Darwinian feminism: how the myth of female sexual passivity was put to rest

Until a few decades ago, biologists thought that female reproductive behavior was simpler and more passive than it actually is; this obscurity of female sexual strategies was the product of a male-dominated science that paid special attention to male behavior and overlooked the importance of female behavior. For decades, biology constructed theories about primate sexuality in this way.

Specialized literature describes how this model worked, which prevailed until scientists were able to broaden their scope. Until then, primatology had approached the study of females without a critical perspective, generally confirming the expectations and prejudices of those, mostly men, who defined the field of study.

The arrival of researchers such as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and Biruté Galdikas , pioneers in fieldwork with great apes, marked a fundamental shift, as they began to question and transform traditional approaches. But the revolution in primatology fostered by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish transformed not only the study of primates but also our understanding of evolution, sexuality, and gender roles in general.

Both are an example of the so-called Darwinian feminism : a tradition that began in the 19th century, when feminists found in Darwin a tool to combat the essentialism that justified female subordination.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy did not come to India with a feminist agenda; her initial purpose was to investigate why male langurs killed their young. However, her findings led her to rethink crucial assumptions about sexuality and reproductive behavior, not just in primates but in mammals in general . She observed that, contrary to popular belief, females are not passive or monogamous by default: langurs mate with multiple males to confound paternity and protect their young, in what she termed sexual counterstrategies . Contrary to the traditional view, she discovered that females have active and complex reproductive strategies.

From these studies, Hrdy broadened her approach and showed that motherhood and nurturing in mammals, including humans, depend on both cooperation and competition, and that qualities such as ambition and initiative, considered masculine , are present in females to ensure the survival of their offspring. In her later works, she argued that human nurturing evolved as a shared task, with both women and men having the biological capacity to care for infants, challenging gender stereotypes about maternal instinct and paternity. Her research thus changed not only primatology, but also evolutionary psychology and the understanding of parental roles in human evolution.

Amy Parish, who completed her doctoral studies under Hrdy's supervision, further challenged assumptions about female behavior in primates. Her research on bonobos challenged the traditional idea of natural female passivity by documenting matriarchal societies where females form strong alliances, control resources, and wield decisive social influence. Parish was the first to scientifically characterize bonobo society as a matriarchy, where females, even without kinship ties, cooperate to dominate males and maintain group stability.

Parish observed that sex in bonobos serves complex social functions : females use it to regulate coexistence, resolve tensions, and strengthen group cohesion, in stark contrast to other primate species. Her interdisciplinary approach also transcends primatology, as her findings have led her to explore the evolution of human behavior, sexuality, and power from a biocultural and comparative perspective. Her work has opened doors to understanding the diversity of social and sexual models possible in nature and in human societies.

But with their research, neither Hrdy nor Parish intended to demonstrate that females are morally superior or more evolutionarily advanced than males, but rather that the sexual and social behavior of primates—and humans—is far more complex than male-centric theories suggested.

Female promiscuity is common, not exceptional. Females also make active decisions about reproduction, alliances, and resources. Sex serves functions beyond reproduction. And even in species with apparent male dominance, female strategies can be decisive for reproductive success and social organization.

What both of them highlighted is not the behaviors or forms of organization that should be considered natural in animals—or humans—but rather how a social paradigm can determine the aspects of nature we choose to study and influence their interpretation.

Science historian Londa Schiebinger writes about the androcentric bias that has prevailed in multiple scientific disciplines, not just primatology. In medicine, clinical trials were conducted on men, leading to misdiagnoses and misdoses. In archaeology, elaborate prehistoric tools were attributed to male hunters , and simple ones to female gatherers. In psychology, Lawrence Kohlberg developed his influential theory of moral development by studying male children. In each case, expanding the sample revealed previously invisible realities.

Correcting these biases was only possible because female scientists, upon gaining research positions, asked different questions, not because of a supposed innate empathy for women. Their social position made them aware of the importance of overlooked aspects. The errors in previous research responded to structural dynamics: scientists, almost without question, assumed that masculinity represented the norm and femininity the exception. This seemingly neutral belief systematically led to a biased view of scientific reality.

Hrdy and Parish did what any solid scientific investigation should do when data emerge that doesn't fit dominant theories. Instead of dismissing or seeking ad hoc explanations for observations that didn't fit the androcentric evolutionary paradigm, they chose to investigate them thoroughly. Their merit lay in subjecting their own assumptions to critical scrutiny.

The primatological revolution cannot tell us how we should organize our societies. Its lesson is different: to show that narratives about nature often reflect the perspective, interests, and values of those who collect and interpret the data. Therefore, by broadening the profile of those who research, we have understood previously ignored patterns.

The legacy of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish goes beyond what they discovered. Both prove that we should be wary of any interpretation that uses nature as an authority to justify social arrangements, not because biology is irrelevant, but because its understanding is often conditioned by our cultural contexts.

Sandra Caula is a philosopher, writer and editor, with her novel Sensitive Grammar she won the XXIII PAT .

Pablo Rodríguez Palenzuela is a professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Polytechnic University of Madrid, author of The Nature of Sex .