Inevitability of Patriarchy - Why the Biological Difference Between Men and Women Always Produces Male Domination 0688001750

Citation preview

INEVITABILITY

MX

OF

the biological difference

between

men and women always produces male domination

BY STEVEN

GOLDBERG ^M

$6.95

THE INEVITABILITY OF

PATRIARCHY by Steven Goldberg

m

This intricate, rigorously reasoned, inevitably controversial

book advances

human

because of

have dominated,

dominate

will

women,

the theory that

physiology, males always

do dominate, and always

still

in

their

with

relationships

and in society at large. While other works have assumed that biology in the family,

relevant to sexually

is

differentiated

tions, this is the first that

why and how

strate

limitations

on

institu-

attempts to demon-

sexual physiology

social possibility.

—

sets

Beginning with

a difference between and female hormonal systems Steven Goldberg develops a theory that demonstrates why this biological difference is, and must be, manifested in social life and why every society associates leadership and high-status roles with

a simple biological fact

—

the male

why

males,

every society associates authority

in male-female relationships with males, and

why

conforms

socialization always

Steven Goldberg, the City College of tensive

who

New

knowledge of

his

to this.

teaches sociology at

York, draws upon ex-

own

discipline as well

as of biology, anthropology, and,

among

other

things, feminist literature to present a theory

that

He

is

is

as provocative as not,

it is

difficult to refute.

however, a polemicist for a certain (continued on back flap)

Jacket design by

WILLIAM

Appelbaum

MORROW

&

Curtis

& COMPANY, INC.

^^|

lUi&g| SHBBfrajl

toftvret

hiAN Pm&M-r&irtj

The

INEVITABILITY of

PATRIARCHY by Steven Goldberg

William Morrow

New

York

&

Company, 1973

Inc.

Copyright

©

All rights reserved.

No

1973 by Steven Goldberg part of this

book may be reproduced

or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopying, recording or by any information

storage

and

ing from

retrieval

system,

the Publisher.

without permission in writ-

Inquiries

should be addressed to

William Morrow and Company, Inc., 105 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Catalog Card

ISBN 1

2 3 4 5

Number 73-7385

0-688-00175-0

77 76 75 74 73

For

My

miwrin

nrawn nnn

Father

i"?

NXTrn

mmi

nrr'pu]

nrn:mi

\\V1W\\ '9JD

and For

My

Mother

Preface

Perhaps any preface the points

I

make

by

is,

its

nature, superfluous. Certainly

in this preface will

be seen as self-evident

by those readers whose vocation or avocation has brought them in constant contact with theory.

readers that this

book

is

However, while

primarily addressed,

nature of the subject matter

is

such that

it

I

it is

to such

suspect that the

will be read by a

number of other readers who do not usually find theory rewarding enough to justify the energies that must be expended if

one

is

to follow the line of reasoning

documentation such reasoning necessitates. ers that this preface

This work

we may

is

is

invoked and the It is to

these read-

addressed.

a theory.

A

theory,

which for our purposes

define as a systematic network of interconnected hy-

potheses that offer a general explanation of specific observa-

once the most vulnerable and the most persuasive

tions,

is

of

all

types of explanation.

its

persuasiveness are derived from theory's three components

at

Both

a theory's vulnerability

and

of logical integrity, observation, and relevance to the elements

of reality that the theory claims to explain. Since the one most sacred precept of science since a theory

is

is

a scientific

that nature

is

never

illogical,

and

explanation of nature, one need

only demonstrate that a given theory contains fallacious rea-

soning and he has, ipso facto, destroyed the theory. Since a theory's basic purpose

is

to explain reality,

one need only

demonstrate that a given theory misrepresents observations or presents inaccurate or subjectively selected facts and he has, ipso facto, destroyed the theory. If one cannot demonstrate

Preface

that a given theory contains fallacy or that reality,

misrepresents

it

he can nonetheless severely damage the

ability of the

theory to persuade by demonstrating that the theory makes predictions, either explicitly or implicitly, that observation

demonstrates to be incorrect.

And

even

he can severely weaken a theory's

still

if

he cannot do

this,

persuade by

ability to

demonstrating that an alternative theory that explains the

same observations, the same elements of

reality,

has an equal

probability of correctness.

A

theory

persuasive,

vulnerable for

is

when

it

ment, it is

if it

its

it

is

survives these challenges, for the same

reasons. If a theory maintains

accurate in

and

these reasons,

all

its

logical integrity, if

it

is

presentation of observation and factual state-

makes no prediction

that proves incorrect,

and

if

the only available or most reasonable logical explanation

of the reality

claims to explain, then

it

must take prece-

it

dence over any available alternative theory. Even under these conditions the theory has not been proven correct is

ever proven correct

—but

its

—no theory

probability of correctness

be acknowledged to be greater than that of the

less

theory, far greater than that of the theory that

is

false observation or inaccurate factual statements, nitely greater than that of the theory that

or that makes incorrect predictions

is

must

reasonable

based on

and

infi-

internally illogical

(and which, therefore,

could not be correct).

The

theorist's position

cause he must lay

is

all his

a particularly vulnerable

one be-

cards on the table; his position

particularly persuasive because, if his cards are the highest

is

on

the table, no external factor, no attempt to bluff through a

weak hand with weaker position

a

show of strong

to succeed

when

conviction, can enable a

a stronger position exists.

Perhaps every reader will agree with stract,

but

we

we acknowledge flicts

have

all

with wish.

in the I

all

of this in the ab-

way of denying in the reality what abstract when the abstract truth con-

a

write

all

of this because

I

am

well aware

Preface

many

that this theory reaches conclusions that

most unpalatable.

find

plicit

I

readers will

have taken great care

to

make

ex-

of the facts and observations that underpin the

all

theory presented here, and the reasoning that binds these.

have been selective or inaccurate or

If I

faulty, if

I

doubt on the theory presented here or

cast

should come to

But

less.

if

much

sent, I

if

reasoning

if

is

such a society

then the theory presented here

exist,

is

worth-

the reader agrees to examine the evidence

of which

hope, interesting,

I

if

that he

pre-

he agrees to follow the reasoning

would weigh

then

sort,

I

would

I

this theory against all the alterna-

tive theories that attempt to explain the reality. I believe I

I

suspect he will find surprising and,

invoke until he uncovers a fallacy of any

hope

my

have ignored some society whose institutions would

can demonstrate that

same elements of

all alternative

theo-

are either internally contradictory or disprovable with

ries

the evidence provided by anthropological investigation. But

even

the reader finds in favor of one of the alternative

if

theories

he will be

far better off for

grounds discussed here than he

is if

theory merely on the basis of

its

having done so on the

he accepts the alternative

ability to

provide psycho-

logical or ideological rationalization.

As long this

as I

am presuming

to suggest the

book should be approached,

point:

No

doubt the tone of

I

this

readers as being exceedingly strong. tainly stronger than

way

which

in

might make an additional

book will

The tone

is

strike

some

strong, cer-

one finds in most scholarly writing and

even stronger than one usually finds in theoretical essays

(though there says). It this

is

is

a tradition of reasoned passion in such es-

important, therefore, to emphasize that

tone only

when

I

I

invoke

focus on either logical contradiction or

a misrepresentation of empirical data that could not possibly

be defended

as

being merely alternative interpretation. In

scholarly writing there

such disagreement

is

is,

of course,

much

disagreement, but

derived from differing paradigms and

Preface

one find

differing interpretation; rarely does

(which

diction

or a presentation of evidence that

central)

honest.

hope

I

logical contra-

in itself disproves the analysis to is

which

it

is

blatantly dis-

that the reader will note that I reserve the

strong tone for such contradiction and dishonesty in the ternative theories

I discuss.

Tempting

as

it

would be

al-

to expose

the inadequacy of the innumerable peripheral and theoret-

unnecessary fallacies, misstatements, and excesses that

ically

invariably marble presentation of theory

ology,

theories

cannot see

this deal,

how any

an attempt to invoke

I

this

book

less

word

if you'll

("It

will

it

"inevitability"

in the everyday sense

(though, is

strictly

go her way.

an attempt to deny

illogic in the service of the

("It

is is

become

speaking,

I

invoke.

clear to the

used in the

title

of

an inevitability that

there will always be leaders and followers") rigid

ide-

on which the

strong than that which

should mention that

reader that the

only

lift

theorist can react to

good, with a tone any Lastly,

in

founded. Nature makes a deal with

criticize are

I

the theorist; she'll give you a I

grounded

discuss only the central assumptions

I

correct)

and not

in the

deductive sense

an inevitability that in our mathematical system two

plus two will always equal four").

10

Acknowledgments This work would not exist were

number

great to

it

who

of individuals,

acknowledge individually.

A

not for the aid and advice of a

few

who were

particularly helpful

on questions concerning current biological research in the introduction to I

am

numerous

are, unfortunately, too

Chapter Three. In addition

are

mentioned

to these scholars

particularly grateful to the following:

Elizabeth Mayers, Alan Goldberg, Lorin and

and Pamela Joseph

for aid

and support

Margo Hollander,

at every stage

but mostly

and Alan and Lorin and Margo and Pam.

for their being Liz

Jack Winter, Helen Hacker, and Alice Harris for devoting

more time than

I

had

a right to ask for in offering point-by-point

criticisms of this entire book.

As

is

the case with the other indi-

viduals acknowledged here, these three disagreed at

with

my

analysis,

sarily agree

and

it

points

with any specific point or conclusion.

Arafat, Michael Cooperstein, Joan

Ibti

many

should not be inferred that they neces-

Ann Graham, Helen

Downs, Paul

Filmer,

Hans, Hilary Harding, Ian Joseph, Emily

Levine, Michael Mayers, Fay Robin, and

Graham Whitehead for new

the conversation that often proved the most fertile soil for ideas.

Peter Carstens, Lewis Feuer, Irving Kristol,

Howe, Noel

Iverson, Irving

Robert Martinson, Douglas Pullman, Edward Sagarin,

Charles Winick, and Betty Yorburg for aid, encouragement, and helpful suggestions.

Rabbi Robert Gordis for his rendering of

"May

the answer to the final question lead

my him

dedicatory line, finally

home

to

peace."

James Landis of William Morrow for courage and reason

in

an

industry not noted for these qualities.

Steven Goldberg

New

York, 1972

11

—

Contents

Preface

PARTI Section One:

Preliminary Anthropological

and Biological Considerations

21

Chapter One:

A

23

The Question

of

Question and Some Ground Rules

Male and Female

—

Superiority and

Inferiority

Chapter

Two

:

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal

29

Variation

Mode

of

Investigation

—Male

—The

Universality

of

Patri-

Dominance Defined and Discovered Male Dominance Male Attainment of High-Status Roles and Positions Two Hypotheses Tested The Feminist Assumption The archy

The

—

Universality of

—

—The "Amazons" —The Meaning of

Evolutionary Fallacy

and the

The Relevance

—

—

"Prehistoric Matriarchies"

Universality

of Cultural Variation

Chapter Three: The Hormonal Factor

74

Anal—The Dangers of ogy— Human Hermaphrodites —Testosterone and Ag— Human Aggression—The of Introductory

Note

Biological

gression

Irrelevance

Exceptions 13

Contents Section

The Theory

Two:

of the Inevitability of Patriarchy

101

Chapter Four: Male Aggression and the Attainment of Power, Authority, and Status If

103

Male Aggression Were the Only Difference

tion to Biological Reality

.

.

.

Conforma— — Discrimination of —

Aggression and Attainment

Socialization's

a Sort

Fifty-One Percent of the Vote

"Oppression"

Chapter Five: The Societal Manifestations of Male

115

Aggression

Why ity

in

—

—The Mbuti —The Limits of Exaggeration of — —A Diand "Revolutionary"

All Societies Differentiate the Sexes

Pygmies

—Modern

Social

Societies

Possibil-

the Biological

Industrial

gression: Race

Patriarchy

Societies

and Sex

PART

II

Section Three:

Objections and Implications

131

Chapter Six: The Inadequacy of a Nonbiological Ex-

133

planation

— — — Psychobiological Limitations on Human Mal-

The Weight of the Evidence The Environmentalist's Dilemma The Future in Feminist Theory and in Reality

leability

Chapter Seven: Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist

158

Analysis

—

—

The Necessity of Theory Four Fallacies Vulgarized Marxism The Failure to Ask "Why" A Digression: The Obscurantism of an Inadequate Analysis

—

—

14

—

Contents

Section Four:

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes,

Performance, and Genius

185

Chapter Eight: Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cog-

187

nitive Aptitudes

Introductory

Note

in Anticipation of the

Sexual Differences in Types of Cognition:

Deluge Is

Biology

— Some Theoretical Problems with Nonbiological Explanation — The Hormonal of — Feminist Research—MasLogic — An Environmentalist Objection a Totally

Irrelevant?

Basis

Differentiated Intelligence

culine

Chapter Nine: High Genius in the Arts and Sciences

The Relevance The Question

of

Male Biology

211

of Genius

PART

III

Section Five:

Male and Female

221

Chapter Ten: Male and Female

223

Epilogue

230

Addendum Some Additional Comments on

the Universality of

Male Dominance

237

Index

246

15

Numquam est

-Cicero,

naturam mos vinceret;

enim ea semper

invicta

.

.

.

Tusculanae Disputationes, 5.27.78

PARTI

Section

One

Preliminary Anthropological

and Biological Considerations

Chapter One

A

Question and Some Ground Rules

The Question Perhaps

We

of

Male and Female

at the core of

our certainty there are only questions.

can tolerate our lives and our societies can endure be-

cause

we

are rarely forced to encounter the uncertainty that

underlies so

unrest

we

many of our when such

feel

beliefs.

But to acknowledge the

uncertainty

is

exposed

is

not to

prove that our beliefs were necessarily founded on incorrect assumptions.

The

introduction of doubt serves a powerful

function, but

it is

one of raising questions, not of providing

answers. That

is

the job of those for

able than anyone else

when

their

most

challenged, at least they are forced to

them

ideas are central

people are rendered no

to existence; if such

tolerates

whom

at all.

At

less

uncomfort-

basic assumptions are

remember why

this point they

society

must leave the

se-

with which they had been pre-

curity of the esoteric studies

occupied so that they might reconsider the questions that are integral not only to those esoteric studies but to the beliefs

and practices of

all

mankind.

Until recently no one had even questioned the assumptions

from which had flowed our conceptions of man and woman.

We

had, until recently, tended to accept masculinity and

femininity and male and female functions as

somehow

spring-

ing from our male and female natures and were satisfied to

allow the strength of our beliefs to compensate for the depth of our ignorance. If for no other reason than

23

this,

the bi-

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations ologist, the anthropologist, the psychologist,

new

ogist are in the debt of the

there

any single question that

is

and most it is

this

:

scientific

and the

sociol-

feminist movement. 1 For is

if

at the center of all artistic

thought (to say nothing of our daily lives)

what are men and women and

to

what degree must

male-female differences be manifested in societal expectations, values,

and

institutions? It

myself and that

is

it is

to this question that

that

and

Inferiority

seems that there

is

human penchant

a

perhaps necessary for daily scientist

may

understandable, and

attitudes to color his it

essay that at

is

but

it is

the bane of science.

observe the attitudes of others in an

tempt to explain these Therefore

life,

attitudes, but if

work, then his work will be worthless.

mind throughout

necessary to bear in

no point am

inferior to the other. It

is

superior to the other as

perior to another, and a general

at-

he allows his subjective

I

it is

as it

this

intimating that science can ever

lead one to the general conclusion that

is

for perceiving

is

differences in subjective terms. This

The

addressed

I

found that the theory

I

presented here has developed.

Superiority It

is

from the answers

one sex

is

superior or

meaningless to say that one sex is

to say that

one

society

is

su-

meaningless for the same reason:

judgment of superiority or

inferiority has

only in the context of one's personal value system.

meaning It is

not

surprising that one's appraisal of superiority will usually reflect

one's sex or society, but, for whatever reasons,

some

will

should be emphasized that when I refer to "feminists" I refer to who propose an environmentalist analysis of sexually differentiated behavior and institutions and who deny the determinativeness of sexual biology to individual behavior and social institutions. However, those who would dismiss these theoretical considerations in order to concentrate on pragmatic political and economic policies might note the discussion in Chapter Seven. All political policy is predicated on one or another conception of the nature of men and women and any political policy making incorrect assumptions that ignore behaviorally relevant innate sexual differences will, if such differences exist, be doomed to 1 It

those theorists

failure.

24

A

Question and Some Ground Rules

view the other sex or another society

as superior. In neither

We

can, however, speak of

we

case are

dealing with science.

superiority in a specific area.

height and

American

women

society

Men

have a "superiority" in

are superior at singing the upper register.

superior to that of the Mbuti

is

Pygmy

in

the ability to produce consumer goods, while Mbuti society is

superior to American society in the ability to inculcate

hunting only

if

skills

in

its

one says that

United States

is

members.

men

objectivity

Scientific

is

lost

are superior in general or that the

superior in general, for to do this one must

subjectively select a set of criteria.

The overwhelming number

of

men and women

society realize this intuitively. Anthropologists at

women

length of the areas in which

superior to men.

women

It

on these

is

have written

are unquestionably

abilities

have eternally based their joy

in every

that the world's

just as

men have em-

phasized their singular abilities and identified with their man-

hood. Indeed, while an essay on patriarchy must emphasize the factors that are emphasized here,

would be

patriarchal even if

less-aggressive

whether

we

societies

nothing more than

forced into feminine behavior as response

male aggression, the likelihood

to the fact of that,

men

and while

women were

are referring to

is

overwhelming

woman's response to male woman's universal

aggression or to the emotions underlying role as life creator

and

life sustainer,

feminine behavior and

the institutions that are related to this behavior are as inevitable as patriarchy

Perhaps one

and are inevitable for the same reasons.

who wished

to

examine not patriarchy and male

dominance but woman's universal

role of creator

and keeper

of society's emotional resources could invoke a line of rea-

soning complementing that introduced below.

The author

of such an examination could invoke a line of reasoning identical to that used in this

women

book and could demonstrate

will inevitably hold the

cating emotionality in the

powers necessary for

members of every 25

that

incul-

society and, to

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations a great extent, determining the very kind of people a society is

to produce.

Even

if

one deals only within the context of "power" (in

male-female and familial relationships), neither male domi-

we

nance nor the other male characteristics necessarily imply that

male aggression

is

discuss

shall

more

effective than

feminine behavior. Male dominance does not necessarily mean that males will achieve their goals

we

will achieve theirs if

more often than females

limit ourselves to dyadic (two-person,

and familial

in this case, male-female)

(The

relationships.

factor that engenders political patriarchy does render impossible a political authority system not ruled

sons

that

we

more

could

on a dyadic or familial

interesting case that,

are

by men, for

One

soon examine.)

shall

men

are at utilizing masculine abilities to

women

achieve theirs. Indeed, the

of every society possess

the emotional skills necessary to "get around"

"get their

(who

feeling that she must "get around" a

acknowledged by individual emotions and

we male dominance. Some

values to have authority)

hallmark of

power cieties

men and

in these terms

is,

authority

is

invested.

societal

sociologists have defined

—women

are

—even

in so-

maintain a high

more powerful

men

situations than are the

The

man

shall see momentarily, a

as the Shtetl that

degree of male dominance

and dyadic

as

and have suggested that

and subcultures such

familial

to

way" despite the male's superior aggression. How-

woman's is

women

level,

successful at utilizing feminine abilities to achieve

their goals than

ever, a

rea-

make an

in

in

whom

line of reasoning supporting this

hypothesis would not necessarily conflict with any statement in

this

book. Such an analysis might conclude that even

though the

women

thority of the

of every society acknowledge the au-

male even on a dyadic

way more often than not by to "get

around" men.

that sees the "real"

An

level,

utilizing their

they get their

feminine

ability

analysis of dyadic or familial groups

power

as controlled

26

by women's superior

A

Question and Some Ground Rules

emotional powers

is

the virtual opposite of the analysis of

the environmentalists, behaviorists, and feminists. For such

an analysis emphasizes the positive, power-engendering pects of femininity

and implies

behavior desired by the feminists would force with

men on male

to a reduction in

as-

that the reduction in fe?ninine

women

to deal

terms and that this ivould inevitably lead

women 's

The

real poiver.

who

feminist

denies the biological basis of femininity, the necessity of

femininity as the only defense against male aggression, and the likelihood that femininity

is

for attaining dyadic or familial

clusion that the

women

power

is

greatest strength

left

with the con-

of every society have acted in a

feminine way out of stupidity. sis

women's

emphasizing the informal,

I

think not.

Though an

analy-

real power of femininity might

take on Strindbergian overtones,

could proceed without

it

theoretical contradiction or obvious factual inaccuracy. This

cannot be said of the feminist line of reasoning, which

we

shall discuss.

appreciate that one

I

who

defines those qualities

which are associated with the male

somehow

as

and

roles

better than

those which are associated with the female will find no solace in the inherent impossibility of the scientist ever declaring

one sex superior

to the other. I realize too that, because this

book concentrates on patriarchy and male dominance, one

who

book

is

biased in a male direction and will react negatively. This

is

reads

it

through feminist eyes will

unavoidable because

we

are focusing

phasized by the feminists. If a to be relatively tall elastic,

who

on the very

woman

and muscular than

feels that

areas it

is

em-

better

relatively short

and

she will ignore the evidence presented by the biologist

demonstrates that height and muscularity will be asso-

ciated with the

can argue that the

feel that the

men

man whether

when

a society

to risk their lives

she likes is

it

or not.

endangered the

The

while they remain safely

and she can argue that the woman's longevity 27

feminist

women is

at

"get"

home,

superior to

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

the male's dominance. But to

if

she believes that

rather than with the creation of

perpetual disappointment.

good and what be,

it is

preferable

have one's sex associated with authority and leadership

is

is

bad,

life,

then she

is

To make judgments

doomed

to

of what

is

what should be and what should not

without the realm of science; science can never validate

or invalidate subjective appraisals. Science speaks only of

what

is

ability,

and what, within the

must

be.

28

limits of mathematical prob-

Chapter

Two

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation

Mode

of Investigation

Reassessment of formerly unquestioned assumptions chal-

modes of

lenges the ability of any single discipline's quiry; the

body of

analytic

one large area of

successfully dealing with investigation of reality

is

often taxed

situation obtains to

when

forced to deal with another. This

some extent when the

to investigate the nature of patriarchy

and

is

all his

human

may be

is

For in

biology.

investigations the sociologist deals with social

behavior which

and he

sociologist attempts

and male dominance

faced with the strong possibility that these

inevitable social manifestations of

nearly

in-

methods which has grown by

falls

within the limits of biological possibility

rarely forced to

cal behavior, for

human

possi-

such limits. In his study of

politi-

examine the

bility or the forces that set

limits of

example, the sociologist has always assumed

that leadership in any society will be

male dominated and he

has concentrated on developing the methods of inquiry necessary for investigation within that theoretical a result, in our investigation of patriarchy, utilize the It is

methods and findings of

a

framework. As

we

will have to

number of

important to emphasize that this

disciplines.

not a sociological,

is

anthropological, or economic analysis per

se.

that attempts to demonstrate the limitations

imposed on

possibility

form

its

and the impossibility of

a theory social

a society's failing to con-

institutions to these limitations.

29

It is

Within the

limita-

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

considerable

tions

variation

anthropological, or economic analysis

from one

sociological,

would attempt

and explain the configurations of

scribe

A

possible.

is

to de-

factors that differ

society to another in order to discover the differ-

ing etiologies of differing institutions in terms of methods of socialization, the social

dividuals,

economic

meanings attached to behavior by

in-

necessities, the structures of various sys-

tems within various social systems and the connections be-

tween them, and

all

the other considerations which are the

concern of the sociologist, the anthropologist, and the econ-

The

omist.

theory presented here

of analyses in that

—

is

important to these sorts

theory of limits

if this

is

correct

—any

analysis that hypothesizes elements that fall outside the limits

of possibility described here, or that contains the implication that such elements could exist in a real society, to

would have

be wrong. Since every society that has ever existed

falls

within the limits described by this theory, no analysis of any particular society

demonstrated to be incorrect by

is

theory. Furthermore, it

if

the theory presented herein

is

demonstrates that no theoretical analysis which limits the

to

sociological,

level can ever

and

hope

institutions

The

we

anthropological,

cultural

or

this

correct itself

economic

to explain the causation of the behavior shall discuss.

Universality of Patriarchy and male dominance used

The

definitions of patriarchy

this

book, while they are similar to the orthodox anthro-

pological definitions, will be is

stated here. Patriarchy

litical,

is

meant

to

in

connote no more than

any system of organization (po-

economic, religious, or social) that associates authority

and leadership primarily with males and

in

which males

fill

the vast majority of authority and leadership positions. 2 Pa2 In

order to avoid the confusion that could arise from the fact that number of ways, it is

the terms patriarchy and matriarchy are used in a

necessary definitions

here is

to

enumerate the alternative

definitions.

None

inherently superior to the others, though agreement

30

of

the

would

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation triarchy refers only to suprafamilial levels of organization;

authority in familial

and dyadic relationships

the term male dominance. Patriarchy

is

is

described by

universal. For all the

variety different societies have demonstrated in developing different types of political,

economic, religious, and social

systems, there has never been a society that has failed to

be convenient. One is free to favor any of the alternative pairs of definitions as long as he appreciates that the terms will then be irrelevant to this book so that he will be forced to appropriate or invent other terms to substitute for patriarchy and matriarchy as I use the terms. The point is that authority and leadership are, and always have been, associated with the male in every society, and

patriarchy

it

is

to this that

I

refer

when

I

say that

universal and that there has never been a matriarchy.

is

The

and some American anthropologists use the terms patriarchate and matriarchate where I use the terms patriarchy and matriarchy, and all agree that there has never been a matriarchate. They use patriarchy and matriarchy to refer to lineage and residence: a matriarchy is a society which is both matrilineal and matrilocal. It is this usage, combined with the mistaken belief that there have been prehistoric matriarchies and Amazonian societies (discussed below), which accounts for the widespread misconception that there have been societies which have failed to associate suprafamilial authority with the male. In matrilineal-matrilocal British

even within the family, is associated with the male, though occasionally with the mother's brother, rather than with the father. Sociologists often use patriarchy and matriarchy to refer to various aspects of familial authority. As we shall see, the ethnographic evidence demonstrates that, even if we use the terms in this sense, there has never been a matriarchy. The press occasionally uses the term Black matriarchy to describe a situation in which certain economic factors (such as welfare regulations which prohibit welfare for families in which the male lives in the household) force a minority of black women to assume authority in the home. This situation is not matriarchy in the sense we use the term (Black political and religious leaders are nearly always male) nor is it even female familial dominance; the term jemale dominance would have meaning only if the family included a male adult but vested authority in the female. Obviously if there is no male in the household, authority will have to be vested in a female. The question we are dealing with is why no society or group anywhere ever associates authority with a female when an equivalent male is available. Finally, the term gynecocracy

societies, as in all others, authority,

has occasionally been used to describe an

(imaginary) society in which run by women. None of the above uses of patriarchy should be confused with the term male dominance, as I use it. Male

government

is

refers to the feeling of men and women that the male's will dominates the female's. It may be related to patriarchy in any number of ways (depending on which way one uses patriarchy), but it is not the same

dominance

as patriarchy.

31

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations associate authority

No

and leadership

versal. Indeed, of all social institutions there

whose

universality

fair to say that

it

with men.

in these areas

anthropologist contests the fact that patriarchy

so totally agreed upon.

is

uni-

is

probably none

is

While

think

I

most anthropologists consider the family,

marriage, and the incest taboo universal

—and

believe that,

easy to imagine societies without one or

while

it is

these

institutions,

them

—with each of

no

could

society

real

survive

more of without

these institutions anthropologists debate

problems of definition and borderline

cases.

There

is

nor

not,

has there ever been, any society that even remotely failed to associate authority

and leadership

with

in suprafamilial areas

the male. 3

There have of course been queens societies, is

in a small

number of

but the existence of patriarchy even in such societies

demonstrated by the fact that

in such societies only

when

—

there

England

as in is

—queens

no equivalent man

rule

avail-

able (just as there have been a few societies in which the royal families have ignored their societies' incest taboos in

order to maintain the purity of the blood line). There have

been "Queen Mothers"

in a

few African

societies, but,

while

such "Queen Mothers" did have a measure of autonomy denied other

women

in their societies

and some authority

in

secondary areas, in every case they were subordinate to a male

king or chief

in

whom

the society vested highest authority.

There have even been three

cases of

women

attaining the

highest positions of authority in democracies (Israel, India,

and Ceylon), though

in the latter

was the daughter and the widow,

man and

it

is

woman

hardly likely that either would have otherwise

attained power.

even in such

two instances the

respectively, of a revered

The

point of importance, however,

societies authority has

is

that

continued to be over-

whelmingly associated with the male and the overwhelming 3

We

will discuss the alleged "prehistoric matriarchies" and

later.

32

"Amazons"

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation

number of

positions of leadership have been filled by

men.

In Israel, for example, the other eighteen ministerial positions

men and

are filled by

the proportion of

the hierarchy of political authority in the

United

States,

is

men

at

each level of

roughly the same as

it is

Sweden, Cuba, Communist China, and

the Soviet Union. 4

Male Dominance Defined and Discovered Male dominance emotions of both

refers to the jeeling

men and women

acknowledged by the

that the

woman's

will

is

somehow

subordinate to the male's and that general authority

in dyadic

and familial relationships,

in

whatever terms a par-

ticular society defines authority, ultimately resides in the male. I

realize that this

is

male dominance, but

not the most graceful the most accurate.

it is

with patriarchy, male dominance ever failed to conform

and the ing of

universal;

expectations of

no

defining the case

society has

men and women,

social roles relevant to these expectations, to the feel-

men and women

lead." This ciety'

its

is

way of As was

that

it

book will attempt

the male

is

to

"takes the

demonstrate that every

accepts the existence of these feelings,

their existence by socializing children

every society must.

who

so-

and conforms to

accordingly, because

5

4

See "Patriarchy in Industrial and 'Revolutionary' societies," p. 124. For the sake of convenience I occasionally will use the term male dominance to refer not merely to the feelings of the members of a society, but also to those dyadic and familial institutions in which these feelings are manifested. Thus when I speak of one society's exhibiting more male dominance than another I mean that the society's institutions emphasize or utilize these feelings more than do those of another. Furthermore, it should be noted here that male dominance does not refer to male aggression on an absolute scale. One might be tempted to introduce the hypothesis that differing social conditions have resulted in the women of one society becoming more aggressive than the men of another. Such a hypothesis would be dubious because in every society it is the males 5

who

are the soldiers so that

would be

"aggression" argued to be more aggressive than Aggression," p. 91); more importantly, however, such a hypothesis would be irrelein

such a

way

that

it

difficult

to define

women of any society could be the men of any other (see "Human

the

33

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

For

all

but a very few societies the presence of male dom-

inance

is

apparent from the customs of deference so well

documented by the anthropologists.

important to bear

It is

mind, however, that dominance and deference refer to the

in

feelings that

come

into play in male-female

and familial

rela-

tionships. Anthropologists tend to discuss such feelings in

terms of their manifestations in customs of deference because,

among

other reasons, the inconcreteness of feelings makes

difficult to deal

with them in any other way. This

posed to patriarchy, which can be

denned and demon-

easily

authority positions in every society. For nearly

customs of deference relevant to difficulty

all societies

male and female feelings

reflect the

male dominance and

authority,

and there

is

introduced by discussing dominance in terms of

more

manifestation in customs rather than the tions that

is

its

underpin these customs. Emphasizing that domi-

important only

twelve "chivalrous" ceive deference, or

society.

American

is

is

feel-

examining the ten or

women seem

which

society,

when compared

in

to re-

which customs of

to those of virtually

Examination of the ethnographic materials

on these "chivalrous" male deference

when one

societies, in

deference are minimal

any other

no

emo-

abstract

nance and deference refer not to the customs but to the ings

it

as op-

overwhelming number of males who

strated in terms of the fill

is

demonstrates that chivalrous

societies

seen in these societies not as a reversal of

male dominance but

as a

complement

to feminine fragility.

In American society, for example, a man's holding a door for a

woman

is

seen as a symbolic gesture acknowledging not

female authority but masculine strength; a man's walking nearer to the curb acknowledges not the female's dominance

but the male's feeling that the

We

woman

is

to

be protected.

can observe the feelings of male dominance most

vant. Dominance and dejerence are relative terms that refer to the feelings and institutions relevant to dyadic and familial relationships in a single societal context.

34

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation clearly

during an argument, because

that the emotional

is

in times of conflict

male and female consciousness. Most of the time, when

into

men and women and

are performing different roles

their society define as

conflict, is

it

acknowledgment of male authority comes

only

roles, there is

and feelings of authority will not come into

when

to the male,

around

male and female

which they

there

who

conflict that this feeling will

is

utilizes

it,

and

to the female,

no

play. It

be apparent

who must

get

it.

The voluminous

writings of the feminists attest to the fact

that, despite the virtual

American

absence of customs of deference in

and emotional expectations that

society, the feelings

underpin the customs of every other society

affect

our be-

havior as surely as these feelings affect the behavior of the

men and women

Thus the author of

of every other society.

the feminist essay complains that she feels that she has some-

how

lost

an argument with her husband, that somehow she

was wrong, even when she knows

intellectually that hers

was

the better argument, that she was right, and that her husband

was being emotionally dishonest. Thus the feminist novelist objects to the fact that

it is

somehow

who

the male

"takes the

lead" in endless numbers of situations as varied as crossing streets

and choosing

("my husband

told

friends.

me

The husband

to take the

TV

tends to "tell"

to the repair

while the wife tends to "ask" ("my wife asked the

TV to

the repair shop")

.

To

be sure,

women

novelists acknowledge, have a great deal of

they

make

the husband

lets

authority, that is

many areas, but it them make such decisions

decisions in

is

me

shop") to take

do, as these

power

in that

the feeling that

(that he delegates

he "allows") that annoys the feminist and that

the evidence of the presence of male dominance. Likewise

the feminist points out that nearly

all

women

associate authority with the father, save those

grudge

their fathers their refusal to

Our acceptance of

(and men)

few who

be-

invoke male authority.

the feminist's description of her feelings

35

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

and observations does not require sumption that

we

that

and observations or

to these feelings

that

attach a

we

judgment

accept her as-

this manifestation of sexual difference has its

roots only in social factors. It

should be reiterated that

bility that in

may

I

dyadic relationships

am not women

rejecting the possi-

using female means

more often than do men using male universally or in some societies, perhaps the

attain their ends

means

(either

chivalrous ones), nor

am

denying the obvious

I

fact that,

whatever qualities one considers masculine or feminine, every

member

of each sex will occasionally exhibit the behavior of

the other.

I

am

saying only that every society recognizes a

particular emotional difference this difference

society's

feel that

it

6

The

different

is

the ivoman

women

(i.e.,

no

"allows"),

with men. 6 In other

meanings of male dominance, male authority, and power feeling acknowledged by both

Male dominance refers to a male and female emotions. Male authority clear.

who

that

society associates authority in all areas that are

not specifically delegated to

should be

men and women,

always works in the same direction

members

and that every

between

refers to society's

associating

general authority in dyadic relationships with the male. Both male dominance and male authority are universal. In every society authority is

delegated to women in a number of areas; there is no conflict as long as each sex stays in its own area. When there is conflict, the feelings of male dominance will always come into play and general male authority will sometimes be invoked in some societies and will always be invoked in others.

Power

is

the ability to influence the actions of others and to attain

Women

in dyadic situations often have the power advantage, but this advantage does not flow from their invoking authority and it is attained by overcoming the feelings of male dominance through feminine means, intelligence, etc. The importance of these distinctions is apparent

one's end.

when we examine Robert O. Blood and Donald M. Wolfe's seminal study power in America, Husbands and Wives (New York: Free Press, I960). For this study 731 wives in Detroit were interviewed. After assessing dyadic power in eight areas of decision making (decisions concerning husband's job, family car, insurance, vacation, house, wife's work, family doctor, and food), the authors conclude that, while husbands do maintain a significant power advantage overall and a complete advantage in decisions relevant to their jobs, all in all we can say that the American family is roughly equalitarian rather than "patriarchal." This is an important point if one is, like the authors, interested primarily in power, but its meaning is not clear. The increasing degree to which women of dyadic

36

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation

words, the male strength and aggressiveness and the female gentleness and endurance portrayed in our novels and movies

mirror not merely our society's view of the emotional natures of

men and women,

but the views of every society that has

ever existed.

For our purposes, one's attitude toward male dominance irrelevant;

male dominates and protects the female or de-

idea that the tests

it.

The

is

does not matter whether the reader enjoys the

it

made here is that, men and women of every

point being

momentarily, the

as

we

shall see

society feel this

way and acknowledge this feeling in the society's institutions. The question that is of theoretical importance is why this is the case and why,

if

male dominance

some element

is

either suprasocial or inherent in the very

that

is

not conformation to

nature of society, does no society reverse this or fest sexual

dominance

at all?

As we

shall see,

share in the decisions that the authors examine

may

fail to it

well, as

is

we

mani-

virtually

shall see,

represent a male abdication of the husband-father role in favor of supra-

would seem

familial pursuits, a delegation of familial authority; this

to

be indicated by the authors' finding that, of all wives, wives in wifedominant marriages (marriages in which wives have the power advantage in these decisions) are the least satisfied with their marriages. The feelings of male dominance of which we speak in this book, while they are always present and while they invest all male-female interaction, become manifest only when there is conflict. Most of the time, when men are dealing with decisions that the society sees as "male" and women with

That women what to serve for dinner in no way represents an absence of the feelings of male dominance. Male dominance will manifest itself, in the feelings of husband and wife, in this area only if, for example, a wife insists on serving a food that the husband does not like. If conflict ensues the feelings relevant to male dominance will come into play. The wife may well end up getting her way, but it will be through her "feminine" approach which gets around her (and her husband's) feelings that authority resides in the male and not because either she or her husband failed to experience the feelings of male dominance. That the equalitarianism that Blood and Wolfe find is irrelevant to the feminist analysis is apparent for two reasons. First, authority in the household is scarcely the prime feminist goal. Second, where the authors see equalitarianism, the feminists see male dominance. Both the authors and the feminists are correct; the former are looking at decision making and the latter at male dominance and its manifestations. those that society sees

make

as

"female,"

there

is

no

conflict.

the decisions relevant to choice of family doctor or

37

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

impossible to answer this question without invoking the evi-

dence presented in Chapter Three unless one accepts a number of assumptions that are logically possible but absurd.

One might

be tempted to argue that either patriarchy or

male dominance has in

some element

its

that

that, since either

is

roots in

from the suprasocial or might argue that

suprasocial element or

of these institutions might inevitably gen-

we need

erate the other,

some

inherent in the nature of society, but

not assume that both flow directly inherent-societal element.

Thus one

either a suprasocial or inherent-societal ele-

ment generates patriarchy and

that, since political authority

will be associated with males, authority in dyadic relationships will be associated with the

view would

cess; this

male through

see

still

a filter-down pro-

male dominance

as inevitable,

but not as a direct result of the suprasocial or inherent-societal element.

Or one might

male dominance

see

as a result of a

suprasocial or inherent-societal element, but argue that patriarchy

a generalization of

is

these lines of reasoning

we

male dominance. Neither of

very persuasive.

The evidence we

Chapter Three, a great deal of primate

shall discuss in

search that

is

shall not discuss in this book,

re-

and our ob-

servation of small, isolated societies with minimal political differentiation all lead to the conclusion that there

male dominance even

The argument

that

if

would be

there were no political stratification.

male dominance

is

a direct result of a

suprasocial or inherent-societal element but that patriarchy

merely a generalization of male dominance which inevitable but

which does not flow

or inherent-societal element

merous reasons short:

we

we

shall

shall see that

is

directly

from

is

may be

a suprasocial

equally unconvincing for nu-

discuss throughout the book.

In

both patriarchy and male dominance

are direct results of a suprasocial element and that one need

not refer to patriarchy to demonstrate the inevitability of male

dominance or bility

to

male dominance

to demonstrate the inevita-

of patriarchy (or male attainment).

38

: ,

Anthropology and the Limits of

The

Societal Variation

Male Dominance

Universality of

Cross-cultural compilations of ethnographic materials

clusiveness with

which they demonstrate the universality of

While

patriarchy.

demon-

male dominance with the same con-

strate the universality of

the greater subtleties of definition and dis-

covery have led some of the anthropologists

who have

au-

thored cross-cultural compilations to use slightly qualified

terms ("universality for

all intents

and purposes") when

re-

ferring to the universality of male dominance, this scientific tentativeness does not indicate a belief that there

any

so-

which the members do not demonstrate the feelings

ciety in

relevant to male

dominance or

and familial relationships

With one that there it)-

is

exception, is

all

in

which authority

in dyadic

not associated with the male.

is

of the authors indicate quite definitely

no exception

male dominance

to

(as

we

define

7

The

exception

is

Dr. William Stephens. Dr. Stephens does

not deal directly with male dominance, but with authority in specific areas relevant to the

children.

However, even

if

household and the rearing of

we

accept Dr. Stephens's focus,

the universality of male dominance and in the expectations

every society

is

its

acknowledgment

and customs of the men and

women

of

not brought into question. Dr. Stephens sug-

gests five possible exceptions to universality (in his terms)

the Tchambuli (which

made and

case can be

the people of

and the

Nama

is

the society for which the strongest

the one

we

will look at

more

closely)

Modjokuto (Java), the Berbers, the

Jivaro,

Hottentot. Recourse to the original materials

7

For extended discussion of the anthropological data relevant to the male dominance, the reader might wish to consult: Gerald Leslie, The Family in Social Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967) M. F. NimkofT, Comparative Family Systems (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1965); Ira L. Reiss, The Family System in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971); and William N. Stephens, The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963). universality of

;

39

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

on which Dr. Stephens bases

his assessment does indeed sup-

port Dr. Stephens's contention these societies delegate to

women a certain authority in specific matters concerning the home and children, but by no stretch of the imagination could the men and women of these societies be said to fail to demonstrate the feelings relevant to

male dominance. In

every case the same ethnographic study that

is

the assessment of "exception" explicitly states

Modjokuto

ple: the study of

that

is

used to support

For exam-

this.

used to support the con-

tention that these Javanese people comprise an exception

expected to be, above

states that the father "is

and dignified (sabar) with lead

them with

a gentle

his

patient

all,

wife and children; he should

though firm hand.

.

.

." 8

Similar acknowledgments of the presence of male domi-

nance can be found in every ethnographic study invoked by

any author

as

demonstrating the absence of male dominance

any particular

in

society.

For example, one often hears the

work on the Iroquois dem-

claim that Lewis Henry Morgan's

is

apparent

fill

positions

onstrated that, while patriarchy in Iroquois society

from the

fact that

women were

not permitted to

of leadership, the Iroquois did

fail to

nance. That this was not the case

is

"The Indian regarded women

clear

manifest male domi-

when Morgan

and the servant of man, and from nurturance and actually considered herself to be so."

In the

addendum

the reader will find similar ethnographic

not that male dominance necessitates that

may be

themselves inferior (while this

is

it is

8 p.

not with

many

not that male dominance

and habit."

We

is

Henry Morgan, League

point

is

consider

the case with the it

attributable to only "nurturance

shall discuss causation later.

(New York: Dodd, Mead

The

women

other societies) and certainly

Hildred Geertz, The Javanese Family

107. 9 Lewis

habit, she

9

quotations on every alleged societal exception.

Iroquois

writes

as the inferior, the dependent,

of the

(New

York: Free

I

am

in-

Press, 1961),

Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois

and Co., 1901),

40

Here

p. 315.

Anthropology and the Limits of

Societal Variation

terested merely in noting the universality not only of

male

and female feelings of male dominance, but the universality of the institutionalization of these feelings in the formal value

system of

societies.

Even

if

one wishes

the universality of societal

that

to

emphasize women's

around the formal system he

ability to get

still

must admit

acknowledgment of male

dominance demands an explanation. Moreover, whatever can be said about any alleged

societal

exception to the universality of male dominance can also be said about

American

society. Indeed,

any other society delegates to the

the

it

women

is

doubtful whether

the authority even in

home that American society delegates and, in any case, demand of the feminist is hardly that American society

should increase women's authority and responsibility in the

home. In our

women

society

(by standing

men show chivalrous deference to when a women enters the room, for

example), acknowledge female authority in most decisions concerning the household to such an extent that

many women

complain that the American male has abdicated his role father in order to concentrate

women

on suprafamilial

as

pursuits, give

equal rights in selecting the leaders of the society and

equal rights to attain leadership, and, with a few exceptions

which are of primarily symbolic importance, equal rights of ownership and participation

in

economic

life.

Moreover, with

the exception of land ownership in certain matrilineal societies

—

a female

ownership that does not lessen male control of

suprafamilial or dyadic situations authority in any area in

United It

—no

which she

is

society gives to

women

not given authority in the

States.

will not be necessary to review the materials

on each of

Dr. Stephens's societies in order to make the point that he has not discovered any exception to male dominance as use the term here (though the reader will find the relevant material in the

who

desires to

Addendum).

we

do so

In speak-

ing of wives in American society Dr. Stephens states that,

41

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

"If there are any exceptional societies (in which each family

may

freely choose

what) our own ,

that,

—

or fight

—

out

it

society probably

to

comes

determine as close as

who

any"

does

10

and

"In the allocation of power and privilege, our society

compared with other

societies

n The

who

ously."

feminist

—

treats its

wives most gener-

wishes to demonstrate that male

10 All references to Dr. Stephens's

work

refer to Stephens, op.

cit.,

pp.

300-306. 11 Two interesting points emerge when we examine those societies in which there is a relatively low degree of male dominance. The first is one that we would expect if we view dyadic relationships in the terms

of this book:

women

in these societies are successful because they utilize

counter the societal expectations which conform male aggression or, to use Dr. Stephens's words, "In the face of if she wishes to fight back [the male power advantage] ... a wife must employ characteristically female weapons." The second point of interest is that a low degree of male dominance seems to occur when there is a strong societal emphasis on some suprafamilial male function. This is not to say that societies that emphasize some such factor will necessarily demonstrate a relatively low male dominance (i.e., will give the

"feminine"

abilities

to

to

women

.

—

.

.

authority in certain familial areas, Dr. Stephens's "exceptions"),

but that societies which do demonstrate a relatively low male dominance, which do give women authority in these familial areas, will place an un-

on some suprafamilial area. For example, the male obsession with work and career in the United States has been documented by sociologists since Weber; the Jivaro male sees warriorship as the purpose of life. Perhaps this implies that a relatively low degree of familial male dominance and authority may result from a society's seeing the paternal role as not contributing to high status and a resulting male lack of interest in the paternal role. This is analogous to a situation we

usually strong emphasis

when a suprafamilial position is given high status by a society, men will use their aggression to attain the position. When it is given low status, men will attempt to attain other (high status) positions. This would explain the fact that the relatively low degree of familial male dominance in the American family is correlated with a moderately high degree of patriarchy in the political and economic will observe shortly;

We might expect that a decrease in the strength of the work ethic and a resulting increase in the American male's interest in the paternal role may result in an increase in familial male authority. This increase will result from the male's using his aggression in the familial area he had formerly ignored in favor of his work. In other words, it is likely that the increased emphasis on women's filling suprafamilial roles, and the deemphasis of maternal roles urged by the feminists, may combine with a weakening of the male work ethic not to increase women's authority in suprafamilial areas (where the positions of authority will be attained by male aggression as they have in every society even those without a strong emphasis on suprafamilial male functions), but only to increase the degree of male dominance at home. areas.

—

42

Anthropology and the Limits of

dominance but

not universal need not even mention Stephens,

is

she does not she

if

do not

pilations that that she see,

Societal Variation

is

left

offer

with only cross-cultural com-

even a hint of an exception so

must find an exception on her own and

this,

we

shall

she will not be able to do. If the feminist does invoke

one of Dr. Stephens's versality of

none of these

an exception to the uni-

societies as

male dominance she

faces not only the fact that

societies are exceptions (see the

Addendum),

but that, as Dr. Stephens's words indicate, she must invoke the United States (because none of Dr. Stephens's societies

manifest male dominance any this

her cause

an exception

is

is

dominance and inist

less

lost at once: to

)

.

But

if

the feminist does

invoke the United States as

to assert that this .society does not to

have male

admit the incorrectness of the central fem-

premise. Since she will obviously not want to do

this,

she must acknowledge that none of Dr. Stephens's societies

acknowledge male dominance.

fail to It

New

is

worthwhile to consider

Guinea not only because

briefly

the Tchambuli of

this society is the

one of Dr.

Stephens's societies for which the strongest case (as a society

not acknowledging male dominance) can be made, but because a

number of popular

writers have repeated Margaret

Mead's questionable conclusions

Mead

TchamWhile Dr.

to her study of the

buli without repeating her qualifying statements.

did not claim that the Tchambuli failed to acknowl-

edge male dominance, she did imply that sex roles and sexual temperament for these people were so different from

the roles and temperaments exhibited in every other society that the study caused

something of an uproar. 12 The excellent

ethnographic data Dr.

Mead

presents

enables the careful

reader to see that Dr. Mead's conclusions concerning the plasticity of sex roles

do not follow from the observations

she describes. For example: Dr. 12 See cieties

Mead

Margaret Mead's Sex and Temperament

(New York: William Morrow,

43

1935).

points out that the in

Three Primitive So-

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

Tchambuli boy's

initiation consisted of the boy's killing a

victim and hanging the head in the ceremonial house as a

trophy;

difficult

is

it

to

see this

as

of

indication

"male

femininity." Indeed, in response to one of her critics Dr.

Mead

wrote,

"Nowhere do

I

suggest that

I

have found any

material which disproves the existence of sex differences. .

.

.

This study was not concerned with whether there are

or are not actual and universal differences between the sexes, either quantitative or qualitative."

13

Male Attainment of High-Status Roles and Positions Occasionally one who attempts to deny the universality of male dominance will mimic those who claim the existence of a matriarchy: he will not actually institutions

name

merely make vague reference to unnamed

he were

that, if

materials

a society

societies.

or

as,

on the

society he

conformed

more

More

than,

often,

He knows

to be specific, reference to the ethnographic

named would show

was perhaps matrilineal or matrilocal, the

it

tutions

whose

do not acknowledge male dominance but will

to patriarchy

do

that,

while

society's insti-

and male dominance

as

much

ours.

however, he invokes societies such as the

Bamendas, the Hopi, the Iroquois, the Mbuti Pygmies, the 13 Letter,

The

The American Anthropologist, 39:558-561

(July-September,

who

wishes further evidence that Dr. Mead's implication (that the Tchambuli sex roles do not conform to the limits demonstrated by every other society) is supported only by her own choice of adjectives and not at all by the data she presents should consult the following analyses of Sex and Temperament: Jessie Bernard, "Observation and Generalization in Cultural Anthropology," The American Journal of Sociology, 50:284-291 (January, 1945); Richard Thurnwald, "Oceania and Africa," The American Anthropologist, 38:663-667 (October-December, 1936); Victor Barnouw, Culture and Personality (Homewood, 111.: 1937).

Dorsey

reader

Press,

The Rise

1963), pp.

85-91; and Marvin Harris's brief criticism in Theory (New York: Crowell, 1968), pp. 413-

of Anthropological

414.

44

Anthropology and the Limits of

Societal Variation

Nayar, certain Philippine groups, the people of the Kibbutz, or even the fictitious Amazons. 14 These alleged exceptions

women

merely societies that associate with

are

j mictions that

we

associate with

tions to the universality of

tasks

or

men. These are not excep-

male dominance, for

—

in addition

to the fact that dominance-deference refers to the feelings

of

men and women

in every society that authority resides in

the male, feelings that are reflected in the expectations of

male and female behavior in

no way precludes the

which we size

(as uninvolved outsiders)

As was the

important here

may choose in

one

empha-

to

society or

case with customs of deference,

the attitudes of the

is

society in question. In every society,

tasks

—male dominance

any task or function

women

can be seen to be served by

another. is

in every society

possibility that

members of the

whatever the particular

performed by women, the members

do "women's tasks"

what

women

feel that

(as defined by the particular society)

women men serve

either because only

are biologically capable of the

tasks or because

functions that are

to the society's survival.

male roles than it

to the

another, and

I

crucial to

nonmaternal roles of females. To put more illuminating, way: in every

believe

society males attain the high-status

positions

more

Every society gives higher status

and perform the

(nonmaternal) roles and

high-status tasks, whatever those

tasks are.

Margaret

Mead

In every

has written:

known human

society,

achievement can be recognized.

weave or dress activities are

whole

Men may

or

cook,

hummingbirds, hut

if

such

appropriate occupations of men, then the

society,

important.

dolls or hunt

the male's need for

men and women

When

alike,

votes

them

as

the same occupations are performed

14 For a more extended discussion dominance see the Addendum.

45

of

alleged

exceptions

to

male

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

by ivomen, they are regarded as

less

important. 1 * [Em-

phasis added]

A woman who particular

older, wealthier,

is

more

may even

perhaps she

will have less status

and she will

feel

dominance over him, but she

and authority than an equivalent male toward him. Thus in some

woman whose husband

so-

has died rules the

and the presence of an educated, wealthy

family,

make

a higher class or

intelligent, or

feel deference

the older

cieties

from

more educated than a male may be given authority over that male and

"better" family,

woman

will

the less wealthy and educated male experience feelings

of insecurity. But ivhatever variable one chooses, authority, status,

and dominance within each stratum

rest

with the male

in contacts with equivalent females.

Men

do not merely

areas, they also

The higher or position

fill

fill

most of the

roles in high-status

the high-status roles in low-status areas.

the level of power, authority, status, prestige,

—whether the —

political, or religious

area be economic,

occupational,

the higher the percentage of males.

Thus the percentage of women

work

in the

force in the

United States has risen by 75 percent since 1900, but the percentage of

women

in the high-status

area of medicine

has declined during this period. In the Soviet Union, where

medicine has a far lower status than States,

the majority of

all

it

doctors are

does in the United

women, but

as

one

ascends from the level of practical medicine to the levels of authority the percentage of males rises until,

at

the top,

males constitute the overwhelming majority. 16 15

Margaret Mead, Male and Female (New York: William Morrow, As we shall see, one need not postulate a male "need to achieve" any greater than that of the female to explain why men attain the high-status roles in every society; the male aggression advantage (discussed in the next chapter) is enough to explain why high-status roles and positions are always attained primarily by men and why every society associates its (nonmaternal) high-status roles with men. 16 See William J. Goode, World Revolution and Family Patterns (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), pp. 57-66. 1949), p. 168.

46

Anthropology and the Limits of

Of

all

the tasks one might think of or choose to

and

to protection, fighting,

women

of

one

in

this,

who

political authority,

society or another,

the roles filled by

it is

empha-

every one, with the exception of those related

size, virtually

with

Societal Variation

men

17

is

associated

but in every society

None women

that are given high status.

of course, denies that in every society

are responsible for the care

it

is

and rearing of the young,

the single most important function served in any society or in nature itself. Just as patriarchy,

male dominance, and male

attainment of high-status roles and positions are universal, so is

the association of nurturance and emotional socialization

with the

some

woman

societies,

Two

universal,

to test

light

in

on universal

which, while their purpose

societal manifestations of sex differences.

these

aspects of the theory

While

18

other theoretical constructs, shed considerable

While each of

17

roles are,

status.

Hypotheses Tested

There are two major works

was

and these female

given the highest of

works called into question certain it

was

testing,

both indicate the cor-

there are no exceptions in these three spheres (every society's

military and leadership functions are served primarily by men),

it should be noted for the record that in the mid-nineteenth century the army of Dahomey included a corps of female warriors (different authors estimate their percentage of the total number of warriors as being between 5 and 15 percent) and that at one time Iroquoian women served a vital political function in selecting male leaders (though women were not permitted to

lead).

18

The

interested reader might wish to consult: Bronislaw MalinowSex and Repression in Savage Society (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1927), and Morris Zelditch, "Role Differentiation in the Nuclear Family: A Comparative Study," in Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, eds., Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process (New York: Free Press, 1955). Dr. Zelditch's definition of "instrumental role" differs in some respects from our definition of "male dominance." As a result he lists the Manus (alone among fifty-six societies) as giving the father a slightly less instrumental role than the mother. That this does not indicate that the Manus male is not dominant is apparent when Zelditch ski.

writes

(p. 337): "Father holds the authority in the family, but it is through the mother evidently that he disciplines the child that is he disciplines the mother and she is responsible for the child's behavior."

—

47

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations rectness of the description of sexual role distinctions dis-

cussed here. Bronislaw Malinowski's study of the Trobriand Islanders suggested that Freud, in explaining the son's rage,

had overemphasized the importance of the

father's role as

sexual mate of the mother, and underemphasized the im-

portance of his role as powerful constrictor of the son's

freedom and autonomy. In Freud's Vienna, cieties,

the

both of these roles were played by the father.

people

Malinowski

however,

studied,

brother played the authoritarian role to his

so-

Among

mother's

the

sister's

he, not the son's biological father was, according to ski,

most

as in

son and

Malinow-

the recipient of the son's rage. Likewise, a theory of

Talcott Parsons suggested that to the father an

all

possible societies will give

"instrumental" role (solves tasks of the

society at large, serves as source of authority

receives respect

and

hostility)

and

to the

and

discipline,

mother an "ex-

pressive" role (is source of care and guardian of emotional

development,

found that

warmth). Morris Zelditch

acts as receiver of

in ten of a

sample of

fifty-six societies

the instru-

mental role was played by a male other than the father

(though even

in these the father

seemed

relatively "instru-

mental" and the mother relatively "expressive"). The Freud-

Malinowski "debate" and the Parsons-Zelditch works are still

the subject of

oversimplification.

much argument, and I

I

apologize for the

raise all of this only to indicate that,

whatever other disagreements these theorists may have, their data has led

them

all

to the conclusion that, if a

male

is

included in the family, the dominant role will be played

by a male

— even when

19 It should be noted that

that every society includes a

it is

I

am

male

not played by the father. 19

Is

it

not at any point in this chapter saying in the family unit. I think that this

is

does not matter for our purposes if there exist societies in which the family consists of only the mother-child dyad. My point is only that if a male is included in the family, authority will be associated with him by both male and female feelings and societal expectation. Male dominance can manifest itself only when males and females come the case, but

it

48

Anthropology and the Limits of not likely that there

Societal Variation

some underlying imperative

is

ing authority with the male

associat-

even matrilineal and matri-

if

local societies pass over the obvious selection of the

mother

as authority figure to give this role to the mother's brother?

The Feminist Assumption The view of man and woman in lies

all

society that implicitly under-

of the arguments of the feminists

nothing inherent in the nature of

human

is

this:

there

is

beings or of society

that necessitates that any role or task (save those requiring

great strength or the ability to give birth) be associated with

one sex or the other;

20

there

is

no natural order of things

is no adult male in the family unit then, obviously, no male dominance. If a role does not give males high status or some other reward (or if a high-status role is one for which males are

into contact. If there

there will be

at

a

disadvantage) then the role will not attract males and,

biological

be no males, there will be no male dominance. One need not even look to a society with a dyadic family; both a number of matrilineal societies and American society indicate that when male time and energies are devoted to the pursuit of suprafamilial status the since there

will

(the familial authority role) will, in prac-

role of familial disciplinarian tice,

be delegated to the mother,

who

will

fill

this role in addition to

her

expressive role; in the matrifocal family type which marks such societies the male familial role

may be

male dominance whenever males and females do meet; it the individuals' feelings and the society's exrelatively unimportant, but

will nonetheless be manifested will be manifested both in pectations.

I

make

this

the family in British

point in response to R. T. Smith's suggestion that as a nuclear family, but soon de-

Guiana begins

velops into just the mother-child dyad. For reasons too numerous to go into here I do not consider Dr. Smith's illuminating study a refutation of the

argument that

a permanent, stable society

must be

built of a family

consisting of at least mother, child, and one adult male, but even if one did accept the possibility of a society's family system being based on only

would cast no doubt on the unimale-female encounters and relationships. See R. T. Smith, The Negro Family in British Guiana: Family Structure and Social Status in the Villages (London: Kegan Paul, 1956). 20 "It is time that we realized that the whole structure of male and female personality is entirely imposed by social conditioning. All the possible traits of human personality have in this conditioning been arbitrarily the mother-child dyad such a society

male dominance

versality of

assigned

into

in

two categories;

thus

."

aggression

is

masculine,

passivity

[Emphasis added]. (Kate Millett, Barnard Alumnae, Spring, 1970, p. 28.) This statement expresses the assumption which underpins all of Dr. Millett's Sexual Politics (New York: Doubleday, 1970). In the feminine.

.

.

49

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations four hundred pages of Sexual Politics Dr. Millett offers only four bits of evidence in support of this crucial assumption: (l) Dr. Millett quotes Dr. definitional distinction between biological "sex" and "gender" and leaves the strong impression that Dr. Stoller believes that "sex" need not be relevant to behavior. The true flavor of Dr. Stoller's thesis is better summarized by Dr. Stoller himself a few pages past the point where Dr. Millett stopped quoting: "A sex-linked genetic biological tendency towards masculinity in males and femininity in females works silently but effectively from fetal existence on, being overlaid after birth by the effects of environment, influences working more or less in harmony to produce a preponderance of masculinity in men and femininity in women." [Robert Stoller, Sex and Gender (New York: Science House, 1968), p. 74.] The point here is not whether Dr. Stoller is correct in his assessment, but that, if scientists are in the kind of disagreement over the importance of sexual biology to behavior which Dr. Millett claims they are, one would think that she would not find it necessary to misrepresent the views of a scientist who does believe that sexual biology is crucial. (2) Dr. Millett includes a footnote that refers the reader

Robert

Stoller's

societal

to a Rockefeller University publication

that

is

only tangentially relevant

There is an out-of-context quotation from a work of Dr. John Money. We need not examine this here because we will see shortly that it is Dr. Money's own work, more than that of any other scientist working with humans (as opposed to experimental animals), which indicates the crucial importance of sex hormones to behavior. (4) Finally, Dr. to this issue. (3)

Millett states that "the best medical research points to the conclusion that

sexual stereotypes have no bases in biology."

ment

is

As we

shall see, this state-

absolutely indefensible unless one defines stereotype not in the

terms of probability that the biologist uses but in terms so rigid that the point becomes irrelevant and unless one defines best medical research as "research

no bases

which points in biology."

the conclusion

to

that

(This assumes that there

sexual is

stereotypes

have

some medical research

my

investigations have uncovered none.) If an uncontroversial area to a graduate department in the social sciences or the physical sciences and attempted to get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty he would receive ridicule rather than a Ph.D. in literature from Columbia University. When Dr. Millett is not energetically planting fallacies among the wild inaccuracies she is dressing discarded conspiratorial and evolutionary theory in drag and presenting it as new. Her entire analysis is predicated on the belief that stating a disagreeable fact or argument in derisive terms results in alteration of the fact or refutation of the argument. Much of Dr. Millett's book consists of an analysis of D. H. Lawrence and other male authors. I would not presume to question the accuracy of Dr. Millett's presentation of these authors' representations of women. One wonders, however, whether Dr. Millett intends to imply that these views of women are representative of those held by nearly all male authors (or nearly all men). If not, then why are they relevant? One could "prove" oppression of the whale by using only Moby Dick as evidence. If these representations of women are invoked as representative of those of nearly all male

pointing in

this

direction;

anyone presented a

authors,

then

knowledged

thesis in

why do

to see

so

many

of those very

individuals

most deeply into the nature of things

50

all

who

are

see the

ac-

same

— Anthropology and the Limits of

Societal Variation

decreeing that dyadic and social authority must be associated

with men, nor

is

there any reason

why

must be men

it

rule in every society. Patriarchy, matriarchy,

are

equally possible and

all

—while every

"the natural order of things" to justify

we have

the expectations

all

ally

of

its

and "equiarchy"

may invoke

society

particular system

men and women

are cultur-

determined and have nothing to do with any sort of

male or female nature. 21

basic

There

is

nothing internally contradictory in such a hypoth-

indeed,

esis;

it

is

an ideal place from which to begin an

empirical investigation into the nature of man,

However, the feminist does not use

society. first

who

step but unquestioningly accepts

it

to explain the universality of patriarchy in the

woman, and

this as a heuristic

as true.

She attempts

and male dominance

economic terms of Engels's work on the family and

thing? Dr. Millett realized that these questions would arise and this is why she has gone to such lengths to confuse and misrepresent the relevant biological and anthropological evidence. 21 The best presentation of the feminist assumption

is

unquestionably

John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women. As an impassioned plea for women's rights Mill's essay is both moving and illuminating. As an attempt to explain the etiology of sexually differentiated behavior and institutions

it is

the essay

indefensible.

was Mill,

One

is

tempted, given the fact that the author of

to ascribe its inadequacies to the fact that little of the

relevant anthropological evidence, and

none of the relevant hormonal

evi-

dence, was available at the time. But the weakness of Mill's analysis

more to the fallacious reasoning conclusions demanded. For example, Mill argues

attributable even

is

that his preconceived

that we can have no conception of the limits of possibility imposed by innate sexual differences, or even of whether such limits exist, because no society has been composed of one sex; thus he does not even attempt to explain why the conceptions of male and female held by his society are not reversed in any other society. Similarly Mill attempts to dismiss the possibility of the

determinativeness of innate sexual differences by invoking the irrelevant fact that slave owners defended slavery with the invocation of physiological

do not exist; this fact is correct, of course, but it no more doubt on the likelihood that innate sexual differences are determinative to sexual differences in behavior and institutions than it does on the certainty that physiology is determinative to the ability to give birth. Mill's reasoning has been accepted without question by modern feminist writers. We shall examine this reasoning at length throughracial differences that

casts

out this book.

51

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

attempts to demonstrate that patriarchy

is

not inevitable by

invoking theories hypothesizing the existence of ancient ma-

While Engels's The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State may have a certain tangential validity when one is exploring certain economic junctions of the triarchies.

family in certain societies,

regarded by virtually

is

it

all

anthropologists as worthless as a description of the causes

of the family's existence; like other social-evolutionary theories,

it

fails to

explain the universality of patriarchy and

the near or complete universality of the family in a world

of thousands of (formerly)

unconnected

isolated,

societies

that demonstrate nearly every conceivably possible configura-

and familial systems

tion of religious, economic,

at nearly

every conceivably possible stage of development. Moreover, it

the development of every society onto a single

forces

continuum of linear evolution when great

many

lines of social evolution.

The Evolutionary Before abled

in reality there are a

Fallacy

this century the dearth of

some

theorists

to

ethnographic studies en-

maintain the contention that

developed along a single evolutionary

societies

belief in universal

societal

line.

when

evolution, particularly

all

This it

confused the economic functions that an institution came to play with the institution's cause (the factor that necessitated the institution

)

,

made

that those institutions

owed

at least

their existence to

cessities

vaguely credible the argument

which had existed

"all

through history"

economic and temporary

social ne-

and that they would decay when economic and

technological change rendered

them

anachronistic.

Some

evo-

lutionary theory could not pass even the test of internal logicality.

For

example,

theories

postulating

that

before

males learned of their biological importance to conception there

was

a "matriarchal stage"

52

of history were unable to

,

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation explain what force enabled men, once they learned of their

own

biological role, to "take over." Since

cally

know

women

automati-

of their importance, the males' discovery of the

mechanisms of conception should enable them merely

come is

power equally

to share

if

knowledge of

determinative. However, while there

to

biological role

would seem no

rea-

son to attach any relevance of paternity to patriarchy once

one that

is

forced to invoke

some other

one could, logically

if

factor,

it

must be admitted

not credibly, argue that knowl-

edge of biological importance

is

precondition

a

attainment of power, but that once this precondition

then some other factor terminative.

As long

—

say physical strength

was

as there

the

for

met

is

—becomes

de-

relevant ethnographic

little

data the question of evolution was forced to remain on this theoretical level. Evolutionary theory

was not doomed

until

ethnographic studies demonstrated that every institution was either, like slavery, absent

from some

societies

and therefore

(unless one invokes an unre-

not evolutionarily necessary

corded antecedent stage that had the institution for every society

—

in

which case evolutionary theory

metaphysics)

when

the

found

a

or,

if

alleged

number of

cause

is

not theory, but

found even

like patriarchy,

universal,

was

The ethnographers which males did not know

absent.

societies in

of their biological importance yet which were as patriarchal

This demonstrates beyond question that knowledge of paternity has nothing to do with patriarchy. There are other problems with social evolutionary theory:

as all other societies.

one

is

attempting

which case the term evolution

is

grandiose;

unless a particular characteristic to explain

(in

is all

that

one can legitimately say that a

literate society is

vanced than a primitive one

he

if

specifies that

more he

is

addis-

cussing only urbanization and not implying that urbanization is

a sign of

advancement on some general evolutionary

evolutionary theory

is

by

its

scale)

very nature ethnocentric and

53

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

often

For the decision

racist.

the measure of advancement

as to

which

factor to consider

—with

subjective

is

the possible

exception of the factor of survival, in which case

viving societies are equal.

saw any

tionary theorists

It is

sur-

all

not accidental that few evolu-

own

society but their

as the

most

advanced. Perhaps one would defend this by saying that the ability to

propose evolutionary theory

vancement, but

this criterion is

value system of the theorist. Lastly, the

power of

increased

is

the measure of ad-

most obviously based convince

social evolutionary theory to

when we

is

not

observe that primates demonstrate be-

havior that seems not unlike that which

dominance and

in the

should be noted that

it

we

that certain institutions

refer to as

male

have made mock-

attempt to change them and every

eries of every political

theoretical attempt to explain their etiologies in the terms

of environment and economic function.

The

"Prehistoric Matriarchies"

and the

"Amazons" Likewise, before this century, theories that hypothesized a matriarchal form of society that prevailed at "an earlier stage

of history"

made

a certain, if tortuous, sense until findings

gathered in the past

fifty

years

both failed to uncover a

single shred of evidence that such matriarchies isted

and demonstrated the

deal with reality.

when

constructs imaginary elements only

such an hypothesized reality helps to better explain

an observed size a

One

reality.

For example,

male "aggressive

of an observed reality

it

made

this

(men

made

possible an explanation

rule in every society) that

plausible and logically tighter than

preceded

it.

There

is

sense to hypothe-

instinct" (before the discovery of the

male hormone) because

more

had ever ex-

inability of all such theories to

was

any theory that

no reason whatsoever

to hypothesize

the existence of an as yet undiscovered matriarchy. Observation of empirical reality not only gives

54

no reason

to construct

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation such an hypothesis but indicates with virtual certainty that this hypothesis

would be

For the reasons

incorrect. 22

we have

discussed

matriarchal

credited

it is

not surprising that,

by feminists, the totally

until their recent resurrection

and evolutionary theories of

dis-

Lafitau,

Bachofen, Ward, McLennan, and BrifTault (and a host of popularizations of their theories by Helen Diner and others)

have long been buried beneath

There

no reason

is

to detail yet

a

merable factual errors and logical to each of these works; suffice

well-deserved obscurity.

once again the nearly innu-

it

fallacies that are specific

to say that they all share

we have discussed Panos Bardis's observation that "... these

the contradictions and empirical disproof

and

to reiterate

theories

This

were soon rejected by is

all social scientists."

^

not to say that matriarchal myths and legends have

not served valid exaggerative and metaphorical purposes for writers

from the time of Homer, Diodorus, Herodotus, and

As

literary devices they

have often been used with devastating

effect to ridicule the

Plutarch to that of Robert Graves.

22 I have consulted the original ethnographic materials on every society have ever seen alleged by anyone to represent a matriarchy, female dominance, or the association of high-status, nonmaternal roles with women. Like the authors of the compilations cited in this chapter, I have found no society that represents any of these (see the Addendum). Furthermore, I believe that the evidence advanced in Chapter Three renders the concept of matriarchy and an absence of male dominance as absurd as the possibility that there was a society that associated childbirth with males. But it must be admitted that one cannot prove that matriarchy or anything else has never existed. If one wants to demonstrate that there has never been a centaur he can merely invoke the realities of physiology and evolution to indicate the biological improbability of a centaur's ever having existed and demonstrate that the evidence alleging the past existence of a centaur is worthless. If the reader insists on maintaining a belief in a once-existent matriarchical society all we can do is demand from him some evidence more convincing than his desire for there to have been one. 23 Panos Bardis, "Synopsis and Evaluation of Theories Concerning Family Evolution," Social Science, 38:50 (January, 1963). Interested readers might further consult virtually any introductory text in anthropological theory and M. F. Ashley Montagu's introduction to Marriage Past and Present: A Debate Between Robert Briffault and Bronislaw Malinowski (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1956 the debate took place in 1931). I

—

55

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

men

of societies in which male dominance was institutional-

ized less than in that of the authors. reflect

As myth

they

may

well

the most basic male fears; every infant does indeed

live in a matriarchy.

As symbol

they represent the matrilineal

woman

does "carry the throne" that

which the

society in

will hold succeeding generations of

men. But

as

anthropo-

logical descriptions of real societies these are total nonsense.

When

such descriptions are not so metaphysical as to be

unfalsifiable,

they prove, without exception, to be totally

fantastical. It is

these myths and legends that provide the "evidence"

advanced

in a

number of books

that imply the

former ex-

istence of matriarchies for the (usually unstated)

purpose

of casting doubt on any biological explanation of sexual differentiation in social institutions. 24

The

authors of these

name

a society that was not patriwhose institutions did not conform to male dominance. They are aware that when they do, mere reference

books

rarely, of course,

archal or

any history book, to say nothing of the original source

to

materials which these authors avoid as

if

they were con-

taminated, would immediately demonstrate that the specified 24

As we

our discussion of cultural variation, serious Marxist that no matriarchy has ever existed. While such anthropologists place far greater emphasis on the economic factor than I do, there is no direct conflict between their work and the theory presented here; they do not maintain that there has ever been a society that lacked patriarchy, male dominance, or male attainment of high-status suprafamilial roles and positions. I am bothering to discuss the presentations of works alleging the former existence of matriarchies not because they deserve discussion on their intellectual merit they are uniformly inaccurate and incompetently done but because they are occasionally invoked by laymen. The works are: Elizabeth Gould Davis, The First Sex (New York: Putnam, 1971); Helen Diner, Mothers and Amazons (New York: Julian Press, a 1965 translation of a work originally published around 1930); M. and M. Vaerting, Dominant Sex (London: Doran, 1923); Nancy Reeves, Womankind (Chicago: Aldine, 1971); Evelyn Reed, Is Biology Woman's Destiny? (New York: Pathfinder shall see in

scholars like Kathleen

Gough have acknowledged

—

Press,

day,

—

1972); Phyllis Chesler, Woman and Madness (New York: DoubleEmanuel Kanter, The Amazons (Chicago: Charles Kent,

1972), and

1926).

56

Anthropology and the Limits of

was ruled by men,

society

conformed

that expectations

male dominance, and

to

nonmaternal

high-status,

evidence so selective that so ineptly handled.

A

Societal Variation

institutions

that males attained the

roles. Instead these it

and

authors advance

would be dishonest were

it

not

marriage contract from one society

is

advanced along with a female holiday from a second and a

goddess from a third. Using myths, one could

the existence of a society of centaurs.

need not even

select

With

this

as well

imply

approach one

evidence from more than one society;

the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" and the celebration of

Mother's Day would be enough to "prove" that America is

a society ruled

There

a

is

by giant women.

problem with these books that

serious than their totally uncritical mixtures isolated facts about real societies.

is

even more

of myth and

They do not make even

theoretical sense. This enables us to avoid the necessity of

demonstrating the inadequacy of the empirical evidence provided by each individual book. in these

books

are,

thors, predicated

The arguments advanced

often without the awareness of the au-

on the assumptions that underpin Engels's

and empirically disprovable evolutionary theory.

fallacious

There are three assumptions that are implicit ysis

and

analysis

any one of the three

if is

incorrect.

in Engels's anal-

incorrect then Engels's

is

The assumptions

are that matrilineality

precedes and must precede patrilineality, that the transformation

from

matrilineality to patrilineality

is

engendered by

the advent of private property and class differentiation, and that the early stages of societal

various matrilineal societies

due of an stage.

development are not merely

The

matrilineal, but matriarchal. is

matrilineality

earlier matrilineality, but of

This matriarchal stage

is

we

find in

alleged to be not only a

an

resi-

earlier matriarchal

pictured by

some

as a reversal

of patriarchy and by others as an equalitarian situation in

which first

women

version

is

received high status.

We

simply incorrect; there

57

is

have seen that the

no evidence

that at

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

men

any time there has ever been any society in which not rule and there that

is

great reason, as

none could have ever

not necessarily incorrect

women

(as long as

we

discuss in this

irrelevant to patriarchy,

ment of it

shall see, to believe

The second asserts

it

version

high-status,

book were not present), but

male dominance, and male

nonmaternal

roles.

We

attain-

shall see that

women men

true that certain matrilineal societies do give

is

is

merely that

received high status and does not imply that the

universals it is

we

existed.

did

very high status by giving very high status to roles that are incapable of playing. This to those

of far greater significance

is

who would deemphasize

the female role than

to our discussion of institutions for

to female roles this

is

which the

status

it

is

given

The ideological component of when we reflect on the fact that,

irrelevant.

reasoning can be seen

rather than invoking a matrilineal society that does at least

give

women

status, these

high status by giving their female roles high authors continue to invoke Lewis

Henry Mor-

gan's Iroquois as a roughly equalitarian society despite the fact that, as

we have

the Iroquois prohibit

seen,

Morgan

women from

states that not

only do

ruling, but that they also

consider them "servants."

Some

of these authors have not even considered the ethno-

graphic materials that are available;

have seen the absurdity of looking for a matriarchy

if

when none can be found among

sands of societies to which

we

The

would

the thou-

are not related and

are at "earlier stages of development" stick)

they had they

to our antecedent societies

which

(whatever the yard-

than those invoked and invented by these authors.

authors would not have even had to refer to the original

ethnographic

studies.

George Murdock's

definitive

cultural analysis, Social Structure, 2 * exposes the three

cross-

assump-

tions of Engels as not merely unjustified by the evidence, 25 See

George Murdock, Social Structure (New York: Free

pp. 184-207.

58

Press, 1949),

Anthropology and the Limits of but as inarguably incorrect. are a great is

number of

no evidence

lineality;

Societal Variation

Murdock demonstrates

patrilineal societies for

that patrilineality

that there

which there

was preceded by matri-

other words even an evolutionary theory of

in

lineage that does not imply a concomitant evolution of

second variable matrilineality

dependence theory.

is

refuted by the evidence.

is

is

More

some

importantly,

not dependent on any other variable; such

what gives meaning

Matrilineality

is

found

in

to Engels's evolutionary

with

thriving societies

highly developed rights of private property, with elaborate stratification systems,

with extensive

political integration,

even with systems of feudal land tenure. Matrilineality

is

and also

the lineage system in societies in which these institutions are

absent or as minimally developed as possible. All of this can

be said of patrilineality fact that

no change

in

any society significantly

The

fact that

also.

Most

crucial, of course, is the

any direction of any variable renders less patriarchal

than any other society.

none of the alleged Amazonian

ever existed has been demonstrated by a pologists, 26 but

it

is

societies has

number of anthro-

nonetheless interesting to examine the

26 "Since the Amazons never existed, but are a mythical group first mentioned by Herodotus and soon doubted by Strabo, their social organization need not further detain us, except perhaps as an enduring example of the will to believe." (Montagu, op. cit., p. 88.) "The fabled Amazon women are just that a fable. Even in societies which are organized about women, in societies which follow matrilineal descent and inheritance and matrilocal residence, power tends to be held by males in the female lineage. Power is usually held by the mother's brother from the viewpoint of ego, by the maternal uncle. Male dominance, or at least a tendency towards it, appears to be one of those basic features of human existence that culture cannot completely contradict. A minority of societies are organized around female lineage, but even among them, power, status, and property tend to be held by males." (Leslie, op. cit., p. 52.) Marvin Harris (Culture, Man, and Nature, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971) writes: (p. 328) ". certainly there was never any matrilineal 'stage'

—

.

.

The basic reason for this is that men have always been politically and economically dominant over women. Despite the persistent popular notion that the presence of matrilineal descent groups reflects the political or economic domination of men by women, it is the men in these societies no less than in patrilineal societies in this general evolution of culture.

.

59

.

.

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations internal

On

of a report of the discovery of

logic

Amazons"

"the

first

that recently appeared in a popular magazine. 27

the evidence of a few ideograms, a photographer devel-

oped

a

theory of the existence of an all-woman lesbian

ago in the wilds of Brazil. The

society that existed long

was supposed

society

cally raiding

and killing

to

have perpetuated

neighboring

all

the males and

male offspring. This

all

taken seriously by any anthropologist, but

ment imagine

by periodi-

itself

mating with captured males,

tribes,

let

that this "society" did exist. If

is

us for the

it is

not

mo-

advanced

as

evidence for the possibility of a nonpatriarchal society, certain questions arise.

caves?

Why

Why

did these

women

have

to hide in

did they not merely attain positions of authority

in the societies

from which they came

in the

same manner

men have done in every society? More generally, we might ask all those who claim that there has ever been a matriarchy or an Amazonian society of any type why they are unable as

to provide a single

example from ethnographic materials

that include societies of virtually every conceivable type at virtually every conceivable stage along virtually every con-

ceivable line of development;

who

socialization explains

if

why

the corporate kin group's productive and reproductive reand (p. 582) "Matriarchy has never existed," and (p. 585) ". anthropology lends no support to the view that there are no innate differences between males and females." Lastly we should note that Kathleen Gough, a leading anthropologist who certainly looks favorably control

sources," .

.

upon the feminist movement, has written:

".

.

.

matriliny does not in-

volve 'matriarchy' or female dominance, either in the

home

or in society,

Engels tended to believe. Matriarchy, as the reverse of patriarchy, has in fact almost certainly never existed men predominate as heads of households, lineages and communities in matrilineal as in patrilineal societies, and women experience greater or less authority from their mother's brothers, elder brothers, or even their grown sons. Some degree of male dominance has, in fact, been universal to date in human society, although matrilineal systems are usually kinder to women." "An Anthropologist Looks at Engels," in Nona Glazer Malbin and Helen Youngelson Waehrer, eds., Women in a Man-Made World (Chicago: Rand McNally, as

.

.

.

—

1972), p. 115. 27 Time, December 27, 1971, p. 54.

60

Anthropology and the Limits of societies are patriarchal there

Societal Variation

should be any number of

which leadership and authority are associated with

cieties in

women, and one should not be forced

to

invoke examples

of nonpatriarchal societies that exist only in myth and erature.

lit-

28

The Meaning of Universality An institution is universal if it plays

a crucial role in every

which we have any knowledge; the

society of

of such societies (societies that

is

were

over four thousand

total

number

between approximately twelve hundred relatively isolated

and that have been studied

from other

societies

by anthropologists) and

directly

(groups that are definitely

known

to

or to have existed, but that have not been studied

exist,

by anthropologists).

directly if

so-

there

is

have (or

An

institution

is

not universal

(or ever has been) a single society that does not

at

one time did not have) the

institution.

Univer-

need not, indeed usually does not, mean that every

sality

individual in every society exhibits the behavior that leads to (or tution.

is

generated by), and which

Marriage

is

is

regulated by, the

a universal institution

(if

the anthropologists to worry about the one or that 28

some

see as exceptions), even

One may,

we

insti-

leave for

two

societies

though some members

perhaps, speak meaningfully of "masculine" and "feminine" "masculine" and "feminine" periods in a particular society's development if he uses these merely as relative terms and speaks of relatively aggressive values as "masculine" and relatively nurturant values as "feminine." will come close to doing this in Chapter Five when we discuss the factors that determine the extent to which male aggression is manifested in any given society. But such relative terms are applicable only within the limits described in this book. No society was ever so "feminine" that authority and dominance were not associated with males and no society was ever so "masculine" that child-rearing was primarily the responsibility of males (except, as with the Marquesan Islanders, who practiced female infanticide, when there was a great shortage of women). Some historians, using this terminology, have referred to societies which would be "feminine" as "matriarchies." Since they do not imply that the societies were not patriarchies (in my terms) or that they did not exhibit male dominance, this does not conflict with the analysis presocieties or

We

sented here.

61

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

of every society remain unmarried. Universality means that the general population of every society predicates ior

and expectations on the universal

behav-

It

means

which we could have

that thousands of "experiments" for

imagined a great number of other

its

institution.

results all

turned out the

same way. Let

me make

it

cause an institution

There are

do

all

clear that is

I

universal

not implying that be-

is

it

necessarily inevitable.

different reasons for universality,

imply

inevitability.

and by no means

Perhaps the most obvious reason

for universality, and the one for

ment

am

which no reasonable argu-

for inevitability could be made,

is

technological igno-

rance or economic scarcity; certainly no one would argue that

because no society has a two-hour work week such a work

week could never be achieved by any

society.

However, while

universality can never, by itself, prove inevitability, there are

times

when

it

combines with other evidence to strongly sug-

gest inevitability.

The

inevitability

may

flow from the nature

of society in general, as opposed to the particular nature of a particular society, or from the very nature of biology.

An

example of the former

is

can imagine a society in which parent-child incest

mon form effects

human One

the incest taboo.

of sexual activity, but what

we know

is

a

com-

about the

of incest on social structure has led us to the con-

clusion that these effects alone

of such a society even though

would preclude the

it is

logically

and

survival

(let us

agree

for argument's sake) biologically possible that such a society

could survive. Even

when we

deal with the most basic type

of limitation on societal possibility, the limitations imposed

by

human

physiology, universality alone does not prove in-

One would not say that in every future society (composed of men and women who are biologically constituted as they are now and disregarding for now the possibility of new forms of childbirth) women will be the evitability.

ones to give birth because they have always been the child-

62

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation bearers in ever)- society in the past, but here the biological factor

that

so apparent that the implication of inevitability

is

inherent in universality cannot reasonably be ques-

is

tioned. Universality indicates that there has never been an

(which would, of course, immediately disprove

exception

inevitability).

human

Given the seemingly unlimited

plasticity

societal institutions, the universality of

an institution

alerts

the objective investigator to the possibility that there

underlying factor engendering universality and factor

of

of

beings and the seemingly endless variety of their

is

is

an

that, if this

inseparable from the general nature of society or

human

biology, the institution, or

some equivalent

tutional channel for

meeting the requirements of

may be

If

inevitable.

relevant to patriarchy,

insti-

this factor,

were no biological evidence

there

male dominance, and male attainment,

then one might argue that the inevitability of these institutions

was merely

the anthropologist,

he finds and that

is

is

a fairly likely probability.

who

is

more impressed when he

suspect that

finds

an institution

capable of overriding this diversity, would tend to

believe strongly that there that

I

impressed by the cultural diversity

makes these

an as yet undiscovered factor

is

universal.

institutions

The

analysis

that

explains these institutions in terms of the specific social values

of each specific society, while

it

is

fairly satisfactory if

one

has only a single society or a few related societies to study

(though even for a single society the etiology and purpose of the institution must be explained), loses

powers

as

more and more unrelated

highly varied value systems

societies

its

persuasive

with unrelated,

demonstrate only one of a

all

number of

logically possible institutional alternatives.

sociologists

on the other hand,

ourselves with societies in the I

who more

Western

believe, too often see ourselves as

in a totally

We

often concern

tradition

and who,

having a vested interest

environmental approach to social

reality,

would

hold out more strongly for an explanation that did not imply

63

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations inevitability.

But universality

is

only one element of the evi-

dence to be presented for the line of reasoning that sees patriarchy,

male dominance, and male attainment

table. It

important because

is

it

as inevi-

demonstrates that there has

been no exception to disprove the inevitability of these tutions, because

that

may

points the

it

way

insti-

to other sorts of evidence

may

explain such universality and

indicate reasons

for inevitability, because universality represents an astonish-

ing regularity in a world of variation, and because

it

is

for

the explanation of such regularity that the scientist searches.

For the cultural anthropologist nothing admirable

conservatism leads

scientific

is

him

when an

lost

to describe in

slightly qualified terms the universality of a universal institution.

However,

I

am

advancing the hypothesis that

archy, male dominance, and male attainment are

and

it

is

important to emphasize that the conservatism of

some anthropologists does not

indicate their belief that there

Throughout

are any clear exceptions to total universality. this

book

societal

I

accept the assertion that one need find only one

exception to the universality of an

prove that not only that

its

logical

patri-

inevitable,

presence in factors.

theory and

I

am

all

do

I

is

institution

the institution not inevitable,

other societies

this

to

is

to

but

not related to bio-

increase the tightness of the

able to do this because there

is

not a single

exception to the universality of patriarchy, male attainment,

and male dominance. it is

It is

worth mentioning, however, that

quite possible that there are a

number of secondary and

tertiary biological factors that will nearly

fested in a particular institution but that in rare situations

always be mani-

may be overridden

when complemented by extreme

institu-

tions that act as counterpoise only at the cost of introducing

tension into the system by unusual suppression of the biological or that

may be overridden only by rendering

the com-

ponents of the system very different from the components of nearly

all

other social systems. For example, polyandry

64

Anthropology and the Limits of

Societal Variation

woman and more

(marriage consisting of a

than one

man)

is

the primary form of marriage in only about one-tenth of

1

percent of

In

societies.

all

(the evidence

societies

all

or virtually

all

of these

unclear and the methodological

is

problems are complex) female infanticide

widely prac-

is

more adult men than there are adult women. Therefore, while the existence of a single society in which polyandry is the primary form of marriage does ticed so that there are

prove that

it

monogamous that

polygyny

not inevitable that every society must be

is

or polygynous,

common

is

it

does not prove that the fact

while polyandry

is

rare

un-

is

related to biological factors.

The Relevance

of Cultural Variation

All social scientists agree that there are both unchanging preconditions that must be met by any society that

is

to

survive and also great variations from one society to another.

Whether

a social scientist

or variations

is,

is

more impressed by

similarities

perhaps, a reflection of his personality, a

question of whether he sees the glass as half empty or half

he

full. If

sees the glass as half empty,

he will be sustained

by the fact that no society has ever failed to develop games; if

he sees the glass

as half full,

he will stand in awe of the

wonderfully varied types of games the members of different

have developed.

societies

If

he sees the glass

as half empty,

he will note that man's emotions and the biological materials that

underlie

at all, since

half

full,

cieties

them have changed only very

our species

evolved. If he sees the glass as

his attentions to the ingenuity so-

have demonstrated in developing the various

tutional

mechanisms for

the societies' members.

water equal to half is

first

he will devote

slightly, if

threatened only

empty (or half

its

The

reality is that the glass contains

capacity; the correctness of an analysis

when one who views

full)

insti-

satisfying the emotional needs of

the glass as half

argues that the glass

65

is

less

than (or

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

half full. This is what many social scientists do when discussing the institutions we discuss in this book. The nature of sociology is such that the sociologist often sees the glass as half full and emphasizes variation among

more than)

societies;

he analyzes variations in

and economic con-

social

an attempt to explain cross-cultural variations

texts in

vant to particular institutions.

women's

roles in

He

America and India

differing etiologies of differing roles

anisms that sustain these

roles.

rele-

might, for example, study in order to discover the

and the

differing

This approach

is

mech-

fertile be-

cause the differences proposed in the analysis of these two societies

plain.

is

sociological

is

real differences they

is

attempt to ex-

the danger, however, that this customary

perspective

variation that

may

found from

more than

glass as

by

justified

There

lead

overemphasizing the

to

society to society, to seeing the

many

half full. Indeed,

sociologists

who

are not aware of the universality of patriarchy, male domi-

and male attainment invoke cultural variation

nance,

as

"proof" that these institutions could not be inevitable. There is

no such cultural

As we have virtually

variation.

seen,

no variation

tions of leadership

when at all.

patriarchy

is

considered, there

The number

and authority

varies, as

is

women in posiwe shall see, from

of

zero to perhaps 6 or 7 percent as one spans the entire range

of

all

human

societies

in

societies including,

which

women

it

should be noted, those

comprise half the work force.

how

Calculation of the exact upper figure depends on

down from

far

the top one considers "leadership" and whether

one includes appointed positions of leadership such net members. In any case, the point

is

as cabi-

abundantly clear: no

society fails to associate suprafamilial authority with males

or fails to

fill

its

authority positions with males.

even some empirical and, rect,

if

There

the theory presented here

is

is

cor-

strong theoretical evidence that modernization (speciali-

zation, division of labor, bureaucratization,

66

and the removal

Anthropology and the Limits of of hereditary barriers to mobility)

Societal Variation

limits the possibility of

female attainment of leadership positions, even within the slight variation that

male

possible, by giving freest play to

is

aggression.

Likewise, there

very

is

among

variation

little

societies in

the degree to which males attain the nonmaternal roles that are given high status (whatever the particular roles given

high status in any particular society). If male attainment of nonmaternal, nonleadership roles as

in a

is,

few

apparent as male attainment of leadership

we

cause, as societies

Since

it

is

be-

our discussion of the Mbuti, such

shall see in

have few such roles to

we have

not

societies,

roles,

attain.

defined "male dominance" in terms of the

feeling of a society's

men and women

that an element of

we have

general authority resides in the male and since

seen

that the ethnographic studies of every society that has ever

been observed explicitly ent,

there

literally

is

state that these feelings

no variation

variation in the degree to in dyadic

and familial

all.

If

were

we

pres-

consider

which such feelings are manifested

institutions,

becoming mired

in

which aspects

emphasize.

to

at

subjective

we

are threatened with

considerations

concerning

have suggested

I

(Footnote

Eleven) that the degree to which male dominance will be manifested will be lowest

when

a society's males are

most

preoccupied with suprafamilial pursuits. Even in such societies authority

within the family will be invested in the

male (usually the

father, but the mother's brother in the case

of some matrilineal-matrilocal societies), but male disinterest

and female

means"

ability

to

"get around"

will serve to give

women

males by "feminine

a great deal of real power,

though not authority, within the family. Apart from the observation that male

dominance will be

dyadic and familial institutions

when

least

given high status and the paternal role low

we

manifested in

a suprafamilial area status,

about

is

all

can say about variation from society to society in the de-

67

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

gree to which male dominance familial institutions

every society.

The

manifested in dyadic and

Male dominance

this:

is

is

societies that least

present in

is

manifest male domi-

nance are the United States and a few matrilineal

societies. If

one considers male dominance in the United States extreme, then he must agree that there

very

is

little

variation in the

degree to which different societies manifest male dominance (relative to the logically possible variation), because nearly all

other societies manifest

argue

that,

it

He

to a greater degree.

within the variation that

we do

cannot

find, industrializa-

tion necessarily decreases the manifestations of

male domi-

nance, because the other two or three societies (besides the

United States ) that

While

tive societies.

manifest male dominance are primi-

least it is

true that modernization has tended

to reduce the manifestation of

two

centuries in America,

dominance are

tral to

is

now

able to consider a point that

the confusion that

women,

we

shall discuss

a phrase

we

is

is

whose

not only cen-

more

momentarily, but one

and needless confusion. This

engendered by the phrase

status of

shall attempt to avoid in this book.

Confusion develops because

this

term

is

used to include two

factors that are not only not necessarily positively

correlated, but which, if the suggestions offered in

male

the question of alleged cultural variation and to the

that enables us to avoid endless

or

in the past

increase

low male dominance.

evolutionary fallacies

is

male dominance

would no doubt

in a matrilineal-matrilocal primitive society

starting point

We

it

above and

Footnote Eleven are correct, will often be inversely cor-

related.

Some

authors use this phrase to refer to rights and

find that there

is

a great deal of variation

from

society to

women; some societies give women virtually no rights at all while in modern societies such as America women have virtual equality of rights. The feminist may abhor the few remaining laws that differentiate society in the rights given to

between the

sexes, but surely she will

68

admit that such laws

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation are not a

major cause of the disparity

women

and

in the

power and

in positions of

numbers of men

that they are not the

primary focus of her criticism of contemporary

society. If she

will not admit this, then she will have to admit that passage

amendment would satisfy all her criticisms. when they used the phrase a omen, then there would be no problem; we could

of an equal rights

If all authors referred to rights

status of

admit that there is

is

great variation here, but that such variation

irrelevant to this

archy,

book because

it

has no bearing on patri-

male dominance, or male attainment.

However,

number of anthropologists have suggested

a

the "status of

means

all,

women"

is

we

respect,

to society

Here these anthrowomen. If we focus

matrilineal-matrilocal societies.

pologists refer to the respect given to

on

that

highest in certain, though by no

is

see,

once again, that variation from society

very great. But once again this

is

our purposes because the great respect given to

irrelevant to

women

does

not reduce the degree of patriarchy, male dominance, or male

attainment of high-status suprafamilial positions; this respect reflects

the high status

related roles that in

and

is

of maternal

and female lineage-

perfectly congruent with the suggestion

male dominance will be somewhat subdued

in societies

which male time and energies are directed toward supra-

familial pursuits to an unusual degree. In these societies

men

are typically outsiders in the matrilineal household, and interaction society.

between the sexes

When

is

far less frequent than in our

these societies give high status to

women's

female

roles,

strong.

Women

position

women's

in a very real sense, quite

are given great respect and a considerable

degree of familial power. that such respect

is,

It is

important to note, however,

and familial power

is

made

possible by the

male suprafamilial orientation and emotional detachment

from the family. triarchy

is

Women

as strong as in

have few suprafamilial any other

society,

rights, pa-

males attain

all

the suprafamilial high-status positions, and male dominance,

69

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

while

may be somewhat subdued

it

"visitor" status

because of the male's

and the infrequency of male-female encoun-

unmistakably present in both the feelings of

ters, is

women and The

men and

the formal expectations of the society.

reader can no doubt already see the confusion that

when one

ensues

uses the phrase status of

women

to include

Women

even two discrete factors, rights and respect.

receive

great respect in certain matrilineal societies that give

few

rights; the respect derives

high-status roles

for

from the

them

fact that they

fill

which men are incapable of playing and

which male aggression

is

useless.

(There

nothing in

is

the theory presented here that precludes the possibility that a society will give higher status to

female roles which

are incapable of filling than to the roles

Women

which males

receive equality of rights in societies in

compete with men and

in

which the female

men

attain.

which they

roles

men

are

incapable of playing are given relatively low respect. In both

female attainment of high-status, suprafamilial po-

societies

sitions

is

insignificant, so

which

society gives

women

"higher

status"?

Were

this the limit of the

confusion engendered by the

phrase status of women, the problem would be irrelevant to

we discuss; we could merely sugwho are interested in the rights or women discard the confusing phrase and

the universal institutions gest that those authors

the respect granted

specify the variable they wish to discuss.

lem

more

is

serious than this.

However, the prob-

Some Marxist

anthropologists

acknowledge that there has never been a matriarchy,

but,

invoking variations of Engels's reasoning, imply that there

were once than

it

societies in

which women's position was

have existed since the dawn of 29 See Kathleen

Gough,

op.

cock's introduction to Engels's

and the

far higher

has been in any of the thousands of societies that

State

(New York:

cit.,

history. 29 It

is

not clear from

pp. 107-118, and Eleanor Burke Leaof the Family, Private Property,

The Origin

International Publishers, 1972), pp. 7-67.

70

Anthropology and the Limits of Societal Variation

what these authors believe

these authors' writings exactly

the prehistoric societies were like. If that these societies

were

have

then there

just discussed,

tween the theory presented here and

conflict be-

their works; for if

now

are willing to admit that such societies

nothing by admitting that they did long ago

is

we

societies

no necessary

is

mean

they

all that

like the matrilineal

we

exist

also.

The

we lose

prob-

lem derives from these authors' implication, quite possibly an unintended implication, that these societies did not manifest

male attainment of high-status, nonmaternal

male dominance. This implication

positions or

incorrect, but ties

modern

such a society ciety that

societies,

which we

live.

A

nonfeminist

well prefer life in a matrilineal society, but a feminist's nightmare.

is

A

technological so-

was matrilineal could not develop for

of reasons, but historic

if

one did

matrilineal it

not only

is

closer to the feminist ideal than are the

industrial societies in

woman might

and

leaves the impression that matrilineal socie-

it

somehow

are

roles

would

exist

number

or contemporary matrilineal

societies" differ

a

and did resemble the "pre-

most notably from our

society in

the total separation of male and female roles and the prohibitions against

men

women

even entering the areas from which

derived their status, in the impossibility of women's

attaining status in any related roles,

and

way but through maternal and

in the lesser degree to

even think about women.

It

is

lineage-

which men would

true that

male dominance

would be somewhat diminished, but only to the extent that males were absent from the family setting. This setting would still

be dominated by a male, though the male might be the

mother's brother.

woman who archy,

This might

all

be satisfactory for the

did not care that the society manifested patri-

male attainment, and male dominance because

would be dreadful

it

gave

her female roles high status, but

it

woman who

in terms of the suprafamilial

sees

high-status roles

women's value

and positions that males 71

attain.

for the

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

The

from

lesson to be learned

real

women

equality of rights

great respect

compete for

A

B.

woman

only a

what the

can

fill

women who

forces

given to women. As

we

desire status to

which male aggression

attainment while

for

rights given

reduction of the status given to the roles

status in areas in

precondition

it

shall see, this

reduces the

means

tion of the status given to the roles only a

women

cannot lose to one in which

woman

a

can play

women

cannot win. The mean-

movement and

ing this holds for the feminist

is

respect

that a reduc-

changes a woman's situation from one in which

attempt to

its

improve women's situation by deemphasizing the

men

women

twofold: A. Males attain the positions of

is

authority and high status no matter

women, and

that give

societies

and from those that give

roles that

are incapable of playing are manifold.

women

In every strata of every society the status of

is

derived in part from the status accorded the roles only a

woman or,

can play and in part from the status of the husband

in the

The

few polyandrous

highest-status

status

from

There

is,

male

their

of course,

and

status

status than there

only

roles

women

husbands

women

much lower

in every society derive their (or, in a

much more

status

few by

in the status derived

can play

(i.e.,

a

women from male women from the

by

wife derives

janitor's

from her husband than does

wife, but the janitor's wife derives as

much

roles only she can play as does the doctor's

a doctor's

status

—

wife

of status so derived being determined by the

from the

amount amount of

the

status her particular society gives to the roles only a

can play ) only a (a)

.

Thus

woman

woman

a decrease in the status accorded the roles

can play will result in a situation in which:

There will be

Males

high

cases, their sons).

variation within a society in

in the status derived is

primary husband.

societies, the

a net loss of status accorded

will, for all the reasons

we

women; (b)

shall discuss, continue to

be the attainers of status and positions of authority; (c)

72

The

—

Anthropology and the Limits of

Societal Variation

(whose feminine

wives of such attainers

abilities

are pri-

marily responsible for their attaining the marital positions

from which they derive high

status) will continue to be the

highest-status females; and, (d)

women

Other

will see their

lowered to the degree that the status accorded the roles

status

only a

woman

In any case: chologists,

can play

lowered.

is

Numerous

anthropologists, sociologists, psy-

and even psychoanalysts have attempted

to

invoke

cultural variation to reject the possibility of a biological basis

of the universal institutions

we

discuss.

These scholars are

free to invoke cultural variation as refutation of a biological

explanation of institutions that do vary and they are free to argue that the theory

there could

someday

one of the universal

institutions.

voke variation among or

proposed here

is

incorrect, so that

exist a society that failed to

But

if

manifest

they attempt to in-

societies that exist or

have existed

they attempt to invoke the real variation that exists on

if

the superficial level of tasks performed in order to counter the implications of an analysis based on the absence of variation

found on the deeper

status

—then

level of the association of sex

and

they are, to be quite blunt, ignoring the evi-

dence and they are wrong. By focusing on patriarchy, male

dominance, and male attainment of high-status suprafamilial roles

and

positions, three criteria that avoid the confusion

engendered by vague and misleading paradigms status of

women," we

discover that there

is

"the

like

not now, nor

has there ever been, any variation large enough to cast the slightest

on the

doubt on the universality of these institutions or

possibility that they represent three inevitable

festations of biological sexual differentiation. This in essence,

an attempt to discover

why

mani-

book

is,

these three institutions

are universal and to assess the possibility of their being inevitable.

73

Chapter Three

The Hormonal

Factor

Introductory Note: This chapter tion,

meant

hormonal

were

I

is

by any stretch of the imagina-

not,

be a definitive discussion of the

to

Even

basis of sex-associated behavior.

qualified to undertake such a

task,

nearly infinite complexity of this subject

the

would

preclude detailed discussion within the confines

My

of a single chapter.

purpose in

this chapter is

merely to demonstrate that the hormonal evidence fully justifies our hypothesizing the determinative

(to patriarchy,

nance)

male attainment, and male domi-

biological difference between males

and

females in "aggression" (as operationally defined in this chapter)

which the anthropological

dence forces us to hypothesize. The institutions

we have

discussed to manifest them-

selves whatever the environmental text of a society

evi-

ability of the

would

justify

and

social con-

our hypothesizing

innate sexual differences relevant to these institutions even if there all.

Likewise,

I

presented here

were no hormonal evidence

believe that the is

at

hormonal evidence

so strong that

it

would be

ex-

tremely persuasive in explaining the presence of patriarchy,

male dominance, and male attainment

in our society

even

evidence at

All that

all.

if

we had no is

74

cross-cultural

necessary for the theory

The Hormonal

Factor

of limits advanced in this book is that there be a hormonal factor which gives males a greater capacity for aggression; this

it

iv ill

lead to success. This

meant by reference no implication in "male need

is

all that is

to the "biological"; there is

book that there

this

exists a

dominate," a male "aggres-

to lead or

sive instinct"

an advantage in

invoked in any area for

that the capacity can be

which

is

which generates any

sorts of ideas

or behavior, a "killer instinct," a male "bonding factor," a "territorial imperative,"

or any other

innate or "natural" factor which directs or pat-

Whether such

terns thoughts or behavior.

factors

exist or not is irrelevant here.

Likewise, the fact that there

may

also be en-

vironmental elements involved in the etiology of sexual behavior or "aggression"

is

irrelevant un-

one can demonstrate that the hormonal factor

less

conforms to the environmental

factor. If the en-

vironmental elements merely conform to the limits set

by the hormonal elements then the sexual

directions determined by the

and the

are irreversible

to these directions are, inevitable.

ments of here

is

This

is

hormonal elements

institutions that if

conform

this theory is correct,

not to deny that there are ele-

interaction, but, if the theory presented

correct, these can

be seen to be

as insignifi-

cant to the development of the institutions dis-

cussed as fetal nutrition

is

to the difference in

physical strength between the sexes or to the institutions that

man

conform

to this difference. (See

"Hu-

Aggression," p. 91, and "The Irrelevance of

Exceptions," p. 94.")

Needless to pared

say, I

this chapter

could not possibly have pre-

without the advice of biochem-

75

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations ists,

who

biologists, endocrinologists,

edge individually. ever, to Drs.

am

I

and psychologists

numerous

are, unfortunately, too

to

acknowl-

how-

particularly grateful,

Frank Beach, David Blizard, David

Edwards, Bruce McEwen, John Money, and Geoffrey Raisman. If any errors are contained in the

chapter they are, of course, mine. Because

of the evidence included here

and exceedingly complex

much

based on recent

is

research, there are

doubt instances where some

who

no

specialize in the

would have worded a senwould have made a distinction

disciplines discussed

tence differently or

—while —would be necessary

which here

irrelevant to the points being

made

in other contexts.

example: when discussing hormonal factors vant to universal institutions the

word environment

as

I

I

synonymous

am aware

special environmental conditions such as trition,

shock,

hormone

some

that

malnu-

therapy, or fetal trauma

are neither heredity nor socialization. crucial for

rele-

occasionally use

virtually

with socialization, even though

For

These are

areas of study, but are obviously

irrelevant to the discussion of differences in sexual

behavior and of institutions that are universal (except insofar as environment affects biological adaptation, and this

The Dangers As

is

discussed in Chapter Six).

of Biological Analogy

the reader must have suspected, the theory of the in-

evitability of patriarchy rests

on

a foundation of biological

reasoning. For the universality of patriarchy and male domi-

nance offers only circumstantial evidence of patriarchal evitability

and,

though

sufficient for conviction,

circumstantial

evidence

is

in-

often

for the case to be airtight direct

76

The Hormonal evidence

The

needed.

is

total

to consider biological evidence

Factor

many

refusal of

sociologists

a result of not only the

is

"vested interest" mentioned above nor the feeling on the left that biological considerations are implicitly "racist" but also

on absurd

a reaction to early sociological theorists' reliance

analogies to nature and to the horrors that have been per-

name

petrated in the for example,

some

of nature. In order to justify slavery,

theorists

had hypothesized

a

biological

made slavery inevitable despite the fact that the number of societies that did not have slavery indicated

element that large

that such a hypothesis

was not only uncalled for but obviously

incorrect.

Racists

do

not, of course, care about biological truth,

the early sociologists lived in a time logical fact

was

when knowledge

relatively nonexistent.

So

reluctance to consider biological evidence

points

made by

less,

mind

in

are intellectually worse than worth-

mological misuse. While

is

it

that even vaguely resemble

in

its

potential for episte-

true that in all the primates

man, probably

related primates (see Footnote Thirty-Six),

mammalian

hamster, below ) males,

it

,

if

more aggressive than the

ciated with the

a

fe-

difference to the line of reasoning

only for

humans was the male more

aggressive than the female and in

was primarily

in all the less

and perhaps even

species (see the discussion of the

the males are

would make no

used in this book

sion

overreactive, the

is

and teleological arguments about

and nature exceeds the Bible

in all the other

the sociological

the sociologists are not without considerable

merit. References to nature

what God had

if

and

of bio-

all

the other species aggres-

female quality. Aggression

male because there

says that the males of every species

is

is

not asso-

a universal

law that

must be more aggressive

than the females. Each species' biology develops in accord

with environmental necessity. While the biological association of aggression with the male serves obvious survival functions,

77

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

and while

it

would not be

likely that this

a species unless the species developed

nary environmental conditions, there

would be

left

out of

under very extraordi-

no reason

is

to dismiss

the possibility that a unique environmental situation could

engender even in a mammalian species a biochemistry in

which the neural

effects of the

of those in man.

We

hormones were the opposite

should no more expect this to have a

human biology on temperament and we should be surprised to learn that men canwe learn that birds have wings. When I say that

bearing on the effects of

behavior than not

fly

after

patriarchy and male attainment are inevitable for biological

reasons bility

mean only that human biology human social system whose

I

of a

not dominated by males and

in

precludes the possiauthority system

which male aggression

is

is

not

manifested in dominance and attainment of positions of status

and power. Therefore, while evidence provided by primate studies

would no doubt provide considerable additional sup-

port for the theory advanced here, 30 such evidence sary

and

—

so that

evidence invariably

we may elicits

—

is

unneces-

avoid the criticisms that such

it

will play

reasoning developed here. Likewise,

it

no part

in the line of

will not be necessary to

invoke the well-documented studies of the feminizing of castration on primates (including

man) and on

other

effects

mam-

mals.

Human It

Hermaphrodites

should not be necessary to say that there have not been

planned experiments in which hormones of the other sex have 30 For example:

Harry F. Harlow and Stephen J. Suomi have demonmonkeys reared in isolation will, when brought together, exhibit the play behavior expected of normal monkeys; male play behavior is far more aggressive than female play behavior (as is the case with human children). Since the monkeys were reared in isolation they could not have learned this mode of behavior from other monkeys. The indistrated that

cation

is

very strong that the aggressive play

is a

behavioral manifestation

See Harry Harlow and Stephen J. Suomi, "Social Recovery by Isolation-Reared Monkeys," Proceedings of the Na-

of

innate male aggression.

tional

Academy

of Science, 68:1534-1538 (July,

78

1971).

The Hormonal been introduced into normal

Factor

human embryos

experimentation would not be

ethical,

or fetuses. Such

but biological accident

has provided the researcher in this area with the hermaphrodite.

Ironically, until a very

few years ago hermaphrodites

provided the strongest argument for the

environmental

totally

theory of sex-role development; for there was a type of

hermaphrodite

who

is

sex-chromosomally male but

who

is

born without external male genitalia. Such hermaphrodites are often raised as girls

and develop into normal, though

infertile,

women. This seems strong evidence indeed

biology

unimportant to the development of sexual tempera-

is

ment and behavior. However, research

in the past

few

that

years,

John Money of Johns Hopkins, has demonstrated beyond question that such hermaphrodites do

particularly that of Dr.

not merely lack male genitals; they also never have received the hormonal stimulation of the brain by the male hormone,

which

all

puberty.

by the

normal males receive

The

testes

fetally

and

(later again)

masculinization of the fetal brain

is

programmed

XY

(which develop on instruction from an

chromosomal program )

.

If a mistake causes a

chain so that fetal testes do not develop, as the genetic male hermaphrodites genitals, there will

who

is

lack

in

break in the the case with

external

male

be no masculinization of the brain (no

generation of testosterone, the male hormone) and

it

will be

possible to raise the genetic male as a female. In other words,

the genetic male hermaphrodite with female external genital

morphology can be

raised as a female

and will have no

cordance from sexual pathways in the brain.

It

dis-

would not be

possible to raise a normal male in this way.

We

need not attempt to negotiate the complexities of

hermaphroditism and ambiguity of sexual development here.

The

issue

which

is

relevant to this

book

is

not gender identity

per se and certainly not the gender identity of rare individuals in

whom

sex.

It

hormonal development

would not matter,

conflicts

to this theory,

79

with chromosomal if,

in individuals

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

whose physiological development is

ambiguous, socialization

is

determinative to gender identity and behavior; the fact

grow

that hermaphroditic females can

change the

grow

facial hair. It

women

normal

fact that

does not

facial hair

cannot be socialized to

does not matter, to this theory, that a

chromosomal male can be exogenously hormonalized female gender identity (and vice versa); indeed, serve only to indicate the importance of hormones. portantly,

it

would not even

matter,

normal male could be socialized

to a

to

to a

this can

Most im-

theory,

this

if

a

female gender identity

(or vice versa). All questions of gender identity are irrele-

vant to this theory. All that

relevant here

is

one aspect

is

("aggression") of the differentiated behavior which sociated with the differentiated hormonalization of

we

males and normal females. As

shall see,

even define or describe the aspect which

is

is

as-

normal

we need

associated

not

more

with the hormonalization of the normal male than with the hormonalization of the normal female; this aspect the operational designation

we need merely

give

"aggression" and pro-

ceed in the attempt to demonstrate that only the explanation

which invokes

this factor is capable of reasonably explaining,

without contradiction by

own

its

internal logic or disproof

by the ethnographic evidence, the universality of the social institutions

ferred

my

"political

we have

The

discussed.

using, instead of

reader might have pre-

"aggression," terms meaning

dominance behavior,"

"status attainment behavior,"

and "dyadic dominance behavior"; however, while

it is

quite

true that the behavior which leads to political dominance, status attainment,

and dyadic dominance

male hormonalization monalization

—

(i.e.,

dominance and

monal systems), plied

that

types

of

—whatever

those

who

attain

every

status

in

my

using

such

male hormonalization behavior

and,

while

80

is

associated with

the relevance of the horpolitical

society

terms directly this

is

and dyadic

have male

hor-

would have imengenders these quite

likely

the

The Hormonal

we do

case,

Factor

not have the right to assume this and this need

The mere

not be the case for this theory to be correct.

presence of a male-female difference in physiologically en-

gendered, but physiologically undirected, "aggression" that

is

is all

necessary for this theory.

Thus the following paragraphs from Dr. Money's works are presented not for the light they shed on individuals whose physiological development is ambiguous or for the light they

shed on normal individuals' gender identity per

The paragraphs

are presented for the light they shed

se.

on the

hormonal development of normal males and normal females and

to demonstrate that the

hormonal evidence does not give

hormones

us the right to deny the possible relevance of

the one and only aspect

("aggression")

which there need be a male-female difference

in order to

explain the universality of the social institutions discussed.

book to

The only

to

of behavior for

we have

biological hypothesis included in this

states that those individuals

whose male anatomy leads

a social identification as "male" have hormonal systems

which generate a greater capacity for "aggression" (or a

—

lower threshold for the release of "aggression" for our is the same thing) than those individuals whose

purposes this

female anatomy leads

and

that socialization

to a social identification as

and

institutions

of hormonal sexual differentiation

and

conform

to the statistical reality

of the "aggression advantage" which males derive

hormonal systems. All questions of gender are irrelevant to this

book

"female"

to the reality

from

their

identity per se

since, in every society, virtually

every individual will have congruence in social gender identity,

individual gender identity, anatomy, and hormonal sys-

tem. This point

is

important because a number of authors, in

attempting to demonstrate the irrelevance of hormonal differentiation to the institutions

we

discuss,

have focused on

the irrelevant question of gender identity rather than on the differing

behavior which

is

associated

81

with the differing

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

hormonal systems of normal males and females. In the next

we

section that

it is

shall discuss evidence

which suggests not merely

possible that sexual differences in "aggression" are

related to sexual

hormonal

hormone does give

but that the male

differences,

the male a greater capacity for "aggres-

(or a lower threshold at which "aggression"

sion"

While

the purpose of this book

is

re-

is

not to attempt to

describe the forms of behavior which are

subsumed under

leased )

.

the hypothetical "aggression," but only to demonstrate that sexual hormonal differences render certain institutions and certain directions of socialization inevitable, the evidence ad-

vanced in the next section and the discussion in the section

"Human

titled

Aggression" and Footnotes 32 and 40 are

quite suggestive of forms of behavior in which "aggression" is

manifested.

Dr.

Money

Gender

writes: identity in adulthood

the end product not of

is

an either-or determinism of heredity versus environment, but of the genetic code in

serial interaction

environment.

From

code unfolds

itself in interaction,

with

the time of conception, the genetic first

with the

intra-

uterine environment, then the perinatal environment, the

family environment, and eventually the more extended social, biological,

Interactionism

key

is

is

and inanimate ecological environment. a key principle, but an even

more

basic

the principle of serial sequence of interaction.

Serial interactionism

the genetic code and

means

its

that interaction

environment,

at a

between

critical

or

sensitive developmental period in an individual's existence,

from conception

ineradicable residue built.

This residue

to death,

upon which

may be

may

leave a permanent

all else is

subsequently

so indelible or insistent in

its

influence as to resemble the potency of the genetic code itself.

Moreover, such

indelibility or insistence

82

may be

The Hormonal residual to

learning

—

what has in

Factor

traditionally been referred to as

which case learning should be referred

as imprinting, in recognition of the persistence

to

and dur-

31 ability of its influence.

The sequence code

begins with the dimorphism of the genetic

manifested in the

as

XX

and

XY

chromosomal

dimorphism. From the genetic code, sexual dimorphism is

translated into the

dimorphism of embryonic

entiation of the gonads, which, through their secretion, in turn differentially regulate the

of

first

differ-

hormonal

dimorphism

the internal reproductive structures and then the

external genitalia.

At the same time

in

embryonic

life,

gonadal secretion dimorphically regulates the differentiation of structures in the brain, specifically the

thalamus,

that

in

turn will

regulate the

functioning of the pituitary. In secretion at this

same time

all

hypo-

sex-related

probability gonadal

also dimorphically regulates

other structures of the brain that will eventually be in-

volved in the regulation of certain aspects of sexually

dimorphic behavior, namely, those aspects that are phyletically

to the

widely distributed (like motherly attentiveness

newborn or

coital postures

and movement)

32> 33 .

31

John Money, "Matched Pairs of Hermaphrodites: Behavioral Biology Sexual Differentiation from Chromosomes to Gender Identity," in Engineering and Science (California Institute of Technology), 33:34, 1970. Special Issue: Biological Bases of Human Behavior. 32 John Money, "Sexually Dimorphic Behavior, Normal and Abnormal," Environmental Influences on Genetic Expression: Biological and Behavioral Aspects of Sexual Differentiation (Fogerty International Center Proceedings No. 2, U.S. Government Printing Office), 1971, p. 209. Because Dr. Money does not use the term "aggression" as I do, and because I use the term to refer to unspecified (for the purposes of this theory) of

dimorphic behavior, it is difficult to relate his work to this theory. I would it relevant, however, that Dr. Money does describe certain types of behavior that are associated with pathological hormonalization which would seem related to sexual differences in "aggression" as I use the term. For example, Dr. Money finds that fetally androgenized genetic females who are not additionally androgenized postnatally demonstrate think

83

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations what Dr. Money terms "tomboyism." Dr. Money states that the hallmark of tomboyism is a "high level of physical energy expenditure, especially in vigorous outdoor play, games, and sports commonly considered the prerogative of boys." These individuals were socialized as girls. Dr. Money mentions that these individuals were no more "aggressive" than normal girls in picking fights with playmates and that the correct variables to describe gender-dimorphic behavior are more likely dominance assertion and striving for position in the dominance hierarchy of childhood. These, rather than anything having to do with picking fights or gender identity per se, are the types of behavior which would seem relevant to "aggres-

my

paradigm. Dr. Money points out that these androgen"male" toys (cars, guns) to "female" toys (dolls), lacked the enthusiasm for motherhood which marked the control group with which they were compared, and demonstrated a greater interest in career and lesser interest in marriage than the control group. It should be noted that these individuals were not, as are normal males, further androgenized postnatally. Dr. Money writes: "The most likely hypothesis to explain the various features of tomboyism in fetally masculinized genetic females is that their tomboyism is a sequel to the masculinizing effect on the fetal brain." I do not advance this as evidence for the correctness of the theory presented here because I do not include in the theory an attempt to describe the behavior which I subsume under the hypothesized "aggression" which is greater (or more easily released) in males than in females I mention all this only to point out that Dr. Money's work does not cast doubt on the relevance of hormonal sexual differentiation to the institutions whose universality I am attempting to explain. Indeed, to the extent that this evidence is relevant at all, it suggests that, while hormonal masculinization of the genetic female does not necessarily lead to a male gender identity, it can lead to certain types of behavior which are associated more with normal male hormonalization than with normal female hormonalization. It is such behavior, behavior which is included in my term "aggression," and not gender identity per se, which is relevant to this book. See John Money and Anke A. Ehrhardt, Man and Woman, Boy and Girl (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), sion" as used in

ized

girls

preferred

;

pp. 98-103. 33 In an attempt to counter the implication that fetal hormonalization

determinative to gender identity, Jessie Bernard {Women and the Public [Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971], pp. 17-18), has prepared a matrix based on the case studies in Stoller's book {op. cit). After examin-

is

Interest

cases in terms of genetic sex, internal anatomy, external anatomy, gender assignment, and gender identity, Dr. Bernard concludes independence of gender identity from either that there is an ". heredity or anatomy." The conclusion that flows from Dr. Bernard's material is just the opposite of this; excluding the category of individuals for whom all variables save gender identity were female, we see that a male gender identity never developed in the absence of fetal male hormonalization, but that it did develop even when a fetally masculinized male

ing Stoller's

.

was socialized

as

.

a female.

(Technically, of course, accidental fetal hor-

monalization of a female is not "heredity," but the implication for the development of gender identity in normal humans is that hereditary male hormonalization is determinative to male gender identity.) The one

84

The Hormonal

Factor

Testosterone and Aggression Only human biology is relevant to aggression: vague ence to other species

However, there

is

fraught with potential for abuse.

one area of inquiry that

and the

logical data

is

refer-

direct study of

between etio-

falls

human

biology; this

is

humans

in

the experimental study of animals that resemble

Those who

the physiology of the system being studied.

gorically dismiss the possibility of the relevance to

of such research should ignore this section. discussion of hermaphroditism

is

humans

trust that the

I

sufficient to

cate-

convince them

of the importance of hormones to sex-associated behavior in

humans. Other readers might consider, however, that nearly all

of

medical research proceeds in this way and that knowledge

human

physiology

is

often

made

possible by

what we learn

about animal physiology.

The hormonal plex. It

in terms of

is

exceedingly com-

hormone levels. The male hormone is not, in The biological aggression of which we

"aggressive."

itself,

shall

etiology of aggression

a gross oversimplification, at best, to speak merely

is

speak

is

a function of an interaction

between the

fetally

prepared central nervous system and the

later

endogenous testosterone. This explains the

possibility of the

rare exceptional species in

the male

female

which the

presence of

effect of testosterone in

the reverse of that in humans and in which the more aggressive than the male. It is by no means

is

is

clear that there are

any such exceptions

at all

among mam-

mals. Certainly there are none in the species closely related to

man.

It

has been suggested that the golden hamster

is

the

excluded category must contain an error, for the claim that a male gender when a normal female is socialized as a female implies that the male gender identity in this case has no cause at all; this is not

identity develops

What this category most strongly indicates is that socialization not determinative to gender identity. It is possible that some rare psychological factors proved capable of overriding both heredity and possible. is

socialization for this category, but

was an undetected

fetal

it

would seem more

hormonalization.

85

likely that there

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations single experimental exception to the development of sexual differences in aggression outlined here, 34 but this has recently

been brought into question. 35 Even

if

more aggressive than the male,

does not indicate an un-

warranted the

rat,

selectivity

and

this

the female hamster

on our part when we consider the mouse,

the other animals for which aggression

all

associated primarily with the male, as analogues of the

and other experimental animals, the hamster female larger than the male. This

CNS

would seem

a

is

human

male and exclude the hamster. For, unlike the mouse,

the entire

is

rat,

is

also

good indication

that

(Central Nervous System ) -hormonal develop-

ment of the hamster

is

experimental animals so

the reverse of that in the other that,

if

one wants

to consider the

hamster, rather than the other animals, as analogous in

its

development to humans, he must indicate not only that the

human female also that she

is

is

more aggressive than the human male but

larger. 36

34 C. H. Phoenix, et Androgenic Stimulation," havior,

M.

"Sexual Differentiation as a Function of Reproduction and Sexual BeDiamond, ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969), al.,

in Perspectives in

pp. 33-49. 35 Leonore Tiefer,

"Gonadal Hormones and Mating Behavior in the Adult Golden Hamster," Hormones and Behavior, 1:189-202 (1970). If Dr. Tiefer's suggestion is correct and the hamster differs only in mating behavior but not in fighting, then our discussion of hamsters is irrelevant and there are no genuine exceptions at all. 36 Not coincidentally, this is exactly the situation one finds when he searches for a primate exception to male aggression. While none of the three primate species for which it has been suggested that the males are not more aggressive than the females are even vaguely homologous (indeed, these are among the primates furthest removed from man), species Saguinus, Aotus, and Callicebus have been suggested as exceptions to the association of aggression with the male in all primates. As with the hamster, this is quite likely to be an incorrect assumption that because the male of these species behaves in a "female" way in some other areas he is less aggressive than the female. In these three species, and in these three species alone, the male does play a dominant role in caring for the young (though the female, of course, suckles the young). This does not necessarily imply that even for these species fighting is not primarily male behavior [see Adolph Schultz, The Life of Primates (New York: Universe Books, 1971)]. But, for argument's sake, let us assume that these species do represent exceptions. If they have taken evolutionary paths somewhat

86

The Hormonal

With

all this in

mind,

I

Factor

refer the reader to a

number of

experiments that indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt

among

at least

terone

is

gression

rats,

many

mice, and

other

mammals,

that,

testos-

related not only to sexual differentiation but to agitself.

In paired

females treated with exogenous

tests,

testosterone during the crucial neonatal period will develop

an aggression as adults,

if

appropriately hormonally treated

male who receives neonatal

as adults, equal to that of the

testosterone stimulation of the

own

testis.

CNS

endogenously from his

Females treated with androgen on the tenth day

following birth will, as adults, demonstrate an aggression,

dominance, propensity for fighting, and willingness to fight greater than that of the normal female, but less than that of

neonatally treated females or normal males. Neonatal experi-

divergent from the paths taken by all other primates, if they differ from the other primates as the hamster differs from the other experimental anithe etiology of CNS-generated aggression for these species differs

mals,

if

from

that in all other primates as that of the hamster differs

the other experimental animals, in short, these three species as not

we

consider

all

if

we have

homologous with respect homologous

the other primates as

from

that of

a right to consider to aggression (as

we

while

consider the

homologous while the other experimental animals are acwe might expect that, as was the case with the hamster, for these three species, but for none of the others, the female would be larger than the male. This is precisely the case. Of the thirtytwo species of primates listed by Napier, only for Saguinus and Aotus is hamster

as not

cepted as homologous), then

the female larger than the male.

No

Callicebus female has been measured,

but, because Callicebus is so closely related to fair to

Saguinus and Aotus,

Handbook

it

is

A

assume

that this holds for Callicebus also. [See J. R. Napier, of Living Primates (New York: Academic Press, 1967).] Even

I am not including primate evidence in the line of reasoning I use in this book, this point is worth making. Those who would deny the relevance of primate studies to an understanding of human aggression often imply that those who advance primate evidence pick and choose

though

their subject species in order to support their case for a biological basis

male aggression and the implication this may hold for humans. I have show that this criticism is without merit. Even if we assume that the females of the three primate species mentioned are more aggressive than the males, even if we do not consider them so little homologous as to be irrelevant, even then we see that there is complete justification for confor

tried to

sidering the sexual differentiation in aggression for these three species as not analogous to that of man while we consider the differentiation found in all other primates as analogous to that

87

found in man.

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

ments, particularly a series by David Edwards, demonstrate that testosterone does not create the neural

mechanisms for

female would be

totally incapable

aggression (if

it

did, the

of aggression and would be passive rather than merely less aggressive than the male), but that such fetal or neonatal stimulation affects the ultimate sensitivity of the

androgenic stimulation

later in

life,

CNS

to

thereby rendering the

postpuberal male more capable of aggression and more aggressive than the female. Dr. .

.

.

the

Edwards concludes

that:

commonly observed male-female dimorphism,

with respect to fighting in mice, has as that males develop with testes

its basis,

the fact

and females do

not. In

the male, early testicular secretions probably effect

some

change in brain mechanisms for aggression such that

most adult male pairs will

fight

in the presence of

endogeneous or exogeneous testosterone. In females change

is

this

not effected due to the absence of testes and

correlated testicular secretions.

In addition, there appears to be a critical period for the androgen influenced organization of a neural substrate for aggression.

This period may be tentatively

characterized as a period of time, in the development of

the mouse, during which endogeneous or exogeneous

androgen stimulation will enhance adult

sensitivity to

androgens with respect to the arousal of the tendency to display aggression. Furthermore, the data indicate that

the period of development during which androgen stimulation will produce

occurs in the

first

maximal

Androgen stimulation before will

enhance adult

sensitivity in the adult

few postnatal days of development. or after this optimal period

sensitivity to

androgens but to a

lesser

extent. 37

37

David A. Edwards, "Early Androgen Stimulation and Aggressive in Male and Female Mice," Physiology and Behavior, 4:338

Behavior

88

.

The Hormonal

Factor

Dr. Edwards's findings and those of other behavioral ologists,

bi-

endocrinologists, developmental psychologists, and

researchers in related fields demonstrated with a high degree

of certainty that sexual differences in aggression are a function of testosterone

The

specific

and the hormonalization of the

morphological changes in the

CNS

fetal brain.

engendered

by this hormonalization, however, had never been seen and

"some change in brain mechanisms" ) Recently, however, Drs. Geoffrey Raisman and Pauline M. Field of Oxford's Department of Human Anatomy photocould be only inferred

(

graphed the preoptic area of the male and female central nervous systems and demonstrated that in this area, which

known

to be crucial to sexual behavior, there

is

is

an extensive

sexual dimorphism; the sexes differ in the distribution of

synapses on the dendritic spines. Having seen that testosterone

was

directly related to aggression

and

that the central nervous

systems of the sexes differ morphologically in an area of the brain necessary for male behavior, direct demonstration that

it

all that

was needed was

was testosterone

morphological changes. That testosterone

is

the determining

factor here has been inferentially demonstrated in the past

dozen

years, as

we have

There

Amygdala

many

times

seen. Direct evidence has

—

at the

in

Bar Harbor,

been provided only in the past year the Neurobiology of the

a

that effected the

Conference on at

which

an abundance of evidence leading to the conis determinative to CNS development and to aggressive behavior that it is possible here to give merely a sampling; these will lead the interested reader to hundreds of similar studies. General discussions of the relevant research can be found in: Richard E. Whalen, "Differentiation of the Neural Mechanisms Which Control Gonadotropin Secretion and Sexual Behavior," in Diamond, op. at., pp. 303-340, and the contribution of C. H. Phoenix, R. W. Goy, and W. Young to Neuroendocrinology : Volume II, L. Martini and W. F. (1969).

is

such

clusion that sexual hormonalization

eds. (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 163-196. Somewhat but more accessible to the general reader are Seymour Levine's "Sex Differences in the Brain" and Alan Fisher's "Chemical Stimulation of the Brain," both in Psychobiology (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman

Ganong,

dated,

and Co., 1967). The journal Hormones and Behavior provides the ambitious reader with over a hundred similar studies.

89

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

Dr. Raisman delivered his findings that testosterone does generate specifiable morphological sexual dimorphism in the brain. 38

To be sure, human beings

the Raisman-Field photographs were not of

and, certainly, there

yet to learn about the exact

much

is

manner

in

that science has

which sexual

differ-

ences in the arrangement of the central nervous system are

manifested in differences in aggression. Moreover, there are

many ways of viewing

the factor that

I

term a "male- female

difference in the capacity for aggression" (but this

vant for our purposes because

all

is

irrele-

such paradigms, whatever

the other differences between them, acknowledge a physiologically

based difference between

parable to what

I

men and women com-

term a "male-female difference in the

capacity for aggression"). Nonetheless,

terous to attempt, as have

many

it

is

simply prepos-

feminists, to paint the over-

whelming evidence that testosterone is crucial to aggression as mere isolated findings that have no apparent significance to sexual differences in behavior. Only the most fanatic purist or the behaviorist for whom such a conclusion would be intolerable would deny us the right to suspect strongly that the same central nervous system differences found in experimental animals will be found in the brains of

women

who now

within ten years. Those

men and

refuse to admit the

persuasiveness of the considerable evidence provided by the

hermaphrodite and the voluminous amounts of evidence provided by the studies of experimental animals will continue to

do so when our knowledge of hormones has doubled or

tripled. Nonetheless,

even

at this

web human

point the tightening

of evidence allows no escape from the conclusion that

sexual differences in aggression are strongly related to irre38 Geoffrey Raisman and

Pauline

M.

Field,

"Sexual Dimorphism in

Area of the Rat," Science, 731-733 (August 20, 1971). As I write, the findings that Dr. Raisman delivered at Bar Harbor have not yet been published. They no doubt will have been by the time the reader the Preoptic

reads this.

90

The Hormonal

Factor

versible differences in the central nervous systems of

men

that are generated before birth. 39

and women

Human Aggression human

Aggression in scribed as

no

is

it

difficulty; this

nature of

cific

strate that the

beings

is

not, of course, as easily de-

in rats, but for our purposes this fact offers

book does not purport

human

to describe the spe-

social aggression, but

merely to demon-

hormonal differences between men and

women

will inevitably manifest themselves in certain societal institutions. I use aggression

societal institutions

the

only as a convenient hypothetical term,

which flows from hormones and

a nexus

X factor,

conform. The reader

is

to

which

certain

free to substitute

male behavior, or any other term that represents

an element that flows from specifiable hormonal factors and that determines the limits of specifiable social institutions

(patriarchy,

male dominance, and male attainment of high-

status roles

and positions )

perceive the reality

I

.

Likewise, the reader

is

free to

refer to as a "male-female difference in

the capacity for aggression" as a difference in the level of the

threshold at which "aggressive" and "dominance" behavior is

released. (In

one respect the paradigm which envisions

sexual difference in threshold

which

is

a

superior to the paradigm

sees a difference in capacity:

one might suggest that

the ferocity with which a mother defends her endangered infant demonstrates that the female has a capacity for aggression equal to that of the male.

behavior if

it

is

is

I

do not think that such

"aggression" in any meaningful sense, but even

the same thing as aggression such female behavior

demonstrates only that the environmental threat to her child 39

While

the evidence

not as extensive as that demonstrating the is considerable evidence that estrogen ("the female hormone") reduces aggression (i.e., increases submission behavior). See: Murray S. Work and Hilliard Rogers, "Effect of Estrogen Level on Food-Seeking Dominance Among Male Rats," Journal effects

is

of testosterone on aggression, there

of Comparative

and Physiological Psychology, 79:3 (1972).

91

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

high threshold

sufficient to reach the

is

aggression

is

We

released.

at

which a female's

would then ask why,

if

there

no physiological difference between males and females relevant to aggression, male aggression

is

much lower

level,

why

i.e.,

does a

stimulus release male aggression so

any

case, all that

is

released at a

much less much more

threatening

In

easily?)

necessary for the theory presented here

is

is

that

that there is a physiologically generated difference

is

between

males and females which engenders in males, to a greater degree or more easily than in females, the behavior to which

we

the social institutions

This

is

not, as

it

discuss conform.

might seem

quick glance, tautological,

at

because each of the two elements social)

is

to the other.

Thus

use aggression as one might use strength

I

why young

an explanation of

in

(the biological and the

and described without reference

specified, defined,

boxing prowess and young

boys are socialized toward

away from

girls

it.

Greater adult

male muscularity engenders greater male "strength," which

makes the male

a better boxer than the female, so that

it

is

champions will be men, boxing will

inevitable that boxing

be associated with men, and small children will be socialized accordingly. Similarly,

it

will be argued, the

male hormonal

system engenders a greater male "aggression" that results in a

male superiority

high status (except playing a role)

at attaining roles

when men

so that

roles of leadership

and

it

and positions given

are biologically incapable of

inevitable that positions

is

status will

and

be attained by men, and

small children will be socialized accordingly. In other words, for the line of reasoning used in this essay

we need know

nothing

about "aggression"

at all

itself.

40

No

40

Some

sion

with

(i.e.,

sexual dominance, aggression as response to fear, male aggression

physiologists speak of different, but related, types of aggresdifferent,

against other males,

but etc.).

connected

or

Aggression

is

overlapping

physiological

bases

thus used as a general term com-

parable to consumptory behavior, a general term under which are subsumed different types of behavior (eating, drinking), which have different,

92

The Hormonal

women

one can doubt that

not matter

are capable of aggression

that "female aggression"

some have even argued tatively equal to

Factor

"male aggression." For our purposes

if this

were

Likewise

true.

it

and

quanti-

is

it

would

does not matter

if

one perceives aggression to be a continually generated force or a potential that manifests itself only in response to en-

vironmental stimuli. For even altogether differently

one perceives aggression

if

from the way

irrelevant to the reasoning

I

do, such differences are

use as long as he sees "male

I

aggression" as different from "female aggression" in either quantity or kind. differ in their

What

is

crucial here

hormonal systems and

strates patriarchy,

titatively

that

men and women

that every society

demon-

male dominance, and male attainment. The

thesis put forth here is that the

inevitable.

is

One may

hormonal renders the

believe that "female aggression"

is

social

quan-

equal to "male aggression"; but then, unless he

to argue that the

differences have nothing to

hormonal

is

do

which case he must explain the some other convincing way and, he cannot do this) he must admit that "male

with the social differences

(

in

universality of patriarchy in as

we

shall see,

,

aggression" differs from "female aggression" in either quantity

or kind because the former always leads to patriarchy and

the latter has never led to matriarchy. It is

possible that using the term aggression, rather than

a neutral term, risks confusion. Trusting that those readers

who

are primarily interested in the tightness of the theory

presented here will keep in use aggression because

it

mind

the limited definition,

I

seems quite likely that many of the

but connected or overlapping, physiological mechanisms. This approach undoubtedly mirrors the complexity of human aggression far more accurately than does our use of aggression; quite possibly as more is learned about the types of behavior we are subsuming under the term aggression the general term will be discarded. As long as males and females differ in the specific physiological

mechanisms, however,

chapter will remain valid and accurate. For

all

that

more on

this

is

said in this

approach see: The Physiology of Aggression and Defeat, Eleftheriou, Basil, and John P. Scott, eds.

(New York-London: Plenum

93

Press, 1971).

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

"aggression" are known. Readers

specific aspects of social

who

are interested in specific aspects of aggression (or

the terms

I

use

—

specific correlates of aggression

)

—

in

are strongly

advised to consult Judith Bardwick's excellent Psychology of

Women. 41

Dr. Bardwick discusses the findings of physiolo-

who have

biochemists, and psychologists

gists,

studied the

behavior of infants from birth (when explanations of be-

make no

havior in terms of socialization

sense) to thirteen

months. Such research has already indicated sexual differences (a measure of attention),

cardiac deceleration

in activity,

sensitivity, fixation

ferentiation. If

on visual

one desires

and figure-ground

stimuli,

dif-

be more speculative he might

to

consider the possibility that adult male aggression manifests

the satisfaction of

itself in

many

needs: dominance behavior,

competitiveness, a single-minded

— endurance

—

times virtually obses-

at

directed at attaining

sive

some goal

in the larger

society outside the family, a desire for control

and power,

and many other impositions of will on environment. But again

we need know

emphasize that

I

nothing

at all

about

aggression for our purposes here.

The

Irrelevance of Exceptions

Whenever

a biologist speaks of

men and women he

ing in virtually absolute terms. For every

human being

genetic female.

begins

When

ability

is

When

of any sort he expects

some women

is

41

New

genetic male or a

and

one deals with prob-

exceptions.

The

biological

not brought into question by the fact

are taller than

some men

within-sex differences in height are

between-sex

speak-

almost always speaking in the

terms of probability.

nature of height that

life as either a

is

and purposes

a biologist speaks of masculine

feminine characteristics he statistical

all intents

differences

in

height.

York: Harper and Row, 1971.

94

much Few

or by the fact that greater than the

genetic

females

The Hormonal

Factor

have testosterone levels approaching that which would be

normal for

woman whose

a male; a

testosterone level

even

is

half that of a normal male displays undeniable signs of hir42 But even suteness and general virilization.

women had higher testosterone all men one would not be led to

all

of

levels

if

10 percent of

than 10 percent

the conclusion that the

parameters of hormone distribution by sex are irrelevant any

more than he would

women and

six-foot

nature of

human

some

say that the fact that there are five-foot

men

disproves the biological

height. Exceptions are expected in situations

where probability

is

the determinative factor; they in no

way

lessen the inevitability of biological probabilities manifesting

themselves (unless, of course, there are so

between factors

that correlations tistical

significance). It

many

below the

fall

exceptions

level of sta-

on the observation of such mani-

is

festations of biological probability that both biologists

other

all

reality.

we

members of any

We all

society base their conceptions of

being

speak of

observe that

would

men most men

and

taller

than

women

because

women. This mention, but so many

are taller than most

seem too obvious even

to

authors have pointed to exceptions to male-female differences in attempts to

deny the importance of biology that

it is

worth

introducing this point here.

Thus: even

if

one could demonstrate that certain extreme

environments could lower the male adult's testosterone level to that of the

normal female,

this fact

would be

irrelevant to

the theory advanced in this book unless one wanted to ad-

vance the absurd hypothesis that the reason that virtually

men

in every society

tually all 42

women

is

have higher testosterone levels than that

some environmental

all

vir-

factor, rather

The

concentration of plasma testosterone in young adult males ranges to 0.96 meg. per 100 ml. (mean 0.65 meg. per 100 ml.) and the concentration in women varies from 0.034 to 0.101 meg. per 100 ml. (mean 0.054 meg. per 100 ml.). Textbook of Medicine, Paul B. Beeson

from 0.44

and Walsh McDermott, p.

eds.

(Philadelphia:

1805.

95

W.

B. Saunders Co.,

1971),

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

than genetic biological differentiation, explains the male's

higher testosterone

level. It

behooves one

who would advance

such an hypothesis to specify the environmental factor which serves to limit the testosterone level of virtually all

We shall see in Chapter Six that there

women.

no universal environ-

is

mental factor which can reasonably be thought to be capable of doing

The difference between male and female testosmuch greater than the difference between male

this.

terone levels

is

and female muscularity and there are

testosterone level surpasses that of even a

are

women whose

women whose few men than there

far fewer

muscularity surpasses the muscularity of

even a few men; yet even when discussing muscularity, and even when considering the fact that environmental and social factors unquestionably can increase the sexual disparity in

muscularity, no one argues that biology

is

not the primary

factor generating sexual differences in muscularity or denies

that

men

cieties in

more muscular than women even

are

which

women do

in those so-

far heavier physical

work than

do men.

The question of exceptions becomes more important when we consider that social aggression (aggression defined in any way

other than that in this book

—

i.e.,

operationally)

is

not

a function of only biological factors but of specific social

and unique psychological engender

in

factors as well.

some women

These will no doubt

a social aggression greater than

some men. Likewise, we would expect that such nonbiological factors will render some men perhaps some of those who commit violent crimes more socially aggressive than any other men and all women. Because social aggression and dominance are the results of both hormonal that

found

in

—

and social-psychological 43

—

factors 43 every society will

have a

elements of aggression will render some some men, such elements will far more often increase the disparity in aggression between the sexes. This is because the "nonbiological" elements of aggression are not unrelated to the biological elements. Perhaps when biological aggression meets environ-

While

the nonbiological

women more

aggressive than

96

—

The Hormonal minority of

man and

women who

a minority of

the average

woman.

44

are

more aggressive than the average

men who

When

are less aggressive than

a particularly aggressive

and a particularly unaggressive ship, such

Factor

man form

woman

a dyadic relation-

may be dominated by

an exceptional relationship

the female even to the point where both the feel that authority resides in the female.

man and woman

There

is

nothing

inherently dysfunctional in such a relationship viewed in the abstract,

but such a relationship will be the exception in

every society (because most

mental resistance there

is

men

are

a feedback process

more

aggressive than

and the biological mechanisms male is more

for aggression are further irritated. For example, because the

aggressive the frustration that results

when

his

biological aggression

is

thwarted by social sanctions will be greater than the frustration of the female (whose original aggression is less so that her frustration is less). The greater frustration of the male will engender in him a greater increase in aggression than the frustration of the woman's aggressiveness will engender in her. Therefore, in most cases the real aggression disparity between men and women will be even greater than that necessitated by biological factors viewed in the abstract. I think that the correctness of this analysis is indicated by the fact that the prison population of every society no matter what the particular values of any specific society is overwhelmingly male. I am not saying here that criminality, a social concept, is inherited, but that individuals may, and the sexes certainly do, differ in the biological component of the aggression that is a precondition for many types of crime. If the male's aggression advantage is relevant to male success in so many other areas, why should we doubt that it is relevant to criminality ? This sort of analysis serves the positive function of focusing our attention on the necessarily restrictive function of society.

—

this function, among others, no society could survive and without society our species could not survive. 44 Within one sex (i.e., if we are speaking just of men or just of women) where differences in hormonal levels are quite small and where, possibly, all members are above or below a threshold past which an increase in testosterone no longer engenders an increase in aggression the importance of the social-psychological component of aggression is far greater than the importance of this factor in a comparison of the two sexes with their differing fetal preparations, their differing CNS structures, and their differing adult testosterone levels. Thus, aggression can be compared to boxing prowess. One can sufficiently explain between-sex difference here by pointing out that one sex has passed the threshold of physical strength that is a precondition of boxing competence. Nearly all men have physical strength above this threshold; hardly any women do. However, within one sex the crucial factor will not be pure physical strength, but other components of boxing prowess (skill, courage, endurance, etc.).

Without serving

—

97

Preliminary Anthropological and Biological Considerations

most

women

in every society )

Such relationships will always

.

face problems because the expectations of the society

which are part of the

pectations

—

dividual, including those in such relationships

—conform

the reality of male aggression and must so conform reasons

we

shall

Aggression

to

(for

soon examine).

comparable to physical strength in that

is

ex-

socialization of every in-

affected by both sexual-genetic

and cultural

factors.

it is

However,

men maintain physical superiority even in societies which women do heavier physical labor, so, statistically, just as

in is

the male's advantage in aggression insurmountable. In the last

for

century there was an impressive minority of individuals

whom

unique factors engendered a denial that there was

any biological "sex drive"; there was no

less probability that

they could have brought about a society in which there were

no

institutions for channeling

there

is

of the minority of

than the average

Furthermore, as

human

sexual emotions than

women who

are

more aggressive

man bringing about a nonpatriarchal society. we shall see in Section Two, the overall male

"advantage" in aggression would render patriarchy and male

dominance inevitable even

if

bility that their physiologies

we give

did not consider the possi-

men and women

and complementary propensities (which lead them ent,

different in differ-

noncompetitive directions). The male hormonal system

gives

men

them

to better deal

a

head

start (in

terms of probabilities) that enables

with those elements of the societal en-

vironment for which aggression leads

to success.

This "head

start" will manifest itself in all institutions that utilize aggres-

sion and in the sexual expectations that the society attaches to those institutions.

that this eties,

head

start

It

is

theoretically possible, of course,

could be overcome, even for whole soci-

by an overwhelming environmental situation;

true of any biological difference that abilities rather

is

this

is

manifested in prob-

than absolutes. Even the male physical strength

advantage could be reduced or eliminated

98

if all

the world's

The Hormonal

women performed

hours of calisthenics each day while

we

remained sedentary. Here

tempt

to

Factor

men

see the difficulty with the at-

invoke "interaction" and "feedback" in order to

dismiss the determinative importance of sexual biological differentiation to social reality.

we need

length below; here

and

all

We

shall discuss this point at

point out only that male strength,

other sexual biological differences, are modified or

exaggerated by cultural factors; however, few would argue that because of this a society could develop in

strength was not associated with

men

which physical

or in which males

did not attain those rewards for which physical strength is

a precondition.

ward

One

can argue that a society need not

physical strength at

all,

but he cannot argue, for

re-

the

all

reasons given in this book, that a society could develop in

which male aggression did not lead

may

It

ways than they are

to attainment.

men and women

be true that

different, but they

do

are similar in

logical areas that are relevant to aggression

The

nature of probability

is

more

differ in those bio-

and dominance.

such that even minute differences,

reverberating through large numbers of cases, inevitably manifest themselves. It

to

is

understandable that

emphasize exceptions

siderations as being of

little

social factors, but there

is

there

is

many would

like

in order to dismiss biological con-

importance

when compared

to

no more reason for doing so than

for assuming that the successful celibate or suicide

disproves the inevitable necessity of any society's providing

channels for the "sex drive" or the will to least,

biological considerations

would seem

live.

At the very

sufficient to ren-

der forever impossible a nonpatriarchal society. Societies are

composed of large numbers of individuals and biology deals in inexorable probabilities to which all social systems must conform.

99

Section

Two

The Theory of the Inevitability

of Patriarchy

Chapter Four

Male Aggression and the Attainment of Power, Authority, and Status

// Male Aggression Were the Only Difference Having discussed the universality of patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment of high-status roles and the bio.

logical factors that are relevant to these universals,

now

.

we

.

are

prepared to examine the mechanisms that require these

biological factors to be manifested in these social institutions.

In discussing these mechanisms

only inherent difference between different

we shall proceed as if the men and women were their

hormonal systems, which leads

to

an inherent aggres-

sion advantage for the male. This does not imply that

I

doubt

that there are positive female biological forces underlying the

woman's extraordinary

sensitivity

and emotional powers or

the mother's attentiveness to her infant and her protective reaction to

her infant's vulnerability. Eleanor Maccoby has

suggested that "if you try to divide child training

males and females

do

it

we might

and males don't."

45

among

find out that females need to

Such biological imperatives would

have enormous significance in the development of male and female

roles.

Every society must care for

need to care for and protect the young

male than the male, pectations

45 Eleanor

its is

young and,

if

the

greater in the fe-

would be reflected in the social exof men and women. If one accepts this female E.

this

Maccoby,

Women, Seymour M. McGraw-Hill, 1963),

"Woman's

Intellect,"

in

The

Farber and Roger H. Wilson, eds. p. 44.

103

Potential

of

(New York:

The Theory of

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

he could

biological factor,

sex-role differences

utilize

it

to explain the universal

explain by differences in aggression and

I

could use the same lines of reasoning tioning

Likewise

aggression.

it

I

not

is

do without menunlikely

the

that

neural factors underlying the male's sexual dominance

come

men and women;

there

into play in social contacts

may even be lead") that

between

men

a female desire for

is

to

dominate ("take the

a secondary manifestation of the neural factors

directly relevant to

female sexuality. Biological evidence

dicates that there

a strong possibility that such

and submission

is

factors exist in

but, since such factors

here to be correct,

do

If they

exist,

male and female physiologies,

need not

we

in-

dominance

exist for the theory presented

will assume that they

do not

exist.

of course, the theory presented here can

be only strengthened.

Quite possibly institutions

all

we have

of these factors lead to the universal discussed. Aggression, however,

only sexual difference that

opposed

we

is

the

can explain with direct (as

to convincing, hut hypothetical) biological evidence.

Nothing

is

because the inevitable social manifestations

lost

of sexual differences in aggression are sufficient to explain the inevitability of patriarchy, male dominance, and male

attainment of high-status roles. If the other biological rectives

do

a factor

we have an example

exist

(hormonal aggression)

is

di-

of a situation in which sufficient to

reality (institutionalized sex differences),

describe a

but not necessary.

Maternal attentiveness, a male need to dominate, or a female desire for if

male

political

dominance would be

sufficient

even

there were no hormonal aggression differences, but none

of these need exist for the theory proposed here to be correct.

Therefore,

we

are assuming throughout this chapter that

there are no differences betiveen

men and women except in man more aggressive.

the hormonal system that renders the

This alone would explain patriarchy, male dominance, and

104

Male Aggression, the Attainment

of Power, Authority, and Status

male attainment of high-status

roles; for the

system gives

men

male hormonal

an insuperable "head start" toward attain-

ing those roles which any society associates with leadership or high status as long as the roles are not ones that males are biologically incapable of filling.

Aggression and Attainment In other words,

ing in the

why it

I

wrong

we

believe that in the past

have been look-

direction for the answer to the question of

every society rewards male roles with higher status than

does female roles

(

even

when

the male tasks in one society

are the female tasks in another).

While

it

are always in the positions of authority

true that

is

from which

men

status

tends to be defined, male roles are not given high status pri-

marily because

men

fill

these roles;

men

fill

these roles be-

cause their biological aggression "advantage" can be manifested in any non-child related area

rewarded by high

status

in any society. (Again: the line of reasoning used in this

demonstrates only that the biological factors

make

we

the social institutions

we

discuss

discuss inevitable

book

would

and does

not preclude the existence of other forces also leading in the

same

direction; there

may be

a biologically based tendency

for

women

for

male attainment of leadership and high-status

inevitable.)

to prefer

As we

male leadership, but there need not be

shall see, this aggression

be most manifested and can most enable

roles to

be

"advantage" can

men

to reap status

rewards not in those relatively homogeneous,

collectivist

primitive societies in which both male and female must play similar economic roles if the society

is

to survive or in the

monarchy (which guarantees an occasional female leader); this biological factor will

relatively

individualistic,

be given freest play in the complex, bureaucratic,

democratic

society

which, of necessity, must emphasize organizational authority

and

in

which

social mobility

is

105

relatively free of traditional

The Theory of

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

barriers to advancement.

There were more female heads of

state in the first two-thirds of the sixteenth century

the

first

than in

two-thirds of the twentieth.

The mechanisms

involved here are easily seen

if

we exam-

ine any roles that males have attained by channeling their

We

aggression toward such attainment. that equivalent

well as

men

if

women

will

assume for now

could perform the tasks of roles as

they could attain the roles. 46

Here we can

speak of the corporation president, the union leader, the governor, the chairman of an association, or any other role or position for which aggression

Now

ment.

a precondition for attain-

is

the environmentalist and the feminist will say

that the fact that all such roles are nearly always filled by

men is attributable not women have not been

to

male aggression but

to attain these positions, that they

positions are in

male

areas,

from competing with boys in this

way, but again

to the fact that

allowed to enter the competitive race

have been told that these

and that

girls are socialized

in general.

we must

Women

away

are socialized

ask why. If innate male aggres-

sion has nothing to do with male attainment of positions of

authority and status in the political, academic, scientific, or financial spheres, if aggression has

reasons areas

why

nothing to do with the

every society socializes girls

which are given high

in general, then

why

is it

status

away from those

and away from competition

never the girls in any society

who

46 I assume this for the present in order to demonstrate that these will be male roles even if women can perform these roles as well as men when they can attain them. It should be pointed out, however, that the line between attainment and performance is not always clear in a bureaucratic society or in leadership in any society; much of the performance of an executive or leader concerns his ability to maintain the authority which his position gives him. Therefore, it is possible that the greater innate male aggression,

particularly

when opposed

to

the lesser innate

female aggression, leads to performance by the male which is superior to that of the female. This does not, of course, mean that the male at any level of the hierarchy has an advantage over the exceptional woman who was aggressive enough to attain a comparable position, but it might indicate that men in general have an innate advantage over women in general

which

is

relevant to the performance of bureaucratic and leadership roles.

106

Male Aggression, the Attainment of Power, Authority, and

why

are socialized toward these areas, biological roles played by is it

is

never the non-

why and why do women

women

that have high status,

who are told to compete, men into the low-status, nonmaternal

always boys

never "force"

women

it

Status

roles that

play in every society?

These questions pose no problem

male aggression

men

that enables

if

we acknowledge

to attain

role given high status by any society.

For one need merely

consider the result of a society's not socializing

from competitions with men, from

women

a

any nonbiological

its

women away

not directing girls

more capable of playing than are men or roles with status low enough that men will not strive for them. No doubt some women would be aggressive enough to succeed in competitions with men and there would be contoward roles

siderably

are

more women

in high-status positions than there are

women would lose in such competitive strugmen (because men have the aggression advantage) most women would be forced to live adult lives as

now. But most gles with

and so

society had ivanted them to sucmore than men, who would never allow a situation in which girls were socialized in such a way that the vast majority of them were doomed to adult lifetimes of failure to live up to their own expectations. Now I have no

which the

failures in areas in

ceed. It

is

women,

doubt that there

far

is

a biological factor that gives

desire to emphasize maternal

point here there

is

society attain

is

that

we

and nurturance

socialize

but the

this sort

and

still

see that a

women away from roles that men will if women did not develop

through their aggression. For

an alternative

set

of criteria for success their sense of their

own competence would

suffer intolerably.

that the resulting different values

attached to

aggressive

more

roles,

the

can accept the feminist assumption that

no female propensity of must

women

It

is

undeniable

and expectations that are

men and women will tend to work against the woman while they work for the man who is no

aggressive.

But

this

is

the unavoidable result of the fact

107

The Theory of

women

most men are more aggressive than most

that this

the Inevitability oj Patriarchy

woman, who

as aggressive as the

is

aggressive than most

even

women,

so that

average man, but more

an exception. Furthermore,

is

the sense of competence of each sex did not necessi-

if

tate society's attaching to each sex values

and expectations

based on those qualities possessed by each sex, observation of the majority of each sex by the population would "automatically" lead to these values and expectations being attached to

men and women.

Socialization's

Conformation

to Biological

Reality Socialization

is

for adulthood. reality

the process by which society prepares children

The way

of biology

method

is

which

in

its

seen quite clearly

goals conform to the

when we

which testosterone generates male aggression

in

girls

have roughly equal testosterone

boys are far

used

(tes-

Preadolescent boys

tosterone's serially developing nature).

and

consider the

more aggressive than young

yet

levels,

young

Eva Figes has

girls.

this observation to dismiss incorrectly the possibility

a hormone-aggression association. 47 that the

boy

is

logical reason.

more aggressive than

We

have seen that

Now

it

is

of

quite probable

the girl for a purely bioit

is

simplistic to speak

simply in terms of hormone levels and that there

is

evidence

of male-female differences in the behavior of infants shortly after birth

(when

differential socialization

explanation of such differences )

.

The

boy's brain by the testosterone that testes has

probably

left

him

far

is

not a plausible

fetal alteration of the

was generated by

more

sensitive to the ag-

gression-related properties of the testosterone that

during boyhood than the alteration.

But

let

47

Eva

1971), p.

is

present

who did not receive such moment assume that this is not

girl,

us for the

the case. This does not at

his

all

reduce the importance of the

Figes, Patriarchal Attitudes (Greenwich, Conn.: 8.

108

Fawcett World,

Male Aggression, the Attainment of Power, Authority, and

hormonal

For even

factor.

socialization ical reality.

if

the boy

more aggressive than him to be, the boy's

is

because the society allows

the girl only

flows

still

from

acknowledging biolog-

society's

Let us consider what would happen

the same innate aggression as boys and socialize girls

girls as

if girls

have

did not

if a society

away from aggressive competitions. Perhaps

half of the third-grade baseball team

many

Status

would be female. As

boys would frame their expectations in mascu-

would develop not their feminine abilities but their masculine ones. During adolescence, however, the same assertion of the male chromosomal program line values

and

causes

that

girls

grow beards

boys to

the

raises

their

testos-

terone level, and their potential for aggression, to a level far

above that of the adolescent woman.

teach

young

girls that beating

boys

at

If society did not

competitions was un-

feminine (behavior inappropriate for a woman),

if

it

did

not socialize them away from the political and economic

which aggression leads

areas in

would grow

to attainment,

these girls

into adulthood with self-images based not

on

succeeding in areas for which biology has left them better

women

prepared than men, but on competitions that most could not win. If

women

did not develop feminine qualities

(assuming that such qualities do not spring automatifrom female biology) then they would be forced to deal with the world in the aggressive terms of men. They

as girls cally

would

now there

lose every source of

power

is

a physiological difference

between

which generates dimorphic behavior by an infant, this

their

feminine

abilities

give them and they would gain nothing. (Likewise,

fact.

social values

They

will

the population of

and

in the feelings elicited

socialization will

conform

to

conform both because observation by

men and women

will preclude the de-

velopment of values which ignore the physiological ence and because, even

would make

if

men and women

if

differ-

such values could develop, they

life intolerable for

109

the vast majority of males,

The Theory of

who would

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

feel the tension

between

social expectation

and

the dearth of maternal feelings, and the vast majority of females, infant

whose

physiologically generated feelings toward the

would be

frustrated.

Discrimination of a Sort If

one

is

convinced that sexual biology gives the male an

advantage in aggression, competitiveness, and dominance, but

he does not believe that

it

and

ception,

if

men and women

engenders in

different propensities, cognitive aptitudes,

he considers

and modes of per-

sion

is

when male when aggres-

discrimination

it

aggression leads to attainment of position even

not relevant to the task to be performed, then the

unavoidable conclusion unavoidable. Even

if

that discrimination so

is

one

is

denned

is

convinced from the discussion in

the following sections that the differing biological substrates that underlie the mental apparatus of

engender

different

modes of perception, he vance of

this to

compared

to the

men and women do

cognitive

propensities,

and

aptitudes,

will probably agree that the rele-

male attainment of male

roles

is

small

when

importance of male biological aggression to

attainment. Innate tendencies to specific aptitudes

more men than women

come from

in-

(depending on the

or vice versa

and that the very best

qualities relevant to the task) in all probability,

would

competence there will be

dicate that at any given level of

the sex

whose

will,

potentials are

relevant to the task. Nonetheless, drastic sexual differences in occupational

and

society's

and authority

roles reflect

acknowledgment of

it

differences in aptitudes, yet they are

In addition, even large

if

artificial

numbers of women

far still

male aggression

more than they do inevitable.

means were used

in authority positions,

that stability could be maintained.

Even

it is

to place

doubtful

in our present

is more more aggressive execu-

bureaucracies problems arise whenever a subordinate

aggressive than his superior and,

110

if

the

male

Male Aggression, the Attainment of Power, Authority, and tive

not allowed to rise in the bureaucracy, delicate psycho-

is

must be made. Such adjustments are

logical adjustments

necessary

When

when

male bureaucrat has

a

a

also

female superior.

such situations are rare exceptions adjustments can be

made without any the

Status

woman

great instability occurring, particularly

in the superior position

complements her aggres-

sion with sensitivity and femininity.

however, that

if

women

if

It

would seem

shared equally in power

at

likely,

each level

of the bureaucracy, chaos would result for two reasons. Even if

we

consider the bureaucracy as a closed system, the excess

would soon manifest itself either in men moving quickly up the hierarchy or in a male refusal to acknowledge female authority. But a bureaucracy is not a closed system, and the discrepancy between male dominance in private life and bureaucratic female dominance ( from the point of male aggression

of view of the male

whose superior

is

a

woman ) would

soon

engender chaos. Consider that even the present minute minority

women

of

high authority positions expend enormous

in

amounts of energy trying not thority that is

is

seen as the

true that the

manner

to project the

mark of

commanding

good male

a

which aggression

in

au-

executive. It

is

manifested

will be affected by the values of the society in general

and

the nature of the field of competition in particular; aggression in an academic environment

is

camouflaged far more

than in the executive arena. While a desire for control and

power and

a single-mindedness of

vant, here aggression

is

purpose are no doubt

not easily defined.

the theoretical argument that

women

One might

rele-

inject

could attain positions of

authority and leadership by countering the male's advantage in aggression

with feminine

abilities.

Perhaps, but the equiva-

lents of the executive positions in every area of suprafamilial life in

every society have been attained by men, and there

seems no reason to believe

that,

will be capable of neutralizing

And,

in

any

case,

suddenly, feminine means

male aggression

an emphasis on feminine

111

in these areas.

abilities

is

hardly

The Theory of

what the feminists

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

desire. All of this

can be seen in a con-

more optimistic light, from the point of view of most women, if one considers that the biological abilities siderably

possessed only by

women

complemented by

are

generated propensities directing filled

only by

women. But

it

is

women still

biologically

to roles that can be

the same picture.

Fifty-One Percent of the Vote Likewise, one a society

is

much by

on

faces the insuperable task of

male dominance that has forced every

nomic system as

predicates political action

women

are filled by a

who

a belief that

oppressive until half of the positions of authority

to

conform

the refusal of

to

it

overcoming

and

political

eco-

and that may be maintained

women

to elect

widespread female

leadership as by male aggression and ability.

No

doubt an

exceptional configuration of factors will someday result in a

woman's being

elected president, but if

ciety "sexist" until

with

men and

it

until a

no longer

woman

one considers a

leader

is

no longer an exception,

then he must resign himself to the certainty that will be "sexist" forever. 48 Feminists that

so

women

make

so-

associates authority primarily

all societies

make much of

the fact

constitute a slight majority of voters but in doing

the assumption that

women who

it

is

possible to convince the

constitute this majority to elect equal female

leadership. This

is

a

dubious assumption since the members

of a society will inevitably associate authority with males

if

patriarchy and male dominance are biologically inevitable.

It

would be even more dubious

if

there

is

an innate tendency

48 I grant that, since we have not hypothesized a direct male biological need to lead (but only an aggression advantage that can be manifested in this area), theoretically a situation could develop in which all leadership were given low status so that men chose not to use their aggression to attain positions of political leadership; in such a situation a nonpatriarchal society could develop. It is inconceivable that such a situation could ever develop, but if it did those who now complain that males fill the positions of leadership would then complain that women did not attain whatever roles males chose to attain by virtue of their superior aggression.

112

Male Aggression, the Attainment of Power, Authority, and Status for

women

men who

to favor

"take the lead." However, pro-

ceeding from this assumption and assuming that the feminists

were

obviously is)

successful,

it is

—would be eliminated

for the relatively small

which the

rules that

society, of course,

electing those

as large

numbers of males battled

numbers of positions of power from

govern the battle are made. In any

women power

bilizing political

men who

crucial effect of coloring

real

can have the crucial effect of mo-

to achieve particular goals

are motivated by relatively

sustaining values than other

male

—which

democracy

a sure bet that

not biologically inevitable (not patriarchy, which

is

men

and of

more

life-

mothers have the

just as

and humanizing the values of future

leaders.

"Oppression" All of this indicates that the theoretical model that conceives of male success in attaining positions of status, authority, and leadership as oppression of the female

because

females

from

it

and

the

is

male aggressive energies

sees

sees

fact

of

the

institutional

male

incorrect if only

as directed

mechanisms

aggression

as

toward

that

directed

flow

toward

"oppressing" women. In reality these male energies are rected toward attainment of desired positions

di-

and toward

succeeding in whatever areas a particular society considers important.

The

fact that

women

lose out in these competi-

would have men and women even if they were

tions, so that the sex-role expectations of a society

to

become

different for

not different for other reasons,

is

an inevitable byproduct of

the reality of the male's aggression advantage and not the cause, purpose, or primary function of

who

attain the

more desired

roles

it.

In other words,

men

and positions do so because

they channel their aggression advantage toward such attain-

men few women

ment; whether the losers in such competitions are other or

women

is

important only in that

succeed in these competitions

—

—because

so

the society will attach different

113

The Theory of

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

men and women (making it more difficult for the exceptional, aggressive, woman to attain such positions even when her aggression is equal to that of the average man ) expectations to

Perhaps one could

begin to defend a model that

at least

stressed "oppression" if

he dealt only with male dominance

in dyadic relationships; here

ward the female, but

male energies are directed

to call that

which

to-

inevitable "oppres-

is

would seem to confuse more than clarify and, if one male dominance is "oppressive," this model offers an illusory hope of change where there is no possibility of change. Male dominance is the emotional resolution (felt by sion"

feels that

both the

man and sion;

man and the woman) of the difference between a woman in the biological factors relevant to aggres-

a

male authority

tion of boys

and

conformation to ciety's

toward

girls

this

male authority,

this biological difference

and a

socializa-

societal

is

result of so-

attempting to most smoothly and effectively utilize this

Note

difference.

book

in this

—

do not follow

that all that

I

say in this paragraph

—

accepts the feminist assumption that their

which are eternally in

and the

in dyadic relationships,

own

indeed,

women

biologically generated imperatives,

different

from those of men.

I

do

this

an attempt to show the inadequacy of the feminist model

and not because

women do

it

is

less

not hear their

than ludicrous to suppose that

own drummer.

This book does not

pretend to explain female behavior, but merely to show that

women would ing

as they

do

aggressive men.

If

have to behave

more than

less

if

they were noth-

one reversed the

feminist model he could view the desire of the vast majority

of

women

to

have children

succeeding in an area in which biology to

fail.

Such

a theoretical

desired.

114

as

men

oppressing are

model

men by

doomed by much

leaves

their

to be

Chapter Five

The

Societal Manifestations

Male Aggression

of

Why No is

All Societies Differentiate the Sexes and

society has ever failed to differentiate sex roles,

it

inconceivable that any society could "view everyone as

an individual"

if

by

this

we mean

that the society's value

system does not attach different expectations to

women and

men and

does not consider certain roles male and certain

roles female.

This

is

why

the feminist refusal to acknowledge

the importance of biological differences until

environmental differences are removed evasive action.

By ignoring the

all

cultural-

no more than an

is

biological

and refusing

to

admit differences that every society must take into account until there

differences,

is

a society that does not take into account such

one could say that we will not know

if

the "sex

drive" has a biological component until a totally celibate society develops. If there are biological elements that will

inevitably manifest themselves, then a society without sexrole differentiation can never develop.

a society without such differentiation cally

society

would be

probably unimportant since

it

is

have seen that

not even theoreti-

conceivable because the psychological

members of the is

We is

effect

intolerable.

most

on the

This aspect

likely that

women

are led to performing the roles only they can play by their

own

biological propensities. Furthermore, even if neither of

these elements still

came

into play, social value systems

differentiate as they

would

do now simply because for them 115

The Theory of to

do otherwise would require that

identical if

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

ways and demonstrate

men and women seem

men and women

act in

identical temperaments; for

different (as they will if biological

differences engender differences in aggression, temperament, ability,

members of the

or propensity), then the

society will

"automatically" attach different expectations to them. Feminist

political

analyses

unknowingly incorporate the

often

incorrect belief that a society's values lineate ensue

from plans when

observations of the

and the

roles they de-

in reality they represent the

members of the

As

society.

is

with the white's perception of the black, what can be changed

if

is

the case

observed

the actions and temperament of those

being observed are determined by factors that can be changed.

The

white's perception of the black as ignorant will con-

tinue to change as the black

allowed equal education and

is

economic equality; the values,

roles,

and expectations that

white society attaches to the black will become increasingly similar to those

it

attaches to itself until a point

is

reached

where the black population's own self-image and own unique-

Somewhat

ness resist a further closing of the gap.

different

expectations will continue to be attached to blacks (as they

now

are to

superiority

all

minorities)

of those black

because the black view of the institutions

which remain will

engender behavior and attitudes different from those of the majority. Unless a

group

totally assimilated,

is

be considered different, but be considered, or consider

Most of

the world's

it

is

not

at all

women

necessary that

it

have never considered them-

moment

accept the implicit

feminist assumption that they should have. is

will always

itself, inferior.

selves inferior, but let us for the

the blacks will follow

it

The path

that

women because the view of women is not eco-

not open to

factor underlying the universal

nomic or educational discrimination but

a biological fact that

will manifest itself in, at the very least, a lack of aggression

that will be observed in every society

116

and that will determine

The ever)

7

it

is

view of women.

society's

not at

It

is

worth repeating that

male

inevitable that the

all

be accorded more

roles in

status than the roles that

more capable of

logically

Male Aggression

Societal Manifestations of

any society

women

are bio-

playing; the status given by the

society to these biological female roles

is

a function of

many

factors that are outside the scope of this book. All that

on a suprafamilial

inevitable

level

is

that biology requires

that certain aggressive roles be associated with the that the leadership is

and high-status

is

male and

which the

roles for

not biologically better equipped (than the

woman

man) be

at-

tained by men.

The

behavioral manifestations of sexual biological differ-

ences are,

be sure, quantitatively and

to

statistically,

qualitatively

and absolutely, different for the two

Women

no more

are

totally

not

sexes.

without aggression than they

woman is less aggressive man any more than every woman is shorter than every man. The quantitative becomes, and must become, qualitative only when the members of a society develop expectations for men and women based on the male and female are totally without height; not every

than every

biological realities they observe. If

humans were

totally instinctive

had no aggression potential

at all,

animals and

if

women

then there would be no

men and women in masculine and feminine women are not without aggression it is the reasons we have discussed, that they be

need to socialize directions.

Since

necessary, for socialized

ends.

away from depending on aggression

There

is,

why men and women

are socialized in masculine

nine directions and this

Men

are

because

to attain their

however, another, equally important reason

is

and femi-

the need for societal efficiency.

not stronger and more aggressive than

men

are trained to be soldiers, nor

do

women

women nurture

children because girls play with dolls. In these cases society is

doing more than merely conforming to biological neces-

sity; it is utilizing

it.

Because the

117

initial

masculine and femi-

The Theory of

the Inevitability oj Patriarchy

nine directions are engendered only by sexual differences in capacity and, perhaps, propensity

and

women must

The

society functions.

and not by

learn the specific

manner

instinct,

men

which

their

in

male's aggression advantage and the

female's maternal feelings are not social in origin, but no

one

is

born knowing

how

to fire a rifle or

change a diaper.

In other words, the purpose of a society's sexually differen-

and sexually

tiated institutions

differentiated socialization

is

not to cause male and female qualities; physiology alone

would

suffice for that. Societies

conform

their institutions

and

socialization to the sexual directions set by physiological dif-

must and second

ferentiation, first because they

function most

efficiently.

The members of

all this.

they

ing

of a society are, of course, often unaware

Parents

would not is

in order to

who

when may do so only because fightThey may not even be aware that in chastise a daughter for fighting

chastise a son

"unladylike."

so treating their daughter they are directing her toward success as

an adult and enabling her to deal from strength rather

than preparing her for consistent defeat. Nonetheless, the social value that sees "fighting as unladylike"

is

the social

conformation to the biological fact of male aggression. There are even cases where, for the psychological health of the individual, societies must, through the parents as agents of socialization, dissuade identification

with a role even

when

the individual could never attempt to play the role; young

boys are socialized away from identifying with the maternal role even

though they will never be able to give

birth.

The Mbuti Pygmies The

process by which biological

societal value systems

is

forces are manifested in

perhaps most clearly seen by exam-

ining a society in which biological sex differences are only

minimally exaggerated by the

society's

118

Some more popular

value system.

authors, having misconstrued Colin Turnbull's

The

Male Aggression

Societal Manifestations of

works on the Mbuti Pygmies, have

stated that the

Pygmies

demonstrate male dominance or even sex-role

fail to

differ-

Reference to Dr. Turnbull's definitive work on

entiation.

the subject leaves no doubt that male dominance and patri-

archy do exist in the Pygmy's society. 49 Authority, is

invoked,

is

when

men

male; disputes are settled by discussions of groups of

(though

women do

hunting

to

performed

skill;

play an advisory role); status

most importantly, the molimo

in times of great crisis

—

is

—

the reserve only or

is

may

conceivably be true

it

that sex role

suprafamilial areas

differentiation

in

pronounced among the Pygmies than

in

related

the ritual

primarily of males. Nonetheless,

may

it

hands of the best hunter or an elder

in the

less

is

any other society and

well be not far above the minimal threshold necessi-

tated by the

hormonal differences between men and women.

Before concluding that the degree of sex-role differentiation

demonstrated by the Pygmies biological factor, however,

biology on

behavior

environmental

As is

have

I

in

is

required by the

all that is

we must examine

the

contexts

of

the effect of

different

social-

realities.

said, the

male advantage

crucial to social sex roles not

and deference, but

in biological aggression

merely in terms of dominance

in the channeling of aggression into

any

area given high status by the society. This factor will be

present in every society, but will be least important in a society,

such as that of the Pygmies, where survival neces-

sitates that

everyone, male and female, must

the same economic role; if

the

game

is

when

all

fill

more or

must take part

to be caught, the fact that a

in the

man

less

hunt

holds the

net will not result in a great deal of extra status. Status for

the

fittest is relatively

same economic

unimportant when

role if the society

is

all

must play the

to survive.

However,

if

49 See Colin M. Turnbull, The Mbuti Pygmies: An Ethnographic Survey (New York: The American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers, Volume 50: Part 3, 1965).

119

The Theory of

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

a change in the environment brought about a situation in

which only half of the population was needed pate in the hunt,

we

attained these roles, that

male

status

to partici-

would be men who would tend to increase,

can be sure that

it

and that sex-role differences would widen. Indeed, among the Pygmies

we

who

are archers (as opposed to the net hunters

are discussing)

only half the

would be freed

Moreover,

this is precisely the case.

men were needed

for the hunt the other

to use their aggression for the attainment of

any nonmaternal roles that the society gave high

would quickly come

to "automatically" associate

men and men would

such role with

women away from

remain a male role

until, for

Then men would use that

had gained

While

any

the role

would begin and the role would

society

whatever reason,

it

lost status.

their aggression in pursuing other roles

in status.

in every society

fest itself in

even

not even need to use

The

their aggression to attain the role. to socialize

status,

women. The

those which could be performed as well by society

if

men

male aggression

dominance and

authority,

it

will tend to mani-

can be least impor-

tant in a society, again such as that of the Pygmies, in

which

the existence of small, fluid hunting bands results in a mini-

mal

necessity

of

ties,

is

a function of social reali-

so that sex-role differentiation greater than that of the

Pygmies evitable to

The

formal organization and authority.

importance of biological factors

exaggeration, but

is in-

under conditions that enable such factors more

easily

is

not necessarily

artificial

manifest themselves or for which such factors have a

positive value for survival

Modern

success.

Societies

Unlike Pygmy

society, industrial societies in a

cannot (no matter effect

and

how much

they

would

modern world

like to)

of biological aggression on social values in a

an isolated forest people can. In an industrial

120

limit the

way

society,

that

mem-

The bers

do not

Societal Manifestations of

Male Aggression

play the same economic role, nor are the vast

all

majority necessary for or capable of playing the highest status roles. Diversity

of economic roles and bureaucratic organiza-

tion are the very hallmarks of an industrial society.

the Pygmies have minimal formal organization, societies

industrial

composed of millions of people must have economic-

role differentiation

and formal organization

survive and function. In other words, ciety

Where

minimizes the

effect

they are to

if

where the Pygmy

so-

of the male advantage in biological

aggression, the very nature of the modern, industrial society forces such a society to give aggression relatively free play.

We

cannot even say that the industrial society exaggerates

this aggression; given the nature of the economic and social realities

of such a society the minimal possible effects of this

biological factor will be very great in determining the degree

of sex-role differentiation. Furthermore, given the reality of

an industrializing world, the lovely, gentle that of the cieties

Pygmy,

will not survive

societies,

such as

challenged by so-

whose methods of organization and whose methods of

channeling aggression into

them more

efficient authority

systems render

efficient.

The Limits It

when

of Possibility

should not be concluded from the above that within any

one

society's history a relaxation of traditional

upward mobility

barriers to

will in every case engender an increase in

the importance of aggression or that there

is

an absolute

correlation between a society's economic situation or degree

of homogeneity and the degree to which

it

allows male ag-

gression to manifest itself in social institutions. true throughout this book,

I

am

As has been

speaking only of the limits

of possibility within which a society must operate and the biological forces that

Within these

limits,

it

must

utilize or

of course, there

attempt to counteract. is

an enormous, but

not unlimited, range of possible alternatives, and this allows

121

The Theory of

of societies that the anthropologist en-

for the diversity

The degree

counters.

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

to

which any

particular society limits

the manifestation of aggression in close

it

comes

maximum

to the

differentiation)

any area

in

(how

value system

its

possible reduction of sex

a function not only of the

is

by biology and the degree to which

limits of possibility set

the major institutions of that society utilize biological aggres-

complex of

sion, but also of a

particular

Therefore,

society.

to learn that there are

male aggression and

low

status.

I

am

we

that

which empha-

have extremely

saying only that the degree to which a

society could limit the manifestation of

attainment and the degree to which differentiation will be

much

tive society than if

is

The United

to

specific

societies

women

which

in

less

should not be surprised

some primitive

size

and environ-

values, traditions,

mental necessities that are more or

it

much

greater

male aggression

in

could minimize sex-role

if

the society

is

a primi-

a bureaucratic, industrial society. 50

States, in other

manifestations as

it

words, could not limit the social

as a primitive society

could (and the

Pygmies did )

50 Likewise,

book I am speaking of a gross force (hormonal on and greatly influences human behavior; certainly there are a multitude of social factors that are relevant in any specific case. For example: in every society there will be many women who are born into roles of higher status than any that most men can achieve, though a man born into the same setting will attain roles through his aggression that the woman will not. Because I am dealing here with a gross force I may be guilty of using the terms role, status, and posiin

this

reality) that sets limits

tion

somewhat more

would

loosely than

whose work

the sociologist

is

on these concepts. For example: when I speak of men's attaining a role I am not unaware that roles are often ascribed on birth so that a particular man need not utilize his aggression to attain such ascribed roles. However, when we consider why the society sees the role in question as a male role, we see that male aggression explains this; either the role can best be performed by men or the role will have high status so that in the past men have attained the role and now it is autocentered

matically crucial that

my

with

associated

importance

in

them.

many

While

efforts

use of these terms in any

to

way

theory advanced here.

122

subtleties

deal

with

of roles,

definition I

are

of

do not think

lessens the rigor of the general

The

Male Aggression

Societal Manifestations of

Social Exaggeration of the Biological However, we can speak of a given society's exaggerating the values relevant to male aggression even that the direction of those values

monal

factor.

if

we acknowledge

determined by the hor-

is

Exaggeration could not be determined merely this

would

save that of the

Pygmy

by comparing the given society with another, for force one to conclude that

all societies

exaggerate male aggression.

To

declare that a society's values

do so exaggerate we must compare the degree

to

which

its

values reflect male aggression with the minimal degree that

would be possible would agree

for that sort of society.

that, in all areas save those

Japan's value system

United

think that

concerning abortion,

more male-oriented than

is

all

that of the

Because, very roughly speaking, both Japan

States.

and the United

States are highly bureaucratized, democratic,

industrial societies with the sible

I

same threshold of minimal pos-

male aggression, we might say that Japan exaggerates

male aggression

in that its values reflect

male authority more

than do those of the United States (and that this exaggeration, therefore,

must be owing not

and the

just to biology

general nature of industrial society but also to specific Japa-

nese values )

.

One

could likewise say that the United States

exaggerates male dominance in as

much

as

does Japan )

,

its

value system (though not

but he must measure the degree of

exaggeration relative to a hypothetical

mands

far greater manifestation

minimum

does a society such as that of the Pygmy. the degree to which male aggression society to the

though lower

it

this

is

minimal

is

level possible in

not likely to happen.

to the level

found

in

that

de-

of male aggression than

Pygmy

We

We

could lower

present in American

an industrial

society,

could, theoretically,

society if

we were

will-

ing to give up science, bureaucratic organization, industrialization,

and democracy

(all

those changes which tended to

raise the threshold of the possible

123

minimal degree of sexual

The Theory of differentiation

we

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

and of the importance of aggression). But

we would

even

if

lute

minimal threshold below which no

did this

still

find that there

theoretically limit the manifestation of

system.

An

economic functions

its

is

biological or even

it

is

if,

can even

society

male aggression

institution cannot be eradicated

of

an abso-

is

in

its

by the eradication

if

the institution's reason for being

as

with perhaps, the incest taboo,

necessitated not by biology, but by the basic nature of

society.

Patriarchy in Industrial and "Revolutionary" Societies

Perhaps our emphasis on theory and on primitive

societies

has led the reader to doubt the applicability of

that has

all

been said to modern industrial and "revolutionary"

Such doubts are

we examine

easily dispelled if

societies.

political lead-

ership in such societies.

In the United States there are no constitute slightly cities

more than

1

women

senators:

women

percent of the mayors of

of twenty-five thousand or more, less than 2 percent of

the policy makers in federal government, 3 percent of the

members of the House of Representatives, and 5 percent of the members of the state legislatures. 51 Whatever the alleged changes in our society's view of women, such changes have not been manifested in an increase

in

clenched

political fists,

For

power.

there are

now

all

brave words

the

25 percent fewer

Congress than there were ten years ago.

I

particular significance to the decrease; the in

power

is

so small that

is

it

has any real meaning (though

51

The

number of women

it is

conceivable that a

who would not have formerly woman candidate will hesitate once

on women and the authority

New

Republic,

in

do not attach any

doubtful that this fluctuation

of individuals vote for a

and

women

number

hesitated to

the focus

is

implicit in leadership). In any

December

25, 1971, p. 6.

124

The

Manifestations of

Societal

case, there has certainly

women

in positions of

been no increase. The number of

power and leadership

and business world make the

enables

some women

somewhat comparable

to rank

look like

statistics

(rather

where the hereditary nature of

This

is

political

in the financial

one considers ownership

equalization unless

executive power),

Male Aggression

than

vast wealth

with the wealthiest of men. to

land ownership in some

matrilineal societies.

The

political distribution of the sexes

any other

women sider

society.

Even

if

we

is

no

different in

consider societies in which

constitute half of the labor force, even

societies

if

we

con-

with an ideological commitment to sexual

equalization in the hierarchies of authority, even sider societies that

we

if

con-

have made sustained attempts to equalize

sexual distribution in government

—even

then

we

find the

Sweden all thirteen Cuba twenty of the twenty-one ministers and all fifteen members of the Political Bureau and the Secretariate of the Communist party same

situation that obtains in America. In

of the ministers with portfolio are men. In

are

men. In

are

men. In Communist China, which has been committed

Israel eighteen of the nineteeen cabinet ministers

equalization since the revolution, both

members of the Stand-

ing Committee of the National People's Congress,

members of the and

Offices,

all

to

all

six

State Council, all six heads of the General

seventy-two heads of the General Ministries

are men. All but one of the members of the Politboro are men; the only exception is the wife of Mao Tse-tung. In the

Soviet Union,

where even the

deny the relevance of biology

theories of biology tend to

to behavior, 96.9 percent of the

members of the Central Committee

are men. 52

The

failures

of the Kibbutzim and every other Utopian attempt to alter

52

The

figures for

Sweden, Cuba,

Israel,

and China were compiled from

The Europa Yearbook: 1971 (London: Europa Publications Ltd., 1971) and The Far East and Australasia: 1971 (London: Europa Publications Ltd., 1970). The figure for the Soviet Union is from N. T. Dodge, Women in the Soviet Economy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, listings

in

125

The Theory of

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

sex-role differentiation in this area serves merely to reinforce

the conclusions indicated here. 53

No

doubt one can devise separate and different explana-

tions for each of these societies' failure to deviate

near

total

authority.

male superiority

Each explanation could be

whose

set in the

terms of the

and economic conditions of the par-

particular social values ticular society

from the

in attaining positions of political

failure

is

being explained and in the

terms of the residual strength of the society's "patriarchal" values (values that every society has) rather than in the terms

of an inevitable manifestation of biological

disregard the fact that viewing each society in only

terms tends to demonstrate not

cific

why

Let us

reality.

its

spe-

equalization has

why there has been any increase at women in authority positions (when

not been achieved, but in the

all

number of

there was any increase at all). 54 For the far

point

is

that

one who attempts

more important

to explain these failures in

No doubt by the time the reader reads this these figures need some updating, but the point they make will remain just as

1966), p. 214. will

strong. 53 There have been a

number

of subsocietal groups that have attempted

not only to explain reality in terms that assume that logic

is

the only

limiting factor on social possibility, but to implement this view by de-

veloping

on

new

"societies." Because logic

social possibility, every such

is

not the only limitation imposed

experiment had to

fail

completely

or, like

where the inexorable pull of sexual and familial biological forces had eventually to overcome the initial thrust of nationalistic, religious, ideological, or psychological forces that had the Kibbutz, fail in just those areas

engendered the possibility of the temporary implementation of Utopian ideas. This is not to say that particular social factors did not cause the demise of any particular Utopian experiment before the biological factors had a chance to come into play, but that eventual doom was as inherent in these Utopian experiments as it was for the Shakers. Readers interested in the failure of the Kibbutz to challenge successfully the universal sexrole distinctions we have discussed might consult: Melford Spiro, "Is The Family Universal The Israeli Case" (particularly the addendum), in The Sociological Perspective, Scott McNall, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971) and A. I. Rabin's "Ideology and Reality in the Israeli Kibbutz" in Sex Roles in a Changing Society, Georgene Seward and Robert C. Williamson, eds. (New York: Random House, 1970). 54 For example, the devastation of the Soviet Union in World War II created such a dearth of qualified people in every area that the competitive aspects of the attainment of position were reduced.

—

126

— The this

Manifestations of Male Aggression

Societal

manner

is

in the position of

one

who

attempts to explain

patriarchy in four thousand different societies with four thou-

sand different explanations, each in the particular terms of the particular society rather than in the terms of one factor

capable of explaining

The

fensible.

As we

four thousand cases.

all

see in Section Three, this

absurd even

is

shall

theoretically de-

if

failure of these societies to alter political patri-

archy does not, of course, "prove" that patriarchy

is

inevitable

any more than the universality of patriarchy "proves" that patriarchy

is

Here

inevitable.

introduce this material on

I

the failures of these disparate societies with disparate eco-

nomic systems, value systems, and sumptive

—

believe

evidence that

—very

there

a

is

strong

traditions only as

presumptive

biological

factor

pre-

evidence,

I

renders

a

that

nonpatriarchal society impossible to achieve.

A

Digression:

Race and Sex

If the only relevance of the question of black-white genetic

differences in behaviorally important areas to the importance

men and women was

of differences between

constantly equating the two,

introduce the subject at to

For

compare her environmental

seems to I

all.

me

it

the feminists'

would not be necessary a middle-class

white

to

woman

situation with that of a black

nothing short of criminally naive. However,

have so often encountered the criticism that the evidence

supporting the contention that there are biological sex differences (which will inevitably be manifested in male

and

female behavior and in social institutions such as patriarchy) is

no

different

from

—and no more

likely to

be correct than

the evidence relevant to racial differences that to

it

demonstrate the differences between the two

is

necessary

sets

of evi-

dence here.

The is

evidence concerning race

a small minority in

is

population in the United States). archy

is

inevitable

is

based on a population that

one environmental context (the black

The

conclusion that patri-

based on the evidence of

127

all

the societies

The Theory of of

the Inevitability of Patriarchy

men and women who have ever lived (i.e., every has been patriarchal ) One immediately sees the in-

the

all

society

.

validity of generalizing a black inability to attain

the dearth of black leaders in the United States

power from

when he

looks

eastward and sees that nearly every black nation invests authority in

its

On

black male leaders. 55

that every society without exception, their value systems ciates

from ours and from one

dominance and "does that

asks

society

the other hand

no matter how

political leadership

mean

that if half the

all

one race was superior sons," the answer

is,

another's, asso-

members of every all societies

were

by blacks) then you would say that

at attaining

power

for biological rea-

of course, yes. But even

had populations evenly divided between the if all societies

see

with men. If one

were white and half were black and

ruled by whites (or

we

different

if all societies

races

and even

were ruled by whites (or blacks), the evidence

supporting the existence of relevant genetic differences would not be nearly as strong as

it

is

for sexual differences; the

evidence for important biological differences between the races

No

would

one

is

still

be hypothetical (though very convincing).

able to demonstrate directly any biological dif-

ferences between blacks and whites that could reasonably be

thought to be relevant to attaining power. differences

between

The hormonal

men and women have been

demonstrated

beyond any doubt whatsoever and the relevance of hormones to aggression has if

we had no

been demonstrated so strongly that even

cross-cultural evidence at all there

would be no

doubt that the biological factor was relevant to the that 55

men

rather than

women

attain positions of

One might

fact

power.

raise the objection that such societies do not have popuwhich half the members are white. There is no reason to doubt that if a number of disparate societies had populations in which each race was equally represented some would be ruled by blacks, some by whites, and, one would hope, most would not associate authority and leadership with color. But if one does raise this objection with the unprovable and undisprovable implication that white would always rule, still he casts no doubt on the reality of sexual differences, but only on the

lations in

genetic similarity of the races,

128

PART II

Section Three

Objections

and Implications

Chapter Six

The Inadequacy

of a

Nonbiological Explanation

The Weight Even

if

one

is

of the Evidence not totally convinced that patriarchy, male

dominance, and male attainment of high-status, nonmaternal roles are inevitable,

he must admit that the evidence provided

only by biology or only by anthropology would suggest that this

is

an exceedingly strong

When

possibility.

both

sets

of

evidence are taken together the argument for an environmentalist analysis disintegrates and the biological hypothesis

becomes overwhelmingly compelling. One

who

then

insists

on

maintaining a belief in an environmentalist analysis whose

and empirical inadequacy is manifest while demanding of the infinitely more probable biological hypotheinternal illogic

sis a

deductive conclusiveness that

is

precluded by the very

nature of science does not do so for scientific reasons. In

of science there

is

no such thing

all

as deductive conclusiveness,

the "proof" that the feminists demand.

It is

axiomatic that

science deals in probabilities and always acknowledges the possibility that a future observation will

A

demonstrate that never

be

"proven." Science always leaves open the possibility that

to-

a

theory

morrow

is

a

incorrect.

mountain will

discover a matriarchy.

We

scientific

float into

theory

can

space or that

we

have not "proven" that E

or that smoking leads to cancer. (The purist, would be quite right in pointing out that we may nically, say that patriarchy, or gravity,

133

is

shall

= mc2

therefore, not, tech-

inevitable;

I

trust

Objections and Implications that

the

that

understands

reader

"inevitable"

in

the

title

that

one does when he says that tomorrow. ) This

will be gravity verification

is

have used the term

I

of this book it

is

why

is

an integral part of the

only in the sense

inevitable that there

continuous empirical

scientific

method. But

the invocation of this aspect of science in order to dismiss the overwhelming likelihood that patriarchy scientifically

is

inevitable

is

untenable and can be explained only in the

emotional terms of desperation logic. Radical interpretation

should imply a better way of explaining what not closing one's eyes so as not to observe. tional analysis of

The

is

observed,

overly emo-

an intellectual problem that forces people have only catastrophic

to disregard observation can

few academic

for objective inquiry. That even a

have accepted the feminist analysis with misrepresentation of fact

emotional necessity.

is

its

results

intellectuals

illogic

and

its

explicable only in the terms of

It is intellectually

defensible in no terms

56 at all.

The

universality of patriarchy

knowledge of the

women, and relationship

differing

the overwhelming evidence that there

between the male hormone and

dominance combine

to present a

which the feminist analysis hooves those

and male dominance, our

hormonal systems of men and

is

who would deny

body of observation with

The

political

It

be-

the inevitability of patriarchy

why

the institutions

have discussed have achieved universality. 56

a strong

not capable of dealing.

to develop a theory that explains

ideologue never did

integrity of intellectual pursuit.

is

aggression-

care about

The layman who

If they ideas,

we

cannot,

logic,

or the

seeks rationalization for

emotional necessity has always embraced the most improbable explanation for as long as it catered to his needs while he demanded of the unpalatable theory a proof that the very nature of scientific theory precludes. The intellectual dabbler has always reacted to the unfashionable with an incredulity based not on a discrepancy between the theory he encounters and the theory's facts, logic, or relevance to the reality

it

explains, but

discrepancy between the theory and the ideology he espouses

on the

— an ideology

founded on wish and sustained by the mutually reinforcing ignorance of its

adherents.

134

The Inadequacy

of a Nonbiological Explanation

then their theory must be consigned to whatever graveyard it

reality,

all

those theories that have been

clever delusions

by their inability to explain

which are buried

in

is

exposed

as

and we must accept the only theory that

consistent with reality, logic

If

and

logical,

is

plausible.

were the only limitation on human

possibility

then mathematical philosophy would be the only science and empirical verification of theory

the scientific process.

The

with

analysis, and, indeed, tions,

is

would not

constitute half of

insoluble problem with the feminist all totally

environmental explana-

not that they posit logical impossibilities or that

they are necessarily internally contradictory, but that they fail

There

in their explanations of empirical reality.

one

logical theoretical explanation for

is

rarely only

an observed

reality.

Because every behaviorally important biological sex difference

must be

reflected in every society's value system,

always be able to say that

men and women

do because

their

tells

biologically

more

society

them

act the

they are

aggressive, boys will be socialized toward

aggressive pursuits and girls will be told that to attempt to attain goals

it is

through aggression.

If

to look for

an institutional conformation (what

and

to biological reality (the

girls)

way

men

Because

to.

one will

unladylike

one wants

we

tell

boys

male hormonalization)

in order to consider the institution the cause of the behavior

(male aggression) that the institution may exaggerate but that flows

from the

be able to do

so. If

biological reality, then

he

is

aware that

virtually disparate observations

he will always

his explaining a

thousand

with a thousand particular

explanations rather than with a single explanation (biological

male aggression)

is

a logical barbarism, if

he must find some underlying factor that

he is

is

aware that

comparable to

the biological factor, he will be able, through tortuous, but

not

illogical,

reasoning to develop a theory that makes no

reference to the biological factor.

I

have no idea what form

such a theory would take, but no doubt

135

it

could be developed.

Objections and Implications

For

one

if

is

more and more convoluted

willing to accept

and irrelevant hypotheses he could even today adhere ignore

all

of the theories of twentieth-century science that

much more

explain reality so

be as perfectly logical as

The This

to

and ether and

theories that posit the existence of phlogiston

it

convincingly. His theory could

was

totally absurd.

Environmentalist's Dilemma what one will be forced to do if he

is

to a totally

insists

on adhering

environmental or economic theory of universal

patterns of sex-associated

dominance behavior. For such a

theory cannot suggest a possible initiative of patterns that invariably

work

in

one direction that

is

nearly as logically and

theoretically compelling as that provided by demonstrable

evidence indicating a strong relationship between hormones

and behavior. Such environmental theory attempts with the biological evidence by ignoring to

it,

to

deal

thereby refusing

acknowledge the determinative influence of sexual hor-

monal

differences

societal

environment), but

in humans (with their nonhuman mammals whose

found not only in the

endocrine systems are similar to man's and for

nonhormonal explanation of behavior

is

whom

a totally

patently ridiculous.

This denial of the biological factor takes the form of either ignoring the universality of patriarchy, male dominance, and

male attainment and pretending that such universality does not need explanation or of explaining such universality in en-

vironmental terms that are either, or both, internally illogical or empirically disprovable.

My

point

from the

is

not that the boy

girl or that

run very deep.

I

is

do not doubt those environmentalists who

claim that by the time an infant nature of the socialization

be determined by

male infants

not socialized differently

such differential socialization does not

its

in blue

it

is

receives

three

from

months old the its

parents will

sex; shortly after their births

and female infants

136

in pink.

we

While

dress it

is

The Inadequacy

of a Nonbiological Explanation

doubtful that this makes it

does show

much

difference to

newborn

infants,

by the parents

socialization

that differential

begins at birth. But this simply indicates the strength and

importance of sexual hormonal

any

society's socialization

reality

conforming

and the necessity of For the

to this reality.

environmentalist to demonstrate that biological reality does

not underlie the directions in which societies socialize the

young he must demonstrate not but that

and

done

this.

This

would be possible

it

girls

is

toward, aggressive 57

Nor

that socialization runs

to socialize boys

activities.

No

could any society ever do

away from,

society has ever this.

the environmentalist's dilemma: he faces the in-

superable task of explaining,

without referring to either

masculine aggression or feminine propensity, of every society without exception into people the feminists

manage

find so

and why no

society

fails

how

distasteful

to

men women

the

to turn the

selves attaining nearly all the positions of

thority

deep

while them-

power and

socialize

young

augirls

57 A few behaviorists have generalized from experiments (which for argument's sake we will assume were as successful as described) in which behavior is altered through high-intensity conditioning and use this as "evidence" that male and female behavior has only an environmental, and not a biological, determinant. Now, besides being unable to explain what element in the cultural environment of every society corresponds to this

conditioning, this analysis erroneously implies that because high-intensity conditioning can force one to behave as if, even to think as if, he had no "sexual drives," then these "drives" are not biological in nature. Indeed, we

know

that some people have been forced to behave in this way not even by high-intensity conditioning, but merely by the extremes of a Victorian cultural environment. The real implication of the behaviorists' experiments is not that sexual behavior is environmentally caused, but that, at

even the most basic biological factors can be driven is extreme enough. It is difficult to imagine how in a world in which we are incapable of even properly feeding most of the population we would suddenly develop the tools and the competence necessary for instituting total conditioning in any society. Howleast

theoretically,

inward

—

the conditioning

if

—

we would elect leaders who had the want to do so; we know that the leaders who would make the decisions on how such conditioning would be used would be men whose aggression had enabled them to attain positions of ever,

it is

requisite

not difficult to imagine that

inhumanity

to

leadership.

137

Objections and Implications

away from aggressive

He

must find a universal cultural-environmental factor comparable to the biological areas.

factor proposed here. This

is

the point that

is

always for-

who would deny the determinativeness of factor or who would claim that this factor

gotten by those the biological

no longer relevant and

is it

are

no longer

universality

necessary.

that the institutions that cater to

The

biological explanation explains

where no other explanation

can.

Perhaps the environmentalist will attempt to explain universality

by invoking the mother's universal

role,

which pre-

cludes her devoting herself to nonmaternal endeavors. This

invocation of a biologically related role does overcome the contradictions inherent in the explanation that

on is

societal values

and

universally associated with

sacrificing the

is

dependent

socialization; since the maternal role

women,

this explanation,

dependence on socialization

by

to explain patri-

archy, avoids the absurdity of invoking the differing social

values and economic factors of each society to explain patri-

archy in each society.

does satisfy those

It

tiveness to the

young have only

who would

and maternal

to believe that the maternal propensity social

origins

like

atten-

(so that a

nonpatriarchal society could ensue from large numbers of

women this line it

deciding not to have children). of reasoning

twofold:

is

first

ignores the hormonal factor that

archy inevitable even

if

large

The

difficulty

with

and most importantly

would alone make

patri-

numbers of women did forsake

the maternal role. Second, an explanation of patriarchy in

terms of the woman's maternal role unless

it

is

virtually tautological

specifies the aspect of this role that precludes

attainment of power.

It

is

true that

female

in every society the

female plays a nurturant role relative to the male, but in

many

societies

women work harder at non-maternal labor do men (hours which could, were it

for longer hours than

not for the hormonal factor and the socialization which con-

forms to the presence of

this factor,

138

be spent attaining posi-

The Inadequacy

of a Nonbiological Explanation

few days out of

tions of authority), they take only a

their

regular schedule to give birth, and leave most of the care-

members of

taking of children to grandparents, other

the

extended family, or older children. It could be argued that the female maternal propensities detract from the mental

women

and emotional energy pursuits, but

one could use

of patriarchy only

if

can devote to suprafamilial

this to

imply the possible demise

he assumes that there

is

no biological

male aggression advantage (or that such aggression evant to attainment )

,

these assumptions, to find

irrel-

some future time chilno longer be borne by women. Even if one makes

no biological component, and dren will

is

that female maternal propensities have

it is

that at

given the cross-cultural data,

difficult,

an aspect of the maternal role that

minor importance

in a

number of

not of such

is

societies that explanation

of patriarchy in those societies by invocation of this aspect is

completely unconvincing. Similarly,

one

who

wishes to emphasize the universal bio-

logical fact of the male's superior size

ignores the

more important

hormonal evidence; he

and strength not only

(in between-sex comparisons)

also faces the observation that there

seems no correlation (among males) between attainment of high status and physical strength, but that there

is

an

easily

observed correlation between such attainment and "aggression." This

is

implicitly

acknowledged by the feminist when

she emphasizes the differing attitudes of

men and women

toward work and aggression (and incorrectly ascribes such attitudes purely to socialization tive

is

)

.

Indeed, the superior execu-

described not as physically strong but as "aggressive."

Obviously male aggression has evolved hand in hand with

male physical

size (just as the

female hormonal system has

evolved hand in hand with female anatomy) discount the male's greater strength and is

still

seen to be determinative. If

size,

.

But even

if

we

male aggression

we were

to set

up an

experimental one-generation society of the infant sons of

139

Objections and Implications

small parents and the infant daughters of large parents (so

were

that the females of this society

we would

still

find that this society developed into a patri-

archy. If, however,

we peopled whose

genetic male infants

our experimental society with

fetal masculinization

blocked and genetic female infants virilized in utero

we would

that authority

ruled,

as large as the males),

who had

accidentally been

find that the genetic females

was associated with them,

attained the positions of high status, that they in dyadic relationships,

form

and

had been

that they

were dominant

came

that socialization

to con-

to all this.

The

environmentalist might be tempted to invoke an ex-

planation of universal patriarchy and male dominance and

attainment based on the necessities of securing food, the male's physical advantage at hunting and harvesting, or the

amount of time women have had

to

spend "at home"

in

order to indicate that the factors relevant to patriarchy, while

once necessary, are incorrect

on

now

irrelevant.

their face; there

tive societies

Such explanations are

have been a great many primi-

with small populations for

whom

the securing

of food entailed only a few hours of labor a week. In some

women while the men perNone of these societies, however,

of these this labor was done by

formed

less

strenuous tasks.

failed to associate authority with the male.

The Future With

in Feminist

Theory and in Reality we have mentioned,

the exception of the few attempts

feminists never offer specific alternatives to the analysis pre-

sented in this essay because they cannot. Nonetheless, femi-

imply that there

nist predictions of the future invariably

some nonbiological explanation or that the is so weak that it can be overridden by an institutional

but no longer

biological factor alteration in the

environment. This implication

the belief that biology is,

may once have been

in the declaration that the

140

is

is

inherent in

determinative,

world has changed

—

The Inadequacy so

much

of a Nonbiological Explanation

that the universal expectations of

men and women

the universal conceptions of masculinity and femininity

—

no longer necessary, and in the prediction that there someday be a nonpatriarchal society. For these beliefs, larations,

and predictions

to

are

will

dec-

be more than baseless assertions

supported by nothing other than their proponents' desire that they be correct,

it

is

necessary that the feminist demonstrate

not only that there will be great institutional changes in the future, but that these changes are relevant not just to the

economic functions of patriarchy, but to the cause of archy.

patri-

She must demonstrate that the changes will eliminate

or override the causal factor which engenders patriarchy and to

which our conceptions of masculinity and femininity con-

form. She can hardly do this

if

she cannot even offer a tenable

explanation of patriarchy as

it

exists

and has existed

in pres-

ent and past societies.

Since the factor that necessitates our conceptions of masculinity

and

and femininity

societies'

is

the reality of hormonal biology

conformation to

it,

since this

conformation

making male and female congruent with probability, and since female at-

serves the necessary function of aspirations

tainment in any nonmaternal area

is

a function of

male lack

of interest in that area, no change in the other functions of sex roles can radically alter conceptions of masculinity and

femininity as they apply to political and dyadic authority and to attainment of high-status positions. It

is

to

be hoped that

future feminist research expands our knowledge of the mech-

anisms through which biological factors are manifested in institutional reality, but

it is

folly to believe that

edge will render the biological factor any

less

new knowl-

determinative;

our discovery of the mechanisms involved in societal conformation to the "sex drive" does not reduce the importance of that "drive" to individual behavior or to the social institutions that

conform

to the drive

and that channel

If the feminist cannot provide us

141

it.

with even a theoretical

Objections and Implications alternative to a patriarchal society,

—any

is

it

not likely that any

society limited not only by the limitations

real society

inherent in society in general, but by the cultural realities of a

modern

society

—

will develop an

contemporary America

Rome

ancient

more

is

than she

is

like the

contemporary

the Bantu, Javanese, or Hottentot, and

any future America will be

less like

America

now,

None

from the

as different

is

is

will

it

still

all,

it

is

societies of

not likely that

contemporary America

than these other societies are now. But even

society

After

alternative.

like her antecedent society in

society

we know

if

a

future

as Hottentot

be patriarchal.

of this implies that there will not be great changes

in the future, but only that such

changes will not be relevant

to the causes involved in the universal institutions discussed

herein. It realities

make

is

one thing

to assert,

perhaps correctly, that the

of increasing population and increasing technology

and

social life less

congruent with our biological

less

natures and quite another to assert, unquestionably incor-

our biological natures are no longer determina-

rectly, that

tive to behavior

that the

world

institution. It

one thing

will

still

be

if

We

contraception

problem we will have the same

need to produce a next generation it

to point out

lead to the demise of patriarchy.

need to propagate the species;

eradicates the overpopulation

the past and

is

overpopulated and quite another to imply

somehow

that this will shall always

and

is

as did all the societies of

women who

give birth. Even

if

there were developed an artificial substitute for the mother

and even

(a likely probability), stitution to

be

made on

probability), patriarchy

if

women wanted

this sub-

a widespread social level (an unlikely

would

exist unless biological adapta-

tion led to the disappearance of sexual

hormonal

differences.

For the hormonal differences in aggression alone would necessitate patriarchy,

male dominance, and male attainment

of status.

The

clash

between our biological natures and modern 142

The Inadequacy society

is

neurosis

is

of a Nonbiological Explanation

very great and the potential for

abundant.

It is

new forms

of

possible that bureaucratization and

overpopulation render our situation one in which the natural flow of our male and female biological forces are, and must

be

if

we want

the rewards of modernization, shunted in

harmful directions or turned neurotically inward. Before the advent of roles and occupations that greatly limited the expression of individual aggression

—expression

that

necessary for the individual and that was formerly essary for the society

—before

dividual feelings of

autonomy impossible for

still

is

more

nec-

bureaucratization rendered inall

but those

before the unspeakable situation in which propa-

at the top,

gation of the species can no longer be viewed as unalloyed joy in every case, before all of these victories of modernization the lives of

men and women flowed more naturally from human species. To the hunter

the biological natures of the

and

wife or to the farmer and his wife the idea of sex-role

his

reversal

are

no

is

modern urban males and females

patently absurd;

less

biologically different,

and these differences no

but the nature of urban

less limit social institutions,

life

does

tend to camouflage the differences enough to enable them to consider the absurd. into a

It

is

we

conceivable that

are heading

world for which we are not biologically prepared.

would not be the

first

If the species

to survive,

is

time that

this has

however,

happened it

limit the institutions that could destroy us

It

to a species.

will be because

we

and not because our

biological natures will be overridden by

new

institutional

realities.

Let us descend to the level of the probable. There will be

changes in the next few centuries, indeed in the next few decades; whether these are "revolutionary" or minor depends

again on whether one sees the glass as half full or half empty,

whether he emphasizes the biological reality

reality to

which

social

conforms or the myriad variations possible within the

limitations

imposed by the

biological.

143

There

is

no doubt that

Objections and Implications

the institutions of American society will soon accommodate large

numbers of women who no longer need devote

entire lives to child rearing, just as

needed virtually

women

of their

all

have many

their

societies that

in the labor force.

While

feminists often discuss this possibility in terms which assume that every

and

woman

that this

is

is

capable of a career in nuclear physics

woman

the option every

should be able to

weigh against the emphasis on the home which would

in-

evitably place limitations

on the

possibility of attainment in

such an area, the reality

is

that

most individuals, male and

female, have average capabilities and average jobs.

women would

most

at all self-evident that

not

It is

choose to devote

to such jobs, rather than to their families, the lifelong ex-

men

penditures of energies which

devote to their jobs and

which are necessary for attainment areas. It

would seem

likely that

in

most occupational

most American women

gravitate toward the social area

where there

is

need and where they need not compete with because no one

is

now performing

will

the greatest

men

—both

those functions and be-

cause this area (social workers, elementary school teachers, etc.)

does not have a particularly high status that would

tract

male competition.

No

number of women

in the

and perhaps an increase

in the

lower authority positions

number of women

in the

higher authority positions in low-status areas. ple, day-care centers

women

at-

doubt there will be an increase

become

a

will unquestionably

major factor

fill

in

If,

in the

for exam-

American

the overwhelming

life,

number

of lower-level authority positions and perhaps the higher ones. This generalization of

motherhood

will be possible be-

cause the area will have low status for males so that males will not

males

compete for the

now

filling

position long

enough

will desire these roles

men would

be.

because there are no

positions,

those roles, and, dare

Any

to

advance

and will be

leave

this point,

my

theoretical

because

better at filling

increase in the

144

I

women

them than

number of women

in

The Inadequacy

of a Nonbiological Explanation

high-status positions in high-status areas, however, will be

and "token." For

slight

this

where

the playing field

is

gression counts the most and here

men

ag-

will succeed at at-

taining the high positions of power, status, and authority as

they always have in every society.

Nothing that

have written should be construed

I

modern women do not

implying

as

face the most serious of problems.

Increasing longevity, a lessened desire for large families, the

TV ciety

Dinner, and the fragility of the family in a frantic create a

anomie

is

context in which

To an

very great.

has garnered what support

movement,

it

is

the potential

extent, the it

for

so-

female

women's movement

has because, like any social

capable of replacing feelings of individual

meaninglessness with a feeling of group strength and belonging. If is

I

do not write

important as If

at

length of economic discrimination

not because such discrimination does not

I

this issue

is, it is

exist,

it

but because,

beyond the scope of

this

book.

have ignored the residual laws that discriminate between

the sexes

it

is

because, whatever their symbolic importance,

such laws are obviously not the source of the energy that

The masculine

engenders male attainment. industrial

and bureaucratic

society

nature of

modern

and the deemphasis of the

family creates problems of meaning for the

woman

that are

only marginally related to laws and other factors that are not inevitable manifestations of

maining laws that

moved, time will make

few

re-

between the sexes are

re-

male aggression.

differentiate

clear

that

If the

such laws had merely

flowed from society's acknowledging sexual differences and

had not caused such

amendment

differences. Passage of

will have little effect

"discrimination"

we

on

an equal rights

either the inevitable

discussed earlier or on discriminatory

attitudes.

The

seriousness of the problems facing

women

in con-

temporary society may tempt us to ignore or even deny the determinativeness of sexual differentiation, but

145

we have no

Objections and Implications justification

whatsoever for doing

to believe that every

an American

so. It is

problem has not merely a

tive solution that enables society to struggle

next day, but a solution that

is

perfect in

adapt to

No

commitment.

ideological

new

women need

ability to eradi-

its

realities

doubt American society will

by expanding those areas in which

neither remain in the

home nor compete with

men. There are many possible paths, and to the role of seer.

conform

We can

I

would not pretend

be sure, however, that the future

to the realities

I

discuss in this book.

Psychobiological Limitations on Malleability

The

through to the

problem while maintaining perfect congruence with

cate the

will

trait

partial, rela-

Human

possible dangers of overemphasizing the biological fac-

expense of purely cultural factors in any given

tor at the

situation are manifest; any attribute of either sex in any particular society can

be rationalized as an inevitable result of

However, these dangers hardly

predisposition.

biological

justify a denial of the determinative effect of biology in the

areas discussed in this book. Biology should never be used as

an excuse for discrimination.

It

can never give us the

right to judge any individual by the characteristics of the

group

that

which

to

woman

women

most

this fact).

woman

that

individual

are shorter than

(a

six-foot

tall

man and the fact most men does not affect tall

Biology can never justify refusing any particular

any option, but

ferences

belongs

not shorter than a five-foot

is

in

it

does explain universal sexual dif-

behavior and institutions where

cultural

and

environmental explanations cannot. Survival, and not the occupational aspiration of the recent college graduate,

one imperative of evolution.

If the abilities, propensities,

behavior necessary for childbirth were not built into

and

if

is

the

and

women,

the aggression and physical qualities necessary for

protecting

women were

not built into men,

146

we

could not

The Inadequacy have survived.

and the

Any

of a Nonbiological Explanation

explanation of male or female behavior

conform

social institutions that

to

and channel such

behavior that ignores this fact does not deserve consideration.

The equation of human behavior

is

complex for

far too

us ever to be able to speak of the relative importance of

heredity and environment, of nature and nurture, in terms

of percentage.

To

speak of the heredity-environment

action in terms of heredity or environment

marbleized

plistically a

reality in

is

inter-

to describe sim-

terms of striation;

it

is

to

consider the horizon a function only of the sky or only of the sea. However, the amorphous complexity of the heredity-

environment interaction does not

affect

the determinative

nature of the limitations imposed on possibility by the biological

component of

to the limits set

this interaction.

Nurture must conform

by nature. The biological forces that drive

us are directed, but they are not channeled; that job.

We know we

whether

that

we

are

hungry and that we must

normal

in our society

in part a function of expectation

environment

it

affects

No

energies of

eat,

but

number of meals considered

pain

biology.

society's

get hungry three times a day or five times a day

will be determined in part by the

is

is

society, its

and by the general supply of food;

a

feeling

(hunger)

and

to this extent

that

flows

from

however, could ignore the biological

members.

No

social

system could survive

if

did not acknowledge the limitations imposed by our bio-

The members of a society might "decide" "normal" for humans to eat once a day or, as in

logical natures.

that

it

is

our society, three times a day. that

one

eats only

If,

however, a society "decided"

once a month the society would vanish

before the next full moon.

Long before anyone starved, of members would

course, the biological energies of the society's

drive

them

to ignore or alter the institution of mealtimes in

their society.

Such must be the case when a society attempts

to ignore biological reality. In other

only

when

it

is

words, biology demands

scorned completely; most of the time

147

it

Objections and Implications

persuades. Furthermore, societies in general are limited not

only by the biological needs of their members, but by preconditions that are not required by individual survival, but

only by the general nature of society

individuals can

(i.e.,

behave incestuously, but no society can allow widespread parent-child incest and survive).

Over the evolutionary aeons environment has a deterministic effect in that only those species whose can deal with the environment survive. But for a species,

time

and over

(certainly

partially

biologies

mammalian

a relatively small portion of evolutionary

over a

our mere six

period as short as

thousand years of recorded history), evolution's physiology (feedback)

will be small.

Minor

effect

on

physiological

considerations such as skin color might be affected, but the

biochemical and anatomical sex differentiation that continues to

have for us the positive survival value

it

did for the pri-

mates which preceded us will be unaffected by environmental change.

While

sort of limits of possibility its

some

will always be true that heredity will set

it

environment and while

on every it

species' interaction

with

seems that sexual differentiation

(within every order of animal) has increased with each evolutionary step,

mental

it

is

not inconceivable that changing environ-

requirements

engender

will

slowly,

major reduction

a

in

over

long

the

hormonal

However, the currently fashionable argument trialization's

relevant betrays

is

future,

differentiation.

that

indus-

rendering the male's muscular superiority

initiating

ir-

an evolution toward biological sameness

an ignorance of the complexity of the male and

female biological systems, and the extent to which sexual differentiation

that

is

one suspects

diffused throughout those systems, so total

we

than with informed

simplism

is

are dealing scientific

surprising in a time

more with wishful

prediction.

when we

are finally acknowl-

edging nature's complexity on an ecological

148

fantasy

This tendency to

level.

The male

The Inadequacy

of a Nonbiological Explanation

and female hormonal systems are responsible not merely for but for myriad other inter-

the male's physical strength,

related differences in anatomy, biochemistry,

powers that complement the biological that illuminate

women whether

These differences are into us

—

roles of

women and

they have children or not).

would

necessary and

still

and

potential

and emotional

proclivity (including, perhaps, the sensitivity

—even

for the imaginable future

Even cloning would not reduce sexual

be built

still

they were not.

if

differentiation.

Males are expendable and females are not; that alone

would have been reason enough for nature

to select

males to

serve the protective function. If aggression were associated

primarily with the female, protection sibility

would be her respon-

and, given the vulnerable situation of

our species would not have survived. If

all

homo

sapiens,

but a handful

of males were killed while protecting females, the population

would be replaced by the next generation; the number of females would be disastrous for

loss of a large

survival.

One

might point out that we are no longer threatened by other

we no

species (but only by the aggression that

or he might

make

the

more questionable argument

logical invention will replace

assume that

longer need),

women would

women

that bio-

as childbearers

(and

But even

such

desire this).

if

considerations are correct and prophetic, physiological adaptation to

then

new environmental

our

institutions

physiologies.

realities will

conform

will

Ending our excursion

consider the possibility

that

take aeons, and until

to

our

differentiated

into fantasy,

biological

we might

engineering could

eliminate sexual differentiation. Here two points are worth

remembering. tions of

First,

it

will be

men who

power from which the

will be in the posi-

decisions

on how

such techniques are made. Second, there are

we

are capable of doing that

we

many

to

use

things

choose not to do. Soon

we

will be able to select the sex of a child before conception;

but the most primitive of primitive peoples had infanticide

149

Objections and Implications

and could have decided

disposal

their

at

nature's equal distribution of the sexes.

none who thought do

to

to

improve on

For some reason

that they could otherwise survive chose

so.

Long before

the discoveries of empirical evidence indi-

cating the hormone-emotion-behavior association, Freud un-

derstood that the emotions he observed are rivers flowing

from

biological sources to be channeled or blocked by cul-

dams. His dictum on anatomy and destiny

tural canals or

now seems

to enrage his critics, but

—

if

destiny

is

seen in

terms of the certainty of social conformation to biological probability

—

there

surprising that

and

is

we

no doubt

he was

that

right.

his social systems; in this century

not

It is

tend to overrate the malleability of

man

we have overcome

the

physical limitations of our physiology through technology

and now we can the

fish,

fly

and even move the

The works

is

in the times

But Sophocles he wrote.

swim

rivers that the fish

of the greatest Greek scientists are

cally superfluous.

was

higher than the birds, swim deeper than

We

now

as relevant today as

is

are

what we

are,

in.

scientifi-

he

and there

not the slightest shred of evidence that our most basic

elements, the biologically based emotions that flow from our

male and female physiologies and have changed significantly since In

all

human

history there

social institution's

Culture

may

is

that guide our behavior,

man

person

he

is

walked the

earth.

having rendered any emotion irrelevant.

conceivably modify or exaggerate one emotion

in relation to the others; certainly

objects to

first

not a single example of a

it

provides some of the

which emotions are attached;

may be

one society a

envious of another's wealth while in a second

envious of his hunting

vation merely provides are to survive

in

new

we must

ability.

But by and large inno-

channels for old emotions. If

find

our more lethal emotions;

we

ing that male aggression

is

new

we

institutional channels for

will not

end war by pretend-

caused only by social factors.

150

The Inadequacy Aggression

may

inevitable, but

is

An

not be.

eradicated; there inevitable societies

of a Nonbiological Explanation

(this

institution is

its

like

war

institutionalization in

infanticide can easily

be

no biological factor rendering infanticide evident

is

from the

ever practiced infanticide)

that

fact

and

as

as

methods of providing enough food are discovered can abandon infanticide

if it

few

very

soon

other

a society

so chooses.

Unlike infanticide and (perhaps) war, patriarchy, male

dominance and male attainment are inseparable from the physiological factors that engender them.

go

a society can is

About the

in overriding the effects of

furthest

male aggression

the separation of male and female roles so that male ag-

gression is,

is

limited in

its

intrusion on female roles.

of course, exactly what every society has done.

seen that even

when

it

is

this

have

a society emphasizes "feminine" values

and abhors aggression, male aggression and that

And

We

is still

determinative

inconceivable that any society will again ap-

proach the "femininity" of Mbuti. But the problem for those

who would aggression

like to eradicate the determinativeness of is

far greater

even than

this.

If the social

male is

to

override the biological, they must develop a society not merely

with feminine values but with some mechanism for eradicating the connection of aggression to attainment of leadership

and

status positions.

Even

if

we

ignore the fact that this must

be accomplished against the opposition of the males

power,

how would

attaining

power?

A

a society

random

who

hold

keep the most aggressive from selection of leaders?

Convincing

more aggressive that they do not want to lead (in which case leadership must be given low status)? Every society must have values and every society must value some things more highly than others. In every society there will be some members who are more favored by the social structure or who are more endowed with the talents necessary the

for attaining positions, status, prestige, wealth, or objects.

The

latter will increase in

importance as the former declines

151

Objections and Implications in importance. Socialization by the society

the

members of the

and observation by

mem-

society will inculcate in the society's

bers a desire for those positions and things that the society

most highly values. 58 The more aggressive will tend

to attain

these positions and things, particularly in a society that does

not have a rigid social structure. This will be true even in the society with peaceful values. Aggression

is

determinative

to attainment of leadership and status and to dyadic domi-

nance not because a positive social value sion, but because aggression

for attainment

is

is

placed on aggres-

a quality that

is

a precondition

and dominance. In one respect the analogy

of aggression and attainment with strength and boxing prowess

is

imperfect; a society that placed a high status on coop-

erativeness

and a low

status

on competition might conceivably

outlaw boxing so that here the male strength advantage, while just as great,

still

would be of

less

importance. But, since

there could be no society without values, at least fication,

and male-female

interaction,

it is

some

strati-

inevitable that

male

aggression will be determinative to attainment and dominance

even

if a society's

value system despised aggression in

all its

forms. In other words, while behavior

is

the interface of biology

and environment and while environment does channel logical energies, the social system

vironment which

is

an element of the en-

limited by the biological in such a

one cannot even imagine

that

is

d.

bio-

way

type of society in which

the male advantage in the capacity for aggression did not lead to success in all areas for dition for success. In

many

which aggression

groups may engender a situation 58

—

I

grant that

I

make

is

cases the competition in

a precon-

between

which one group succeeds

certain assumptions here about

human motivation

assume that most individuals will tend to desire the positions and things that their societies reward (and socialize them toward) but this would seem so self-evident and so congruent with every theory of motivation I have ever heard that I cannot imagine that anyone will challenge I

—

the assumption.

152

)

The Inadequacy in

of a Nonbiological Explanation

withholding from the members of

all

other groups even

the possibility of attaining positions of authority; in such a situation

we

number of

are

still

dealing with a competition for a limited

desired positions (that

is

what

stratification is),

but a situation in which one group has totally succeeded. It

is,

of course, only in the "competition" between males

and females that one group has a

ad-

definite biological

vantage over the other in the capacity for aggression; in the competition between logical

all

other groups no group has a bio-

advantage over the others and

no variable besides sex which

is

this

why

is

there

is

always correlated with the

attainment of desired positions. (Wealth

is

usually,

though

by no means always, associated with positions of authority, but this

is,

authority.

in

One

many

cases,

because wealth

a

is

can hardly argue that one's sex

result

of

a result of

is

his position of authority.

The only arguments leading

to the conclusion that a society

could separate aggression and attainment that

imagine

rest

on an assumption of the

behaving in what some might think of

can even

I

possibility of

man's

as a totally rational

way. This view would see man's rational mind, his cerebral cortex, as capable of overriding the filter system, the hypothal-

amus, that invests

man not

all

thought with emotion.

It is

true that

has some capabilities in this area that other species do (

no one has ever heard of a chicken

who was

celibate for

moral reasons), but to expect that a large number of the

members of any society will ever be able to override emotions would seem to me pure utopianism. Even ignoring the possibility that

the emotion-producing qualities of the hormones

affect the cortex directly

have cerebral

want

cortices,

and the

man we would that if we

fact that apes as well as

one might question whether

to give primacy to rational

man.

It

is

true

could do away with the emotions there would be

little

or

no

need for many of the institutions of sexual differentiation

and the

institutions that satisfy, channel,

153

and control

lust,

Objections and Implications caring,

and

But without such emotions and the

love.

tions they engender,

by the will to live? Things would be

and

possible, is

life

easier, Utopia

would be very boring. In any

the promised land of the ignorant;

those

who know

societies

whose

reality as

is

it

institu-

what would serve the purpose now served

nothing about institutions

for those

it is

human

case, utopia

just as

simple for

physiology to envision

do not conform

who know

would be

to physiological

nothing about anthro-

pology to blithesomely predict the imminent demise of the family and marriage without considering the myriad functions that these 59

While

two

59 institutions serve in every society.

seems exceedingly likely

it

that,

given the "sex drive" and a

physiological imperative that binds the mother to her infant child, both

marriage and family are institutions that are inevitable for any society that hopes to survive, I am not defending this view here. My point is that the predictions one hears every day of the demise of these institutions not only run counter to observation, but are grounded in an ignorance of the myriad functions these institutions serve and the likelihood that no alternative institutions, easy as they are to imagine, could in reality serve these functions nearly as efficiently. One can imagine a totally promiscuous society or a society in which the functions of status assignment, organization, sexual regulation, and satisfaction of the need for deep emotional attachment are served by alternate institutions, but the fact that no such society has ever existed should at least give pause to all but those who are so upset by the fact that the family can be related to neurosis that they predict the evaporation of the family. The family possesses the ability to generate neurosis precisely because it is the ubiquitous source of feelings, feelings of caring and love which, as the young constantly and correctly complain, are now so scarce. Both joy and neurosis grow only in deep soil. The family, both as the primary source of love and the primary source of socialization, is the primary source of "humanization." To hope to rectify contemporary "dehumanization," which is perhaps more attributable to the weakening of the family than to any other single factor, by the eradication of the family is either Utopian (the dream of a communal society, which no society's women have ever allowed) or ignorant (the expectation that the bureaucratization of child rearing will reverse rather than accelerate "dehumanization" the day-care center is about as likely

—

to be capable of inculcating, say, kindness as

In any case

is

it

the individual

is

the motor vehicle bureau).

ridiculous to view the family from the point of view of

if individual feelings accounted for the existence of the then the institution of the family might not have developed in the first place. But the family is a social institution and as such it gets its meaning, possibly its very existence, from the social. Even if there is ;

family,

no

direct

biological

mother-child

dyad),

element responsible for the family (or at least the even if individuals did not attach feelings to this

154

The Inadequacy There was no doubt

where

of a Nonbiological Explanation as

much

sex in Freud's Vienna as any-

else; the denial of a particular emotion or of a set of

emotions by a segment of society will have

Feminism

institutions of society.

deny physiology and

to

its

is

little effect

hardly the

on the

world-view

first

inevitable social manifestations.

In the nineteenth century there were thousands of fundamentalists

who

cieties

in

denied innate sexuality and

who dreamed

of so-

which the manifestations of sexuality would be

limited solely to

its

did not abhor innate "aggressive"

when

feminist reverses

procreative function. Interestingly, they

human

aggression, but termed

someone

they wanted to compliment him.

this.

At

least in theory

The

she enjoys the idea

of innate sexuality and sees only male aggression as unspeakable.

But both fundamentalism and feminism are anchored

same futility of setting mind against body and both doomed to see their visions of Utopia destroyed by the reality of human physiology. 60 For this physiology is irrel-

in the

are

evant only to the ideology which abhors is

incapable of explaining reality;

it

is

it,

an ideology which

determinative to the

reality itself.

institution

and

"automatically" as a result of sustained contact with mother the family's social necessity would be transmitted through

siblings,

the socialization process, using the parents as agent, to individual children

who would

attach feelings to the institution of the family.

of the demise of the family

The

prediction

even less likely to be correct than the prediction of the demise of the state. But this is all rudimentary sociology. 60 The need to deny the importance of physiological factors to the behavior and institutions we have discussed has forced some to seek ways of denying such importance which serve to demonstrate the disastrous effect ideological requirements can have on intellectual pursuit. In an essay that has been reprinted in many feminist anthologies under various titles and in various versions: see for example, " 'Kinde, Kuche, Kirche as Scientific Law: Psychology Constructs the Female," in Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan, ed. (New York: Random House, 1970) Naomi Weisstein presents us with a veritable catalog of the misstatements of fact and the fallacious reasoning that are the hallmarks of the feminist attempt to explain social reality. Dr. Weisstein proceeds on the assumption that if one demonstrates that psychological and psychiatric tests are incapable of discriminating between male and female subjects he has demonstrated that there are not crucial psychological differences between is

—

—

155

Objections and Implications

men and women.

It is

quite true that there are

many

psychological tests

do not differentiate men from women in their results because they measure one or more of the many areas in which men and women do not differ. It is the areas in which men and women do differ that are of interest to us, and no demonstration that they do not differ in other areas is relevant, demonstrating that men and women do not differ in memory does not indicate that they do not differ in abstract reasoning. As we shall see there are many tests on which one sex does far better than the other; the differences in male and female results on these tests cannot be explained by bias on the part of the experimenter because the questions are of the multiple-choice type. If male and female answers to the questions consistently differ, there must be some reason for their doing so. Why they differ is a question we shall deal with below; differences in test answers demonstrate only that they do differ. The most important point, however, is this: even if it were true that no test was capable of distinguishing between men and women, this fact would reflect only on the value and capabilities of the tests, not on the presence or absence of male-female differences. If Dr. Weisstein asks us to deny that men and

that

women

are

different

in

their

biopsychological

makeup simply because

psychological tests cannot reflect sexual differences she asks us to deny not merely the evidence advanced in this book, not merely the observations of the psychiatrists she quotes with derision, not merely the observations

own experience, not merely the observations of our greatest writers, but the observations of every feminist author. For the feminist authors do not deny the presence of a female world-view and female attitudes indeed

of our

;

they give us

lengthy descriptions of the female

mind

that

differ

from

those of the psychiatrists quoted by Dr. Weisstein not primarily in what is seen, but in the opinion of what is seen and in the explanation of the causation of

what

is

seen.

Where

and behavior, which he sees

the psychiatrist admires nurturant

from a female physiosubmission engendered by social oppression. In the latter part of her essay Dr. Weisstein argues not that there are no important male-female behavioral differences, but that such differences are not universal and that the biological evidence is either faulty or irrelevant. Dr. Weisstein invokes the finding of S. Schachter and J. E. Singer that the effect of adrenaline on behavior is to an extent a function of suggestion, i.e., subjects treated with adrenaline will be euphoric or fearful depending on the actions of others in the room. This is an interesting and valuable fact about adrenaline, though it would seem that anyone who has felt love and fear at different times would know that adrenaline can attach itself to more than one emotion. Absurdity threatens only when one attempts to transfer this insight into the nature of adrenaline to other physiological materials. Would Dr. Weisstein have us believe that insulin is as malleable in its effects? Is there any reason at all to believe that the fetal stimulation of the male brain by fetal testicular testosterone and the presence of high levels of testosterone in the adult male are merely biological catalysts for social suggestion? And again the same question, which invariably asserts itself: if one does so argue, why does no society suggest female dominance to its members? That Dr. Weisstein is aware of this theoretical problem is apparent from the fact that she claims that

attitudes logical

substrate,

the feminist authors

156

as flowing

see

a

The Inadequacy

of a Nonbiological Explanation

Mafgaret Mead has discovered a number of societies in which male dominance is not manifested in social institutions; we have seen that Dr. Mead went out of her way to deny ever having said this and that, in any case, it would not be true even if she had. Dr. Weisstein carries her method to the primate level and invokes all the illogic we were since forced to deal with in Footnote Thirty-Six. She concludes that ". primates are at present too stupid to change their social conditions by themselves, the 'innateness' and 'fixedness' of their behavior is simply unknown." As I have said, it would make no difference at all to the line of reasoning I invoke if aggression in all nonhuman primates were associated with the female or if it had not been shown that primate male aggression manifests itself even when primates are raised in isolation (thus removing the possibility that primate male aggression can be explained by socialization see Footnote Thirty). But one cannot resist asking why, if there is no physiological basis to the differences in aggression between primate males and females, half the groups of each species of primate are not led by females? .

—

157

.

Chapter Seven

Confusion and Fallacy in

the Feminist Analysis

The

Necessity of Theory

Falsity of

assumption cannot be balanced by a doubling of

emotional investment. the core of

all

The biochemical

realities

men and women

social situations involving

cannot be eradicated by an assertion that one in theory. All social

and

tions of the nature of

man, and

is

unaware and confuses

political theory this is true

his ignorance

one accepts the necessity of theory, alternative political,

as

that lie at

is

is

not interested

built

even

if

on concepthe theorist

with objectivity.

When

one does when he posits

economic, or social systems, he must

begin not with a vision of what he would like reality to be like,

but with observation.

He

must accept and explain such

observation or convincingly demonstrate that such observation is

not trustworthy or that

it is

nonsensical not because is

we

The man is

not inevitable.

the "inherent childishness" of the black

concept of criminally

like to believe that the black

man

born the equal of the white, but because observation of

this

and other

societies indicates that the

described as "childish"

is

behavior whites had

not inherent or universal but a

particular response to a particular environmental situation.

Likewise,

all

those "inevitable" feminine characteristics that

158

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis

do turn out

to

be socially rather than biologically determined

can be exposed by anthropology. All one need do a single society in

ciated with

which

a characteristic

women and he

this characteristic

is

discover

clearly not asso-

is

has, by this discovery,

proved that

not inevitable. This has not been accom-

is

plished with patriarchy, male dominance, or male attainment

of high-status roles and positions. Since the feminist cannot

do

she must attempt to refute the determinativeness of

this

the hormonal factor on a theoretical level. Simply denying that

anatomy

a denial

is

sets limits

repeated or

anatomy any

on

destiny,

how

no matter how often such

derisive

make

determinative to the limits of possible des-

less

tiny. It is pointless for the feminist to

in order to "concentrate if

tone, does not

its

on the

ignore the theoretical

political

and the economic";

the male hormonal system renders males

than females and

if

aggression

is

an advantage for

ment, then "ignoring the theoretical" ing the dearth of

women

more aggressive

is

attain-

analogous to explain-

boxing champions by discussing

only economic and political discrimination against

women

boxers. This analogy seems extreme not because there are

many more women attainment

—

in the highest positions of

there are not

—but

power and

because the reader has no

emotional resistance to the acknowledgment of male physical strength while he resists with

male aggression advantage.

all his

energy the

If the political

tems do not conform to the limitations ferentiation,

Four

it is

set

incumbent on the feminist

reality of the

and economic

sys-

by hormonal

dif-

to so demonstrate.

Fallacies

Our comparison

of the feminist line of reasoning with that

of the fundamentalist

is

particularly illuminating

examine feminist attempts logical

to

when we

explain away the anthropo-

and biological evidence we have examined. Virtually

every feminist theoretical argument could be as easily, and no

more

absurdly, advanced to deny the existence or determina-

159

Objections and Implications

we

tiveness of those physiological sexual factors

and

to as the "sex drive" society's

conforming

capacity

for aggression,

deny the

to

inevitability of every

institutions to this drive.

its

memory, or

is

activated by the stimuli

fantasy.)

Since there

many

individuals

there are

would have

who deny

many men who

to argue that there are

this drive in themselves,

are insecure

enough

attempt to prove

this drive in a constant

no

is

conformation to

exception to the universality of societal the "sex drive," one

(Like the

can be seen as

"sex drive"

the

nothing more than a capacity which of environment,

loosely refer

that

to exaggerate

presence, that

its

there are nonsexual areas of desire in which physiology relevant only as capacity versality of societal

and not

acknowledgment of the sex drive does

not "prove" that such acknowledgment

have not proven

is

as tendency, that the uni-

—and

is

inevitable, that

could never prove

—with

we

deductive

conclusiveness that this drive exists, that no society has ever

even tried to deny to a large number of

its

members

in-

stitutional channels for this drive's satisfaction, that the so-

cialization

of every society assumes the existence of this

and that

drive,

capitalists

exploit this drive. This line of

reasoning differs from that of the feminist only in that the feminist has no emotional barrier preventing her from seeing the absurdity of the fundamentalist reasoning. It is

often suggested that

we

should ignore the

illogic of

feminist analyses because such illogic represents merely the

"excesses" that must be expected of a social movement.

I

do

not think one has the right to ask even this of the theorist,

we deal with here is much more serious. For we discuss are not peripheral or unimpor-

but the problem the fallacies tant,

but are central to the entire feminist line of reasoning.

There are great differences among feminists litical

approach, and in reasonableness; but

in tone, in poall

who do

not

ignore the anthropological and biological evidence altogether

begin with the incorrect assumption that sexual hormonal

160

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis

and

all

attempt to compensate for this incorrect assumption by

in-

differences are irrelevant to behavior

voking one or more of four basic This being the

case,

and

institution,

lines of fallacious reasoning.

we need not dwell on each individual we have discussed (or will discuss in

feminist analysis. Since

this chapter) the internal contradictions that lie at the core of

the analyses of every feminist writer

who

has attempted to

deal with the anthropological and biological evidence, here a cursor)'

The rect

examination first

is

sufficient to

expose these four

of these admits that the evidence

is

but argues that the existence of individuals

conform

to societal

norms

fallacies.

basically cor-

who do

not

that are universal demonstrates that

such societal norms are not inevitable.

We have discussed

the

pointlessness of invoking the exception to disprove the in-

here

evitability of the rule, so

we might

only reiterate that

reasoning would force one to argue that because some members of every society will deny the sexual forces

this line of

within themselves and remain celibate,

it is

not inevitable that

every society must provide institutional channels for our species'

sexual needs.

As we have

seen, inevitability for the

whole

not only need not, but usually will not, imply inevitability for every individual tence of

if

biological probability

some women who

lessen the fact that there

are taller than

is

a factor; the exis-

some men does not

a biological reason

of every society are taller than the

The second

is

women

why

the

men

of their societies.

feminist fallacy involves one or

more of

vari-

ous lines of reasoning that assume that two entities that have

some this

aspects in

is

common

are, therefore, functionally identical;

the sort of reasoning that sees a

identical because both

have

legs.

man and

Thus the

a table as

crucial relevance

of male fetal hormonalization to aggressive behavior and to social institutions that differentiate

between the sexes

is

denied

because there are cyclical aspects to both male and female biology.

Thus the importance of those

types of cognitive and

psychological tests that can discriminate between the sexes

161

is

Objections and Implications

denied because other types of cognitive and psychological cannot so discriminate. Thus the inevitability of quali-

tests

tatively different

forms of socialization of the sexes

denied

is

because sexual differences in the biological materials relevant to aggression are quantitative

the cries of an infant ences

become

men,

—

quantitative

and

qualitative

women

(i.e.,

testosterone nor are they passive;

and continuous sex

from

we

his skeletal remains. 61

when

discrete only

A

manifested in social conceptions).

have raised the point that

are not without

too, are vulnerable to

cannot

This

number of

tell

feminists

the sex of a person

not true, but

is

differ-

they are

let

us assume

Germaine Greer [The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, something of a master at introducing irrelevant factors and making it sound as if she were proving a point. Her attempt to disprove 61 Dr.

1971)],

is

biological considerations appears in her

Perhaps when to see

we have

what the information which

the female sex really

is,

who

the reader

we

learn to "read the

paragraph.

DNA

common

is

but even then

argument from biological data

To

first

learnt to read the

we

will be able

members

to all

of

will be a long and tedious

it

to behavior (p. 15).

not knowledgeable in this area this sentence no doubt sounds as if it means something. But let us once again use the analogy of boxing. Dr. Greer's logic would force us to say that we will have no idea whether biology is relevant to male superiority in boxing until

will

know how

is

DNA." When we

the male genetic

will develop superior strength

—

we

DNA"

hardly need to "read the

is

learn to "read the

—

DNA" we

"program's" direction that the male encoded in the genetic materials, but in order to

know

that

it

is

so en-

one considers the behavior of boxing and agrees that a certain strength level is a precondition for boxing prowess, then the biological element is apparent from the greater muscularity of the male; to see the connection between sexual biology and behavior in this area one does not need to "read the DNA." Likewise, we know the hormonal evidence relevant to aggression. Nothing much will be added to our knowledge of the importance of hormones to aggression when we can precisely describe the genetic etiology of the hormonal development. The use of boxing as behavior to which sexual biology is relevant also allows us to deal with the attempt to dismiss biological considerations that emphasizes that women as well as men produce testosterone (though of course in lesser amounts and not in a context of a "masculinized" brain). Women also have muscles (though smaller ones than males), and, just as women are coded.

If

aggressive (though less so than males), so could they box. In both cases the differences become qualitative when society conforms its

quantitative

socialization

practices

to

biological

probability.

While

some women

could no doubt become better boxers than some men, society must, for

162

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis that

What

were.

it

would

difference

male and female bones are

this

make? To

identical hardly casts

say that

doubt on the

determinative effect of the male and female hormonal systems. Similarly fallacious reasoning

points out that are considered

women perform male

roles in

that in nearly every case this status in

our is

when

the feminist

roles in other societies that society.

Now we

have seen

because such roles have high

our society and low status in others so that in our

men

society

involved

is

"use" their aggression to attain such roles while

in others they use their aggression to attain other

status) roles.

But

let

us assume that

in our society are associated

some

roles (or qualities)

with the male for purely arbitrary

we have spoken

reasons and are not related to the factors about.

(high-

Of what importance is this to the question of biological To focus on these aspects rather than on the

differentiation?

male dominance, and male

universality of patriarchy,

ment of

sexual differentiation tainly

attain-

high-status roles in order to deny the importance of is

mimic the lawyer who

to

you have four witnesses

crime, but

I

have twelve

who

who saw my

argues, "Cer-

client

commit the

didn't."

This fallacy has been invoked to deny differences in tem-

perament between

men and women;

because our society's

association of emotional expressiveness

ness with the female

is

and demonstrative-

reversed in other cultures, innate

sexual differences in temperament are denied. This does onstrate that

it is

not at

all

inevitable that the

men

dem-

of a society

be "less emotional" than the women, that the males be demonstrative in expressing their male emotions than are in expressing their female emotions, but

on the

possibility of innate differences in

it

casts

less

women

no doubt

male and female

emotions. reasons If it

we have discussed, socialize women away from such behavior. if women attempted to attain their goals through force, they

did not,

would

That Dr. Greer is aware of the theoretiapparent from the fact that whenever contradiction threatens she abruptly ends the chapter.

cal

lose in almost every problems in her work

case.

is

163

Objections and Implications

The dence

third fallacious

is

method of

rejecting distasteful evi-

the invocation of a sophistic tool that one might call

"the fallacy of the glancing blow." In committing this fallacy,

one

who

cannot face the implications of a basically sound

theory, reasonable premise, or trustworthy observation, totally

dismisses such theory, premise, or observation by focusing

only on excesses and perverted uses and would have us believe that such a glancing

blow

These excesses and per-

lethal.

is

verted uses are often quite real, and their exposure often quite clever, but there

that lie behind

the predictive

many

no more reason

them than there

power of physics

cause "physicists in

is

to reject the basic ideas

is

to reject physics because

is

less

make bombs." This

than absolute or be-

fallacy can

areas not related to feminism.

Many

be seen today

reject the possi-

ble intellectual validity of psychoanalysis altogether merely

because the nature of

ment of

mind and behavior precludes

the attain-

a level of certainty possible for the physical sciences

(thereby raising the real possibility that theoretical constructs

become

will

self-fulfilling prophecies).

Others reject even

the possibility that homosexuality can be meaningfully described as pathological simply because

we now know

that a

certain portion of the homosexual's unhappiness results not

from

his homosexuality,

but from societal ostracism.

Still

others declare the entire concept of normality altogether meaningless as a description of an individual's ability to deal with his

environment because a distorted definition of normality

may be used

as a device for political oppression.

to say that there can never

This

is

not

be valid arguments for rejecting

psychoanalysis, accepting homosexuality as normal, or con-

sidering

must

all

behavior equally normal, but that such attacks

strike at the heart's core to

Thus

be

fatal.

today feminists ask us to dismiss the possibility that determinative to behavior and

hormonal

differentiation

institution

merely because bogus biological arguments have

been invoked against

is

women and 164

other groups in the past.

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis

As

a result they refuse even to consider the hypothesis that

men and women might

the differing hormonal systems of

reasonably be thought to result in differing propensities and

behavior merely because a hormone-behavior relationship has

never been "proved" with a certainty that the inductive ap-

proach of science can never, even theoretically, achieve.

The

feminist rejection of scientific evidence usually takes the form

of branding any scientific,"

much

work

that refers to

any statement he dislikes

"pseudo-

as

as "pseudo-intellectual"; the femi-

demonstrate about

nists usually

the scientific

hormones

as the present Vice-President will describe

method

Both tend

lectual approach.

as

much understanding

as the Vice-President

to refer to

does of the

of

intel-

any logic that they

cannot handle as "sophistry."

The glancing-blow

evasion occasionally involves the invoca-

tion not of excesses but of an endless

some of which may have

number of

a certain validity

criticisms,

under certain

cir-

cumstances, but which cast no doubt on the basic soundness of that

which

is

being

criticized.

in certain types of research,

Thus one invokes the fact that, there has been shown to be a

tendency for the researcher to overestimate the evidence supporting the affirmation of an hypothesis; this has been in-

voked to dismiss the findings of anthropologists that archy

is

universal. This tendency

consideration

when one

cated research, but

is

is

occasionally a meaningful

deals with certain types of sophisti-

hardly relevant to patriarchy (which can

be demonstrated by merely counting the number of

women

in positions of suprafamilial authority). In

state this use of

patri-

men and

its

crudest

"glancing blow" dismisses anthropological

evidence because "all the ethnographers have been men." point

is

not so

much

that this

is

The

not true, but that this criticism

betrays the ideological nature of the feminist's intellectual

approach. Only one whose commitment

is

totally to ideology

could seriously believe that any anthropologist would spend

two years

in another culture

and then

165

lie

about the per-

Objections and Implications

centages of

more,

men and women

in authority positions. Further-

an anthropologist were to

if

in the other direction;

who

pologist

fame

is

lie,

he would certainly

the sure reward of any anthro-

discovers a society without patriarchy. This

not to say that differing perspectives or mental

and female anthropologists cannot

sets

social life, but

is

of male

result in differing inter-

some of the exceedingly complex

pretations of

gist,

lie

aspects of

nonsensical to argue that any anthropolo-

it is

male or female, would see matriarchy or female domi-

nance where none

exists

—

and, indeed, no ethnographer ever

has.

Similarly,

in challenging the theory presented here

might attempt

one

to exaggerate into the determinative factor such

methodological considerations as the

difficulty

of develop-

ing a precise description of the institutional manifestations of

male dominance, the lack of standardization studies, the small size of

in ethnographic

Dr. Money's sample, and the dangers

that are always implicit in the generalization to the level of experimental studies of

none of these

criticisms

nonhuman

anywhere near

is

own

animals.

human While

lethal against the

area, each does

have a

partial validity. If the theory presented here rested

on the

evidence

it

attacks even in

its

evidence of just one of these areas, then perhaps the challenge, while not overwhelming,

would be worthy of

serious

consideration. But to attempt to dismiss a theory that can sacrifice the

evidence of any of these areas without damaging

the evidence provided by the others, particularly

of these criticisms it

attacks,

The

is

to

is

lethal to

commit the

when none

even the evidence of the area

"fallacy of the glancing blow."

fourth and most crucial of the feminist fallacies in-

volves the confusion of cause and function.

We

need not

involve ourselves in a detailed discussion of causation here; a simple

biology

example should

made him

suffice.

that way.

A

jockey

is

small because

There may be an element of

feedback here in that the jockey might well weigh more

166

if

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis

reward his weighing

society did not

as little as possible, but

the causation involved in the determination of his physical characteristics

is

jockey,

is

The

certainly primarily biological.

that his size plays in society,

its

function

manifestation in his role of

not biological, but society's putting his size to use.

Likewise, the economic functions that sexual differentiation requires

do not cause the

ment of male aggression system.

differentiation.

The

biological ele-

will manifest itself in any

economic

useless for the Marxist to attempt to disprove

It is

the inevitability of male attainment of authority and status positions by demonstrating that males attain such positions in a capitalist society.

and

They do

economies

socialist

must conform

in societies

also.

with primitive, feudal,

Because the social and economic

to the biological,

we

can change any variable

and patriarchy will not be diminished. whether the

Political rule

is

male

institutions relevant to private property, control

of the means of production, and class stratification are as mini-

mally present as society. It

is

is

possible or as advanced as

male whether

a society

is

is

found

in

any

patrilineal, matrilineal,

or bilateral; patrilocal, matrilocal, or neolocal; white, black, or heterogeneous;

racist, separatist,

or equalitarian; primitive,

preindustrial, or technological; Shintoist, Catholic, or Zoroastrian;

monarchical,

Quaker, or Bourbon;

totalitarian,

forbids

democratic;

Spartan,

ascetic, hedonist, or libertine. It

no difference whether a cifically

or

makes

society has a value system that spe-

women from

entering areas of authority or,

like Communist China, an ideological and political commitment to equal distribution of authority positions. One cannot

"disprove" the inevitability of biological factors manifesting themselves by demonstrating the function that they serve in a political or

to,

and

In short, the fallacy here

men

No

economic system.

did not conform

utilize, is

system could operate that

the reality that constitutes

it.

the reasoning that concludes that

rule because of the nature of the political-economic sys-

tem and ignores the

reality

that the possible varieties

167

of

Objections and Implications

political-economic systems are limited by, and must conform to,

the nature of man.

Vulgarized Marxism This

the fallacy that

is

women

treat

the core of

is at

work and

derived from Engels's as a class.

There

all

are, to

all

of the analyses

of those analyses that

be sure, a number of

Marxist writings on the subject of sex-role differentiation that

do not commit

this fallacy; these either

do not disagree with

the theory presented in this essay or admit that the hormonal factor

case

relevant, but argue that

is

we

cannot, as

we have

and the nature of

malleability

it

need not be; in the

seen in our discussion of

latter

human

society, logically disprove the

theoretical possibility of a society without values, stratification,

or status differentiation, but can only point out the Utopian

nature of such a hypothesized society, reiterate that the same

argument could be made by the fundamentalist for the

possi-

bility

of a society that overrode the sex drive of the majority

of

members, and admit

its

and no

that,

/'/

there were no

hierarchies of any kind, then there

government

would be no

patri-

known contemporary feminist works, such as Sexual Politics, The Female Eunuch, and Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex 62 all invoke either aspects of archy.

The

better

62 Shulamith

Firestone,

Morrow, 1970). Miss

The

of Sex (New York: William book begins with the advantage (over

Dialectic

Firestone's

those of Drs. Millett and Greer) of an at least tentative admission that men and women are different from each other. Her acknowledgment of

however, limited to the woman's reproductive role and no made of the determinative hormonal differentiation. Like Simone de Beauvoir's infinitely better book, The Second Sex (New York: Knopf, 1953), Miss Firestone's book admits the universality of patriarchy without giving the reader any reason to doubt that the forces that have engendered patriarchy will continue to do so. Where Dr. de Beauvoir is immune to the criticism that she does not introduce the hormonal evidence we have discussed in Chapter Three (little of which had been discovered when Dr. de Beauvoir wrote), Miss Firestone chose merely to ignore the evidence that renders her theory irrelvant. Dr. de Beauvoir's book fails only when it deals with the etiology of patriarchy, male attainment, and male dominance; elsewhere it offers a great deal that is of biology

mention

is,

is

168

.

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis Engels's reasoning or an approach that the authors believe

an adaptation of a Marxist analysis, but with which,

to be

suspect,

no serious Marxist would

associate himself.

I

By deny-

ing or ignoring sexual hormonal differentiation, these authors

human

force the histories of all

societies into the

framework

of economic determinism in order to confuse the conformations of

economic systems to the

reality of

male and female

biologies with the biological determinants of differing sexual roles.

While the

latter

two of these books demonstrate the

same ignorance of the relevant anthropological and biological and the same

facts

total

ignorance of what theory

that permeates Sexual Politics,

is all

about

Dr. Millett's book that

it is

is

most annoying to the serious scholar. For, unlike Sexual Poli-

The Female Eunuch and The

tics,

Dialectic of Sex

do not

attempt to camouflage their intellectual inadequacy behind a facade of scholarship and a misconception that a profusion of footnotes compensates for a lack of the hard logic and hard

mental work of real scholarship. Since any analysis of patriarchy must either accept the determinativeness of hormonal differentiation or demonstrate that such differentiation

need not engender patriarchy,

need not detain ourselves with the that consider only the analysis that views

bother with. the the

we

Marxist analyses

economic and ignore the biological. The

women

It is sufficient

as a class

is

too

silly

for us to

for our purposes to point out that

members of one class are not hormonally different from members of another and that the individuals of one class

do not pair als

specific

off in

head-to-head encounters with the individu-

of another (thereby rendering each

more

tightly

bound

to a

member

member

of each class

of the other class than to

any member of his own)

Miss Firestone's book is both an unsubstantiated assertion that for some reason biology is no longer determinative and a fantasy of suggested social changes whose probabilities range from minuscule to nonexistent.

value.

169

Objections and Implications

When

the Marxist feminist attempts to deal directly with

the question of biology

we

can expect the arrival of Glancing

Blow's ne'er-do-well sibling, Red Herring. In her otherwise

commendable

"Women: The

piece,

Longest Revolution,"

63

acknowledges the necessity for the Marxist to

Juliet Mitchell

deal with the biological factor, but presents the biological factor not in terms of

hormonal

differentiation, but in terms

of the family. She implies that the institution of the family, or at least

its

relevant aspects,

therefore, that patriarchy

may

may

not be inevitable and,

Now

not be inevitable.

there

are quite strong anthropological arguments for the assertion that

no

society could be built

of the family and that, even

on

a foundation other than that

if

one could, the family would

represent not oppression of the female but

triumph. But this

is

not

my

demonstrate that biology archy

is

monal

No

woman's

greatest

point here. For Dr. Mitchell to

not insurmountable, that patri-

is

not inevitable, she must demonstrate that sexual hor-

differentiation does not render patriarchy inevitable.

attack

on the family or any other red herring

such an attack were successful

—can

— even

if

lessen the probability of

the correctness of the theory presented herein.

No

analysis

that attempts to explain the causation of sex-role behavior or

sexually-differentiated institutions in purely economic terms

can claim parity with an analysis that utilizes the hormonal factor in

its

explanation of the limits of social

an analysis may go far toward clarifying cialization,

form

reality;

such

the roles, so-

meanings, values, and ideologies of a society con-

to the limits set

by the hormonal factor or

vary within the limits, but selves,

how

much

less

how

The Marxist attempt is

as

to explain patriarchy, in

these

cannot explain the limits them-

demonstrate that there are no such

and male dominance served by these

it

limits.

male attainment,

terms of the economic functions

absurd as an attempt to explain male

boxing superiority by demonstrating that male boxers earn big salaries, that males are socialized toward boxing, or that 63

New

Left Review, 40:11-37 (November-December, 1966).

170

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis

our ideology associates boxing with males. that an alternative value system

One might

argue

might outlaw boxing (thereby

eradicating male attainment in this area), but

if

one then

argues that a society could similarly eradicate patriarchy, male attainment, and male dominance by eradicating group values, stratification,

government, and dyadic dominance he once

again invokes Utopia.

Vulgarized Marxism not only ing

by ignor-

the biological and anthropological evidence,

all

empirically in that

fails

fails theoretically

socialist society to

it

must explain the

it

also

failures of each

reduce patriarchy in terms of each indi-

men

vidual socialist society. In socialist countries attain the high-status

practicing

roles;

(as

continue to

opposed

to

re-

Union tend to be women, but the role of doctor in the Soviet Union receives low status relative to that which it receives in the United States. 64 As search) doctors in the Soviet

we have

seen, this

is

the crucial point. If being a practicing

doctor were a high-status role in the Soviet Union, the doc-

would be men. Because the

tors is

not a very high-status

role,

role of the practicing doctor

men

use their aggression to

medicine in

attain other, higher-status roles. In time practical

the Soviet

but

if,

Union

will

become

for any reason, this role

identified as

were

"woman's work,"

to gain status,

men would

move into the field and would attain those positions now held by women. All the famous and powerful (though perhaps not the best) cooks in France are men.

The

Failure to Ask

Like the analyses tional

we

"Why"

have

just discussed, a

number of

tradi-

economic and sociological analyses ignore biology and

cross-cultural anthropology altogether (or treat superficiality that

is

them with

a

tantamount to ignoring them) and con-

64 For data relevant to status in the Soviet

Union see "The Social EvaluOccupations in the Soviet Union" in Slavic Review (28,4), "Soviet Women and Their Self-Image" in Science and Society (39,3, p. 294), and Dodge, op. cit.

ation

of

171

Objections and Implications

on the manifestations of biology

centrate

(boys are encouraged to compete, become

while

and

socialization

scientists,

etc.,

encouraged to develop their nurturant quali-

girls are

ties, etc.)

in

in

economic

whelming number of partment chairmen,

(males constitute the over-

reality

senators, corporation presidents, etc.).

scientists,

Some

Woman's

such as Elizabeth Janeway's Man's World, Jessie Bernard's

Women

and the Public

de-

of these works,

Interest,

Place,

and Cynthia

Fuchs Epstein's Woman's Place are honest and intelligent while others are shoddy and wastes of the reader's time. But all

of these works are irrelevant to the general questions

addressed in this book; no primarily economic or sociological analysis

—no

matter

how high

quality

its

—can

ever explain

the causation involved in patriarchy, male dominance, and

male attainment of high-status

roles

and

positions.

Such works

merely document the presence of these universals in this society, a presence that human biology renders inevitable in this

and every other

society.

The more

the feminists produce such

documentation, the deeper they dig the grave for their basic

assumption that these institutions are not inevitable.

Here we Even the

see the ultimate failure of the feminist analysis.

works are grounded

best of the feminist

erroneous assumption

in the

that demonstrating that a society at-

men and women men have often said that men and women somehow proves that these different values and

taches different values and expectations to

(or showing that are different)

expectations are totally arbitrary and are not the social mani-

women have bemen have told them why it is the women of

festations of biological imperatives (or that

haved

—

to

in

in a

feminine way simply because

which case one might ask

every society

around )

.

who

listen to the

Because these works

men and fail

never the other way

even to acknowledge the

problem of causation by asking "why" {why does every ety socialize boys toward,

why

and

girls

are the nonmaternal roles of

172

soci-

away from, competition,

women

never given high

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis

by any society,

status

with the male, the sciences )

,

why

One

dents are men.

from playing with

As long

attempt

as the feminist

tell

dolls or girls

at

presi-

theory

the hormonal evidence or simply asserts that such

all

evidence

away from

most senators and corporation

fist-fighting or that

ignores

are socialized

does not need a sociologist to

that boys are dissuaded

from

every society associate authority

women who

they cannot be considered theory, but, at best,

merely description.

him

why does

is it

is

unimportant, as long as

ignores and leaves

it

unexplained the universality of patriarchy, male attainment,

and male dominance, and

no

as

long as

and females away from aggressive little

and explain

But

to ask

it

ignores the fact that

toward aggressive pursuits

society fails to socialize males

pursuits,

it

will illuminate

less.

why,

to look for theory in order to understand

rather than selective description in order to justify ideology,

requires that one lay before the reader all of his facts,

all

of

his assumptions, all of his reasoning, and, only then, all of

his conclusions so that

down and identify down the short on all

about;

it

—

if

is

—

wrong

the reader can track

the circuit board. This

from the perhaps

differs

insightful nontheoretical

sentence and follow clusion,

he

his mistake just as the electrician tracks

its

work

in that

is

what theory

brilliant

is

and perhaps

one may choose any

thought to the thought's logical con-

do the same with any other sentence, and find that

the logical extensions not only do not contradict each other,

but create harmonies that explain even sentences taken individually. This

ment of any work demanding

to

is

more than do the two

the

minimum

require-

be taken seriously. But

this

the feminist dares not do lest the inaccuracy of her facts, the fallaciousness of her reasoning, the incorrectness of her conclusions,

posed for

and the general inadequacy of her all to see.

analysis be ex-

65

65 It is not coincidental that the intellectual background of nearly every author of feminist anthropological and biological theory (Millett, Greer,

173

Objections and Implications

A

The Obscurantism

Digression:

Inadequate Analysis The feminist analysis is most

of

an when

obviously inadequate

it

deals with the manifestations of biological sex differences that are discussed in the theory presented in this book.

Com-

plex as the areas of patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment of high-status roles and positions are, however, the intellectual

damage caused by

minimized by our

hormonal

the feminist analysis

ability to explain the

is

mechanisms by which

reality limits social possibility. In this digression I

wish to discuss not these potential for obscureness

areas, but the areas in

which the

far greater, areas in

which our

is

present knowledge precludes rigorous explanations of sex differences but in

which the differences we observe may quite

possibly be real and inevitable aspects of different "mental gestalts" that flow

The logical

from the

different biologies of the sexes.

refusal to consider the possibility that there

component of observed sexual

as the sensitivity necessary for nurturance,

relates

to field

is

a bio-

differences in areas such

perception as

it

dependence or independence, superego de-

velopment and pathology, the nature of sexual arousal, the personalization of reality, the ability to

make and remember

psychologically significant observations (compare the blurred

and obvious description given by the husband with the specific

and perceptive observations detailed by the wife when a

couple discusses the party they have just attended), the preconditions for scientific and artistic genius, and in

all

the

other incredibly subtle, interrelated areas for which observa-

Firestone, Figes, Janeway, Mitchell, and, to a lesser extent,

has been literature or cal

art.

An

De

bearing on the correctness of his analysis, of course, and the

of these authors offer

much

Beauvoir)

author's intellectual background has no logithat

is

illuminating

when

last three

they are not dis-

cussing anthropological and biological theory, but one cannot ignore the fact

that

no serious woman biologist or anthropologist has offered her

support for the theories of these writers.

174

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis tion indicates that there are sex differences,

we have some part. We know

intellectually

is

indefensible until

reason to assume that biology

does not play a

that sexual biology

to the areas discussed in the theory presented in this

we know

men and women

that

whatever the cause. Therefore,

is

crucial

book and

think and behave differently, it

does not seem unreasonable

to suggest that the sex differences listed

above might repre-

sent manifestations of innate differences that have evolved as

men and women have

fulfilled their biological roles. In

whether these subtle differences are biologically or

case,

cially generated, they

do

exist,

so-

and rejections of descriptions

because one does not like such descriptions

This

any

is

hardly justified.

not to deny the potential danger of an expectation's

is

becoming

a self-fulfilling prophecy;

however, to reject the

validity of all our observations of sex differences for this

reason

is

to

commit the

"fallacy of the glancing

to ignore the question of I

why we have

blow" and

such expectations.

think that, in part, the feminist's rejection of the bio-

underpinnings of sexual differences

logical

is

owing

to her

immediate identification with what she imagines to be the

male

situation

—an imagining made simpler by her ignorance

of the negative aspects of the male vision. This refusal to even consider descriptions and to accept that which

which

is

good

is

is

male

as that

most apparent when the feminists attempt

to deal with psychoanalysts like Erik Erikson, psychoanalysts

who,

after

all,

have been trying to correct the admittedly

negative cast of some of Freud's writings on

ing that the feminine behavior of

all

women by showwomen is

the world's

not passive reaction, but an active, life-sustaining force. Half the feminists totally reject

all

psychoanalytic interpretation of

female behavior while the other half describe the ways in

which

a "sexist" society

produces

women

not unlike those

praised by Erikson. Indeed, the very point of the feminist analysis

woman

is

not that the contemporary

woman

is

unlike the

Erikson describes and sees as crucial to our species'

175

Objections and Implications survival, but that this ority results

ments

from

woman

is

inferior

and

that her inferi-

socialization rather than biology. So, judg-

aside, the question of biology seems, as always, to

be

the heart of the matter.

Given

its

and

soft intellectual core

its

simplistic approach

to the complexities of reality, the feminist analysis

incapable

is

of dealing with the most interesting aspects of sexual differentiation.

For example, feminists often portray the male

viewing the

woman

as

as

"unprincipled," quote some nine-

teenth-century misogynist for "documentation," and then dis-

miss discussion of the entire area. In their idealized version of the male view of possible sexual differences in superego

development, feminists assume the superiority of the line of

development of superego sanctions that leads chiatrist's

men

to the psy66

couch and to fight wars for "great causes."

This

assumption dooms them to unhappiness, but more importantly for our purposes

it

leads

differences that observation

process sists

— implores

them

to dismiss

— the

first

us to study

more

from discussion

step in the intellectual

closely.

Even

if

on maintaining that psychological development

66 This analysis

is

one

is

in-

totally

virtually free of reference to psychoanalytic theory,

the genius of Freud becomes more apparent. The absence of hard hormonal evidence necessitated Freud's positing a number

yet with

every

word

Today he would no doubt subour knowledge of testosterone for "aggressive instinct," but otherwise his explanation of the way in which the superego usurps the aggression that is natural in humans and uses it against the ego explains sexual differences in the mechanisms of guilt flawlessly and demonstrates why the greater natural aggression of men should lead more often to exaggerated superego sanctions. The feminist dismissal of Freud or, to be more precise, what the feminists think is a dismissal of Freud (without an awareness or understanding of what they are doing, the feminists utilize those elements of Freudian theory that suit their ideological purposes and of then hypothetical biological elements. stitute

dismiss other,

just as intellectually valid, Freudian theories) and their absurd overemphasis on the theory of penis envy (which Freud advanced very tentatively and which most psychoanalysts have long since greatly modified and have viewed with a great deal of suspicion) would be intellectual dishonesty of the grossest sort were it not the work of individuals who are incapable of the slightest understanding of the inner elegance of Freudian theory.

176

, .

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis a function of social factors,

for disregarding his

own

he has no

intellectual justification

women

observation that

fighting a

duel for honor strikes us as being absurd and that

is

it

un-

imaginable that Crime and Punishment could have been writ-

would have been written by a woman) For the remainder of this section I would like to introduce a number of random thoughts and observations not as proof of anything, but as an indication of the incredible number of ten about a

woman

(or

observations of sexual differences

we make

may have

lihood that each of these differences

component

that the feminist analysis

and the

daily

like-

a biological

would have us

disregard.

A. The feminist "explanation" of the fact that our anthro-

pomorphized God is

is

male

is

limited to a declaration that this

merely another example of "sexism" and the matter

Our understanding of

at that.

reality

would be

is

left

better served

by our examining the possibility that the sex of an anthro-

pomorphized God

God

in a monotheistic society (or of the highest

in a polytheistic society)

logically generated qualities of

and economic needs of the seen, authority

and, given

is

human

is

a function of both the bio-

men and women and

associated with the

biology, this

is

this

must

—

God,

ety, will

will look to a

if

God

male

—

as

A

society that

any industrial

associated with authority,

anthropomorphized by the members of the

always be male. But just as

with the male and

fertility

we

authority with the male, ligion

and look

stance

where

and soci-

with the female (Mother Nature)

biology, these associations are inevitable.

members of an

soci-

associate authority

so does every other society and, again given

that the

we have

in every society

inevitable.

emphasizes bureaucratic organization ety

the social

For example: as

society.

male and female

One might

expect

agricultural society, while associating

would deemphasize authority female God.

to a fertile,

this is the case

that the core of all religion

— perhaps

is

finite

I

this

know is

an indication

man's fear of an

universe and his need of a transcendent authority

177

in re-

of no in-

infinite

—but

at

Objections and Implications

of reasoning allows comprehension where a

least this sort

comprehension of any

cry of "sexism" precludes

B. Examination of the

sort.

most mundane matters can illumi-

nate for those willing to look for causation rather than mere description. Let us take the married

woman who

is

referred

Mrs. and wears a wedding ring. Let us say that

to as

woman

angry because married

is

men

this

are not differentiated

from single men by terminology and wear wedding rings less

often than do

angry. But

if

the

far

women.

Now

woman

argues that these distinctions are

one needs no "right" to get

merely arbitrary or even that they are present only because

male aggression enables men definitely

to individual convenience.

Even

taining that our expectation that

sexual aggressor (though by no initiator)

is

tenable assertion,

it

male which

The inconvenience

This

is

67 It

insists

on main-

who

the male

is

the

necessarily the sexual

some

in

reality,

my

view a

totally un-

should be obvious that the institutions of

women that

easily

society's

are available

would be

society that did not differentiate in

one

if is

it

means

Mrs. 67 and the wedding ring are

women

almost

unrelated to the realities of male and female

hormonal and anatomical

to the

is

inherent in the very nature of society,

reality, to necessities

and

to enforce them, she

wrong. Social expectations are related to biological

way of

indicating

and which are

suffered by

women

not.

in a

between single and married

observed way would be intolerable.

reflected in the fact that, to the best of

my

knowledge,

would not be surprising

if the feminist attempt to replace the Mrs. with Ms. were successful in the business sphere (on letters, for example), but success will have nothing to do with the feminist intention. The function served by differentiation of married from single women is irrelevant for the company that is sending out its monthly bills (or to the male writing to a female stranger about a business matter), and here Ms. is convenient and possible. The real function of differentiation is important only in face to face contact; it is here that

abbreviations Miss and

the

This

(sexually aggressive) is

male must know which

women

of paramount importance for society (the family

every society's

organization

individual married

are available. is

the basis of

and status system) and convenient for the

woman.

178

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis there

no

is

society that does not so differentiate.

Because

this

alone would account for the differentiation between single

and married women, there

complex

issue of

sary for far

whether

is

no need here

this differentiation

more important

ciety that

The

societal reasons.

be interested in considering that

it is

to go into the would be neces-

reader might

quite likely that

was not based on the family and

biological emotional energies, maintaining status, vital functions

and other

identify these wives.

That there are many

institution in

its

males an

in-

and that did not

hibition against taking other men's wives

no

so-

could survive and that the family could not

survive in a society that did not inculcate in

irrelevant;

no

role in directing

its

cases of adultery

any society works perfectly

—

is

that

is why every society has methods of social control. To those who would argue that the breakdown of the institutions of

marriage and the family are exactly what they desire point out that society exist

the

without marriage. Since

breakdown of

To

would

must be based on the family and the family cannot

the best of

more

man

cannot exist without society,

would merely be followed by was also based on marriage and family.

this society

the rise of another that

not

I

the evidence of anthropology indicates that

all

my

knowledge, there

is

no

society that

is

male than with the

lenient with the adulterous

number of male to the number of

adulterous female and no society in which the prostitutes (to serve female clients) relative

female prostitutes

I

grant that one might

logically argue, in these situations, that

males get the "better

is

not insignificant.

deal" merely because their aggression allows rules favoring males, but I think that

a total

and unwarranted commitment

them

to enforce

one would have to have

to

economic determinism

to believe that these institutions cause, rather than flow from,

differences in sexual arousal or to expect that a female equivalent to Playboy

(once the to elicit

initial

magazine could ever command the attention

worn of men. The

novelty had

from millions

179

off)

that Playboy seems

biological

component of

Objections and Implications

the etiology of sexual institutions

by invocation

of, say, the excesses

the revelation that

and

is

women,

male "sex drive"

that the

is

not brought into question

of the Victorian era or by

different

is

from

is

an equal, but

not to

is

female "sex drive"

different,

any more than saying that the institution of patriarchy

male aggression

inevitable result of

of

some female

sive,

to

is

say

that of the female

therefore manifested in different institutions

deny that there

To

have a "sex drive."

too,

is

an

deny the existence

women

aggression, to contend that

are pas-

or to deny that the inevitable manifestation of a bio-

logical reality can be exaggerated in a given society.

C. Let us, for interest's sake, get a bit more speculative. Most men, when made conscious of the fact through questioning, acknowledge that they feel somewhat awkward when shaking hands with a woman. Superficial reasoning would

conclude, perhaps correctly, that this feeling of awkwardness is

completely explained by the fact that

men and would

used to shaking hands with

with

why men

men

with a handshake. All

stitutionalized

are far

more

societies

man

seem

male greetings, however.

to another that

are simply

more

not concern

itself

begin encounters with

likely to

the latent function of the handshake

of one

men

to

Is

have similar

it

in-

not likely that

the acknowledgment

is

he will not invoke his physical

and aggressive potentials? Since close friends would not need this assurance,

likely to

we would

the case. If this

would

expect that a

man would

shake hands with a close friend;

feel

is

is,

be

woman and

less

of course,

the latent function of a handshake,

men

was inappropriate for an en-

that this gesture

counter with a

this

this

would be manifested

in a

feeling of awkwardness. Moreover, the desire for physical contact with a nearby

the male's

—given —

woman contact

woman may

mammalian

lie at

the back of

the handshake's promise of an absence of

strikes the

awkwardness. If

always

brain so that a handshake with a

this

male is

as deceitful

correct

and

180

if

and he

we view

feels this as

the handshake

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis as but

one element of the male "code of honor," then the

implication at least

that

is

women

are in reality

—

structiveness of

is

important point

attempt to limit the social de-

society's

male aggression. Because

code need

gressive, this

is

women

them only

affect

are less ag-

The

secondarily.

not that males distinguish between shaking

hands with a male and with latter,

or

The

capable of acting violently dishonorable.

less

"code of honor"

with the

more honorable

female by feeling aivktvard

a

but that they do distinguish. In some Euro-

woman is more common. The European male will not, then, feel awkwardness when shaking hands with a woman, but he will distinguish the meaning of a handshake with a male from that pean countries a male's shaking hands with a

with a female as surely as does the American male.

D.

It

has been demonstrated that the intelligence levels of

the husband and wife are variables in the

men

often complain that

women

with

among

the most highly correlated

American marriage

relationship, yet feminists

will refuse to enter relationships

men

of equal intelligence because

by such intelligence. If

we

this is untrue. If

we

tively intellectual

segment of the population

there

is

some

truth to

are threatened

consider the population as a whole

limit ourselves to discussing the rela-

what the feminists

say,

believe that

I

but that they

only half the story. Intellectuals, by definition, place a

tell

great emphasis on intelligence, and

it is

natural that, for them,

the feelings (perhaps the biologically generated feelings) of

men and women

relevant to male

themselves here. In other words,

dominance should manifest it

is

possible that

only male emotions that engender relationships tellectuals in

the

woman

large

man

which the man

the

intellectual, despite

number of men over

is

whom

more

it

among

intelligent;

her claim to desire to have a

to choose from,

is

unlikely to select a

will not, therefore, in this crucial area, "take the lead")

me

in-

perhaps

she has intellectual dominance (and

thought occurred to

not

is

.

who This

during a discussion with a feminist

181

Objections and Implications

who,

after arguing that

dominance was not relevant

remarked that she did not find masculine any

relationships,

man who was

The fem-

not more intelligent than she was.

not alone in pretending that their ideology

inists are certainly

the emotional realities of life

reflects

to her

resemble them, but one

when

it

does not even

has difficulty understanding an

still

no

infatuation with an explanation of reality that bears

semblance to E.

reality.

For our

differences

re-

example of

last

between

situations in

men and women

which biological

are not readily seen to

be crucial but for which biological differences may be determinative, let us consider the observation that most

prefer

men

We

lationships.

know

women

that

human

virtues.

Now

a superficial,

totally correct, explanation

man

a taller

as

women

that the

would

We

there

no

is

direct

a desire for

irrelevant to

but again possibly

woman's

desire for

us assume, again for interest's sake,

let

of every society feel this way;

idea whether they do or not. possibilities.

see a

is

re-

even

merely a manifestation of our particular

But

social values.

men

search out taller

though they are perfectly aware that height all

women

than themselves for sexual and marital

taller

We

might assume,

CNS

as

now have I

do

a

I

have no

number of

in this book, that

imperative engendering in the female

male dominance

—

the universal female feelings

acknowledging male dominance being

totally attributable to

the reality of male biological aggression and the inevitable

female response to related to a

woman's

this universal

is;

an inevitable the

men

it

—and

that there

is

CNS

social reflection of the biological reality that

CNS

(because

women of taller men

women for man is "supposed" to be most men are). Or perhaps

the fact that a

woman

a direct

imperative

man be taller than she women may then be merely

of every society will be taller than the

reflects

than his

no

desire that her

tendency of

the society so that the preference of

merely

is

taller

there

imperative engendering in the female a

182

Confusion and Fallacy in the Feminist Analysis

male dominance, but not one for the desire for

desire for a taller

may that

man; then the

—

CNS

no

—

size

is

related to dominance.

available

man

CNS

is

both dominant and

to

there

is

do not know

how else

women

Or perhaps there man who

to desire a

taller.

in any of the situations discussed in this

important the biological factor

important, whether

no one

to the taller

other things being equal); this

imperative directing

a

that

all

in evolutionary terms.

is

digression

one directing the female

is

(again

would make sense

it is

Or perhaps

imperative engendering a female desire for male

dominance, but there

I

of dominance and size

particularly of the child,

other things being equal, which of course they

all

rarely are

association

from the observation,

result

knows

assume that biology

is

it

either

is

direct or indirect.

irrelevant by automatically accepting

how seldom

erbs concerning masculine

one another no matter duced them. Could

might be

It

the aphorisms and prov-

and feminine

how

this

I

when do know

or,

and that no one has the right

the explanation that considers only social factors.

worth noting, however,

is

qualities contradict

disparate the societies that pro-

not be because such aphorisms and

proverbs have long since penetrated to the cores of our natures to find the truths

whose

physical correlates

now

discovering? It would hardly be wisdom preceded knowledge.

183

the

we

first

are only

time that

Section Four

Maleness,

Cognitive Aptitudes.

Performance,

and Genius

Chapter Eight

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

Introductory Note in Anticipation of the Deluge: I

have purposely disjoined the theoretical con-

siderations advanced in this chapter

from the theory of the

and the next

inevitability of patriarchy

proper in order to emphasize as strongly as possible the fact that the validity of the theory

is

in

no

way contingent on the correctness of these two chapters and would in no way be affected if these two chapters were completely incorrect. Thus far I have discussed institutions that can be demonstrated to be both universal

and explicable

of an observable physiological factor.

The

in terms

existence

of universality and the physiological factor have

made

it

possible to present a theory as the only

reasonable explanation of patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment; this scure the fact that

it is

may tend

to ob-

exceedingly rare for any one

theory to be the only reasonable explanation of the reality

mon

it

attempts to explain.

for a

number of

It is

far

more com-

conflicting theories to be

both internally logical and congruent with empirical

reality;

from

in these cases acceptance results not

total destruction

of

all alternative theories,

but from a slightly better ability to persuade.

187

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

This process

is

most people would of the

first

clusiveness while

even

if its

of two con-

meets enormous emotional

sistance while the other

mand

when one

hindered

theories

flicting

is

like to believe.

We

re-

what

in accord with

often de-

theory a virtually deductive con-

we embrace

the second theory

probability of correctness

In these two chapters

I

is

argue that there

is

very low. a physio-

logical basis to certain differences in cognition be-

tween

men and women.

I

do not attach

to the

hypotheses presented in these two chapters any-

where near the probability of correctness

that

I

attach to the theory of the inevitability of patriarchy. For our discussion of cognitive differences

we

have neither the extensive cross-cultural

dence nor the direct biological evidence that

were able

The

to

evi-

we

evoke in the discussion of patriarchy.

explanation of cognitive differences presented

here,

like

any alternative,

environmental

totally

explanation, attempts to persuade by presenting a

configuration of logically interrelated hypotheses that

is

capable of explaining the evidence that

do have. totally

I

we

do not deny that one could present a

environmental explanation of the cognitive

differences

I

discuss nor that such an explanation

could conceivably be correct, but

I

do think that

the explanation that posits a physiological factor

more logically compelling, conmore in accord with experience, and considerably more likely to be correct than the is

considerably

siderably

explanation that does not.

Sexual Differences in Types of Cognition: Is Biology Irrelevant? Thus far we have seen that males attain leadership and status roles

through their aggression, but

188

we

high-

have accepted

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

the assumption that there are no innate differences between

men and women

tasks of any particular role.

perform the this

one sex or the other

that enable

assumption

unquestionably

is

to better

With many Perhaps

justified.

roles it

is

justified in the case of every role save, of course, those few

which an extremely high degree of strength or the

for

ability to give birth are necessary.

Perhaps even after reading

this section the reader will believe that

male aggression does

render patriarchy, male dominance, and male attainment of high-status,

nonmaternal roles inevitable, but that there are

no innate sexual differences

in cognitive aptitudes that are

relevant to any social roles or positions or to scientific creative genius. Because it is

male aggression leads

admittedly not easy to determine

men

if

and

to attainment,

a particular

fill

them to attain more capable of performing

role only because their aggression has enabled it

or also because they really are

the tasks

demanded of

men

with

in

find that the

that role.

When

a role

is

associated

one society and

women

men

society desire the role

of the

first

in another

we

always

and the

men

of the second do not. In other words, the males of the

first

society channel their aggression into attaining a high-

men

while the

status role

of the second society, because in

their society that role has to succeed in another

low

status,

use their aggression

(high status) area.

The

only excep-

tions are low-status roles, such as certain roles that

great physical strength, that

Male

women

demand

are incapable of filling.

success in attaining positions of

power and

status does

demonstrate, ipso facto, that males have some quality I call

that quality "aggression"

do women;

to

argue that

attain positions of

—

in greater

men have

power and

status

"not allowed" is

—here

abundance than

women

merely to admit

to

this.

Such an admission does not, however, force one to accept an innate male advantage relevant to performance. Before

we examine

the possibility that there are innate

sexual differences relevant to performance to

make one

point:

if

it

is

important

there are such differences the social

189

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

implications are manifold.

One might be tempted

to

see

such differences as important only at the highest level of

competence; he might acknowledge that there are more

mem-

bers of one sex or the other at any given level of competence

and

members of one sex

that at the highest level only the

on the

will be represented (which sex depends, of course,

aptitude in question), but argue that for the majority of individuals in a society such differences are irrelevant.

he might be convinced that males have a in

an aptitude that

is

Thus

statistical superiority

a precondition for

accomplishment in

physics, that the greatest theorists of physics will be males,

and that

at

any given level of competence above the mean

there will be more males than females (and below the mean more females than males) while maintaining that the number of women who are superior to some men renders the statistical reality irrelevant to

the social reality. This

ing, but, given the realities of social life, realities

entic-

Social

tend to bring together (or into competition) males

and females from equivalent positions

(relative

members of

is

their respective sexes

barriers

artificial

woman

is

incorrect.

are

)

.

This

to

other

most true when

removed. Thus the most intelligent

marries the most intelligent man.

Thus the

brightest

female law school graduates compete with the brightest male

law school graduates for the small number of most desired positions.

The

fact that the

a far better theoretical

perceptions not of

men

—with whom she

nomic

reality,

mind than most men

ability

a

and

is

in contact )

woman

,

and eco-

to her social

to social stereotypes in general. this

faces opposition

As had

engenders a situation in

where

a

man

of no greater

meets encouragement, in which observation leads a

society's

sex, in

irrelevant to

but with the brightest

in general,

been the case with aggression,

which

is

(which will develop congruently with her

her self-image

males

female law school graduate has

members

to associate a particular quality

which the ensuing stereotypes become 190

with one

far stronger

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

than the tion

and

statistical differences justify,

conforms

to the stereotypes.

aggression, even

if

in

is

a society,

not drawn to alternate activities by

any

perative, even then

one sex like

them

even

own

if

im-

on

stereotype;

members of society would

to subject the majority of the

is

to inferiority in

With

its

important innate sexual

statistically

differences will result in socialization based

the alternative

socializa-

the case with

the stereotypes do not flow automatically

from the observations of the members of each sex

which

As had been

an area in which their

to excel.

these implications of the social importance of innate

sexual differences relevant to performance in mind, let us

consider the chess champion rather than the senator or cor-

poration president.

I

am assuming

throughout

that the only precondition for chess genius

is

this chapter

an extraordinary

aptitude for dealing with high-level abstractions and that

aggression

of minor importance.

is

might take exception

to this

I

realize that the reader

and might invoke other pre-

conditions (aggression, physical endurance, mental endurance,

and the

ability to control

emotions )

.

I

acknowledge

this

but

suggest that the precondition of an aptitude for abstraction

some (admittedly very few) men and no women precludes the attainment of chess genius by a woman. that

is

found

This aptitude

in

is

to the attainment of a chess

as strength is to the

However,

if

championship

attainment of a boxing championship.

the reader

is

bothered by the existence of other

preconditions for chess genius

—

if,

for example, he believes

male

that aggression, but not abstraction aptitude explains

superiority

—he

may

substitute genius in mathematics, phi-

losophy, legal theory, or composing music wherever chess genius and the logic of this chapter if

is

I

use

unaffected.

But

the reader also argues that male aggression does not have

a biological base,

he must be able to explain why there are

no women aggressive enough

to attain parity

male chess players and why we 191

socialize

with the best

women away from

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius chess.

He

cannot explain such socialization as being analogous

women away from

to the socialization of

boxing (as

do)

I

because this would admit that the socialization conforms to a biological

male advantage. Furthermore, while each of the

areas of genius listed above has preconditions for genius that are

unique to

it,

of the areas have in

the only obvious precondition that

common

is

an

all

with high-

ability to deal

level abstractions.

There are presently eighty-two chess Grand Masters; they are all

male despite the

number of

fact that there are a great

female chess players, particularly in the Soviet Union. Indeed, there has never been a female

Grand Master, and

it

un-

is

questionably correct to say that of the five hundred greatest chess players there have ever been, not one has been a

Indeed, there are 136

men competing

with higher point ratings than the highest-rated in history,

Nina

woman. time

at the present

woman

player

Gaprindasvili. Ratings are based on aver-

age, not cumulative,

performance, so there

is

no

built-in

mechanism that discriminates against women. A very conservative estimate of the female membership of the World Chess Federation would be 5 percent. (Since listings are by first

initial

it

percentages.)

is

virtually impossible to ascertain the exact

Other things being equal, one would expect

that twenty-five of the five

percent of the

Now

hundred greatest players and

5

Grand Masters would be women.

the feminist will say that other things are not equal,

but that the inequality has nothing to do with an innate

male potential for dealing with the chess.

logical abstraction of

She will argue that the absence of

women from

the

highest levels of chess attainment merely reflects the fact that girls are socialized

couraged to excel in It

away from chess while boys are

this area.

This

is

merely begs the question and forces us to ask

are socialized

away from

chess;

192

it

is

en-

not an explanation.

why

girls

equivalent to saying

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

that

boxing champions are

all

male because

girls are socialized

away from boxing.

A

better environmental

argument would see male chess

(or mathematical, etc.) superiority as resulting from the fact that in

women

many

are socialized

ment (they

away from competing with men

where aggression

areas

is

are so socialized for

a precondition for attain-

good reason

we have

as

seen) and that they have transferred the general value of

female noncompetitiveness to the nonaggressive area of chess (or mathematics, etc.) where aggression for attainment.

It

is

is

not a precondition

conceivable that this generalization of

avoidance of competition explains male chess matical, etc.

men have to

)

dominance and

it is

(or mathe-

true that the certainty that

an innate potential that makes them more likely

be better chess players or

scientists or

composers

is

less

than the certainty that they have an innate aggression that will lead

them

to the bureaucratic positions of

power

see,

there

really

is

shall

considerable evidence for the view that

men

do have an innate superiority

likely that the serial affects the

in the

we

worlds of chess, science, and music. However,

as

in these areas. It

is

quite

unfolding of the male genetic program

male brain

in such a

does develop potentials a

woman

way

that the

male

does not (just as a

really

woman

develops nurturance potentials a male will not). If chess

were the only area in which we could examine differences in behavior,

we would have no

logically

compelling reason

to favor the "noncompetitive" explanation over the "innate"

explanation or vice versa.

Some

Theoretical Problems with a Totally

Nonbiological Explanation However, we can

test

these lines of reasoning

when we

examine possible explanations why Eleanor Maccoby and Roberta Oetzel found, in a survey of twenty studies of cor-

193

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius relations

between sex and mathematical reasoning aptitude,

when

that

children are tested

no consistent adult

differences

men and women

between boys and

are tested

girls,

(six studies

twenty studies was of mental retardates and here)

men

were of

always did far better than

tests

is

when

but

—one

of the

not relevant

women. These

studies

given to thousands of people, and there can

be no doubt that they expose

One might

there are

(thirteen studies)

real sex differences in aptitude.

argue that the differences flow from socialization

rather than biology, but he cannot argue that there are

such differences. 68

The between-sex

great as the between-sex differences in height and far consistently different than any other sexual

cognitive aptitudes.

The

no

differences here are as

more

differences

in

feminist will say that by the time

they are in college girls have been socialized to see being a

good mathematics student

as

being unfeminine. Let us

accept this as true and assume that girls have been socialized

one accepts

in this way. Still, if

great mathematicians have

Why

theoretical questions. in

this

way?

Why

all

is

this as the reason

been

men he

why

the

encounters serious

has the socialization proceeded

mathematics unfeminine instead of

feminine? There would seem to be nothing in the nature of mathematics that would automatically lead a society to consider

it

masculine.

that mathematics

be merely that 68

is

Why

"girls'

women

then do stuff"?

we

not

tell

little

boys

Here the answer cannot

have internalized the noncompetitive

That such differences in aptitude exist is demonstrated beyond quesMaccoby, The Development of Sex Differences (Stan-

tion in: Eleanor E.

Stanford University Press, 1966). Of particular interest here is Dr. Oetzel's summary of the results of hundreds of testing studies of sexual differences; H. A. Witkin, et al., Psychological Differentiation (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1962); David Wechsler, The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1958); and Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, ford:

1964).

194

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

mandate

that

is

which aggression leads

valid only in areas in

69 to attainment.

For

women

equal or surpass

men on

all

cognitive tests not related to mathematical reasoning or associated aptitudes.

If the fact that sixth-grade girls

are the

equals of sixth-grade boys in arithmetic, but that twelfth-

grade

girls

have an inferior mathematical aptitude when

compared with twelfth-grade boys festation

of the older

girls'

is

explained as a mani-

having internalized a norm

against females competing with males,

grade

girls

equal males in

all

why do

areas for

the twelfth-

which the narrow

aptitudes relevant to logical abstraction are not necessary?

The to the

implication here

is

not that socialization

is

irrelevant

development of sex differences in cognitive aptitudes

or that there have not been serious attempts to describe these differences as a function totally of socialization

and not of

the fact that men are more likely to have taken mathematics courses, but this is irrelevant for three reasons. First: these tests measure aptitude, and perception on an abstract level, not knowledge or ability. Second: male superiority seems to be maintained even when mathematical backgrounds are equalized; this is surprising since, if the pressures dissuading women from entering mathematics were really all that great, one would expect that only the very best women would take mathematics (i.e., the elective mathematics course would have women only from the top 10 percent of women, but men from the top 30 percent of men) and that this would decrease or eliminate the male superiority when just mathmatics students are tested (even though the male superiority is real and will manifest itself whenever men and women from 69

One might invoke

logic

the

or

same percentiles of

women

their

respective sexes are tested).

in mathematics courses

seem

to

do

The

as badly relative to

fact that

men

in

mathematics courses as women in the general population do relative to men in the general population indicates either that the social pressures dissuading women from going into mathematics are not all that great or that the sex differences at the top of the statistical curve are even greater than in the middle. Most importantly: it begs the question to argue that the society encourages men to study mathematics and dissuades women from doing so, for the basic question remains: why does the society not encourage women and discourage men if not because men long ago demonstrated their superiority here and society has conformed to this reality more for women's sake than for men's? (Similarly: on the quantitative aptitude section of the Graduate Record Examination, a score that places one in the ninetieth percentile among women places one only in the sixtyeighth percentile among men.)

195

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

innate sexual biology. 70

It

though

that there are strong,

is

not conclusive, indications that such socialization conforms to limits set

by innate differences in cognitive aptitudes. This

comparable to

is

conformation to innate male

socialization's

aggression, though the probability that this

cognition

is

less

One might

CNS

of

mental

than

it is

is

the case with

with aggression.

construct a

model

that admits the relevance

factors but that sees these as a result of environ-

factors. It has

been suggested, for example, that the

experience of judging the trajectory of a baseball

is

an en-

vironmental demand that engenders in boys a

CNS

ment

were exposed

that could be developed in girls if they

to these

demands. Given the absence of cross-cultural

dence here (we do not

and females

know

we know

in other societies as

)

We

ing, but not very convincing.

this

,

would deny the

explanation

too

CNS

are discussing only

if

entic-

the

development for

possibility that the boy's activities

is

is

much about

be acceptable.

to

"male" cognitive aptitudes

muscularity, but this point

we

the authority and

explanation

know

relevance of fetal hormonalization to

an environmental

evi-

the cognitive aptitudes of males

status situations of other societies

crease

develop-

No may

one in-

just as they increase his

relevant to the adult factors

there

is

not a

CNS

reality that

accounts for these being a boy's activities and the evidence indicates that there

is

CNS

such a

reality to

which

socializa-

tion conforms.

There

is

another problem with the explanations that

tempt to avoid the conclusion that there

ment

that precedes

is

at-

a biological ele-

male and female cognitive aptitudes and

with the explanations that imply that these differences are erasable or reversible: the environmental sexual differences in socialization that they

70 See, for example,

invoke are so deeply embedded in

Walter Mischel, "A Social-Learning View of Sex The Development of Sex Differ-

Differences in Behavior," in Maccoby, ences, pp. 56-81.

196

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

maleness and femaleness that

is

it

irrelevant that

virtually

the biological factor that necessitates the environmental factor or the type of socialization

not direct. For example,

is

one might argue that the adult male mathematical reasoning superiority

of

is

not the direct result of the male

results

from the

fact that the

development of an abstract reasoning

purposes

it

Even

would make no

made male

factor

analysis

if this

asser-

female

limits

ability that is not di-

precluded by limitations of the female

rectly

to cognition.

(i.e.,

and any

encouragement of male

and discouragement of female assertion

tion

CNS

properties relevant to cognition, but that this superiority

its

were

CNS

relevant

correct, for practical

difference whether the biological

superiority inevitable directly or indirectly

the hormonalization factor renders inevitable the posi-

tive socialization of

male assertion and negative

socialization

of female assertion in "male" areas).

Environmentalist attempts to deny the biological factor here usually entail the demonstration of correlations between

one or another aspects of socialization with the demonstrated

male superiority relations

do

causation

narrow area of cognition. Such

in this

cor-

not, in themselves, indicate anything about the

involved.

Obviously

all

sex

will

differences

be

correlated with all others.

None

of this implies that changes in socialization and

education could not tend to reduce male superiority in mathe-

even

matical reasoning;

from

CNS

cally,

be eliminated

circuitry the

superiority

results

directly

male advantage could, very

theoreti-

if

if girls

this

were massively

toward

socialized

improvement and boys were socialized away from improvement (just as the innate adult male physical strength superiority

five

could be eliminated, in theory,

if

all

women

hours a day in intensive physical training and

remained sedentary). For our purposes bility is irrelevant if

results of differing

all

spent

men

this theoretical possi-

cognitive sex differences are either direct

CNS

circuitry or

197

even of differing

sociali-

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius zation that

is

an inevitable indirect result of differences in

innate aggression.

The Hormonal In this section

it

Basis of Differentiated Intelligence

will be suggested that

quite likely that

is

it

the male superiority in mathematical reasoning has a hor-

monal

we

base.

It

are dealing

that

cannot be reiterated too strongly that here

on an almost purely hypothetical

though the conclusions offered

are,

more

believe,

I

and

level

hormonal

plausible than the explanation that ignores

ferentiation, they are extremely tentative. In addition,

necessary to point out once again that there

is

difit

is

no reason

to

believe that there are sexual differences in intelligence

we

consider intelligence in

all

of

myriad

its

aspects.

if

To

consider an ability to theorize as a greater demonstration of intelligence than perception or insight

no

less

than

is

loading the dice

is

considering physical strength more important

than longevity as a measure of good health. Nonetheless,

if

we do

aptitudes there can be

focus on certain abstract reasoning

no doubt,

as

we

males are superior to adult females. totally

environmental explanation of

have seen, that adult

We

have seen that a

this runs into serious,

though perhaps not insurmountable, problems. demonstrated a superiority over young

If

young boys

girls in this area there

would be little doubt that male superiority here had a hormonal base, but the tests indicate that, as is the case with height,

male superiority

is

not manifested until puberty.

Why? The most

likely answer,

that sexual differences

and the

least interesting one, is

do exist before puberty, but that the

male superiority has not yet developed it

manifests

situation

itself

on the

that exists

in

tests.

school;

This

is

to the point

where

comparable to the

prepubertal males are not

superior to females in basic arithmetic, which does not call

on

abstract reasoning aptitude, nor are they yet capable of

198

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

succeeding on the mathematical

on which, three or four

tests

years later, they will be superior to females.

But

let

us assume that the tests are not too gross to

the necessary distinctions and that

it

is

make

true that prepubertal

males are not superior to prepubertal females. This does not at all

preclude the possibility that hormonal development

relevant here. It

is

is

possible that, just as the pubertal male

increase in testosterone production

may engender

the male

aggression advantage (if the male child's aggression superiority is attributable

and not

completely to socialization for adulthood

at all to the fetal alteration of the

this increase

in certain types of abstract reasoning.

two problems with

this explanation.

perfectly reasonable that the pubertal tosterone,

CNS),

complementing the

fetally

There First:

are,

while

why

this pubertal increase

abstract reasoning aptitude.

and

its

alteration of the

more important

it

seems in tes-

prepared male CNS, it

is

not

should be so important to fetal

male hormonalization

pathways of the brain would seem

here.

The second problem examine the

The

however,

male increase

should generate an increase in aggression potential, clear

so does

engender in the postpuberal male a superiority

arises

from an empirical attempt

possibility of a relationship

to

between male hor-

monalization and nonverbal aptitudes. In an attempt to

dis-

cover the effect of pathological virilization on intelligence, Drs. John

Money and

Viola Lewis reported findings that are

impossible to reconcile with Dr. Oetzel's extensively docu-

mented findings

that the sexes

do not

differ in verbal ability

but that males are superior in mathematical reasoning. Drs.

Money and Lewis found

that a

group of seventy subjects

with either the adrogenital syndrome or progestin-induced

hermaphroditism did remarkably well on IQ a

subgroup of

tive to a tests.

Of

tests,

but that

forty- four of these subjects did as well, rela-

random population, on verbal the seventy subjects

199

tests as

on nonverbal

12.9 percent scored 130 or

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

higher (the expected percentage for the general population

would be

120 or higher

2.2 percent), 31.5 percent scored

(8.9 percent), 60.1 percent scored 110 or higher (25 percent),

and 72.9 percent scored higher than the median for

the general population. 71 Dr.

Money

points out that these

findings must be considered tentative. There that, to

an extent, they represent sampling

these subjects were children of mothers

treatment and this

may

is

the possibility

bias; for

who

indicate that the mothers

above average intelligence. Nonetheless,

it

is

example,

sought out

were of

quite likely

that fetal virilization does increase IQ.

Drs.

Lewis and Money

(and Dr. Ralph Epstein)

did

not compare the nonverbal scores of the subgroup's prepubertal males, prepubertal females, pubertal-adult males,

pubertal-adult females with verbal scores.

and

The sample was

too small to allow breakdown into these cells and, even it

were

jects

not, nearly all the

if

female subjects, like the male sub-

and normal males, but unlike normal females, had

experienced both fetal and pubertal virilization. Nonetheless, it

is

true that

we might

expect that these subjects would

demonstrate a greater superiority over the general population in

nonverbal scores than in verbal scores and they did not. 72

It is

not clear

why

these findings differ

studies reported by Dr. Oetzel.

from the numerous

Three of the

six studies of

adult mathematical reasoning listed by Dr. Oetzel used the

performance sections of the same telligence Scale) as did Dr.

Money,

(Wechsler Adult In-

test

so the discrepancy cannot

be explained by the use of different that there

is

a qualitative difference

tests.

It

is

between the

possible effect

of

71 John Money and V. G. Lewis, "IQ, Genetics, and Accelerated Growth: Androgenital Syndrome," Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, 118: 365-73 (1966), and "Prenatal Hormones and Intelligence: A Possible Relationship," Impact of Science on Society, XXI: 285-290 (October-December, 1971). 72 V. G. Lewis, John Money, and R. Epstein, "Concordance of Verbal and Nonverbal Ability in the Androgenital Syndrome," The Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, 122:192-5 (1968).

200

—

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

the male

hormone on aptitude

and for the

for these subjects

general population; Dr. Money's finding that these subjects are far superior to the general public in verbal aptitudes

is

given Dr. Oetzel's finding that normal males are not superior to

normal females

in verbal aptitude

—

unexpected

just as

as

his finding that the reasoning superiority of his subjects over

the general population

is

no greater than

riority. It is

only for the female subjects

puberty that

we would

their verbal supe-

who have

reached

necessarily expect virilization to lead

to a non-verbal increase greater than the verbal increase; the effect of

may conceivably be one of threshmay be reached far more often by

hormonalization

old and this threshold

normal males than by normal females (thereby accounting for the male superiority

found by Dr. Oetzel) so that the

male would gain no more

excessively virilized

In any case,

all

between "maleness" and aptitudes

which manifest themselves on

certain tests.

The

ness" manifests itself .

is

only in non-verbal areas or also

(i.e.,

However

evidence

which "male-

conflicting only with respect to the extent to

)

areas.

of the research discussed in this chapter

indicates an association

in verbal areas

here, relative

he would in verbal

to the general population, than

tentative

must be any assessment

of the contribution of hormonal differentiation to the association of "maleness"

there

is

chapter in

and aptitude,

it

is

undeniable that

such an association. If the reasoning invoked in this is

correct,

it

is

difficult to see

performance on the

tests

how

sexual differences

referred to can be reasonably

explained without positing some relevant physiological factor.

In the subtest sample referred to above,

of the genetic females were raised as females; to explain their test

is,

of course,

generalizations

it

but three is

difficult

performance in terms of socialization

when we know masculinization. Dr. Money particularly

It

ali

still

that they

underwent hormonal

writes:

too early to

from these 201

make any sweeping

findings.

But

Katharina

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

Dalton's work, 73 taken together with our own, strongly suggests

androgens,

that

synthetic

progestenic

hor-

mones, and progesterone, given prenatally, do produce an increase in intelligence and eventual academic performance. They do so on both males and females

when

but only

mones

the foetuses are subjected to the hor-

in excess at a critical time of their

development

in the uterus. 74 Similarly,

Dr. Eleanor Maccoby, whose major interests

have been the causation involved in

and the prob-

this area

lems of socialization encountered by young women,

has

written I

think

quite possible that there are genetic fac-

is

it

tors that differentiate the

thought

two sexes and bear upon

performance other

intellectual

of

as

innate

is good reason more aggressive than

there

it

example,

to believe that boys are innately girls

—and it

I

mean

aggressive in

implies fighting, but

one which underlies the

is

analytic thinking, then boys girls

For

implies dominance and initiative as well

this quality

who

later

—and

if

growth of

have an advantage which

endowed with more

are

their

what we have

"intelligence."

the broader sense, not just as as

than

passive qualities will

find difficult to overcome. 75

Feminist Research The reader who is interested

in discovering for himself the

extent to which the popular feminist authors misrepresent

the findings of serious researchers in order to justify their 73 K. Dalton,

"Antenatal Progesterone and Intelligence," British Jour-

nal of Psychiatry, 114:1377-82 (1968). 74 Money, "Prenatal Hormones and Intelligence," p. 289. 75 Eleanor E. Maccoby, "Woman's Intellect," in The Potential

Women, Seymour M. McGraw-Hill, 1963),

Farber and Roger H. Wilson, p.

37.

202

eds.

of

(New York:

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

ideologies might wish to

compare what these authors

say

Dr. Maccoby says with what she really says and what she reports (with Dr. Oetzel) in the compilation at the

The Development Millett has just those left the

from the very

extracted

end of

For example, Dr.

of Sex Differences.

quoted above

article

elements which had to do with socialization and

Maccoby

reader with the impression that Dr.

dis-

misses the idea that biological sex differences could be of

any importance. 76 Germaine Greer, in discussing the implications of the

Maccoby-Oetzel compilation,

Non-verbal cognitive

like

abilities

states that:

counting,

mathe-

matical reasoning, spatial cognition, abstract reasoning, set-breaking and restructuring, perceptual speed, ual,

mechanic and

and no

When

scientific skills

significant pattern has

one attempts

to verify Dr.

finds that, with the exception of

have

been tested

all

emerged.

77 .

.

.

Greer's statement he

one study of perceptual

speed (which no one ever associated with the male),

were not found

to

man-

women

men in any study of any when adults were tested. In all the men proved superior or no differences

be superior to

of these particular areas tests

of adults either

were found. six studies of

We

have seen that

this

mathematical reasoning.

was true

To

in six out of

find six out of six

same

large-scale studies each of

which

cally significant patterns

so rare in the social sciences that

this

is

discloses the

cannot be dismissed.

Dr. Greer no doubt glanced

at

the listing of studies of

mathematical reasoning aptitude, saw that girls

statisti-

(as

opposed

to adults) are

onstrated a superiority,

when

boys and

compared neither sex dem-

and looked no further. But Drs.

Maccoby and Oetzel had

listed these studies

of the chronological ages of the 76 Millett, Sexual Politics, p. 216. 77 Greer, op. cit., p. 93.

203

in

the order

test takers precisely

because

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

age

is

when

the crucial factor.

When

the tested subjects are adults,

they have passed the age of pubertal hormonalization,

statistical

male performances on

tests

of mathematical rea-

soning are always superior to the performances of women.

Masculine Logic In other words, the stereotype that sees the male as more logical than the female

is

unquestionably correct in

servation and probably correct in qualities

observed

conform

its

innate

to

its

ob-

assumption that the sexual

limitations

analogous to those relevant to physical strength. 78 Society's socializing girls

away from

careers in mathematics

be an acknowledgment of hormonal deal with high-level abstractions tistical

sense and

conceptions are based.

—

is

is

we

on such

reality.

An

may

well

ability to

unfeminine in the

sta-

statistical realities that social

for all the reasons

A woman who

ability that

ability

it

is

79

we have

discussed

possesses such an ability possesses an

correctly

tend to associate with men. Her

"unfeminine" only

in

the sense that a six-foot

78 "Logic," as used in this book, refers only to certain cognitive abilities

and not at all to "unemotionality." Invoking the second feminist fallacy (see Chapter Seven), some feminists have attempted to show that the abilities manifested on the tests discussed above are not innate; they are quite right in saying that emotionality is "masculine" in some societies, but this is hardly relevant. In Chapter Ten it is suggested that males and females are innately and, therefore, universally, different in their emotional makeup (hardly a revolutionary finding), but no one who is familiar with the relevant cross-cultural data would argue that there is some innate reason why women must be more demonstrative than men. 79 There is an assumption implicit in my equating the demonstrable male superiority in mathematical reasoning with the male logical superiority that is acknowledged by the social value that sees thinking "logically" as "thinking like a man," but I think that this assumption is justified by the high correlation between mathematical reasoning scores and ability in those areas (chess, physics, legal theory, logical argumentation, etc.) which engender the social stereotype. Needless to say, each of these areas has additional preconditions so that excellence in one area does not guarantee excellence in another; all that I am saying here is that the ability that manifests itself in high mathematical reasoning scores, that is acknowl-

edged by the social value that sees condition for excellence that

is

this as

common

204

"thinking like a man,"

to all of these areas.

is

a pre-

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

woman's height feet tall

is

is

unfeminine

the quality of being six

(i.e.,

men). Unde-

usually associated, correctly, with

niably the female mathematical genius will meet discrimination (she will be discouraged

where

will be encouraged), but this fact that a

mathematical genius

is

a

man

of equal ability

an inevitable result of the

who

is

a female will always

be a very rare exception. 80 Most likely a population's observation of real sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability

"automatically" leads to the stereotype of male logical abilus for the

moment assume

that

ity,

but

we

did not consider this ability unfeminine,

let

it

does not. If

values did not acknowledge biological reality, the at

our social

if

few women

the high end of the female curve would no longer face

discrimination, but the majority of

80

do not want

I

ented

women

to

many

in

make

women would

be forced

light of the difficulties encountered

by

tal-

areas; to attempt to explain the reasons for social

not to judge them. In my own discipline, sociology, when one informal encounters between male and female sociologists he sees that each views the other not only through the lens of professional expectations, but also in terms of sexual expectations. Insofar as the expectations attached to sociological excellence (theorizing ability, "hardattitudes

is

observes

headed logic,"

etc.)

are

male expectations,

this

certainly tends

to

work

female sociologists who are just as logical and just as capable of dealing with theory as male sociologists. In formal areas, such as promotion, women are not promoted in proportion to their numbers, but

against

this

is

those

not totally attributable to sex.

The

very best

women

scholars see

and the assertion that there are hundreds of Arendts, Bardwicks, Bernards, Hackers, Komarovskys, Maccobys, Meads, or Trillings being passed over for promotion is nonsense. (Incidentally, can anyone imagine any of these women associating her work with the simplisms of a Millett or a Greer?) When we consider the "average" academic sociologist we do find discrepancies, but for the most part this reflects the "publish or perish" syndrome, not sexual their contributions reflected in their positions

discrimination per journals than do

se.

Male Ph.D.'s publish

women

far

more often

in

scholarly

(Maccoby, "Woman's Intellect," p. 24), and, since readers for these journals are not told the names of the authors of submitted manuscripts, discrimination on this level is not a factor. Now one might well argue that promotion should not be so heavily contingent on publication or that women academics spend so much time with their families that they have no time to publish; but as long as men who do not publish are refused promotion no less than women, the charge of sexual discrimination in these cases is hardly justified. It is, however, a fine rationalization for scholarly mediocrity.

205

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

below average (for the population

to consider themselves

whole) in an area in which

as a

society

would

them

like

to

excel. Just as the male's greater aggression led to men's

which aggression led

attaining those roles for

and

to attainment

this resulted in society's associating aggression

culinity, so

masculine logical superiority. 81 Just as

social stereotype of

women away from

the failure of society to socialize sive

pursuits

women,

so

would

would

unattainable

create

would be expected

to

inferior.

women away from

Women

To

be sure, a failure

society's failure to so-

aggressive pursuits; this

is

reflected

brought to bear on the

evinces an interest in mathematics

who

the sanctions imposed on a girl

in

mathematics would not be

would ensue from

in the fact that the pressure

who

women.

excel in the one cognitive area

women away from

cialize

for

a failure to associate mathematics with

which they are unquestionably the disaster that

aggres-

expectations

the male create an intolerable situation for

to socialize

and mas-

does the male's greater logical ability lead to the

is

girl

mild compared to

attempts to attain goals

by righting. It is

from

unlikely that the pressure dissuading the

a future in mathematics has deprived the

young

girl

world of

a

female Einstein. For the biochemical underpinning of male mathematical superiority but to the very best.

throughout the

is

relevant not only to the majority,

The

biological factor manifests itself

statistical curve; as

was the case with

chess,

the very best female mathematicians have far better mathe-

81

This accounts for the oft-repeated observation that the same piece of by both men and women when it is allegedly written by a man than when it is allegedly written by a woman. Here we see the difficulty faced by women intellectuals at its starkest: it is, however, a difficulty that is probably inherent in the fact that the best research is, by and large, done by men. If abstract reasoning research will be given a higher rating

ability

is

a

—

—

precondition for the creation of theory (the highest status

research in every discipline), then these unfortunate attitudes will prob-

ably always face women, demonstrably very great.

to

some

extent,

206

even

women whose work

is

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

matical minds than the vast majority of men, but they do

not approach the level of the very best male mathematical geniuses any

more than

It

tallest

ap-

male.

of course, true that the range of aptitude scores

is,

within each sex

is

greater than the difference between the

means of the two sexes and that only is

woman's height

the six-foot

proaches the height of the

that

is

it

only at the very top

one sex will be capable of performance. But

true of height also.

The

of social

statistics

a factor that generates the

life

Men

stereotype.

(correct)

this

introduce are

seen as "more logical" because, statistically speaking, marriage tends

to

bring together a

man from the tenth (or men with a woman of

twentieth or sixtieth) percentile of

the tenth (or twentieth or sixtieth)

percentile of

women.

The husband will seem "more logical" in each case because he is. The same thing applies with any characteristic in which the sexes differ (though with characteristics such as domi-

nance there may be an element of "opposites attracting" and the situation will be the same )

women

.

are

centile of

That the

"more

men

more complex, but

women

logical" than the

men

stereotypes as the fact that the tallest

of the fiftieth per-

development of

as irrelevant to the

is

the point will be

of the ninetieth percentile of

women

social

are taller than

The woman of the ninetieth women is married to a man of the ninetieth men and he is "more logical" than she.

the average man.

percentile

of

percentile

of

An The

Environmentalist Objection environmentalist will no doubt raise the objection that

this line of

reasoning would serve as rationale for the most

arbitrary stereotype. This

that

some behavioral

vironment

(as

behavior,

merely another way of saying

with the black)

conformation to affect

is

differences result

real

statistical

certain

abilities,

207

from the

cultural en-

and some from biological

cultural

differences

that

and propensity (as with

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

women) No

stereotype

.

in that

is

arbitrary; every stereotype

has an element that

it

is

"real"

is

perceived and that can be

seen as biologically caused whether

it

or not. If such an

is

element were not present the members of the society would not perceive that portion of reality in terms of a stereotype

and would

which

select

some other element

present on

is

For example: psychological and

to base a stereotype.

economic factors have led

that

white population's needing

to the

to perceive the black in unfavorable terms.

not perceive the black as cheap or cowardly

—

The white as

did

he did other

who emphasized business acumen or pacifism stupid. What was perceived, of course, was not stu-

minorities

but as

pidity, but a lack of education.

This lack of education had

nothing to do with biology or intelligence, but

The

was seen

stereotype

was

it

in biological terms so that

real.

could

it

continue to serve as rationale for maintaining the very edudiscrimination that makes the stereotype possible

cational

in the first place.

This circular process

awful truth that people will

reasoning

matical

when

positions

why women do and why they fail to

what

their so-

needed

do men need

women.

certainly true that once

is

he will

attain

roles

and

They

to maintain the black

stereotype, so It

poorly in mathe-

aggression leads to such attainment.

will say that just as the white

is

accelerated by the

the environmentalist and the feminist will use this

line of reasoning to explain

a value

is

to believe

about them whether correct or not.

ciety says

Now

come

to maintain the stereotype of

feel threatened

when

one has internalized

the basis for that value

challenged, but this anxiety has no bearing on the correct-

ness or incorrectness of the observations that underlie the

value or on the relevance of biology to those observations. 82 82

rage

No is

one is more threatened than the feminist who is owing more to her personal psychology than to the

of society" indicate

male's

;

how

told that her

— uncertainty—

"sexist nature

however, the fact that she feels threatened while it may she really feels about the accuracy of her analysis just as the

feeling

threatened

may

indicate

208

his

is

in

no way

Possible Sexual Differentiation in Cognitive Aptitudes

One

when he

runs into no obvious theoretical problem

terms of environmental

plains black performance in

exdis-

For black deficiencies in performance might

crimination.

well be exactly what one

would expect of whites

if

they

were forced to suffer the educational discrimination forced

on blacks. But

women

how

does the feminist explain the fact that

men

equal or surpass

in all test areas not related to

Why does "avoidance of Why is rigorous think-

aggression and abstract reasoning?

competition" not assert

here?

itself

referred to as "thinking

ing, but not perceptive thinking,

man"?

like a

and not

cal"

Why that

unperceptive" ?

Is

the stereotype that

is

"women it

"women are illogi"women are

are inarticulate" or

not an unbelievably specialized form of

oppression that generates an inferiority in one narrow area of cognition and in no other?

Our

conviction that there

a biological reason for

is

male

superiority in the aptitudes relevant to mathematical reason-

ing cannot be as great as the certainty that there logical basis for

male success

is

in attaining positions for

aggression leads to attainment. For

when we

more emotionally threatened by

to a

woman

than he

A man

woman

man.

man

that a

He

stronger

generated

than

women

differences.

—

more threatened

—

is

incorrect

Likewise,

from the soldiering role

or

unrelated

the sergeant

who

to

has spent his life this

assertion that

way

male aggression

is

than

men

;

meaning

his

who

has spent

this role,

who sees men and

life,

as well as as

men

—

a sergeant

will feel threatened to the quick by the

not innately greater than female aggres-

sion and that a society could develop in

be more aggressive

physiologically

to

derives

which he has devoted his years learning the tasks and expectations that define this role as a masculine one that women could not fill that no society could socialize women to fill as well

who

is

will never lose a fight to a

and that even engaging a woman in a physical fight is unfair. The he feels threatened hardly demonstrates that the assumption on the expectation rests the assumption that men are physically

fact that

which

is

is

the thought of losing a physical fight

of losing to another

is

precisely because the expectation

which

discuss mental

related to the actual correctness or incorrectness of that analysis. far

a bio-

his

which women were socialized

feelings

of

insecurity

may

to

indicate

something about his sense of certainty, but it casts no doubt on the correctness of his assumption that males are more aggressive and that no society could socialize its women to be more aggressive than its men.

209

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

properties

we

are dealing in part with hypothetical biological

elements (as opposed to the specifiable hormonal elements aggression)

relevant

to

cultural

data

(as

and a limited amount of

opposed

to

the extensive

cross-

materials

on

patriarchy). Nonetheless, the evidence of logic and observation of sex differences in aptitudes in our as

we have

seen,

riority in this area.

the test

is

own

indicate a biologically based

society does,

male supe-

This could be empirically tested, though

not very feasible. Groups of

men and women from

ten disparate societies could be taught to play chess or do

mathematical puzzles. Assuming that these populations do not differ from ours in the innate materials relevant to these abilities

(or that,

maintained),

if

they do, male-female differences are

we would

hypothesize that the males would

demonstrate a superiority in these areas in every group.

210

Chapter Nine

High Genius

in the Arts

The Relevance

The Question As

and

Sciences-

Male Biology

of

of Genius

the case with sexual cognitive differences,

is

it

not

is

possible to explain the preponderance of male genius in the arts

and sciences with the compelling logic that attaches

male dominance, and male

to the explanation of patriarchy,

attainment of high-status roles. to define genius. Genius

admittedly

It is

and

difficult

though

not intelligence,

it

even cer-

is

a high intelligence

is

certainly

a precondition for genius in the hard sciences. It

is

probably

tainly correlated

with

is

itself

it,

impossible for one with an

any kind, but

180

who have

we know

IQ

of too

of 70 to possess genius of

many people with

IQ's of

manifested no semblance of genius and too

many undeniable

geniuses whose IQ's have not been ex-

traordinarily high to equate genius with intelligence.

doubly

difficult to identify

It

is

the biological preconditions for

genius.

Nonetheless,

it

is

difficult

to

ignore the

fact

that

all

the Aristotles, the Leonardos, the Rembrandts, the Bachs,

the Marxes, the Edisons, the Freuds, the Einsteins, and the

Capablancas (and their counterparts in other cultures) have

been

men

despite the fact that half of the

of their societies were

women. In

members of each

the performing arts one

might well argue that the greatest

women

have been the

equals of the greatest men. Perhaps in literature one might take the position that Jane Austen,

211

George

Eliot,

and the

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

Brontes were the equals of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and

Dostoevsky. But there

not a single

is

woman whose

number of men

has approached that of any

genius

in philosophy,

mathematics, composing, theorizing of any kind, or even painting. 83

Even

in these areas (except

women

ing) there have been a few

of the greatest genius, but this

prepared to argue that not only

is is

perhaps for compos-

at the level

below that one

irrelevant unless

is

Suzanne Langer the equal

of a Hegel, Kant, or Aristotle, but that in being the equal of these

which

men

she

is

eradicates

in these areas

we would

the entire

were

statistical

rule.

For

genius

if

solely a function of biological factors

expect that, as

be a number of all

not merely an exception, but an exception

is

the case with height, there

women who

would

manifested greater ability than

but a very few men, but none

who

manifested the ability

of the very greatest men.

One might

argue that the

other cultures are equal this

would make no

strated that the arts

women strated. One

with

in

to,

arts

considered feminine in

or not comparable

difference unless

it

to, these,

but

could be demon-

and sciences discussed here are associated

some other

culture; this cannot be

demon-

can argue that the pottery designs created by

83 Perhaps the name of Madame Curie has leaped into the reader's mind. Realizing that doing so will seem quibbling to many readers, I wouid nonetheless submit that: A. Even were Madame Curie the greatest of all theoretical scientists the probability that scientific genius is related to male biology would be unaffected. Again it is important to note that probability expects exceptions and the discovery of an eight-foot woman would not lessen our conviction that men are taller than women for biological reasons. B. Moreover, while Madame Curie was unquestionably one of the greatest of experimental scientists, she was not a theoretical physicist. If we remember that statistically we would expect that some women would be toward the high end of a curve representing abstract

reasoning (but not as many as there would be men) and that the very best will rank far higher than the vast majority of men (but not as high as the highest ranking men), then the surprise is not that Madame Curie had an excellent theoretical mind (but not that of an Einstein, a Bohr, or a Dirac), but that there are so few other female theorists of any note at all.

women

212

.

High Genius

women

in the Arts

which

in a society in

and Sciences

with

this art is associated

on the relevance of genius.

I

am

CNS

development

is

book saying or implying think that

I

it

is

— am not any point any masculine only — at

I

quality

that

superior to any feminine quality

However,

mathematical

to

not saying that masculine creative genius

superior to feminine creative genius in this

women

no doubt

are as creative as Einstein's theory, but this casts

that

would be more

different.

is

it

sensible for the

feminist to argue that our society overrates manifestations

of male genius

and underrates manifestations of female

genius rather than to argue that there are not differences in

males and females engendering the two (just as

more

sensible for her to argue that

values for which aggression

is

would be

it

our society overrates

relevant rather than to argue

that there are not sexual differences in aggression )

Note there

is

that the farther

one moves from those areas

in

which

an obvious need of an aptitude for dealing with pure

abstractions to those in

which such an aptitude

condition for genius, the

more women there

is

not a pre-

are

who

ap-

proach the level of great genius. Moreover, these differences

from the

are maintained as one descends

the history of literature

is

replete with the

names of

been

above average.

It

would seem

likely that the aptitude for

dealing with logical abstractions

is

a precondition for genius

composing, philosophy, theorizing, and mathematics.

have seen that male superiority in

and there superiority

and

is is

is

this aptitude

is

We

undeniable

considerable reason to believe that this male a function of

male hormonal biology.

an exceedingly high-level

If

tions

arts,

first-

women writers, but it is doubtful that there has ever a woman composer who could be considered much

class

in

level of genius;

ability to deal

with abstrac-

a precondition for genius in mathematics, philosophy,

chess, but not for genius in literature or the

we would

expect

in literature or the

women

performing

to attain the level of genius

performing

213

arts,

while they would be

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

precluded from manifesting genius in mathematics, philosophy, and chess. This is

correct,

men

with

then

precisely the case. If this reasoning

is

follows that society will always associate

it

genius in those areas for which the high-level

abstractive aptitude

is

always conform to

a precondition

As was

this.

whose aggression equaled

woman who does where a man of but, as

and

socialization will

the case with the

that of the average

woman

man, the

rare

possess these abilities will meet resistance

equal abilities will meet encouragement;

with the aggressive woman,

for being an exception. If

this is the price

one pays

male biology does contribute

the male ability to compose, then

women

to

composers will

always be such exceptions. I

do not deny that one can develop a theoretically

possible,

though not very plausible, explanation of male success

in

the areas emphasizing an ability to deal with abstractions

without invoking any biological factor; perhaps some eco-

nomic and

social factors direct

which demand

women

toward those areas

a lesser ability to theorize. It

is

true that the

ethnographic materials that were so helpful in documenting universal sex differences in aggression and authority are not

much

help here;

art in the

theless,

we

are dealing primarily with science

Western world, China, Japan, and

this

covers

a

broad spectrum of different

fairly

and musical composition have often had yet even in such times the scientists

There have been

a great

ever since Sappho;

women

would seem

why have

to be nothing in

that

start

it

low

status,

poets and writers

there not been an equal

composers and

a society's associating

fairly

and composers were men.

number of women scientists?

num-

Furthermore, there

composing music (or

in the

would automatically lead to with men. Aggression does not give

sciences for that matter)

men any head

and

None-

with quite different value systems. Science

historical times

ber of

India.

that

here (though the biological substrate

underlies male aggression

214

may

contribute to a male

High Genius

in the Arts

compose), nor

ability to

is

and Sciences

there any obvious connection be-

tween composing music and economic reward (which, one

might argue, could have led men this area

here,

)

If there is

.

what

which an

Why

factor has directed

women toward

with abstractions

ability to deal

men

men

to enter

those areas in less necessary?

is

does society not associate composing with

not because

have

women

to forbid

no male biological element relevant

women if why

have proven to be better composers;

always been the better composers

if

they have a greater biological potential here?

mental answer to these questions must

not because

Any

environ-

relate specifically to

the differences between composing (or science or philosophy)

on the one hand, and

literature or the

performing

arts

on

the other; for any general explanation that one might hy-

pothesize (concerning the

woman's self-image

and energies consumed by the maternal will not be able to explain in the literary area

and

why

so

role,

for example)

many women have

performing

in the

or the time

arts.

excelled

Moreover,

an explanation emphasizing the demands of the maternal role fails to explain the demonstrated superiority of young,

single adult males over stract reasoning.

young

single adult females in ab-

Explanations emphasizing the necessity of

some of these areas cannot deal with the fact that training is far more necessary for the performing arts than for composing music. To say that this is true, but that women have nonetheless been dissuaded from composing and have training in

been urged by society to enter the performing the question. For

urged is

if

why have

arts is to

beg

they been so dissuaded and so

not because their potential, relative to that of men,

far greater in the latter area?

A

similar question

that the absence of

might be asked of one who argues

women from

for dealing with abstractions results

from

is

areas for

which an aptitude

a precondition for genius

differential socialization relevant, not so

to the particular creative area, as to the aptitudes

215

much

which are

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

preconditions for genius in these areas. In other words,

one argues that the point

is

not so

away from composing, but

socialized

much

that

women

if

are

that their socialization

does not encourage the aptitude for dealing with abstractions

which

composing genius, he must

a precondition for

is

why

plain

conform

girls are so socialized if this socialization

to

the contradictions

be added that

we

He

will then face

discussed in the last chapter. true that there

if it is

should

It

a cognitive aptitude

is

a precondition for genius in these "logical" areas

is

which no there

does not

the reality of innate male superiority in the

aptitude for dealing with abstractions.

which

ex-

are

woman

possesses,

is

it

other preconditions

which some

women

whether or not

irrelevant

(aggression,

possess, but

for

example)

which are discouraged

in

women because they run counter to the stereotype by which women are, and, as we have seen, must be, socialized. these

The

absence of the

that

is

what

The

first

precondition precludes attainment;

a precondition

relation of biology is

far too

cause-effect

model.

artistic creativity

scribed

is.

and aggression

complex

to scientific

to yield

However,

if

and

an easily de-

one accepts the

reasoning used in this book, particularly that which deals

with possible innate sexual differences in the potential for abstract mathematical reasoning,

it

would seem quite

that the biological substrate underlying

more

intimately

likely

male aggression

is

connected with genius than mere meta-

phorical comparison

would

indicate. Furthermore,

even were

sexual differences in Central Nervous Systems not related to creative genius, the

mere presence of the male's "extra"

hormonally generated aggression may provide for a complex of factors that constitute an entity which can be viewed either

as

an aggression precondition for genius which

satisfied in a

aggression

from

—

much relative

social sources

smaller to

number of women whose

that

of other

(see section titled

216

women "The

—

is

is

great

derived

Irrelevance of

High Genius

in the Arts

and Sciences

Exceptions) or as an advantage, but not a precondition. Both of these views allow for the female literary genius

The

when

we have

stifled

by the

dominant male (the father or maternal uncle) and by

society

observed.

in general,

is

male's greater aggression,

forced inward, and this

may

direct

male emo-

composing symphonies, creating

tional energies into

development, even

if it

theories,

Woman's

"conquering" mountains, and committing murders.

were not guided by biological

ments that tend toward creating and sustaining

ele-

life itself, is

more "healthy" in that there is less aggression to be turned inward. Thus female biology does not clash with familial and

environmental

societal

realities to as nearly as great

extent as does aggressive male biology, and so there

an less

is

frustrated aggression to be channeled into creative energy. I

think that this would help to explain

the creative area

raw cognitive

where the possible sex

abilities

find, as Elizabeth

undeniably great

why even

would seem

to

women

dedication to their

differences in the

be

Hardwick has pointed

in literature,

least relevant,

we

even the

out, that

writers have lacked the obsessive

work and the inexorable

energies,

the

lifelong burst of speed, that enabled a Balzac to write at the

day

limits of his abilities for sixteen hours a

it

men more

often than

doubt there are psychological preconditions for

that,

while

it is

women's

this ability.

creativity as a search for a

not identical to the meaning that

is

it is

a

women. this,

seems likely that there are biological preconditions

Some have viewed male in

his life. 84

perhaps crazy to write for sixteen hours a day, but

It is

craziness that seems to possess

No

all

but also.

meaning inherent

be precluded by

ability to give birth, tends to

This makes biological sense and acknowledges

the fact that

women

create life itself, but

I

do not think

that this does anything to clarify or extend a theoretical analysis,

for

it

implies that

women do

84 Elizabeth Hardwick, A View of and Cudahy, 1962), p. 181.

not create only be-

My Own (New

217

York: Farrar,

Straus,

Maleness, Cognitive Aptitudes, Performance, and Genius

cause they can conceive. If this were the case one might argue

number of women "decided" not to be life creators, they would be the intellectual creators. If either male CNS that if a

circuitry or just

male aggression tend

to

lead to creative

genius, this would not be the case. I

who

suspect that those

male genius

in

mind of genius

fortune to be exposed to a inconceivable that one that genius

is

explain the preponderance of

environmental terms have never had the

who

for long.

it

will

make

sive reordering of context that

imaginable that

context,

is

has could maintain the belief

often stayed by social factors. If genius

given form by context

It

is

its

own.

genius.

whether the

It is this It

is

is

not

aggres-

simply unmatrix

intellectual

facing the genius or the social and economic factors touching

One

his life could dissuade him.

New-

could describe the

tonian world that Einstein destroyed or the unspeakable

handicaps overcome by so

show

that minorities

many

whose

inferiority

men

around them have produced But

it

must be admitted view of

women

was assumed by

is

that precludes the manifestation of

women

have the biological

potential, his assertion cannot be disproven. is

metaphysical because

someone making such an

to the meta-

something inherent in every

an intellectual genius for which

tion

all

of unquestionable genius.

one adheres

that if

physical assertion that there society's

of the great minds; he could

is

it

not

Such an

falsifiable.

asser-

Whenever

assertion suggests a concrete social

element that accounts for the dearth of female genius one can easily demonstrate that there have been any number of

male geniuses who have overcome the suggested

As long the

as

one merely invokes

"society's

element that precludes the manifestation

genius, his belief

is

not any

obstacle.

view of women" of

more disprovable than

meaningful.

218

as

female it

is

PART III

Section Five

Male and Female

Chapter Ten

Male and Female

No

this area

should examine a contemporary America in which

the rage of tion

why some women will Anyone wishing to explore

doubt there are many reasons

accept the illogic of feminism.

is

young women protesting professional discrimina-

complemented by

roles by the

men who

a

revulsion toward professional

are "supposed" to

fill

them. For an

understanding of the forces that lead to the feelings of meaninglessness that so

many men and women now seem

to attach to their traditional roles

perhaps one should begin

not with the content of roles that were formerly capable of providing meaning, but with the failure of contemporary

American

feeling that the society's value system, reality,

is

members the way of denning

society to inculcate in the society's

correct

and meaningful.

It

its

is

this ability,

rather

than the specific characteristics of the value system or the value system's "humaneness," that the society's survival and that

is

is

the precondition for

relevant to the members'

present feelings of meaninglessness and the feelings of aloneness that are inevitable share.

When

members

if

the

a society loses

members have no meaning

its

to

ability to inculcate values its

Here traditions evaporate, as they must when the values on which they were founded seem meaningless, and they take all sense of continuity with them. Children no longer provide a sense of future, for fall

into the abyss.

values are the link

we

have with our children, and

223

if

we

Male and Female have no values

—

values based on intelligence infused with

experience, not ideological proclamations supported by Uto-

pian fantasy

—then we

sacrifice

our future for their contempt.

In the abyss some will have the strength to become "the

calm in the center of the whirlwind," but many will lack the faith, the strength, the courage, the will, and the imagination to create their

from

their society

own meaning. Having

received

no values

and having themselves created nothing

worthy of passing on

to their children, they will rail against

everything in sight save the image in the mirror. Liberation

an experience of personal salvation that im-

is

power over

plies

oneself. It

is

more than the attainment

far

One who

of social and economic freedom.

of pure meaning will have no need to

The

has found a well

drown everyone

in

it.

priest does not frantically ignore biological evidence

by

arguing that the "sex drive" value or that

we

could expect

is

he acknowledges the power of swering a more compelling feels that her sense of

merely an arbitrary

many people this drive

while himself an-

Likewise, any

call.

meaning

woman who

satisfied in areas

is

social

to choose celibacy;

not usually

considered feminine need not explain to anyone. She can

never hope to live in a society that does not attach feminine expectations to

overcome the

women, but

if

she has the courage she will

attitudinal discrimination that she will,

deniably, face. Certainly such discrimination

is

less threaten-

ing to one's liberation than the obsessive hatred of an

who

futile

own

existence, or the inevitably

attempt to substitute group strength for individual

psychic weakness.

is

enemy

serves only to symbolize one's inner turmoil, the avoid-

ance of the battles for one's

who

un-

devotes her

No

one

is

denying the value of the

life to career rather

no need for her

woman

than to children; there

to rewrite physiology, anthropology,

and

psychology in order to rationalize an unnecessary defense. Ultimately every examined disaster;

life

looking closely enough

224

we

can be interpreted as a can always discover psy-

Male and Female etiological

and

social

forces

provide

could

that

unlimited rage. For every intelligent and creative

men who must

there are ten

stumble through

for

fuel

life

woman without

the aid of intelligence or creativity. But no life can transcend its

own

disasters unless

tributes that if

one

is

it

its

uniqueness and con-

can contribute. Life

is

perverted

never initiating, but always

constantly reacting,

allowing rage to define

Too

celebrates

it

which only

it.

often such a definition shapes the lives of contempo-

and feminists

rary middle-class radicals in general

Too

ticular.

in par-

we fail to ask men and women to face their own existences; we merely inquire as to

often

the battles of

which form of

societal oppression

it

is

that

is

causing their

desperation and accept their exaggeration of external oppressions,

that

oppressions that they use to camouflage the terrors

one must face alone because such terrors are inherent

in existence. This

moral urgency as

it

is

is

is

not only sad, but dangerous.

affluent,

educated generation grows up life's

rewards that are mutually exclusive, fanaticism able than altruism. "facts"

and

emotional appeal tigation.

The

alacrity

reject or accept others is

is

more prob-

on the

basis of their

illusion in the guise of intellectual inves-

Invocation

society

choices offer

with which feminists invent

of

this

illusion

as

self-indulgence parading as virtue. There

American

a

superimposed on an emotional immaturity,

when an

without ever being forced to learn that

some

When

rationalization is

no doubt

demands some new answers

quickly.

is

that

But

the readiness of increasingly large numbers of radicals to translate nearly any

new

idea immediately into action does

not demonstrate rational response nor even pragmatic desperation but betrays an emotional development so stunted that they are forced to navigate life tellect

cating

is

on one engine; the

in-

twisted to serve the stabilizing function of incul-

meaning usually served

in part

but the children of the forties and

225

by the emotions.

fifties

Who

could believe that

Male and Female

would do an about-face this very year just because they did not like the way it was going? Who but children, who combine an intellectual egalitarianism (which views evolution

every individual's ideas as equally valid and accepts one idea over another on the basis of its

its

ideological value

and

perceived sincerity) with an emotional elitism which de-

rides as delusory false consciousness the emotional satisfactions of all the world's

men and women,

as to attempt to justify their

could be so petulant

longing contempt for the eternal

sources of joy with an analysis built of ignorance and held

Who

together by fallacy?

but children whose lifelong nur-

turance on material things has cursed them with the inability discover the small

to

which define happiness could

joys

have failed to learn that human imperfection will be grafted

To

onto any institution?

confuse this inevitable imperfection

with the causes that render the institution inevitable intelligent.

To hope

is

un-

for the perfection of any institution or

the disappearance of the institution because imperfection inevitable

is

is

Utopian.

Both men and women, even the feminist who

rails

against

such a feeling, feel that the husband "allows" and "protects."

Here the for equal

own sis

is

difference between those

work and those who

feelings

strive for equal

pay

reject the validity of their

and observations and accept the feminist analy-

seen in bold

patriarchy and is

who

relief.

dominance

For the former, the question of is

unimportant. For the

latter,

it

crucial; the feminist's philosophical aversion to the pos-

sibility

of the inevitability of male dominance stems from

her finding this possibility psychologically intolerable. Indeed, feminist literature emphasizes this area far it

is

more than

does real economic discrimination. Economic discrimination

abhorrent because

it

is artificial.

When we

speak of male

dominance we are speaking of the feelings of both men and that the man selected by the woman "allows" and

women

"protects," feelings motivating the actions

226

and determining

Male and Female the institutions of every society without exception.

these

It is

masculine and feminine feelings, the emotional manifesta-

and the emotional prerequisites of

tions of our biologies political

power, that prescribe the limits of sexual roles and

social possibility.

As long

as societies are

composed of human

To judge them

beings these feelings will be inevitable.

not merely stupid,

The

women;

central role will forever belong to

Women

the rhythm of things.

sublimation

is

is

blasphemous.

it is

they set

everywhere are aware that

an ignorance of the center; one of the most

stunning regularities one notices as he studies the crosscultural data closely societies

is

women

the extent to which

in all

view male preoccupation with dominance and supra-

familial pursuit in the

same way the American wife views

her husband's obsession with professional football loving condescension and an understanding that

—with

a

men embrace

the surrogate and forget the source. Nature has bestowed

on women the biological

abilities

and biopsychological pro-

pensities that enable the species to sustain itself.

Men

must

forever stand at the periphery, questing after the surrogate

powers, creativity, and meaning that nature has not seen to

make

innate functions of their biology. Each

fit

man knows

he can never again be the most important person in an-

that

other's life for long

superiority in

allowing them to

way

and

enough stay.

know

all

areas often

There

is

no

that they

enough

must

reassert

to justify nature's

alternative; this

is

simply

At the bottom of it all man's job is to protect woman and woman's is to protect her infant; in nature all the

else

is

it is.

luxury.

There are feminists who

try to

have

it

both

ways; they deny the importance of the biological basis of the behavior of the sexes, yet blame the world's woes on the

male

characteristics of

correct,

its

and we find that

leaders.

we

The

latter

are trapped in

hypothesis

the final irony: the biological factors that underlie life-sustaining abilities

—the

qualities

227

most

is

what could be

women's

vital to the sur-

Male and Female vival

of our species

—preclude

women's ever manifesting

the psychological predisposition, the obsessive need of power,

or the abilities necessary for the attainment of significant

amounts of

political

power.

not merely that the line

It is

is

thin that separates the

male's aggression from the child's demandingness; the aggression is

is

inseparable from

lacking in the male

women

is

save those few

its

childish component.

What

an acceptance that radiates from

who

all

are driven to deny their greatest

source of strength. Perhaps this female

wisdom comes from more likely it

resignation to the reality of male aggression; is is

a

harmonic of the woman's knowledge that ultimately she

who matters. As a result, men than brilliant women,

the one

brilliant

women

than good men.

Women

while there are more there are

more good

are not dependent on male

men are women have been ruined by men; female endurance survives. Many men, however, have been destroyed by women who did not understand or brilliance for their deepest sources of strength, but

dependent on female strength. Few

did not care to understand male fragility. In any case the central fact different

is

that

men and women

from each other from the gene

are

to the thought to

the act and that emotions that underpin masculinity and femininity, that

make

eternally different

from the

from

reality

biological natures of

fact that the feminist

as

experienced by the male

that experienced by the female, flow

man and woman. This

is

the one

cannot admit. For to admit this would

be to admit that the liberations of

men and women must

pro-

ceed along different and complementary lines and that the

women

of every society have taken the paths they have not

because they were forced by

lowed

their

men

but because they have fol-

own imperatives. Neither I, women can imagine why

vast majority of

want

to

deny the biological

inherent in

women's

basis of the

nor,

any

I

gather, the

woman would

enormous powers

roles as directors of societies' emotional

228

—

Male and Female resources; doing so that

power has

to

demands

one accept the male belief

that

do with action rather than

feeling.

But

whatever the reasons, denial does not indicate that there was a choice. If

we have we

of every culture,

learned nothing else from the

should have learned by

cannot transcend his fate until

deny their natures,

and covet

demned to

—

who

he accepts

it.

wisdom that

one

Women who

accept men's secondhand definitions

a state of second-rate

manhood,

to paraphrase Ingrid Bengis's

argue against their

now

own

For

juices.

are forever con-

wonderful phrase

all

the injustices com-

mitted in attempts to enforce bogus biological laws, roles associated with

gender have been primarily the

the cause of sexual differences. Sex

determinant of personal identity; about another person and the is

is

it is

last

result rather than

the single most decisive the

thing

first

we

thing

we

notice

forget. Just as

it

criminal for others to limit one's identity by invoking arbi-

trary limitations in the

name

of nature, so

destructive to refuse to accept one's

and powers

it

invests.

229

own

it is

terribly self-

nature and the joys

Epilogue

I

have not

at

characteristic,

any point associated with or with

women

tempted

to discover,

members of every

soat-

any attribute of either the male or the

known

female psyche that was not already individual on earth; such discovery

not of the theorist.

I

masculine

characteristic,

have not discovered, nor

that has not been so associated by the ciety that has ever existed. I

men any

any feminine

to virtually every

the task of the

is

artist,

have attempted only to demonstrate the

inevitability of the sexual differences

we

observe and the

in-

stitutions they engender. I trust the reader understands that

demanded that I refuse to could not be shown to be cor-

the theoretical nature of this book

make any "assumption"

that

have assumed that

rect in virtually deductive terms. I

been addressing a reader sented herein and

who

is

who would

I

have

hostile to the theory pre-

like to believe that sexual

biology does not render inevitable the social and behavioral realities I discuss.

line;

This book

the biological factors

is,

I

in other words, the

bottom

have invoked are those for

which the probability of existence and determinativeness so great that,

I

think, their existence

cannot reasonably be denied. addressing a friendly reader biological

realities

Had

I

assumed that

—one who —

discussed herein

is

and determinativeness I

had been

enjoys the social and I

would have

intro-

duced discussion of sexual differences whose existence and determinative importance to behavior are highly probable, but

230

Epilogue

reasonably debatable.

still

would have,

I

for example, dis-

cussed innately generated sexual differences in direction and

propensity rather than only in capacity.

Indeed, the theory presented here

not in any

is

on there being even a biochemical

tingent

erating the feelings

and

way

factor

affecting the behavior of a

con-

gen-

mother

toward her infant despite the fact that every society

rec-

ognizes the "maternal instinct" and despite the fact that I

how anyone

could not imagine

a factor exists. the attempt

find this

I

— —

and with

for the sake of ideology

only evidence

to explain

away

as

mere

mother and the

human

fiat as

the

socialization the fact

and the small child respond

that the infant to the

could doubt that such

no more absurd, however, than

father, a difference

totally differently

which can be seen

society

and

in every species even vaguely re-

lated to ours; ideology

may

satisfy those

in every

it is

who

espouse

it,

but

not capable of overriding either the daily observation or

the laboratory experiment that demonstrates the damaging effect

there

of maternal deprivation. In any case, to assume that a "maternal instinct" or an innate difference generat-

is

ing the different responses of the child toward the mother

and the father would serve the very positive function of

bal-

ancing the somewhat negative view of feminine behavior that is

inevitable

when we speak

women's response

to

it.

only of male aggression and

But the price

we would

paid for including such an assumption

—

have to have

a lessening of the

tightness of the theory without any corresponding increase in explanatory

powers

—was

reader understands that tions in

no way

correctness

is

my

simply too high.

refusing to

make

I

hope the

these assump-

indicates that I think that the denial of their

not ridiculous.

As

I

developed

this theory I

was often forced

to stand back, incredulous that there are

who have

journeyed so far from themselves that they

people

can really believe that their most basic impulses have nothing to

do with

their

most basic natures, that their daily experi231

Epilogue ences with their children, in sexual encounters, and in psychological relationships, are not given direction by the

The

that run through them.

are

few women who can

argue them, but that she can could.

experience of

outfight

when

a

is

is

that there

them and few who can

women

uses feminine

command a loyalty that no amount The experience of women is that

often seek out

men

hormones

of aggression ever the violence

and overpowering, but

terrifying

man

as

men

that by

woman

using the feminine means that nature gave her, a deal with the most powerful

out-

means

can

an equal. Are not these

sexual differences manifested and described in the works of

whom we

our greatest writers, the members of our species

have acknowledged to have the greatest insight into our natures? Is not the usual practice of ignoring the theoretical

contradiction at the heart of each feminist

work

in order to

concentrate on feminist insight, of treating feminist theorists as

we would

women in a coed football game, both inwomen scholars and pointless; can we really vision from one who is facing away from

treat

sulting to serious

expect a better nature?

Is

an analysis that denies these differences not an

unspeakable insult to the that

women

would not have survived had

Would

their female energies?

of

all

their

societies

women

not a true feminist

that truly believed in the uniqueness of

women

—

movement

yearn to

cover rather than deny the biological factors within

which make

women

One wonders denial of her

of her

own

is

if

Mother Nature's anger

it is,

same chance she allows found a truth they will not survive.

Of

in this epilogue is

when

at

women

her children's

the renegades are

she will nonetheless allow them the all

her other children. If they have

survive. If they have not they will

course the feminist will say that is

dis-

unique?

particularly strong

sex. If

societies

not asserted

all that I

say

merely a reflection of socialization and

for this reason that

I

it

have refused to make any assumption

in the theory that could not

be demonstrated to be correct

232

Epilogue

even though

I

believe that only the most

dehumanized among

us could question the correctness of the assumptions

ex-

I

cluded. This has the advantage of yielding a theory that in

no way contingent on the

characteristics of the theorist or

the moral or political implications of the theory;

presented here truth

libel,

correct, then, as

is

own

is its

if

who

the theory

the case with alleged

is

perfect defense. Therefore,

datory for the feminist theorist

which

If

wishes to be taken

is

seri-

is

in-

she cannot demonstrate either that the facts on

this theory is

invoked

man-

is

it

ously to demonstrate that the theory presented here correct.

is

faulty,

based are incorrect or that the reasoning

then

—

since

is

it

impossible for both this

theory and the feminist theory to be correct

which she bases her

—

the analysis on

world-view must be incorrect. If

entire

the elements of the theory presented here are correct the biological differences between

—

men and women make

inevitable that every society will be patriarchal, that

if it

male

behavior will always be more aggressive than female behavior, that males will always

the nonmaternal roles of

fill

authority and status, that males will be dominant and females

nurturant in dyadic and parental relationships, that socialization ties,

and even stereotype will always conform

and that the physiological

cognition

is

such that

in different terms

to these reali-

basis

of male and female

men and women

will forever see reality

—then what

is

left

of femininst theory? If

the feminist cannot compete successfully even in the area of theory,

where aggression

is

of

little

value,

to

compete

It

should be apparent to the reader by

in those areas

evidence indicates that

women

imperatives and that they the goals that

men

is

why

in this

now

follow their

can she hope

determinative?

is

that

own

would not choose

to

I

believe the

physiological

compete for

devote their lives to attaining.

have more important things to do. that

how

where aggression

and every other

for gentleness, kindness,

and

Men

society they look to

love, for refuge

233

Women

are aware of this and

from

women a

world

Epilogue

of pain and force, for safety from their every society a basic male motivation

is

own

excesses. In

the feeling that the

women and

children must be protected. But the feminist can-

not have

both ways:

it

if

that she will get in return

she wishes to sacrifice is

the right to meet

terms. She will lose.

234

all this, all

men on male

ADDENDUM

Some

Additional

the Universality of

In this

addendum

I

Comments on Male Dominance

deal with every society

have ever heard

I

any author suggest, usually by implication, as a possible exception to the universality of societal conformation to male

dominance

in dyadic relationships.

beat the proverbial dead horse, in an attempt to

keep

I

At the

add

a

risk of

seeming

to

few more comments

this all in perspective.

A. The uncontested universality of patriarchy and our

knowledge of hormonal biology leaves archy, at least,

Even

biological reasons.

if

we had no

tion at all

on male dominance

hormonal

factors

it

doubt that

little

not only universal, but

is

patri-

inevitable, for

is

cross-cultural informa-

would seem

likely that these

would manifest themselves

in dyadic

and

familial relationships.

B.

We do have cross-cultural information

relevant to

male

dominance on between twelve hundred and four thousand societies

(see page 61).

Given the nearly

infinite variability

of the economic, political, religious, and social systems of these thousands of societies and the fact that the most com-

mitted environmentalist does not contest the fact that these societies

acknowledge male dominance,

we do have

the right

to scrutinize evidence alleged to indicate the existence of a society not

acknowledging male dominance with more than

a bit of skepticism.

C. Unlike patriarchy,

male dominance

ered, nor even easily defined.

237

We

is

not easily uncov-

have seen that anthro-

Some Comments on

pologists have dealt with that,

dominance

while these customs will

male dominance

few "chivalrous"

and

in terms of customs

the feelings relevant to

reflect

(as defined in this essay)

case, there are a

toms do not

Male Dominance

the Universality of

in nearly every

societies in

which the

cus-

the member's feelings that authority

reflect

is

invested in the male.

D.

We

must accept the unfortunate, but

at least partially

unavoidable facts that there has not been the kind of stan-

we might have hoped

dardization of ethnographic procedures

some

for and that in

cases particular ethnographic studies

were the work of anthropologists who, possess the objectivity, ability, or

to

be gentle, did not

knowledge

that

would today

be expected of the least competent anthropologist. Given these difficulties the surprise

is

that there are not a great

many

"exceptions."

Considering these four points, right to case.

demand

I

think that

we have

the

that an alleged exception be a fairly clear-cut

Indeed, even

if

there were a

few

clear-cut exceptions,

one would not immediately dismiss the importance of the biological factor; it

he would, however, be forced

was not so overwhelming

a force that

it

to

admit that

could not under

any environmental conditions be overcome. Since there such exception

I

dominance, for

why

we have

think that

again the question: is

if

there

is

is

no

the right to ask once

no biological reason for male

there not a single clear-cut case of a society

which the ethnographer could

state

without equivocation

that the society does not associate general authority in dyadic

relationships with the male?

Alleged Exceptions With the exception of the Berbers and lowing quotations were

all

the "Yegali," the fol-

taken from the same ethnographic

studies that have been invoked by various authors (never the

ethnographers themselves)

as describing societies that did

238

Some Comments on

the Universality of

Male Dominance

not manifest male dominance in their dyadic and familial in-

The evidence

stitutions.

alleged to indicate that the Berbers

and the "Yegali" did not manifest male dominance was based on anecdotal information obtained in an interview (see Beror in informal conversation (see "Yegali" be-

bers below)

low). Save those "societies" that have existed only in myth

and legend, such society that I

"Amazons,"

as the

have ever seen invoked

this list includes every

as exception to the uni-

male dominance. The purpose of

versality of

none of these

course, to demonstrate that

reasonably argued to

fail to

this list

societies

is,

of

can be

manifest male dominance in their

dyadic and familial institutions. Stephens refers to William

N. Stephens, The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963). Alorese

Cora

Du

The People

Bois,

of Alor:

A

Social-Psychological

Study of an East Indian Island (Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota

Press,

1944).

Page 114: "... marriage means for economic responsibility in a

social

women

far greater

system that does not

grant them status recognition equal to that of men, while at the

same time

it

places on

monotonous burdens of

Bamenda Phyllis M. Kaberry, Women

them

greater and

more

labor."

of the Grassfields (London:

Her

Majesty's Stationery Office; Colonial Research Publications,

Number

14,

1952).

Page 148

:

"Women

are not eligible for the headship of

kin or political groups."

Berbers

Stephens implies that

it is

"possible" that the Berbers do not

239

Some Comments on

the Universality of

Male Dominance

associate familial authority with the male.

He

indicates that

the ethnographic materials do not imply that the Berbers

fail

with the male (p. 301); his for raising basis the possibility that the Berbers are an excep-

to associate familial authority

tion

information obtained in an interview with a graduate

is

student in archaeology

group

who had

observed a particular Berber

Mountains while on an archaeological dig

in the Rif

(personal communication). Since the informant has not pub-

on

lished

this subject,

own words

that the

not possible to demonstrate in her

it is

group she observed does not represent an

exception to the universality of male dominance. Furthermore, the term Berber refers to a large

whose languages

number of

are similar. Since there

is

social

groups

no way of know-

ing which of the Rif Mountain groups was observed,

not possible to invoke someone the group.

One would doubt

simply because

Murdock, writes: social

in

all

else's

Berber groups are Moslem. Moreover,

groups only among the

Berber groups

Mzab

[not a Rif group]. Else-

into patrilocal extended families,

each with a patriarchal head

[Emphasis added]." George

Peter Murdock, Africa: Its People

(New York: McGraw-Hill,

Hopi Edward

all

"Nuclear families are reported to be independent

where they are aggregated

tory

is

the absence of male dominance

compilation covering

his

it

ethnographic study of

and Their Cultural His-

1959),

p.

117.

"The Hopi-Tewa of Arizona," University and Eth-

P. Dozier,

of California Publication in American- Archaeology

nology, 44, 3:259-376 (1954).

Page 320:

".

be senior to

.

.

it

sisters,

seems that brothers are assumed to

and entitled

to respect as such, in

the absence of evidence to the contrary." (Dozier quot-

ing

Barbara

"Tewa Kinship Terms Hano, Arizona," American An-

Freire-Marreco,

from the Pueblo of

thropologist, n.s. 16:269-287).

240

Some Comments on

the Universality of

Male Dominance

Page 339: "Within the family, the mother's brother, or, in his absence, any adult male of the household or clan,

is

responsible for the maintenance of order and

the discipline of younger members."

Iroquois

Lewis Henry Morgan, League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1901).

Page 315: "The Indian regarded

women

as

the in-

dependent, and the servant of man, and from

ferior, the

nurturance and habit, she actually considered herself to

be so." See also: Cara B. Richards, "Matriarchy or Mistake:

Women

of Iroquois

Through Time,"

in

The Role

Cultural Stability

and Cultural Change (Annual Meeting of the American Ethnological Society in Ithaca,

New

York, 1957), pp. 36-45.

Martha C. Randle, "Iroquois Women, Then and Now," Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 149 (Smithsonian Institution,

undated).

Jivaro

Stephens presents two contradictory ethnological views of the Jivaro.

One

pictures a strong

on which Stephens bases is

not dominant,

is

R. Karsten,

Amazonia (Helsinki: that the text

is

male dominance. The

other,

his suggestion that the Jivaro

male

The Headhunters

Centraltry-cheriet,

identical to R. Karsten,

of Western 1935). I assume

The Headhunters

of

Western Amazonas: The Life and Culture of the fibaro Indians of Eastern Ecuador and Peru (Helsingfors: Finska Vetenskaps-societeten Helsingfors; Commentationes

narum Litterarum VII, 1935),

in

which Karsten

Huma-

writes:

Page 254: "Of the relations between husband and wife it

may be proper

to say that

241

it is

regulated according to

Some Comments on

the Universality of

the principle 'the sway.'

man

Male Dominance

governs, but the

woman

holds

"

Kibbutz See Footnote Fifty-three.

Marquesans R. Linton, "Marquesan Culture" in A. Kardiner,

vidual Press,

and His

Society

(New

The

Indi-

York: Columbia University

1939). Pages 69-70: "She [the Marquesan woman] does not take the role of disciplinarian."

Page 184: "The gods were almost

all

male. Theoret-

women could hold the highest rank, but in pracfew women were actually household heads, rulers

ically,

tice

of tribes or inspirational priests. In rare cases the eldest

daughter of a chief would become a chieftainess and rule in her

own

adopted a boy

woman might

if

right,

although as a rule the chief

his eldest child

was a

girl.

Such a

be deified, but the most powerful deities

were invariably male."

Mbuti (BaMbuti) Discussed in

text.

Modjokuto Stephens provides unclear evidence to support Modjokuto as "matriarchy"

(i.e.,

female authority in the home). Quoting

Hildred Geertz "Javanese Values and Family Relationships,"

1956 RadclirTe Ph.D. thesis, and The Javanese Family (New York: Free Press, 1961), he says that the man is shown deference in that he gets the better food, often he must be the

first

to eat,

and

receives "formalized deference," but that

242

Some Comments on the

woman

Geertz

the Universality of

Male Dominance

tends to have real household dominance. But

states:

Page 107: "The relationship with the mother remains as strong

and secure

individual's

life.

—and

as before

While mothers

lasts

throughout the

are described as 'lov-

ing' (trisna) their children, fathers are expected only to 'enjoy'

(seneng) them. The mother

of strength and love to contrast, the father

respectfully. It social forms,

and

who

is

is

whom

distant

the mother

who makes

and must always be treated

who

instructs the child in

countless decisions for him,

administers most punishments.

usually only a court of last appeal imitation.

seen as a bulwark

is

one can always turn. In

He

is

and

a

father

is

model for

and and children: he should

expected to be, above

dignified (sabar) with his wife

The

lead them with a gentle though

frm

all,

patient

hand, not inter-

fering with their petty quarrels, but being always available to give solemn sanction to his wife's punishments

of disobedient children. Only during the one early phase

of the child's

life is this aspect

of the father's role set

aside" [Emphasis added].

Nama

Hottentot

As Stephens (p. 298) points out (quoting I. Schapera, The Khoisan Peoples of South Africa [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1930], p. 251), the woman does have considerable authority in the

but

"...

to tribal life,

her

home and

over the children,

she plays a subordinate role in matters pertaining

and

in public always

walks several paces behind

husband. ..."

Navaho Clyde Kluckhohn and Dorothea Leighton, The Navaho (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946).

243

Some Comments on

the Universality of

Male Dominance

Page 55: "Formally, from the Navaho angle, the 'head of the family'

is

the husband.

Whether he

varies with his personality, intelligence,

is

in fact

and prestige."

Nayor E.

Kathleen Gough, "The Traditional Kinship System of the

Nayars of Malabar." Manuscript, Social Science Research Council

Summer Seminar on

Kinship, Harvard University,

1954, quoted in Stephens, p. 317:

"The Karanavan

[mother's brother] was traditionally

unequivocal head of the group.

mand

all

.

.

.

He

could com-

other members, male and female, and chil-

dren were trained to obey him with reverence.

..."

Philippines C. L. Hunt, tios

in the

"Female Occupational Roles and Urban Sex RaUnited

Social Forces,

States,

Volume

43,

Japan, and the Philippines"

Number

3,

in

March, 1965.

Page 144: "This combination of patterns has brought the Filipino

woman

although denied

to a point where,

some of the adventurous freedom of

the male, she

be even better prepared for economic competition.

work may be seen

acceptance of the boredom of routine as part of 'patient suffering'

which

is

may The

said to characterize

the Filipino female to a greater extent than the male.

Her

responsible role in the household

wife

is

is

charged with practical

affairs

means

that the

while the husband

concerned to a greater extent with

ritualistic activity

which maintains prestige."

Semai

Knox Dentan, The Semai: A Non-Violent People of Malaya (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968). Robert

244

Some Comments on

the Universality of

Male Dominance

women from being influwomen are. Most of the time, howwomen are primarily concerned with the

Page 68: "No rule prevents

and some

ential,

ever,

Semai

petty affairs of hearth

puts

it,

and home. As a Semai proverb

"men's loincloths are long,

are short,' that

is,

men

women with minor women feel 'embarrassed' lems,

in public

debate,

women's

are concerned with ones. to

although a

loincloths

major prob-

Furthermore, Semai

take a prominent part

woman

often exercises

influence through her husband."

Tchambuli Discussed in

text.

Yegali This tribe

is

alleged to have existed in Madagascar in Harold

Hodges 's introductory sociology text, Conflict and Consensus (New York: Harper and Row, 1971). Dr. Hodges writes (personal communication) that he heard of this group from the late Donald Bender. Investigation has not uncovered a single

mention of

this

group in either anthropological or

popular publications.

245

Index

American

Adolescence, testosterone level

108-109

in,

Aggression androgen and, 87

and

sciences,

214-216

attainment and, 105-108 biological evidence in, 104 as boxing prowess, 97 n. channeling of into authority

Aptitudes, "maleness" and, 201 Aristotle,

in,

195 see also Mathematics

Arts and sciences aggression in, 216

genius

151

male advantage in, 98 male-female difference capacity for, 90

in

elements

in,

in,

211-218

Ashley Montagu, M. F., 55 n., 59 n. Austen, Jane, 211 Authority delegation of, 37 male aggression and, 103114 wealth and, 153

121

leadership and, 152 in male, see Male aggression

96

212

Arithmetic, sex differences

female, 77, 93, 149, 151

nonbiological

and,

limits

29-73

gender identity and, 80-81 hormones and, 81-82, 85, 91-94, 104 inevitability of,

41

variation

social

systems, 120 denned, 91 dyadic male-female relationship in, 97

in industrial society,

in,

see also Male dominance Androgen, aggression and, 87 Androgenized girls, 84 Anthropology male anthropologists in, 165-166

Adultery, society and, 179

in arts

male domi-

society,

nance

n.

as physical strength,

sex drive and, social,

98-99

98-99

Bachofen, Johann

Bamenda

94-96

85-90 use of term, 92-93, 96 see also Male aggression "Aggressive instinct," 176 n. Alorese tribes, 239 Amazons, 31 n., 45, 54-61 testosterone level and,

44,

Bantu

tribe,

55

J.,

male

tribe,

male

role in,

Bardis, Panos, 55

Bardwick, Judith, 94

Barnouw, Victor, 44 Beach, Frank, 76

246

role

in,

239

n.

142

Index

Simone

Beauvoir,

174

168

de,

Blood, Robert O., 36 n. Bohr, Niels, 212 n. Boys, socializing of, 135 Brain mechanism, testosterone

n.,

n.

Beeson, Paul B., 95 n. Behaviorism, male-female role

137

in,

and, 89

n.

Bender, Donald, 245

Briffault, Robert, 55

Bengis, Ingrid, 229

Berber

tribe,

British Guiana, nuclear family

male role

in,

in,

39,

239-240 Berelson, Bernard, 194 n. Bernard, Jessie, 44 n., 84

n.

and Emily,

Charlotte

212 Bureaucracy

n.,

172

in industrial society,

masculine nature

Biological analogy, dangers of,

76-78 Biological

women's engineering,

differentiation

role in,

121-122 145

of,

111

sexual

149-

and,

male aggres-

Capitalist society,

sion in, 167

150

Castration, effects of,

Biological factors

94-99 123—

social exaggeration of,

fetal alteration and, 199 genius and, 216 hormonal stimulation and,

124 social realities and,

Biological

tions to,

Biological

120

hypothesis,

86-88

objec-

133-157

nature,

vs.

mathematical genius and, 213 morphological changes in, 89 sexual differences as develop-

society,

142-143

ment

Biological reality

140-146 socialization and, 108-110 society and, 147-148 Biological stereotype, 207-208 future change and,

of,

196-197

Chesler, Phyllis, 56 n.

Chess genius

in,

191,

213-214

male superiority

in,

193

women

Biology, discrimination

players in, 191 Childbirth, women's role

through, 146-147 Biopsychological differences,

in,

146-147 Child training, female need

n.

Black leadership, sex and, 31

in,

103

n.,

128

Chivalry, vs. male dominance,

Black matriarchy, 31 Black people as minority,

78

Cause, vs. function, 166-167 Central nervous system

irrelevance of exceptions in,

156

49

Bronte,

41

n.

Chromosomal

dimorphism, gender identity and, 83 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 23

127-128

performance deficiencies

209 white's perception of, 116 Blizard, David, 76

of,

Cognition, biology in, 188-193 Cognitive aptitudes, sexual differentiation in,

247

187-210

Index

Communist China

Dostoevsky, Feodor, 212 Dozier, Edward P., 240

authority positions in, 167

Du

male leadership in, 125 Composers, women as, 212 Crime and Punishment (Dostoevsky), 177 Cuba, male leadership in, 125

Bois, Cora, 239 "Dyadic dominance behavior," 80 Dyadic relationships, in social context, 34 n., 36

Cultural-environmental factors, sex behavior and, 137-138 Cultural variation as biological explanation, 73 relevance of, 65-72 Curie, Marie Sklodowska, 212 n.

Edwards, David, 76, 88-89 Ehrhardt, Anke A., 84 n. Einstein, Albert, 212 n. Eleftheriou, Basil, 93 n. Eliot, George, 211 Emotionality

Dalton, Katherina, 201-202

Dante

212 Davis, Elizabeth Gould, 56 Day-care centers, 144 Deference, customs of, 34 Dehumanization, 154 n. Democratic society

inculcation of, 25 male vs. female, 163 Emotional resources, woman keeper of, 25

Alighieri,

organizational

n.

authority

Emotions,

110-112 authority role

32

Dentan, Robert Knox, 244-245 of Sex Differ-

The

(Maccoby),

203 of Sex, stone), 168

Diamond, M., 86

(Fire-

biology,

of

biological

of,

factor

197

125

Evolutionary fallacy, 52-54 Exceptions, irrelevance of, 94-

110-112,

99 Familial

n.

male-

behavior,

female difference

in,

200

Erikson, Erik, 175

(deoxyribonucleic acid), "reading" of, 162 n.

Dominance

by,

Epstein, Ralph,

DNA

see also

Environmentalism, dilemma 136-140, 207 Environmentalists

male "logic" and, 207-210

145-147 economic, 226

T.,

147

Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs, 172

n.

Diner, Helen, 55, 56 n. Diodorus Siculus, 55 Dirac, Paul A. M., 212 Discrimination

Dodge, N.

57,

survival and, 148

denial

The

Dialectic

through

51-52,

168

vs. heredity, in,

Development ences,

60, 70,

Environment 113

sexist "battle" in,

women's

institutions

social

and, 150 Engels, Friedrich, in,

as

of,

authority,

37

Family humanization through, 154 neuroses and, 154 n. as patriarchal,

91

Male dominance

36

universality of, 32

248

delegation

n.

n.

n.

Index Farber,

Seymour M., 202

Fertility,

n.

Father role, 41 "instrumental" nature of, 48 in

Manus

society,

47

89 M., 89 108 n., 174 n. Firestone, Shulamith, 168-169, 174 n. Fisher, Alan, 89 n. Field, Pauline

n.

Female

Figes, Eva,

authority of, 41

lower status roles of, 45 nurturant role of, 138-139 superiority of, see also

female and, 177

Fetal brain, hormonalization of,

24-26

Food gathering,

Woman; Women

Female aggression, 77, 93, 149, 151

Female chess players, 191-192 Female Eunuch, The (Greer),

patriarchy and,

140 Freeman, W. H., 89 n. Freud, Sigmund, 48, 150, 155, 175, 176n. Function, vs. cause, 166-167

168-169 Female infanticide, 65 Female status, socializing 106-107 see also

"Status of

Ganong, of,

women"

Feminine logic, 204-206 "Feminine" societies, 61 n. Femininity

hormonal biology and, 141142 physiology of, 155 power-engendering of, 27 Feminist analysis confusion and

ideological

F.,

in,

"tomboyism" "unladylike"

of,

174-

175 socialization of sexes in,

162

Feminist research, 202-204 Feminists and feminist movement, 24 assumption of on sex-role differentiation,

of,

n.

211-218

106-107 84 n.

in,

behavior

in,

118, 135

134-135 rejection of biology in,

242-

fighting behavior in, 118

172-183 acceptance

n.

Girls socializing of,

fallacy

89

243 Gender, socializing of, 80, 84 Gender identity aggression and, 81-82 genetic code in, 82-83 Genetic code, 82-83 Genius, nature

aspects

158-183 failure of,

W.

Gaprindasvili, Nina, 192 Geertz, Hildred, 40 n.,

49-52

invention of "facts" by, 225 male dominance and, 35 Feminist theory, future in, 140-

146

Glancing blow, fallacy of, 1 64166 God, as male personage, 177 Goode, William J., 46 n. Gough, E. Kathleen, 56 n., 60 n., 70 n., 244 Government, women in, 124— 125 Goy, R. W., 89 n. Graves, Robert, 55 Germaine, Greer,

163 205

n.,

168

n.,

n.

Gynecocracy, 31 n.

249

162 n., 173 n, 203,

Index Hamster, size of female in, 86 Handshake, function of, 180181 Hardwick, Elizabeth, 217 Harlow, Harry F., 78 n. Harris, Marvin, 44 n., 59 n. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Fried-

Homosexuality,

patriarchy in,

124-127

Infanticide, 65, 151 Infants, male-female differences in,

108

Institutions, universality of,

61—

65

attain-

of husband and 181-182

Intelligence,

wife,

Intelligence

happiness

monal

in,

hor-

differences,

basis of,

198-202

IQ

Indians, male role in, 44,

genius and, 211 sexual differentiation

240-241

Hormonal Hormonal

role

aggression in, 121 bureaucracy in, 121-122 male dominance and, 68 masculine nature of, 145

164-165

Hopi

authority

32

Industrial society

Heredity, vs. environment, 147

Hermaphroditism hormones and, 78-85 IQ and, 199-200 Herodotus, 55, 59 n. High-status roles, male ment and, 44-47 Hodges, Harold, 245 Homer, 55, 212

women's

in,

212

rich,

62

Incest taboo, 32, India,

factor,

in,

199-201

aggression, 81, 104

74-99

Iroquois tribe, male role

in,

40,

44, 58, 241

Hormonalization, social values and, 135, 197 system, "head start"

Israel,

women and

authority, 32

Hormonal

male

for

in,

Janeway, Elizabeth, 172, 174 n. Javanese, male role among, 142

105

Hormones aggression and, 81, 104 in human hermaphrodites,

Jivaro tribe, male role in, 39,

42

n.,

241

79 Hottentot

tribe,

male role

in,

142

House of

Representatives, U.S.,

female members

Human

of,

124

aggression, see Aggres-

sion;

Male aggression

Kaberry, Phyllis M., 239 Kant, Immanuel, 212 Kanter, Emmanuel, 56 n. Kardiner, A., 242 Karsten, R., 241 Kibbutzim, male role in, 45,

125-126

Humanization, family and, 154 n.

Human in,

malleability, limitation

146-157 L., 244

Hunt, C. Husband,

as protector,

Ideology, 134 n.

"Killer instinct," 75 Kluckhohn, Clyde, 243

Joseph Francois, 55 Langer, Suzanne, 212 Lawrence, D. H., 50 n. Leacock, Eleanor Burke, 70 n. Lafitau,

226

250

Index attainment

Leadership aggression and, 152 cultural variation in,

and,

66-67

biological association in,

39 n., 59 Levine, Seymour, 89 n.

n.

192-193 childish component

chess and,

112 environmental

female aggression, 77, 93, 149, 151 as female "oppression," 113-

McEwen,

vs.

55

126

inevitability of,

Male

societal

26-27 deference of, 34 dominance of, see Male domiauthority of,

of,

psychological differences

in,

superiority of

on

certain tests,

203 superior size and strength of,

139 see

also

status and,

103-114

superiority and, also

92

Aggression;

Male

dominance

Male authority, defined, 36 n. Male dominance alleged exceptions to, 238245 attitude toward,

37

defined, 31 n., 33,

114 114

degree of, 67 in dyadic and familial tutions,

182-183 Leadership;

in,

98

251

68 36

insti-

67 182-183 feminist feelings and, 35-36 industrialization and, 68 inevitability of, 38 as feeling,

Male

dominance Male aggression advantage

of,

biological factors in,

n.

tallness in,

manifestation

115-128

see

163 expendability of, 149 high-status role of, 44-47, 71 leadership and, 32, 105 as protector, 227

156

78

limiting of by society, 122

physical size and, 139-140 power and, 103-114

n.

Glazer, 60 n.

nance emotionalism

54

male dominance, 33 n. preponderance of, 189-190

Bruce, 76 Scott,

74-75

factor in,

as instinct,

Nona

explanation

vs.

Maccoby, Eleanor E., 103, 193194, 202-203, 205 n. McDermott, Walsh, 95 n.

Malbin,

228 110-

136-140

114 hormonal

McNall,

of,

discrimination through,

of,

204-207

F.,

167

in capitalist society,

Lewis, Viola G., 199-200 Linton, Ralph, 242 Logic, masculine vs. feminine,

J.

77-

78

women's "exclusion" from, 106 women's preference in, 105 Leighton, Dorothea, 243 Leslie, Gerald,

103-114

authority and,

male aggression and, 107 male-dominated, 29 status of, 151

McLennan,

206,

189,

209

female desire

n.,

for,

Index

Male dominance

Masculinity

(cont.)

leadership and, 29 vs. male aggression, 33 n. male-female and, contact

48

n.,

50

n.

26-27, 31-32 and economic sys-

vs. patriarchy,

in political

tem, 112-113 "protection"

woman

of

in,

226-227

universality

123 39-44, 52,

of,

fears,

environmental

determinant

Male

Femininity;

also

women's

leadership,

erence

pref-

Man, concept of, 23 see also Male Man's World, Woman's Place (Janeway), 172 Manus, father role in, 47

n.

Tse-tung, 125 Islanders, 61 n.,

242

Marriage

breakdown

of,

universal

of,

biological evidence for,

denned, 30 evidence

n.,

for,

31 n. 55 n.,

63 59

n.,

n.

"prehistoric,"

54-61

57

lineality,

in,

25,

society,

44,

67,

male role 118-120,

151

105

for,

Maleness, obstacles to, 201 see also Masculinity Malinowski, Bronislaw, 47 n., 48

as

"Matriarchal stage," fallacy

Mbuti Pygmy

see also Leadership

Marquesan

in,

Matrilineality, transfer to patri-

n.

dominance; Patriarchy

Mao

as

197

in,

194-195 "unfeminine," 194, 208

60

94 137

213-214

in,

Matriarchy

matriarchy and, 56 "Male-female" behavior, 23-24 aggressive capacity and, 91-

Male

genius

52-53

134, 237-245 wife and, 37 n.

see

50 n. Maternal propensity, 138-139, 231 Mathematics

sex differences

social exaggeration of,

in,

sex-linked tendency toward,

male superiority

role of, 33

Male

hormonal biology and, 140142

179

institution,

32,

61 Martini, L., 89 n.

Mead, Margaret, 43-46, 157 Mice, fighting in, 88 Mill, John Stuart, 51 n. Millet, Kate, 49 n., 50 n., 51 n., 168 n., 173 n., 205 n. Mischel, Walter, 196 n. Mitchell, Juliet, 170, 174n. Modjokuto (Java), male role in, 39-40, 242-243 Money, John, 50 n., 76, 79, 8183, 84 n., 166, 199-201, 202 n. Monkeys, play behavior in, 78 n. Montagu, see Ashley Montagu Morgan, Lewis Henry, 40, 58, 241

Marxism, vulgarized, 168-171 Masculine logic, 204-207 "Masculine" societies, 61 n.

252

Morgan, Robin, 155

n.

Mother, artificial substitute 142

for,

Index

"Mother Nature," 177 "Ms," abbreviation, 178 n. Murdock, George Peter, 58-59, 240

Philippines, in,

dominance

male

244

Philosophy, genius in, 214 Phoenix, C. H., 86 n., 89 n. Physical strength

Nama

Hottentot, male role

39,

Napier,

98-99 139 Physiology, feminism and, 155 Playboy magazine, 179 aggression

in,

243 J.

Navaho

87

R.,

n.

male role among, 243 Nayar tribe, male role in, 45, 244 Nimkoff, M. F., 39 n. Indians,

Nonbiological factors, quacy of, 133-157 Nuclear family, 49 n.

as,

status and,

Plutarch, 55

Policy making, male leadership in,

124-125

men

Political authority,

inade-

32-

in,

33 "Political

dominance behavior,"

80

women

Politics,

199-

Oetzel, Roberta, 193-194,

201, 203

in,

124-125

Polyandry, 64-65, 72

Power 36 n. male aggression and, 103114 male dominance and, 26 as influence,

"Oppression," 113-114 Origin of the Family, (Engels), 52 Overpopulation, 142

The

Prehistoric matriarchies, 32 n.

Preoptic area, sexual dimorphParsons, Talcott, 48 Patriarchal family,

36

ism in, 89 Primate studies,

n.

156

Patriarchy alternative to,

biological

142

evidence

Private Property for,

63,

108-110, 123-124, 133157 denned, 30 n., 31 n. food gathering and, 140 in industrial society,

124-127

of, 103-128, 233 vs. male dominance, 27, 31-

inevitability

32 universality

of,

52, 66, 78,

30-33,

arts,

86

n.,

n.,

and the

State

(Engels), 52 Psychoanalytic theory, 176 n. Psychological differences, 155 n.,

156

n.

Psychology of wick), 94

Women

Pygmy

male role

society,

(Bardin,

25,

44, 67, 118-120, 151

Queen Mother, cieties,

134

Patrilineality, transfer to,

Performing

51-

78

n.

in

African so-

32

57-58

women

in,

211-212 Personal identity, sex and, 229

253

Rabin, A. I., 126 n. Race, sex and, 127-128 Racism, biological truth and, 77

Index Raisman, Geoffrey, 76, 89-90 Randle, Martha C, 241 Reed, Evelyn, 56 n. Reeves, Nancy, 56 n. Reiss, Ira L.,

39

individual behavior and, 141

women, 180 Sex role differentiation feminist assumption on, 4950 Marxist writings on, 168 in

n.

Research, rating of, 206 n. Revolutionary societies, patri-

archy in, 124-127 Richards, Cara B., 241 Rights versus "respect," 68-73 Rogers, Hilliard, 91 n.

Sexual biology, socialization and, 108-110 Sexual dimorphism, in preoptic area,

89

dominance,

Sexual

Sappho, 214

Scientists,

women

John

Sexual

as,

social

212-215

male role in, 26 E., 156n. J. Smith, R. T., 49 n. Singer,

Social aggression, 94,

29 Social

sexual

contacts,

nance

in,

52-

53 exaggeration,

Social

of

male

dominance, 123

aggression and, 97 behavioral manifestations of,

Social

116-117 component of, 174 performance and, 189-191 race and, 127-128

Socialization

biological

reality

and,

108-

female status and, 106-107 80-82, 84 n.,

gender and, 85 n.

187-

Social organization,

need for, 115-118 Sex distribution, improvement

emotion

110, 147

Sex differentiation

210

institutions,

and, 150

biological

Social

fac-

120

Structure

Social

121-122

biological

realities,

tors in,

(Murdock),

58-59

Sex drive aggression and, 98

224 159-160

Social

celibacy and,

denial of,

domi-

104

Social evolutionary theory,

n.

superiority in, 24

149-150

96

Social behavior, leadership and,

Sex differences

in,

of,

Shtetl,

73

in cognitive aptitudes,

basis

n.

Shakespeare, William, 212

149-150

behavior and, 50

status and,

stereotypes,

50

n.

P.,

preselection of,

n.,

168-169

S., 1

93 n. Semai tribe, male role in, 244 Senate, U.S., male make-up of, 124 Seward, Georgine, 126 n. Sex personal identity and, 229 Scott,

social

Sexual Politics (Millett), 50

56 n. Schapera, I., 243 Schultz, Adolph, 86 Schachter,

in

104

contacts,

values,

of,

hormonalization

135

Societal variation,

254

29-73

Index Testosterone level in adolescence, 108-109 aggression and, 85-90 virilization and, 95

Society clash with biological natures,

142-143 emotionality limits of

25-26

in,

male aggression

in

in,

121-122 patriarchy in,

115-

in,

necessity for, 158-159 Thurnwald, Richard, 44 n. Tiefer, Leonore, 86 n. "Tomboy ism," 84 n. Trobriand Islanders, sexual roles among, 48 Turnbull, Colin M., 119-120

118 106-110,

by,

147, 172 Soviet Union

male authority in, 46 male leadership in, 125

women women

chess players

doctors

Spiro, Melford,

126

in,

192

United

171

in,

physical strength and,

65

139

behavior,"

80 "Status of Steiner,

Vaerting, M., 57 n. Violence, feminine control of,

women," 68-73

Gary A., 194

232

n.

Stephens, William N., 39-41,

Virilization,

43, 239, 242-243 Stoller, Robert, 50 n., 84 n.

42

Strength, aggression

as,

Women, of (Mill), 51 n.

Subjection

176 meaning

Superiority-inferiority,

24-28

Survival, environmental factors in, 148 Sweden, male 125

Waehrer, Helen 60 n.

98-99 The

Suomi, Stephen J., 78 n. Superego development, sexual

of,

leadership

testosterone

and,

95

n.,

differences in,

male aggression

in,

biological advantage in, 105

attainment

States,

41-43 see also Male aggression Universality, meaning of, 61-

n.

Status

"Status

n.

nature of, 7-10

31-32

sex differentiation socialization

women, 95-96, 162

Theory

in,

Tallness, as social value, 182

Tasks, male status in, 47

Tchambuli (New Guinea), male role in, 39, 43-44 Testes, in fighting of mice, 88

Youngelson,

Ward, Lester Frank, 55 Wealth, authority and, 153 Weber, Max, 42 n. Wechsler, David, 194 n. Weisstein, Naomi, 155 n., 156 n., 157 n. Whalen, Richard E., 89 n. Wife, male dominance and, 37 n. Williamson, Robert C, 126 n. Wilson, Roger H., 202 n. Witkin, H. A., 194 n. Wolfe, Donald M., 36 n.

Woman

255

concept

of,

as creator,

23 25

Index

Woman's

Place (Epstein), 172

percentage of in U.S. work

211-218

physiological imperatives of,

Women in arts

46

force,

and

sciences,

in bureaucracy, 111

career vs. family for,

233 power advantage

224

of,

36

n.

227 as chess players, 191-192 childbirth and, 146-147 as composers, 212, 214-215 in day-care centers, 144

respect for, 69, 72 sex drive in, 180

"discrimination"

testosterone level of, 95-96,

central role of,

"status" of,

superfamilial roles of, 42 n.

against,

145-147 as

106 68-73

socialization of,

162

Women

doctors in Soviet Union,

n.

and the Public

Interest

(Bernard), 172

171 equal pay and

government 125

work

roles

226 124-

Women's

"rights,"

Work, Murray

Work

in high-status areas,

"inferior"

for,

of,

force,

S.,

68-69

91

women

n.

46

in,

145

feelings in,

116-

X-factor, aggression and, 91

117 leadership roles "barred" logic of,

"Yegali"

to,

tribe,

Young, W., 89

106

239, 245 n.

204-207

"oppression"

of,

113-114

Zelditch, Morris,

256

47

n.,

48

(continued from front flap) point of view that

is

meant

to influence people's

behavior, nor does he say or imply that any

masculine quality

is

superior to any feminine

quality.

The

standing.

It

will

over, praised will

is

a major ad-

human

self-under-

Inevitability of Patriarchy

dition to the literature of

be discussed widely, argued

and damned. But, assuredly,

who

be required reading for anyone

to consider seriously the relationship

men and women

between

in our world.

Steven Goldberg was born and presently lives in Manhattan. the

it

wishes

Department of Sociology

He

raised

and

has been in

at City

College

for four years.

WILLIAM MORROW & COMPANY,

INC.

105 Madison Avenue New York, N.Y. 10016

*S6

0-688-00175-0

Advance Praise

for

THE INEVITABILITY OF PATRIARCHY no one who wishes to be taken seriously on the subject of sex roles on all the questions of the nature of male-female relationships, can ignore The Inevitability of Patriarchy. Its logical elegance and extensive scholarship give the book an authority that contrasts with the "I believe

and

political authority, or

shallowness of the popularizations and ideological tracts that have been remuch misinformation."

sponsible for the spread of so

—Ibtihaj Arafat, The City College of New York

"The

Inevitability of Patriarchy

is a delightful, intellectually refreshing tour seen a theory in the social sciences so rigorously advanced, and seldom have I found such pleasure in seeing an idea unfold. Goldberg has a gift for making bold arguments sound plausible. He is scrupulously fair in his treatment of those views—particularly the feminists'— that attempt to contradict his theory. He is especially careful to note that

de force.

.

.

.

.

.

Seldom have

I

.

this

book does not

constitute an expression of 'male chauvinism'; only on spurious grounds can his book be offered in defense of the proposition that males are

superior to females." "I find

The

—Noel

S.

Iverson, The University of

New Brunswick

Inevitability of Patriarchy first-rate.

To me the strong points are Steven Goldberg's elegant handling of sociological theory— his explication of what theory is and to what extent it can be 'air tight' and then his highly ethical handling of his argument. A book that could have descended to cheap polemics is rescued by his continuous judicious tone and his fair-minded openness to opposing arguments." —Richard Birdsall, Connecticut College "The

Inevitability of Patriarchy

is coolly, tightly, cogently, and even brilliantly demolishes the position of the feminists and does so with more concern for truth and human values than they show. It is the only work I have so far seen that links biology to social and political organization cogently." Morton A. Kaplan, The University of Chicago

reasoned.

It

—

"I wanted to be sure that my enthusiasm for The Inevitability of Patriarchy was not merely idiosyncratic; and so I loaned it to three women, all of whom are dispassionate and knowledgeable on these issues, to get some sense of their reaction, which was as enthusiastic as mine. It is, I think, a marvelous book, impeccably reasoned and vigorously argued."

—Joseph Adelson, The

University of Michigan

"The Inevitability of Patriarchy is a major statement in the growing debate over the contribution of biology to the shaping of human behavior. It is a scholarly

who

is

work

not?

that

—can

no one

interested in the status of

women

in society

—and

afford to miss."

—Edward

WILLIAM

Sagarin, The City College of

MORROW

& COMPANY, INC

105 Madison Avenue New York, N.Y. 10016

New York