Anthropology Sociology and Kinship in Society

Biology is not destiny, either in terms of gender status or in terms of reproductive roles. Although female bodies carry the unique equipment for gestation and birth, their bodies do not and should not determine their destinies as human beings. The belief that biology is destiny has been used systematically to create and maintain patriarchal societies. Moreover, the belief that biology is destiny has been used to create and maintain strict gender norms, roles, divisions of labor, and social stratification. Just because a woman can bear children does not mean that she must or should. Likewise, just because a woman can bear children does not mean that the ensuing duties and responsibilities associated with childcare and child rearing are hears alone to bear. As Stone (2014) points out, scholars critique the “biology is destiny” approach because it is too often and too easily used to justify gender roles, norms, and hierarchies. In fact, biology does not even determine gender identity at all, let alone gender roles, norms, and status. Gender is socially constructed, and biology is used as illogical grounds for the rigid alignment of gender with biology.
References
Stone, L. (2014). Kinship and Gender An Introduction Fifth Edition. Westview Press.
Discussion 1 Response to Nicole Montanino
I believe biology is just biology, and that individuals determine their own destinies. Not all people born female want to or will bear children; some by choice and others because their reproductive system does not work as planned. We have been taught that biology is destiny, and that gender binaries are real. Gender is socially constructed. Believing that biology is destiny is dangerous, because it suggests that all people born with female parts need to act in ways that conform to female social roles, norms, and customs. Likewise, believing biology is destiny would constrain men to the roles established for them in the society. The belief that biology is destiny is even used to justify homophobia. Therefore, I strongly believe that the belief in biology as destiny is problematic. The biological differences between men and women are essentially meaningless, just as the biological differences between people of different races are meaningless. Social status, identity and personal “destiny” should never be restricted by the way our body looks to other people.
References
Stone, L. (2014). Kinship and Gender An Introduction Fifth Edition. Westview Press.
Discussion 1 Response to Megan
Not all women automatically rise to the occasion when they give birth to a child. Post-partum depression is common, and it is real. Not all women should have children. Social pressures placed upon them leads to many women believing that their biology is their destiny, leading many women to have children reflexively, because it is expected of them, or because they do not believe they will feel fulfilled without having a child. It is untrue that “when a women gets pregnant she automatically starts playing the mother role and maternal responses kick in due to being stimulated by the pregnancy,” even though this might be true for some women. Biology does not determine our personality traits in any way; this is not something that is substantiated by the literature. Personality is only linked to gender because socialization mediates biology. In other words, parents see a male child and treat that child as they believe males should be treated. Just because patriarchal socialization practices have been used for thousands of years does not make those practices good, or right, or justifiable. The “biology is destiny” argument is probably one reason why women have been able to vote for less than a hundred years even in our self-congratulatory advanced society.
References
Stone, L. (2014). Kinship and Gender An Introduction Fifth Edition. Westview Press.
Discussion 2 original post
Kinship in all its variations, forms, and interpretations has evolved throughout human history. Kinship patterns also have geographic and cultural variations, as well as temporal and historical ones. The different types of kinship patterns exhibited around the world reflect political and economic realities, or reinforce those realities through gender norms and roles. Smuts posits that promiscuity is usually favored or at least accepted as a male behavior but not a female behavior. The reason for Smut’s analysis is that multiple partners enhances the male’s actual or perceived “fitness,” but not for women. Hrdy describes an interesting pattern in some societies in which a father will commit infanticide if he believed that the baby was not his. Infanticide committed in this fashion is an evolutionary tactic to ensure the dominant male passes on only his seed. Harris focuses on gender roles in the division of labor, whereas Chapais focused more on the ways and reasons female members of a social group will form strategic alliances. Finally, Fox discusses kinship from an evolutionary perspective by focusing on the most fundamental elements of kinship. Each of these theorists offer a unique point of view on the evolution of kinship and gender roles in human societies, helping us to better understand current manifestations of kinship and gender roles.
References
Stone, L. (2014). Kinship and Gender An Introduction Fifth Edition. Westview Press.
Discussion 2 Response to Nicole
One of the most interesting things about the study of kinship is the fact that it is not necessarily based on consanguine, or blood relationships. Of course, we consider our immediate blood our “next of kin,” but a lot of families have “bad blood.” Many people develop closer connections with their greater social circle than with their brothers or parents. Even among animal species this is true and for this reason, it is both interesting and important to understand the evolution of kinship models in different societies.
The different theories of kinship inevitably include some mentioning of gender. Theorists with a biological focus emphasize the evolutionary benefit of having multiple mates versus being monogamous. Because there are some monogamous animal species, it is interesting to compare their survival strategies compared with their mating patterns. Human societies have also evolved with different norms regarding sexuality and mating, and those norms are continually evolving.
References
Stone, L. (2014). Kinship and Gender An Introduction Fifth Edition. Westview Press.


Discussion 2 Response to Brianna
The Fox approach to kinship emphasizes the ways heterosexual marriages form the most notable kinship bond, and yet many societies show that as important as this bond might be, it is not necessarily the most important one. Especially among patriarchal societies in the human and animal kingdoms, the relationships between males in the species can determine things like power structure and status. Therefore, it is important to look beyond the obvious and see how different non-sexual or non-marital bonds create other social relationships and hierarchies. The theorists like Smuts and Hrdy talk more about fitness and how it relates to sexual norms. I do see how norms related to sexuality evolved partly due to biological or evolutionary patterns. Many of those patterns are no longer relevant in a contemporary society, leading to dramatic and potentially unprecedented changes to social norms.

References
Stone, L. (2014). Kinship and Gender An Introduction Fifth Edition. Westview Press.