While this may appear strange, the premise is simple and straightforward. Feminists* who believe that the underrepresentation of women in certain fields is a function of an unjust, patriarchal society fail to account for physiological differences between the sexes as a result of Evolution. Similarly, those who believe in Creationism, disregard Evolution.

Creationism does not reconcile with Evolution; if you believe in Creationism you reject key tenets of Evolution – end of discussion. I will avoid the hubris of claiming that the Theory of Evolution is a perfect explanation of all life on earth, and will simply state that the Theory of Evolution is supported by an overwhelming body of scientific study and evidence. Evolution holds that organisms change through breeding and mutation to adapt to their environments. Homo sapiens and our ancestors are no different, with our evolutionary process resulting in distinct differences between human females and males. Let us not ignore this because it does not reconcile with the politically correct assessment that we are diverse, yet largely homogenous beings replete with the same skills and talents. I take umbrage to this- we should not only acknowledge the differences among us, but also embrace them. This is particularly true of women and men.

Populations of humans, living in vastly different environments and isolated for thousands of years have adopted the same general model: where women are focused on raising offspring with the men assuming the hunter role; tasked with providing protein sources and defending the family group. Humans are mammals and enjoy an innate maternal bond; the reliance on breastfeeding for survival and the long period of dependence of human offspring fortifies this bond. For humans and our ancestors to flourish, maternal care has been crucial. A nurturer who was more adept at cultivating a safe milieu for children is more likely to have their genes passed down. Conversely, a hunter who was able to determine the speed and range of prey, or devise a novel animal trap would be able to better provide for the family group and increase their likelihood of survival.

I will agree with the Creationists on one point, humans are indeed a singular species and have impacted Earth like no other, yet we are still at the crux of it animals. The argument could be made that the human animal has ceased to evolve as the development of society ensures that ‘survival’ is no longer limited to the ‘fittest’ at the expense of those less suited to the environment. As far as society has taken us from our primitive roots, it cannot erase millennia of Evolution and if one were to make the argument that nurture supplants nature then by the same logic, people’s sexual orientation could be dictated by their upbringing rather than a genetic predisposition.

Aside from the obvious physical dissimilarities, there are differences in the brains’ of men and women. Not only in their structure but also the rate of development of certain areas and even those regions used for specific tasks. These can largely be explained by evolutionary roles: women have more advanced language skills and the ability to discern the emotions of others; men have better spatial abilities and the ability to navigate; and women are decidedly better at multi-tasking. Studies using functional MRI have demonstrated that men and women even use different regions of the brain to perform the same cognitive tasks. Recent studies focused on the development of children’s brains have suggested that the regions of the brain associated with language and fine motor skills develop more quickly in females, whereas those used for math and geometry mature more rapidly in males. It is to be expected that children display more interest and focus in areas of study where they have demonstrated early promise. That this would then guide academic choices and career paths is a logical conclusion.

The question is always posed, “Why are there not more female engineers?” never, “Why are there not more male nurses?” The focus, understandably, is on the underrepresentation of women in high paying, prestigious roles. Sheryl Sandberg was recently interviewed and highlighted the small percentage of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, when women represent half of the population. The implication, or at least my inference, is that society should seek somewhere in the region of 50% of women in these, and other coveted roles. Olga Khazan in a thoughtful article in The Atlantic ‘How 'Male' Jobs Hurt Female Paychecks’ draws upon research by The Institute for Women’s Political Research (IWPR) and focuses on the disparity between participation of men and women across occupations as a key factor for the gender wage gap. The author identifies computer programming as a ‘male’ job (in 2009 only ~20% of computer programmers were women) which pays considerably more than predominately female occupations like kindergarten teaching. Let us ask the question, why are there not more female computer programmers? Computer programming is a relatively new profession with comparatively few people employed in the field more than a generation ago; while it may have emanated from computer science/engineering, a male dominated area, there are no physical demands that may discourage female participation; and computer programming, more than many other professions, will accommodate flexible and remote work arrangements. From my, albeit limited, perspective it would seem that computer programming is a prime example of a lucrative profession where there should be few barriers to higher female participation, particularly if you consider there are now more women graduating from university in the U.S. than men. Is it not plausible that it is a proclivity amongst men, and a general lack of interest in this field from women that is responsible in large part for the disparity?

I have no doubt that there remain institutional barriers that inhibit the advancement of women in certain fields and this along with other factors should continue to be addressed. However, the alignment of occupations with evolutional gender roles should not be a surprise and need not be a problem. To the extent that this is responsible for the gender wage gap we should focus on how we, as society, value different careers, both in terms of the financial reward and the prestige we assign them. To ignore millions of years of Evolution and its resultant impact on the roles of women and men in society is fundamentally wrong.

*I am wary of using ‘feminist’, as the term is so ill defined and has been appropriated by different groups with vastly different goals and beliefs. I also acknowledge that using binary terms like male and female is not in keeping with an enlightened view of the gender spectrum; however it is a necessary simplification.

The content of this article does not reflect the official opinion of The Cud. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the article lies entirely with the author.