the first time around. Just because we are in the later part of the twentieth century doesn't mean that sexism can not exist (even in the area of the sciences where one would think that objectivity is the rule). Hubbard expresses much disapproval of the method in which the sociobiologists search for and interpret their findings;"The circle is simple to construct. One starts with the Victorian stereotype of the active male and the passive female, then looks at the algae, bacteria, people, and calls all passive behavior feminine, all active behavior masculine."(Hubbard 98). Her response is directed from a reaction to Wolfgang Wickler's book on sexual behavior patterns, in which he writes;

Even among very simple organisms such as algae... one can observe during copulation the cells of one thread act as males with regard to the cells of a second thread, but as females with regard to the cells of a third thread. The mark of male behavior is that the cell actively crawls or swims over to the other; the female cell remains passive."(1973, p.23).

In this case, studies and analysis of organism behavior are used to determine which sexual behaviors are healthy and which are not. Their seems to have been some sort of norm established for male and female behavior. Male behavior is aggressive, female behavior is passive. "Sociobiologists portray as natural the competitive and hierarchical capitalist societies in which men dominate women and a small, privileged group of men dominates everyone else."(Hubbard, 118). What can not be ignored is that these norms have not been asserted objectively. The norm that men are dominant and women are passive has been asserted by men who would perhaps find evidence of the biological determination of this norm to be enticing. Hubbard goes on to argue that these constructed norms have no validity because it has been proven that often, people who drastically alter the way that they live experience changes in the ways their bodies work as well. Environment can have a strong impact on biology while biology also influences environment. There is no way of isolating one or the other. It is impossible to tell if the way we behave has been biologically determined, or has been a result of societal constructs. Wickler conducted another study of male and female behavior, this time with Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. These sheep are of particular interest because the difference between the sexes is not visually detectable. In the analysis of the mating behavior of these animal, Wickler explains that the females behave as if they were males. Is this fact? Perhaps the female Rocky Mountain Sheep are actually the female norm for all species, and all behavior that has been considered to be male is actually female behavior. The true question is, how can we establish a norm for behavior that not only cuts across many different individual organisms, but different species as well? In George William's Sex and Evolution, cichlids and catfish are judged to be abnormal for the sole reason that both male and female members of the species guard their young. Here we see again and again that these scientists are using a certain male standard against which to measure everything.

This established standard of male activity takes on more serious implications in regards to Sociobiological theories of rape. Randy Thornhill was the originator of the theory of rape that predicts that rapes occur more frequently in species in which reproduction can only occur when the female is dependant on resources from the male in order to reproduce. "A rapist could increase his evolutionary fitness by taking an unwilling female" (Fausto-Sterling p.159) He analyzed this phenomenon by studying scorpionflies. The common mating ritual of scorpionflies is that the male lures in the female with food that it obtains and after sharing the meal, the two mate. However, there are instances when the male does not obtain any food and instead grabs a nearby female and forces her to mate with him. This behavior is justified by the fact that the male undertakes a certain level of risk when obtaining the food and thus may find it advantageous to force a female to mate with him instead. Thornhill and Thornhill used this observation to relate it to a theory on human rape. According to their theory, men rape when they "are unable to compete for resources and status necessary to attract and reproduce successfully with desirable mates."(Fausto-Sterling 159--quoting Thornhill and Thornhill). If this is true, it brings an even greater meaning to the concept of damsels in distress. If men have this genetic inclination to rape when they can't gain consent, women are in constant danger. David Barash conducted a similar analysis through the study of mallard ducks. Similar to humans, mallards spend a part of the year in monogamous mating couples. The couples are formed after a series of mating rituals. There were, however, males that would force females to couple with them without having gone through these rituals. Barash recorded that there was a later response by the female's actual partners in which they would force the females to mate with them after they had been previously forced to mate with the uninvited bachelors. Barash claimed that these behaviors were "consistent with the Sociobiological theorem that animals should behave in ways consistent with maximizing their inclusive fitness." (Fausto-Sterling, 160--quoted from Barash).

One of the problems with the sociobiologists' explanations of rape is that they developed their theories after having constructing and manipulating their own experiments on certain types of animals. "Using the word rape to describe animal behavior robs it of the notion of will, and when the word, so robbed, once again is applied to humans, women find their rights of consent and refusal missing. Rape becomes just one more phenomenon in the natural world."(Fausto Sterling). Fausto Sterling raises a valid and sensitive concern when it comes to explaining the behavior of rape with a biological and evolutionary theory. If rape is viewed as behavior that is brought about by the natural motive to maximize genetic fitness, isn't it being justified in some way? How can the implications of rape be taken seriously if it is being dismissed as a natural phenomenon? Sociobiologists argue that the theory of evolution illustrates that rape is understood to be one of the reproductive strategies that have evolved, and that we have to use the knowledge we gain from sociobiology in order for society to begin to help the problem. "Our behavior is not tied to our biology. People get all hung up because they make these superficial comparisons, comparing animal and human behaviors and think they are talking about the same evolutionary causes."(Dr. Garland Allen, New York Times). According to Thornhill and Thornhill's arguments on rape, studying the behavior of the scorpion flies supports the fact that all men are genetically inclined to rape, and would probably do so if they could get away with it. Fausto Sterling quotes a section from this article;

Our model...implies that reducing sexism, "raising the economic and social status of women and the consciousness of men," and rehabilitating the rapist... may have little more than minor effects on the incidence of rape. Only when efforts are directed at altering all of the genetic and environmental factors important in the natural control of rape would we predict success." (Fausto-Sterling p.194)

In other words, because men are genetically inclined to rape when necessary, their is no hope for resolving the problem of rape by raising our consciousness and reforming society. If so, all efforts that have been made so far, to reduce to amount of rape that occurs and to rehabilitate rapists, have been in vain. These results certainly seem distressing and disillusioning. However, are they sound? Fausto- Sterling believes that they are not. Going back to Barash's study of mallards, she points out that one of the studies conducted on mallards had placed the mallards in a very crowded, overpopulated conditions. "It is well know that stress in animal populations can bring about aggressive and destructive behaviors, none of which result from natural selection for some alternative reproduction strategy."(192). In fact, it is very likely that the forced intercourse that Barash is studying is not related to reproductive strategies in any way.

So how can we help the damsels in distress? "Women's libbers will be constantly let down by their sex's biologically lower motivation for fighting for glory in the industrial head-hunt of the economic rat-race."(MacKinnon, F.S. 202). If this is the only type of conclusion that sociobiologists can come to, it is no wonder that they have had to face so much criticism. The information they use to base their theories on seem to be highly manipulated in order to be compared with and measured by certain social standards that have been established. It is clear that in order for someone to proclaim a theory that suggests the different roles that men and women play in society have been biologically determined (because look how similar we are to animals which behave the same way), he is highly influenced by the societal and sexist standards that are clearly being reflected in his assertion. There is no proof that any of the studies conducted by sociobiologists are testimonies to behavior induced by biological reproductive needs. Even more so, there is no way that these results can be applied to the understanding of human nature. If women truly are damsels in distress, it is not because they have been genetically determined to be so, but rather, it is because scientists and theorists who assert that this situation is genetically determined are supported by all those who would love to believe so for their own chauvinistic purposes.

Bibliography

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Men and Women (New York: Basic Books, 1985.)

Hubbard, Ruth. The Politics of Women's Biology. (London: Rutgers University Press, 1990.

Kaesuk Yoon, Carol. "The Biggest Evolutionary Challenge May be the Other Half of the Species", The New York Times (June 18 1996, p.C1)

Kenrick, Douglas T. et al. "Evolution and Social Cognition: Contrast Effects as a Function of Sex, Dominance, and Physical Attractiveness," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Vol. 20 No. 2, April 1994 pp.210-17).

Kitcher, Philip. Vaulting Ambition. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.) pp.113-30.

Martin, Emily. "Science and Women's Bodies: Forms of Anthropological Knowledge, " Body Politics ed. Jacobus, Keller, Shuttleworth. (New York: Routledge, 1990.) pp. 69-82

Shuttleworth, Sally. "Female Circulation: Medical Discourse and Popular Advertising in the Mid-Victorian Era, " Body Politics. Ed. Jacobus, keller, Shuttleworth. (New York; Routledge, 1990.) pp.47-68).

Wilson, Edward O. On Human Nature.. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.)

Wilso, Edward O. "Sociobiology From Darwin to the Present, " Darwin's Legacy. Ed. Hamrum, Charles. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1982.) pp.53-75.

Wright, Robert. The moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994.)