|
Taking Sex Differences Seriously
By
Bernard Chapin, Strike
the Root, July 22, 2004
The
experience I remember
best from teaching nine
courses at the
university level was the
occasion when a class
discussed a chapter out
of a textbook concerning
the variations in
development between men
and women. I found that
most of the class
believed that
"differences"
should be placed in
scare quotes as they
regarded any
distinctions as being
the result of societal
pressure as opposed to
the influence of our
internal makeups. From
there they progressed to
some quasi-male bashing
which quite often seems
to be the case nowadays
if one attempts to
publicly compare males
to females.
I
interrupted their
discussion to argue that
there should be some
respect for male
diversity. I used as my
example the area of
sexual attraction and
informed them that a
man's fixation with his
mate's physical
appearance and age was
highly adaptive and not
shallow in the least
because there is a
chronological zero point
for female reproduction.
I pointed out that had
our male ancestors given
more weight to a woman's
status or wealth as
opposed to their youth
and beauty, there would
not have be any of us
living at that moment.
Homo Sapiens would never
have reached the age of
papyrus let alone to
forge academic treatises
about fictional
patriarchies. My opinion
was met with emphatic
disapproval even by the
male students who, under
no circumstances, would
admit that they agreed
with me. It seems that
nowadays it is more
heretical to tolerate a
man's reproductive
strategies than to deny
the existence of
God.
Luckily,
on the occasions when we
find ourselves under
fire for our own
personal choices or the
choices of our
ancestors, blasphemers
like myself can find
sanctuary in Steven E.
Rhoads delightful new
book, Taking Sex
Differences Seriously.
Upon finishing Rhoads's
work, many readers will
discover that they have
renewed respect for the
nature of women, and,
perhaps, unexpected
esteem for the nature of
men.
The
passage that follows is
exactly the type of
support that all men
need when navigating
through the weeds of our
affirmative action
society:
“Telling
men not to become
aroused by signs of
beauty, youth and health
is, as David Buss has
noted, like ‘telling
them not to experience
sugar as sweet.’ Using
MRIs to examine young
men’s brains as they
look at beautiful women,
researchers found that
feminine beauty affects
a man’s brain at a
primal level–similar
to what a hungry man
gets from a meal or an
addict from a fix.”
Junkies
unite! Yet, through our
success as a species, it
is quite evident that we
already have. I should
warn that Taking Sex
Differences Seriously
is not a chatty,
self-help book. It is a
highly erudite work in
which the author
examines study after
study and author after
author, yet, at the same
time, it is very
accessible (just as was
the case with Why Men
Don’t Iron). It
was written for with the
average person in mind
even though it
voluminously surveys
contemporary
scholarship. There is
less focus here on
statistics and
experimental procedure
than there is in works
like The New Science
of Intimate
Relationships, The
Mating Mind, or
The Red Queen.
The
study of sex difference
can be quite precarious
for the academic, and it
is with some relief that
I noted that Rhoads
already has put in
thirty years of service
at the University of
Virginia . For those
without tenure, such a
book could spell
unemployment. The author
cites the opinions of
heavyweights like Gloria
Steinem and Gloria
Allred on the topic of
sex research. They
believe that making
inquiries into the
discrepancies between
men and women is
downright dangerous to
all women and
anti-American in spirit
[!]. Yet, one could make
a strong case that
unearthing what others
purposefully ignore is
intrinsic to what it
means to be an
American.
The
real question that most
people have is not that
differences are present
but for what purpose do
these variations exist?
Central to Rhoads’s
work, and central to
evolutionary psychology
in general, is the fact
that the biological
drives of humans were
formed long ago in a
time known as the “environment
of evolutionary
adaptation.” This
period embodied “99
percent of hominid
existence.” Back then
there were no hotels, no
indoor plumbing, no
antibiotics, no birth
control pills or
abortions, and certainly
no cushy jobs which
involved clacking away
at keyboards. Survival
was precarious and most
of our current
preferences evolved from
our ancestors adapting
to life in a brutal and
unsavory setting.
Only
in today’s world have
we reached the levels of
luxury and comfort where
we can mistakenly assert
that men and women want
identical outcomes from
love, sex, and life.
This false assumption is
a cause for considerable
unhappiness in our
interpersonal relations.
Yet, as Rhoads notes,
such misinterpretations
actively poison our
interactions with one
another, as is the case
with women (the supposed
victors of the sexual
revolution) and the
acceptability of casual
sex:
“Stefan
Bechtel, coauthor of a
book on men and sex,
collected data from over
two thousand women
before writing on women
and sex. When asked what
surprised him most in
his research, Bechtel
answered, ‘Rage.’
‘Lots of women feel
rage toward men. It was
a revelation to me that
you may the nicest guy
in the world and the
women you encounter may
have had bad experiences
with men, and that will
affect their dealings
with you.’ In his
earlier research on men,
Bechtel had found ‘virtually
no rage in the men’s
responses.’”
Of
course, Taking Sex
Differences Seriously
is not confined to the
topic of mating. It
analyzes all discernible
disparities between men
and women. Rhoads’s
focus includes day care,
nurturing the young, and
the effects on our
society of so many
missing fathers. When
“The Today Show”
featured Rhoads in one
of their segments, it
was not to assault him
for confirming the
existence of intractable
difference but to ask
him for parenting
advice.
Overall,
I heartily recommend
this book, although I am
aware that there has
been some criticism of
it. Cathy Young, writing
in this month’s
Reason, had reservations
about the way in which
Rhoads made
generalizations about
the sexes. It should be
noted here that when we
speak of men or women
being superior to one
another in particular
areas we must carefully
note that we are
referring to sample
means rather than entire
samples.
Conclusions
are all about broad
tendencies and not the
actions of particular
individuals. There will
always be outliers and
sometimes, as in the
case of mathematic or
verbal ability, the
outliers can be an
incredibly large
segments of our
population. Even though
few people would deny
the statement, “men
are more promiscuous and
obsessed with sex than
are women,” it would
not take very long for a
researcher to discover
numerous women who
disprove this statement
and whose lasciviousness
outstrips that of the
average man.
Where
Rhoads succeeds is
through his presentation
of all views and his
relentless attempts to
explain human behavior.
He ignores nothing and
shares with the reader
many a citation which
does not support his
case. One would be wise
to remember that the
goal of evolutionary
psychology is to
illuminate the basis for
human behavior and not
to excuse or condone
such behaviors. To
describe is not to
advocate. We embrace
fantasy over fact if we
deny that gender exerts
an influence on the way
we act, but,
unfortunately, that is
exactly what many
universities around the
country have done
through their creation
of women’s studies
programs and their
never-ending fetish for
describing the world as
they want to be rather
than how it actually is.
Click here to
read the review at
the Strike the Root website
© 2004
Strike the Root and
Bernard Chapin
|
