Stop Monkeying Around!

Have you ever wondered why the heck we started studying apes in the first place?

Me too. I suppose it's because we have similar backgrounds. But here's the thing; our ape friends don't really have the same ideas of gender the way we do. Still don't think it's a social construct? Read on.

There's a 2010 film called "The Changing Ape" , in which anthropologist Jill Pruetz follows the chimpanzees of the Fongoli, a woodland area in Senegal, West Africa, to study their behavior.

Yay, documentaries about apes and anthropology. That's my jam ! That and jam of apricot variety (the superior stone fruit).

However, I did begin to notice something a little uneasy as I watched, and it's something I'd like to share now.

Around the 7:40 time stamp, the narrator begins to tell a story about kidnapped baby, Aimee, and her mother, Tia. The researchers took the baby that was found in a local village and tried to re-introduce the baby chimp into the wild. In order to do that, however, they stated they needed a mother for the baby to be with.

Okay, you may be thinking "Well it's in their nature right?" Yeah, caretaking is. But gender roles don't really apply to apes like they apply to humans. We're putting our own biased views onto our ape cousins, and thus putting scientific data at risk. We need to view scientific and data under an unbiased perspective, and thrusting ideals of what gender is and isn't to apes is messing with that fundamental idea of science.

This seems to be rooted in an androcentric perspective, as it seemed to reinforce the fact that mothers are nurturers and take care of the children.

Oh! Androcentric means focused or centered on men.

I'm sure you got that from context clues. You seem smart. Anyways.

Moving on.

So this idea of the of a male chimp, or even anyone else in the community of chimps, being capable, able, and willing to take care of a baby was foreign. It reinforced this androcentric idea that females are the nurturers and males the more callous parents, if being parents at all.

They placed the baby in a bag and placed her as close as they could to where the chimps were feeding the the fig tree. As a surprise to everyone, a male orphan named Mike was the one who carried Aimee to the central group. Additionally, when Aimee’s mother Tia was recovering from injuries sustained that occurred when Aimee was taken from her by locals, Mike (the ape) carried Aimee (also an ape) around, caring for her for two days until Tia regained her strength. The researchers noted that Mike was acting altruistically, which is supposed to be reserved for humans. For the researcher, this was a miracle, an incredibly rare act since he is a male. But in a more critical way, looking at things without implications for human relationships and stereotypes (such as woman the gatherer and man the hunter), there should be no realization of a miracle, it was simply a chimp helping another chimp, caring for a baby for the survival of their species.

On another note, what kind of a name is 'Mike' for a chimp? That'd like naming your cat Steve or Jim or Larry or something. It's a little odd, but I approve. This doesn't have anything to do with the study or gender or whatever, I just think it's funny.

Right, once again moving on.

Androcentric perspectives in regards to primate research seems to have always been a problem, although noticeably it has declined from earlier dates, most likely due to the rise of a more feminist ethnography. In McGrew’s essay as part of Women the Gatherer, he writes “The greatest source of variation in females’ patterns of ranging is reproductive state: estrous females range more widely than anestrous females”(McGraw 41). Through his syntax, McGraw seems to imply with this statement (albeit not so intentional as innate) that the females stay close to home while the males leave to work or procure food, and the only exception to this hard-fast rule is when the female is in estrus.

(Estrus is like 'heat'. Ever meet a cat that's not fixed? There you go).

Additionally, McGraw writes “In all mammalian species, the female sex places limitations on reproduction… following the birth, females are solely responsible for childbearing, with no direct help from adult males…. Given such restrictions, it would be surprising if sexual selection had no produced a mating system in which female choice of mates played an important part” (McGraw 52).

McGraw here is portraying women as mothers and nurturers, men as distant parent, a characteristic of biological essentialism. There is also an undercurrent of androcentric perspective here, the division of labor in regards to child-rearing is separated strictly, with little to no explanation or commentary by McGraw in regards to why. This guy is supposed to be a leader of science. Sound like one to you?

The issue with using primate behavior as a model for human behavior is simply that; they are not humans. It’s like comparing the behavior of a character from a television show compared to the actor who is playing that character.

For instance, in my favorite show (and the best day-time soap opera in my personal opinion), General Hospital, there is a character named Sonny Corinthos who is mob boss and also is manic-depressive. The actor who plays Sonny Corinthos is Maurice Bernard.

Sure, it is problematic to use as a model for Bernard’s behavior as compared to his character’s behavior on the show. Now does this mean it is not a viable to compare to two? No, of course not. In fact, Bernard himself was diagnosed with manic depression, and his relatability to that fact has won him a few daytime Emmy awards for his realistic portrayal of mental illness. Because he has experienced it first hand.

Nonhuman primates (such as chimps) are a valuable model, especially in regards of behavioral disorders in the human population, since primates have a more diversified behavioral repertoire, and they share a closer evolutionary history to us. However, primates do sometimes exhibit behavior patterns in situations where they would not be expected in a human interaction, so it is important to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of using primates as a model for human behavior.

Overall, the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing a masculine point of view at the center of one's worldview is culturally marginalizing femininity. There are tons of examples of this in Western society, like how the default image in Western for 'man' and for 'human being', like the 'walking person' light looks the same as the symbol for 'man' on the door of a male restroom, compared to the typical symbol for 'woman' , which has long hair and a triangle body to indicate wearing a dress.

Androcentrism is an issue, and it’s always been an issue, and whether it’s in regards to hiring someone or stick figures or even in primate research, it’s a well-developed tradition in our society that has deep roots in the minds of both men and women and gender non-conforming others, and it’s going to take more than few years to overcome is sometimes unaware, subconscious bias.