A reader writes:
Have you ever read a book called Why Men Rule by Stephen Goldberg? It came out about 10 years ago and was very controversial. I read it back then and found it pretty convincing. Because of that book I don’t believe that Hilary Clinton, or indeed any woman, could be elected President in the US. Well, that it a bit too definite. More accurately I find it unlikely that a woman could be elected President. If you’ve read the book I would be interested in your opinion of it.
There are several questions here, but to take them in order:
Yes, I have heard of the book and have read part of it.
It actually came out longer than 10 years ago. The original edition came out in the 1960s, if I recall correctly, and the author wanted to call it "Why Men Rule" back then, too, but the publisher felt that the title would be misunderstood and would be interpreted as an inquiry into what motivates great political leaders (who were all men at the time–i.e., "Why those men who do rule are motivated to do so"). It was therefore published under the title "The Inevitability Of Patriarchy." Eventually, society changed enough that the author’s preferred title would not be misunderstood and that’s what went on the second edition.
It would be too strong to say that no woman could be elected president. Certainly, the author of the book would not say that. There have also been many examples of women being elected to the highest elective office in other countries (Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto).
You will forgive me if I can’t reproduce the language that the author of the book uses in expressing his thesis (it’s been a long time since I read what of it I did), but his thesis is that on average men have a higher degree of what might be termed "leadership drive" than women do on average. This means that they are more ambitious and aggressive, on average.
He supports this thesis in a variety of ways, partly arguing that it is rooted in the neurology and chemistry of the male brain (this part I haven’t read) and partly by noting the total absence from human history of any matiarchal cultures (except, of course, for the Amazons of Paradise Island, who will all lose their superpowers if a man ever steps foot on their homeland and thus be unable to play the national sport of bullets & bracelets without extreme personal risk).
While one does occasionally read authors claiming the existence of a matriarchal culture, Goldberg points out that these are never the ethnologists who have researched the culture firsthand but always people relying on secondhand reports. An extensive section of the book debunks these claims, pointing out how the individuals making the claims have misunderstood or misrepresented the reports on which they base their claim.
Goldberg’s thesis is not, though, that men are always more ambitious or aggressive than women. He carefully points out that he is speaking only of averages.
By way of comparison, he notes that men are on average taller and stronger than women are on average, but this does not mean that the shortest man is taller than the tallest woman or that there are no women capable of kicking a man’s butt in a fight. Some women are stronger than some men, and some women are taller than some men. It’s a question of averages.
In the same way, some women have a stronger leadership drive than some men, and thus pursue high office. In fact, the author expressly notes the cases of women who have achieved the highest elective office in their countries.
It can happen here, too, and I suspect that–at some point–it will. As long as the victorious individual is pro-life, I’m totally jake with that.
I’m afraid that since I haven’t read the whole book (or even the majority of it), I can’t give you a global book report.
I thought that it was kind of hard to read. This may have been a necessity, though, given that the author knew his thesis was going to be a lightning rod for criticism and thus he may have felt the need to write in a way that would insulate him from as much criticism as possible (e.g., lots of qualifiers and lots of sources).
As far as the substance of the book goes, since I haven’t read the neuro-chemical part of his argument (and am not an expert in that field, anyway), I can’t really comment on that. I do find it likely that differences in male and female behavior are much more significantly rooted in the biology than has been generally credited in recent years, which has seen a dramatic overemphasis on the role of culture to the exclusion of biology in explaining differentiated behavioral characteristics of the sexes.
The fact that there appear to be no authentic matriarchies in human history is also a very telling fact, and the discussion of alleged matriarchies is very interesting.
As I have written before, I think something like the author’s central thesis is likely to be true. It is obvious looking at men that they are somatically structured for competition and combat in a way women are not, and it is thus no surprise when one examines their behavior that they are correspondingly more competitive and combative as well. They are psychologically configured in a way that corresponds to what their bodies are designed to do, which involves a greater preparedness to fight.
Which is also why boys instinctively play combat games even if they are forbidden toy guns and toy swords. It’s the same reason puppies and kittens wrestle each other in mock fights–a way of instinctively preparing oneself in a safe manner for what one may have to do in earnest later on in life.
Since combat involves accepting a great deal of risk, human males are correspondingly less risk-averse, which you can spin positively by saying they are notably courageous (willing to take great risks) or negatively by saying they are notably foolhardy (willing to take great risks).
All of this is just the language of averages, though. Many women excel many men in each of these characteristics. The genders overlap to a very great degree, even though their relative averages are different.
Now, because the question was put to me in terms of the male-side of the equation, I haven’t addressed the female side in significant depth, but women also exceed men in other characterstics.
Verbal aptitude is one of them. (Men have better spatial aptitude, corresponding to the need to track where the next fist is going to come flying at you from.) Agility is another. Women are on average more agile than men are on average.
And then there’s the one I am so totally envious of: Women have longer lifespans.
It ain’t fair!
Think about it: If someone gave you the choice, which would you rather have: An extra four inches and fifty pounds or an extra five to ten years of life?
If you want to check out the book and decide for yourself, you can
I read that with interest. I agree with much of the author’s thesis on this issue. Endocrinology is a fairly new science and I think hormones play a HUGE part in the differences between men and women.
I have two sisters who served in the military. Both have admitted that they don’t believe that women have the physiological capability to live in a combat scenario for long term periods. They often end up with urinary tract infections, problems from menstrual issues, etc… Their bodies just aren’t designed for it.
As a woman I know my limits. I don’t have very strong leadership drive (unless it’s with a bunch of children in a classroom!) But the idea of a political life and all it entails horrifies me personally!
What happens when a woman in a leadership role has to submit to her husband?
I imagine that one reason that people don’t want to talk about biological differences between men and women because the next question would be about the greatest taboo, differences between races.
I have thought privately that probably the greatest reason you don’t see nearly as many women CEOs as men is that they just aren’t that interested in the job. Certain of them might enjoy the power and prestige but not many would enjoy the process of getting there.
Heck, I wouldn’t.
I would like to make a distinction between “differences in the two genders” and “differences between races.” In the beginning, God made mankind male and female. So there were two kinds of people. Then, they procreated. And all peoples of all races are descended from these original parents. So the differences between races came about in a very different way.
Additionally, there can be people of mixed races and cultures. But there is no halfway between male and female.
Goldberg addresses the matter of Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir. I believe his point was that these women were not directly elected by the population. I think, since they are parliamentary systems, the party that wins the most seats chooses their leader. So no one actually cast a vote in an election for Thatcher, Gandhi, as PM. I’m not sure about that but it is how I remember Goldberg’s argument. I think he did mention some countries that have elected women as leaders but when examined closely it turns out that the “leadership” position (however it is termed) doesn’t have the same kind of power as the President does in the US. Ireland was one example he gave. They have a woman president but also a prime minister. And it is the prime minister that has the real power. And you are right. Goldberg doesn’t argue that a woman can *never* be elected president in the US, only that it is very unlikely given the degree of power that the President holds in this country as well as seemingly innate preference for patriarchy that all societies exhibit.
But there is no halfway between male and female.
That’s not exactly true.
And there are very real differences between the races. For example, older blood-pressure medicines seem to work effectively in black people, while the newer ones work effectively in white people but not as effectively in black people — generally speaking. Few women venture into the fields of mathematics, physics, and engineering. But the same might be said for black people. One might also add that Asians seem to be over-represented in these areas. I’m not trying to be offensive, simply pointing out what seems to be true, empirically. Can it all be chalked up to cultural differences and the repression of minorities? Somehow, I doubt it.
“And then there’s the one I am so totally envious of: Women have longer lifespans.”
Somebody has to clean up after us. 🙂 Personally, I don’t envy that, lol!
True, there actually exist a few rare individuals for whom gender is a legitimately foggy issue, even from a physiological standpoint.
But they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Part of the racial problem is that people of different races live in different parts of the world, with different climates, soils, etc. And the cultures formed by this can emigrate with them. . . .
Thomas Sowell’s Race And Culture on the complexities of this.
Jimmy, I like the fact that you emphasized “on average.”
One thing to remember is that the “average” person is never going to run for President. Jimmy, you probably will never run for President. Despite my childhood dreams, I will probably never run for President. Those who run for President are extraordinary in some way, and have a special drive and hunger that most of us don’t have.
So, when you narrow the field down to the select few that would run for President, it’s just as likely to be Hillary Rodham Clinton as it is to be Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Regarding the power of the female leaders – I dare to assert that Thatcher had as much (or as little) power as Reagan. You can argue that a British prime minister must perform a balancing act in ministerial appointments, and award certain positions to certain sectors of the party, but the same holds true in the American system, in which political party supporters must be rewarded, and Senatorial confirmation must be assured. If it were completely up to Reagan, would he have appointed James Baker to Cabinet-level positions? Probably not, but he had to keep the Ford wing of the party happy.
I cannot speak of the governments of India and Pakistan, but I think it’s safe to say that Indira Gandhi’s influence on India was (and perhaps still is) substantial.
The point that needs to be remembered is that “on average” doesn’t mean the same as “can’t do it”. There are plenty of examples in history of women leaders and women combat fighters. The major disad is that these ladies often have had to figure out a great deal for themselves, rather than having someone around to teach them the tricks.
I find it hard to believe, for example, that women should be getting urinary tract infections because they’re in combat. It’s not as though there aren’t other situations where women have to work hard without much rest. There are probably mothers in less developed countries who could tell these soldier ladies all about how to avoid urinary tract infections. But if you don’t know the tricks, you have to reinvent the wheel — or at least do a lot of Googling for medical facts and using your own resourcefulness.
Female martial artists, and observant male martial artists, have found out a lot over the years about the most efficient ways for women to move and attack — and yes, the differences in center of gravity, agility, weight, range, and strength are not a bug but a feature. If you and your sensei understand them, that is. Likewise, there are leadership styles that work better for women than men. Men have problems with fighting and problems with becoming leaders, also. But we are culturally familiar with those problems and how to solve them. Women need to develop a similar mental database, so that women who want to fight or lead don’t have to think it all out for the first time.
There are a lot of women and a lot of men who don’t fit into “on average”. As Christians and as realists, we need to see people for who they are — individuals, not statistics. Society should always have room for the exceptional. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be planned to benefit average people, as well.
And women don’t have to cut their breasts off to shoot a flippin’ bow. As Artemis would probably have informed Greek men shortly before turning them into bears.
ObCatholicism: Christine de Pisan’s works on women and her works on warfare; St. Joan of Arc; Countess Matilda of Tuscany (the lady who held the walls of Canossa); etc.
ObGood Old Days: has historical articles and martial resources for women fighters in the SCA (medieval reenactment group), but they might well be useful to women in real combat as well. “The Armored Rose” and “Gender Issues in Fencing” (and no, it’s not some scary feminist rant) are particularly useful.
Fencing’s fun. I really should get back into it. Of course, lack of aggression’s not my problem, as I have two brothers and an Irish temper. Keeping from going into berzerker mode is my problem, especially since it increases my speed and accuracy.
One thing I observed in the working world that I haven’t seen mentioned here is the fact that, when presented with a problem, men must conquer it, where women desire to nurture it. Men seem to be primarily (but not totally) rational, while women are primarily (but not totally) emotional. To put it succinctly, who wants a PMSing president? Or more with current custom, a menopausal president? Yikes!
“Battles are ugly when women fight.” –Father Christmas, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis.
I do worry about a country that is so obsessed with equality in everything that in a time of war it’s women, as well as it’s men, start to come home in body bags.
That is a wretched equality.
True, there actually exist a few rare individuals for whom gender is a legitimately foggy issue, even from a physiological standpoint.
A minor quibble: “Gender” is a grammatical and cultural term; “sex” is the biological term. “Masculine” and “feminine” are genders; “male” and “female” are sexes.
“I find it hard to believe, for example, that women should be getting urinary tract infections because they’re in combat. It’s not as though there aren’t other situations where women have to work hard without much rest.”
It’s not about rest, Maureen. It’s about hygiene. Sometimes in war you go without bathing for a month or longer. My sisters said that when they played wargames and went without bathing for two weeks all the women started having UTI problems, etc… Face it, they are not built the same and combat is not what women’s bodies are designed for no matter how much you might wish it.
I’ve worked at two multinational corporations in which women held more managerial positions, including VP spots and Regional President positions. I’ve noticed gender differences in management style, but often in favour of the women.
For example, many of the men appeared to suffering from PMS (poor me syndrome). That is, when they were stressed about a problem they would “lose it” and throw tantrums. Often if a manager was yelling at a subordinate about X at headquarters, he was really upset about Y in a field office. There was one guy who would literally walk out of the office if there was a personality conflict – not surprisingly, he went through 4 secretaries in 2 years and was demoted twice before being bought out.
The female managers (and especially the president of Operations at one company) seemed to handle the stress better and were able to get various departments together during a crisis. I wondered at the time how much of that was due to women usually being the peacemakers in families.
And, lest we forget, there is a grey boundary in the male-female dichotomy: intersexuality. Both in the anatomical and DNA realms. (Perhaps it’s good that the Bible — at least in the English translation — uses a conjunction rather than a disjunction in the account of the creation of us….)
And modern industrial warfare is a different thing from its premodern ancestor. Both men and women travelled long distances in the past, and participate in sieges (on both sides), et cet. So let’s not assume the problem is solely with the evolution of nature but also with the evolution of war.
Is “gender” a misleading term? I know one fellow who insists that “sex” is the proper term, being a biological concept. “Gender,” of course, is grammatical, and hence somewhat artificial, which plays into the hands of those who want to reverse or subvert sex roles.
Oh no. Please people be careful with the historical stuff. Women leaders were often the exception rather than the rule and, with one glaring exception that I can think of, were a result of hereditary rights.
As to sieges…how exactly could the women inside avoid being participants? As to those outside I’d love to hear of any references that make them anything other than camp followers in the aggregate. I also note that the SCA site makes competitive claims, but doesn’t include any statistics to browse. If anything the general statistics seem to point he other direction. If I remember correctly the SCA awards most ranks based on combat right? Seems to be an awful lot of men running around with those titles.
I was reading the link about Matilda of Tuscany, and it seems to me that while the claim is legitimate that she “held the walls of Canossa”, she did very little fighting herself. The credit goes to her as a tactician, but like Baodicea, she seemed the type to stay on the chariot. So, I don’t think she’d be a good example of what women can do on the battlefield. Same thing can be said of Joan of Arc, who carried a rusty sword too heavy for her to use effectively.
I think its still safe to say that war remains the province of men. After all, there seems to be no human endeavor more exclusively suited to men than war.
There’s a distinction to be made between dominance and the male being the ‘head of the household’…I wouldn’t want to live my life with a man who desired to ‘rule’ over me…but, if he had my best interests at heart,(and the interests of the children) and sought to bring me closer to Christ through his leadership and loving guidance…bring it on, baby!
God Bless.
Women can start dying in combat as soon as men start dying in childbirth.
Both are necessary to keep the country going.