See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312210221

Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter · December 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3389-1

CITATIONS READS

4 31,533

1 author:

Barnaby J Dixson
University of the Sunshine Coast
158 PUBLICATIONS 4,633 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Barnaby J Dixson on 26 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

M

Masculinity and Femininity given gender that, in turn, are attached to a partic-
ular biological sex. For those with backgrounds in
Barnaby J. W. Dixson social theory, biology may have little to do with
School of Psychology, The University of how cultural norms color the blank canvas that
Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia becomes adult gender identities and roles. An
alternative view is that gender bears the stamp of
past selective pressures and has been shaped by
Synonyms natural selection. One of the most sexually dimor-
phic aspects of human behavior and biology con-
Femaleness; Gender; Maleness cerns reproduction and parental roles. This entry
explores the relationships between sexual dimor-
phisms in morphology and gender-typical paren-
Definition tal roles.

Masculinity and femininity refer to an individual’s

Sexual Reproduction and Social Roles
gender in terms of maleness and femaleness,
in Humans
respectively. Gender roles are those socially
Parental investment theory proposes that sex dif-
ascribed normative behaviors with respect to a
ferences in reproductive investment should lead to
given gender. Biological sex refers to an individ-
differences in mate preferences (Trivers 1972).
ual’s reproductive organs as being male or female.
Given that females invest more biological
resources in offspring than males, they form a
scarcer resource, potentially driving male-male
Introduction
competition to attract and retain mates, a para-
digm that has become known as the “males com-
Issues surrounding sex and gender roles as they
pete and females choose” paradigm (MCFC).
relate to sexuality are among the most divisive
However, humans have also evolved a coopera-
across scholarly disciplines. If one adheres strictly
tive mating system, wherein fathers and allo-
to the definitions, sex is biological and defines
parents contribute to the survival of children
individuals based on their reproductive anatomy
(Sear 2016). Thus, how sexual selection has
into male and female, while gender refers to one’s
shaped the evolution of reproductive anatomy,
maleness (masculinity) and femaleness
secondary sexual traits, and gender differences in
(femininity). Gender roles are those societally
parental roles should be understood as occurring
constructed normative behaviors ascribed to a
# Springer International Publishing AG 2016
T.K. Shackelford, V.A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3389-1
2 Masculinity and Femininity

within complex social and mating systems (West- fecundability and maternal investment, then infor-
Eberhardt 2014). mation about maternal investment capabilities
Foundational theories in evolutionary psychol- may be reliably conveyed in secondary sexual
ogy suggested that mate preferences were shaped traits. Facial femininity in women is indeed posi-
in the early phases of human ancestral evolution to tively associated with fecundability as measured
attend to morphology that provides information in reproductive hormones and women’s desire to
relating to biological quality, including fertility, invest maternally (Law Smith et al. 2012). In
health, and parental skills (Grammer et al. 2003). contrast, testosterone levels and height were neg-
In a seminal article, Buss (1989) demonstrated atively associated with desired number of children
across 37 cultures that men stated stronger prefer- and ideal age at first reproduction (reviewed in
ences than women for youth and physical attrac- Law Smith et al. 2012). Higher self-reported
tiveness in a mate, whereas women stated stronger maternal tendencies also predict women’s motiva-
preferences than men for older partners with tional responses to infants (Hahn et al. 2015). Men
greater earning potential. Research among the judge more feminine-looking women to be
Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania reported that warmer, trustworthy, cooperative, and more sex-
the most important traits nominated in a spouse ually attractive than more masculine-looking
were character, foraging ability, and physical women (Grammer et al. 2003).
attractiveness (Marlowe 2004). The only sex dif- The significant energetic investment in gesta-
ferences in mate preferences were a higher impor- tion and lactation suggests a healthy distribution
tance placed by men than women on fertility and of body fat, and fully developed breast morphol-
women’s greater emphasis on intelligence than ogy might also be associated with maternal ten-
men (Marlowe 2004). These findings provide dencies. A low waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), wherein
some support for parental investment theory in the waist is narrower relative to greater fat
shaping the evolution of mate preferences. reserves in the buttocks and thighs, in concert
It follows logically that if preferences have with a healthy body mass index, is associated
evolved to attend to characteristics that are asso- with various facets which are reproductive matu-
ciated with health, fecundability and parental rity and fecundability in women (Singh and Singh
qualities then meaningful correlations could exist 2011). Thus, the onset of menarche in adolescence
between sex-typical secondary sexual traits and and the ability to maintain regular menstrual and
gender-typical parenting behaviors in women and ovulatory cycles during adulthood are associated
men. The following sections will discuss the with low WHRs, as is fertility, and healthy off-
extent to which any such relationship exists and spring birthweight (Singh and Singh 2011).
the implications this has for understanding the Fat around the mammary glands provides
evolution of mate preferences. energy for lactation (Anderson 1983). Although
it was once thought that breasts function as stor-
Femininity in Women: Morphology age organs for milk and in rare cases deficiencies
and Maternal Tendencies in glandular development are associated with
Sex-typical or “feminine” traits emerge in women reduced success in initiating breastfeeding, the
under the actions of estrogens during pubertal overall size of non-lactating breasts does not indi-
development. These include facial traits such as cate actual lactation ability or milk storage capa-
a round overall shape, wide eyes, and full lips and bilities (reviewed in Dixson et al. 2015). Others
bodily traits such as permanent stores of fat proposed that permanently enlarged breasts
around the hips, buttocks, thighs, and breasts evolved to allow for breastfeeding during bipedal
(Grammer et al. 2003). movement and that resting an infant against the
Given the physiological investments women breasts is psychologically comforting (reviewed
make in birthing and raising offspring (Jasienska in Dixson et al. 2015). Maternal-infant bonding
2009), if sexual selection has shaped men’s pref- via breastfeeding is likely an ancient feature of
erences for femininity as indicators of human maternal-infant bonding, and there is some
Masculinity and Femininity 3

evidence that breastfeeding enhances infant later than girls, which suggests that secondary
immune response (Duijts et al. 2009) and lowers sexual traits manifest when competition to attract
maternal stress via prolactin and oxytocin release, viable mates is augmented. According to life his-
which may further facilitate maternal-infant bond- tory theory, males who attain sexual maturity
ing (Uauy and de Andraca 1995). more rapidly will display earlier development of
While men’s preferences for breast size differ masculine secondary sexual characters as they
both within and between cultures (reviewed in influence mating effort (Muehlenbein and
Dixson et al. 2015), breast size emerges as a Bribiescas 2005). Earlier recall of pubertal devel-
strong predictor of female physical attractiveness opment is associated with greater body size, upper
in multivariate evolutionary studies (Brooks body strength, and aspects of masculine facial
et al. 2015). Likewise, male preferences for spe- shape (Doll et al. 2016), and more dominant-
cific values of WHR vary cross-culturally looking teenage boys report greater numbers of
(reviewed in Brooks et al. 2015), likely due to sexual partners than their more submissive-
greater variation explained by BMI in attractive- looking counterparts (Mazur et al. 1994). In adult-
ness judgments (Swami and Tovée 2005). How- hood, men with more masculine faces and deeper
ever, body fat distribution contributes voices established higher positions in male
significantly to men’s judgments of female phys- dominance-based hierarchies and attained greater
ical attractiveness (Brooks et al. 2015). There is mating success (reviewed in Puts 2016).
also some evidence that men and women judge While masculine secondary sexual traits
larger breasts as more sexually mature, as repro- require androgens for their expression, the alloca-
ductively capable, and as providing greater mater- tion of resources toward traits associated with
nal nurturance (defined as breastfeeding and mating effort may come at the expense of some
caring for infants; Dixson et al. 2015). However, aspects of somatic health (Muehlenbein and
empirical data demonstrating that women’s body Bribiescas 2005) and result in reduced paternal
size, shape, or breast morphology are meaning- investment (Gettler 2016). Indeed, men with more
fully associated with self-perceived or actual masculine faces and bodies report engaging in
maternal investment in offspring, infant bonding, more short-term than long-term relationships,
or offspring survivability appear to be lacking and women accurately judge sexual infidelity
from the literature. Moreover, how sexual dimor- from masculinity in static photographic stimuli
phisms in women’s morphology underpin mater- (reviewed in Dixson et al. 2016). Thus, unlike in
nal investment in small-scale societies will be women where estrogen-dependent characteristics
critical to ascertain in future research. Thus, are to some extent associated with maternal ten-
although some sex-specific aspects of female dencies, in men androgens underpin sexually
body composition are associated with biological selected traits that positively predict men’s mating
aspects of maternal capabilities, for the present, success but may be associated with reduced pater-
there is a lack of empirical data linking such nal investment.
morphology to behavioral aspects of maternal This suggests there are costs to women in
investment in offspring and offspring fitness. selecting masculine partners. However, prefer-
ences for attractive traits have evolved as they
Masculinity in Men: Morphology confer indirect (i.e., genetic) benefits to offspring
and the Masculinity Paradox or direct benefits such as resources, increased
Sex-typical male traits develop under the actions survivability, or enhanced fertility (Kokko
of androgens during pubertal development. These et al. 2003). Masculine craniofacial traits are
include craniofacial masculinity (i.e., enlarged judged as less warm, caring, having less interest
brow ridge, thicker jaw, small eyes, and more in long-term relationships, and providing lower
robust midface), facial and body hair, vocal paternal investment (reviewed in Dixson
pitch, height, and muscularity (Grammer et al. 2016). Thus, reduced phenotypic masculin-
et al. 2003). Boys typically reach sexual maturity ity may be preferred in a long-term mate, as such
4 Masculinity and Femininity

men are perceived as more socially amenable, ecological and economic factors in shaping pref-
cooperative, and paternally investing as long- erences for masculine facial morphology. How-
term partners (reviewed in Dixson et al. 2016). ever, whether variation in preferences reflects any
However, mating strategy theories suggest that trade-offs in preferences for genetic quality or
the costs associated with selecting masculine direct benefits and how either of these forms of
mates are bypassed when women pursue more sexual selection relate to paternal investment
short-term mating strategies (reviewed in Dixson qualities in humans remain to be determined.
et al. 2016). Indeed, studies have reported aug- It is important to note that aside from the afore-
mented preferences for masculine faces, body mentioned cross-cultural analyses (DeBruine
shape, vocal pitch, and scents among women et al.2010; Brooks et al. 2011), the majority of
when judging short-term than long-term attrac- the conclusions in studies of women’s preferences
tiveness (reviewed in Dixson et al. 2016). These for men’s facial masculinity are derived from data
preferences may also be greater at the follicular, collected among predominantly WEIRD
more fertile, phase of the menstrual cycle when (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and
any benefits to offspring fitness gained by Democratic) populations (reviewed in Scott
selecting a masculine mate are more likely to be et al. 2014), which represent only a fraction of
realized (Gildersleeve et al. 2014). Although these the current cultural and ecological variation across
strategic trade-off models have been popular in human societies (Heinrich et al. 2010). Further,
the past 15 years of research, a recent large study they may not reflect the kinds of environments in
among identical and nonidentical twins reported which preferences are argued to have evolved
that 38 % of the variance in women’s facial mas- (Grammer et al. 2003) and instead could represent
culinity preferences was due to genetic variation, mate preferences formed within more modern and
while individual differences in sociosexuality, fer- ecologically novel circumstances. Indeed, a recent
tility, and pathogen disgust are combined to cross-cultural study of preferences for sexual
explain less than 1 % of the variance (Zietsch dimorphism in facial morphology that included
et al. 2015). These findings call into question the data from several small-scale societies reported
importance of contextual factors in maintaining preferences for sex-typical facial traits were stron-
variation in preferences for masculinity in short- ger in cultures with higher human development
term mates. indexes (Scott et al. 2014). In these settings, peo-
Given that androgen-dependent masculine ple are more regularly exposed to a greater num-
traits are associated with reduced paternal quali- ber of anonymous people compared to people
ties but some aspects of biological quality, facul- living in small-scale societies, which may drive
tative trade-offs may underpin the strength of greater sensitivity to small variation in craniofa-
women’s masculinity preferences cross-culturally cial masculinity (Scott et al. 2014). Another pos-
(DeBruine et al. 2010). In a cross-cultural study of sibility is that within small-scale subsistence
women’s facial masculinity, preferences were societies where paternal and maternal gender
found to be strongest in countries and where roles are more rigidly defined (Marlowe 2000),
national health was lowest (DeBruine asking people to complete mate preference tests
et al. 2010). Alternatively, the value of an intra- that included questions relating to their ecological
sexually formidable mate may underpin women’s or social context, such as how much the stimulus
masculinity preferences when resources are or target might invest parentally, may be more
scarcer. A reanalysis of the data from DeBruine effective in exposing any trade-offs in mate pref-
et al. (2010) reported that national income erences. What is clear from these studies is that
inequality was a stronger predictor of women’s further comparative cross-cultural analyses
preferences than national health (Brooks among small-scale and multilevel societies
et al. 2011). These studies highlight a role of would be valuable.
Masculinity and Femininity 5

Conclusion and age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(6),

1685–1695.
Dixson, B. J.W., Sullikowski, D., Gouda-Vossos A.,
The goal of this article was to highlight that some Rantala, M. J., & Brooks R. C. (2016). The masculinity
quite basic questions regarding the relationship paradox: Facial masculinity and beardedness interact to
between gender roles in parenting qualities and determine women’s ratings of men’s facial attractive-
sexual dimorphisms in morphology that have ness. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 29, 2311–2320.
Doll, L. M., Cárdenas, R. A., Burriss, R. P., & Puts, D. A.
putatively evolved via sexual selection remain (2016). Sexual selection and life history: Earlier
unanswered. A challenge for the next generation recalled puberty predicts men’s phenotypic masculini-
of students in evolutionary psychology and zation. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology,
human behavioral ecology may be to characterize 2(2), 134–149.
Duijts, L., Ramadhani, M. K., & Moll, H. A. (2009).
how variation in culture, ecology, and genetics Breastfeeding protects against infectious diseases dur-
combine to maintain variation in parental gender ing infancy in industrialized countries. A systematic
roles and mate preferences. review. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 5(3), 199–210.
Gettler, L. T. (2016). Becoming DADS: Considering the
role of cultural context and developmental plasticity for
paternal socioendocrinology. Current Anthropology, 57
(S13), S000.
Cross-References
Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014).
Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovu-
▶ Childcare latory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological
▶ Conversion of Parental Care into Fitness Bulletin, 140(5), 1205.
Grammer, K., Fink, B., Møller, A. P., & Thornhill,
▶ Female Mate Choice Evolutionary Standards of
R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and
Female Attractiveness the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78(3),
▶ Parental Investment as Mating Effort 385–407.
▶ Relationship Between Sexuality and Gender Hahn, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2015).
Reported maternal tendencies predict the reward value
of infant facial cuteness, but not cuteness detection.
Biology Letters, 11(3), 20140978.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The
References weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
Anderson, A. (1983). The reproductive role of the human Jasienska, G. (2009). Reproduction and lifespan: Trade-
breast. Current Anthropology, 24, 25–45. offs, overall energy budgets, intergenerational costs,
Brooks, R., Scott, I. M., Maklakov, A. A., Kasumovic, and costs neglected by research. American Journal of
M. M., Clark, A. P., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2011). Human Biology, 21, 524–532.
National income inequality predicts women’s prefer- Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M. D., & Morley,
ences for masculinized faces better than health does. J. (2003). The evolution of mate choice and mating
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biolog- biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,
ical Sciences, 278(1707), 810–812. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1515), 653–664.
Brooks, R. C., Shelly, J. P., Jordan, L. A., & Dixson, B. J. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2235.
(2015). The multivariate evolution of female body Law Smith, M. J., Deady, D. K., Moore, F. R., Jones, B. C.,
shape in an artificial digital ecosystem. Evolution and Cornwell, R. E., Stirrat, M., . . . & Perrett, D. I. (2012).
Human Behavior, 36(5), 351–358. Maternal tendencies in women are associated with
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate pref- estrogen levels and facial femininity. Hormones and
erences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavior, 61(1), 12–16.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(01), 1–14. Marlowe, F. (2000). Paternal investment and the human
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, mating system. Behavioural Processes, 51(1), 45–61.
L. L., & Little, A. C. (2010). The health of a nation Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among hadza
predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15(4), 365–376.
in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Mazur, A., Halpern, C., & Udry, J. R. (1994). Dominant
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biolog- looking male teenagers copulate earlier. Ethology and
ical Sciences, 277(1692), 2405–2410. Sociobiology, 15(2), 87–94.
Dixson, B. J., Duncan, M., & Dixson, A. F. (2015). The Muehlenbein, M. P., & Bribiescas, R. G. (2005). Testos-
role of breast size and areolar pigmentation in percep- terone-mediated immune functions and male life
tions of women’s sexual attractiveness, reproductive
health, sexual maturity, maternal nurturing abilities,
6 Masculinity and Femininity

histories. American Journal of Human Biology, 17(5), Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2005). Female physical attrac-
527–558. tiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural
Puts, D. (2016). Human sexual selection. Current Opinion study. Body Image, 2(2), 115–128.
in Psychology, 7, 28–32. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selec-
Scott, I. M., Clark, A. P., Josephson, S. C., Boyette, A. H., tion. In B. Campell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the
Cuthill, I. C., Fried, R. L., et al. (2014). Human prefer- descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.
ences for sexually dimorphic faces may be evolution- Uauy, R., & De Andraca, I. (1995). Human milk and breast
arily novel. Proceedings of the National Academy of feeding for optimal mental development. Journal of
Sciences, 111(40), 14388–14393. Nutrition, 125(8), 2278S.
Sear, R. (2016). Beyond the nuclear family: An evolution- West-Eberhard, M. J. (2014). Darwin’s forgotten idea: The
ary perspective on parenting. Current Opinion in Psy- social essence of sexual selection. Neuroscience &
chology, 7, 98–103. Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 501–508.
Singh, D., & Singh, D. (2011). Shape and significance of Zietsch, B. P., Lee, A. J., Sherlock, J. M., & Jern, P. (2015).
feminine beauty: An evolutionary perspective. Sex Variation in women’s preferences regarding male facial
Roles, 64(9–10), 723–731. masculinity is better explained by genetic differences
than by previously identified context-dependent
effects. Psychological Science, 26, 1440–1448.

View publication stats