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
Today, May 2, is the anniversary of the first modern sighting of the Loch Ness monster.