Trivers defined parental investment as “any investment by the parent in an individual offspring that increases the offspring’s change of surviving (and hence reproductive success) at the cost of the parent’s ability to invest in other offspring”. Maternal investment is much larger than paternal investment. Females make a greater biological investment than males because they produce far fewer egg cells than males produces sperm, and egg cells are far more costly to produce. This means that females require a greater initial investment because they can only have a limited number of offspring, whereas a male can potentially have an infinite number of children. As a result of this inequity, females are choosier in who they mate with.
For example – as marriages were a crucial part of family honour, prestige and not to mention political alliances and economical partnership it was essential that a father find a suitable groom and the only way that was access to vast finance for a dowry as it was seen the larger the dowry, the better status of marriage. The more female offspring the father of family had, the more likely the money would run out and no more dowries could be afforded and therefore the daughters had two options – to become nuns or prostitutes but in most cases this was both. From thereon they were just dumped in convents and most of those nuns didn’t care for
They also believe that they should get paid equal prize money because males and females are just the same but if they judge them regarded to racial, gender or otherwise it’s called discrimination. Evidence according to Nicol David who won the 2013 US open Squash and collect the same prize money as the men’s championship. Women should get the same pay, but only for the same sports, hours or sets. Other professional athletics disagree with the opinion that women deserve equal prize money because men are more talented than women, therefore the entertainment industry pays its performers based on level of talent and success. They also reflect that it do not seem fair at all if women get paid equal prize money because men perform at a far higher level than women do.
This may be economic. In terms of short term mating preferences, Buss found that men would seek sex a lot earlier in a relationship, this is because over a period of one year, a man could spread his genes to countless numbers of women, yet a woman would only be able to have one child in the same time, so women become a lot more ‘picky’ in selecting their men. Buss and Schmitt found that short-term men tend to lower their standards and show a decrease in attraction to the woman after sex because they’d rather find someone else to spread their genes to. Buss found that in the long term, sexual selection should favour high levels of choosiness in both sexes. Women look for investment and protection, whereas males are attracted to women who show good signs of fertility.
Furthermore, the comparison used is false as it is based on a misleading data. According to the pay data published by White House, women make 91 cents for every dollar men make. According to the incorrect data based on just the averages of the average earnings and not take other factors into consideration, one would say that there is a sex discrimination as men are not being paid the same as women. Think of it this way, if there ever was a discrimination in gender, then why should firms not hire only women for 78 cents a dollar and fire all men? That certainly would benefit the firm largely.
These differences occur due to anisogamy, differences between the nature and amount of gametes (sperm and eggs) produced. In females the egg is large and appears less frequently than males’ sperm, and so they have to be highly selective in mate choice to ensure that her offspring are of the highest quality. Therefore it follows that females must be more selective about whom they mate with as each mating involves a relatively sizeable part of reproduction potential compared to males; so they have a much higher parental investment than males. Natural selection therefore favours female behaviour maximising the chances of successful reproduction through various strategies, such as monogamy and high parental investment. Females seek males displaying genetic fitness, like strength, status and resources.
They say that family is vital for 4 things in society: the regulation of sexual activity, reproducing and raising children, educating or socialising society’s way of life to the younger members and being an economic unit with clear divisions of labour between genders. With the decline in the nuclear family, they will believe that these four functions will diminish and society will not function in an adequate way. Where liberal feminists would not be happy about the decline in nuclear families as they believe that increasing equality exists between men and women, radical and Marxist feminists would think that it is a good thing. Radical feminists argue that men benefit much greater than women within the family environment. They say that gender roles which are allocated within a family are accepted by the women, which then goes on to disadvantage them in later life when it comes to things such as employment.
Gender and educational achievement It is commonly said that girls are better in their educational achievement than boys. It is also said that boys are more likely to underachieve than girls. However, the Gender and Education Association say that, “it ignores other differences between young people, particularly of ethnicity and class, which actually have a far greater effect on results.” This means that it is difficult to say that girls are better than boys because there are a number of factors that influence it. Feminists believe that the education system is male-controlled and dominated by men, just like the work force is. Feminists argue that the education system is just a primary preparation for leading into the future work force.
Feminists point out that, womens expectations of marriage and life have risen during the last century and are not willing to accept the traditional housewife role. Women have become more successful than men in education and many of them are in paid employment, some of them in managerial positions. This has reduced the economic dependency women have on men, reducing their reasons for marriage therefore changing the patterns of marriage. Women nowadays are more likely to marry because of love and affection. There has been a dramatic increase in the divorce rate in the past 40 years due to changes in the law making it affordable and easier and changes in society making it more acceptable.
The common radical feminist view on family is that it is institutionally patriarchal, and that gain much more from marriage than women. Greer (2000) argues that wives get less out of marriage than husbands; for example, single women tend to be happier than married women though the opposite is true for men. This is partly because women remain subservient to their husbands and do not revolt against their oppressive spouses. However, from a functionalist perspective, the family is a key aspect of society which helps maintain it and ensure that vital norms and values are passed on in order for society to progress. Parsons (1955) maintains that the family still has a vital role in preparing its members to meet the requirements of the social system.