The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism
Page 2
The weight of scientific research—and simple observation—leads to the politically incorrect conclusion that gender is not a social construct.
Summers suggested some causes for the dearth of women in the upper echelons of science and math. He mentioned the possibility of discrimination and women’s desires for more flexible schedules than lab-intensive professions allow. He also speculated that innate differences between the genders could contribute to women’s under-representation at the top of these fields.
What a Feminist Icon Said:
“The trouble with The Women’s Revolution is that we have not gone far enough because we indulge our fathers, husbands, brothers, sons. Also we feel sorry for them because they are led around by their d—s and their brains go soft. We accept the burden of being rational cause we know they’re testosterone-driven.”
—Erica Jong
http://www.ericajong.com/interviewwitherica.htm
This set off a firestorm. Nancy Hopkins, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology biology professor in attendance at the conference, described nearly fainting after hearing Summers. Recovering, she quickly ran to the media to voice her complaints. The media were listening. In front page news stories and countless hours of television punditry, Summers’s heresy was dutifully reported and discussed. Finally, Harvard’s faculty met and censured Summers with a vote of “no confidence.”
The besieged university president must have realized that endless apologies weren’t going to satisfy Harvard’s gender warriors. So he offered $50 million for initiatives to encourage “diversity”—meaning “more women,” not more points of view—within the faculty.
What did Summers say that was so wrong? He didn’t suggest that a woman couldn’t achieve as much as a man in the fields of science and math. He merely suggested that biological differences may contribute to a statistical outcome for women as a group.
Summers learned his lesson and undoubtedly won’t make the mistake again of engaging in such open academic inquiry. Other academics surely learned a similar lesson. What young professor, hoping for tenure, is going to dare question the tenants of feminism in her research? What PhD student, looking forward to defending her dissertation, is eagerly going to pursue evidence that men do exhibit on average a greater aptitude for science? It may be commonly accepted that women have stronger innate verbal abilities, but identifying similar strengths in men is academic treason.
The Larry Summers controversy is just one episode in a larger and highly contentious debate about gender differences; differences that most people with common sense see in everyday life and consider natural.
Nature or nurture?
Many feminists recoil at the suggestion that there could be innate differences between men and women and imagine a gender-free world. In his book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, Dr. Steven Rhoads reveals how these attitudes aren’t just common within the fringe of the feminist movement: It is dogma that dominates much of the feminist movements’ agenda.
Not Found at NOW:
Frogs and snails, and puppy-dogs’ tails; that’s what little boys are made of . . . . Sugar and spice, and all that’s nice; that’s what little girls are made of.
—Nursery Rhyme
For example, one academic theorist, Susan Okin, envisions a future in which “one’s sex would have no more relevance than one’s eye color or the length of one’s toes,” and men and women would participate in “more or less equal numbers in every sphere of life.” Another feminist theorist wants women and men to be seen as “socially interchangeable.”1
These feminists see achieving a genderless society as a realistic goal because they believe the traits we label as “masculine” and “feminine” are nothing more than social constructs thrust upon us as children. Little girls are welcomed into the world with pink blankets, cuddly dolls, and gussied-up Barbies; they’re encouraged to play house with friends and read fairytale stories. Little boys are greeted with blue blankets, trucks, and building blocks; they’re encouraged to run around and compete with their playmates. In doing so, children are indoctrinated to behave in ways associated with their “assigned” gender.
Since these cultural forces are artificial, they can be changed. By raising awareness among parents and encouraging them to fight these habits—and by enacting public policies that dictate what occurs in schools—it might be possible to change social norms. Therefore, if gender really is just a social construct, the feminist dream of an androgynous society could become reality.
Much to the chagrin of the feminist movement, the facts don’t support their theory. Researchers continue to turn up evidence that the behavioral differences we observe in men and women are rooted in biological sex differences. One piece of evidence that is difficult to refute is the universal aspects of the roles assumed by males and females. Rhoads highlights the work of one theorist who “takes no pleasure” in recognizing some aspects of the gender breakdown—such as men’s greater aggression and domination of “the public sphere”—but acknowledges how these gender differences appear throughout history and across cultures.2
Sometimes, this evidence can even change minds. One researcher entered the field with the intention of debunking the notion that differences in behavior and cognition are biologically based. After reviewing the enormous amount of research on the topic, she changed her mind. “There are real, and in some cases sizeable, sex differences with respect to some cognitive abilities,” she said. “Socialization practices are undoubtedly important, there is also good evidence that biological sex differences play a role.”3
A Book You’re Not Supposed to Read
Taking Sex Differences Seriously, Steven E. Rhoads; San Francisco, Encounter Books, 2004.
Rhoads describes a similar evolution of thought occurring when those committed to a gender neutral world have children. One feminist was attempting to bring her young son up in a sensitive, non-violent, gender-neutral manner, but her son developed an insatiable obsession with guns. With no toy guns in the house, he used other toys and even food to construct make-shift guns. Another feminist struggled with a daughter who refused to wear anything but dresses and stockings.4
Root causes of the differences between men and women
Research suggests that men’s and women’s brains are built differently, which may be a root cause of some of the different characteristics that we associate with men and women.5 Men’s left and right brain hemispheres are connected by fewer neurons than are women’s and men’s brains tend to be more “compartmentalized” while women’s are “networked.” Researchers hypothesize that this may be the reason why women are better at verbal disciplines, while men excel at spatial tasks.
Hormonal differences also have been shown to drive behavioral characteristics. Researchers studied girls who, while in the womb, were exposed to high levels of testosterone—a hormone found in both girls and boys, but in much higher levels in males. These girls exhibited many of the behaviors commonly associated with boys, such as greater aggression, engaging in more “rough-and-tumble” play, and preferring mechanical toys, such as trucks and building materials, over dolls and crafts—the typical choice of girls.6
Other studies of adult women with higher testosterone levels found that these women exhibited more stereotypically masculine characteristics such as being more assertive and career oriented, having a higher self-regard, greater interest in casual sex, and superior spatial skills.7
The fact that men and women are hard-wired differently would explain why masculine and feminine characteristics appear universally throughout history and around the globe. But this concept doesn’t fit in with feminist dogma, which is why it remains so controversial.
Why sex differences matter
Feminists have a vision: To see men and women represented equally in all disciplines and in all walks of life. They lament that women still assume disproportionate responsibility for housework and childcare, have lower levels of achievement in business and politics, and gravitate away from
disciplines like math and science.
What’s the cause of women’s lack of progress in these areas?
According to the feminists, society, and the discriminatory, sexist attitudes that still lurk among us are to blame.
If you accept these assumptions, then something can—and indeed should—be done. So long as society is at fault, then the feminist vision can theoretically become reality by changing public education, creating government-subsidized daycare, encouraging more mothers to leave their children for the workforce, and many other measures that change society.
If, however, men and women’s differences are not social constructs—if they are instead the product of innate, biological differences—then no amount of government intervention will create the feminist utopia. Indeed, if gender differences are natural, then the feminist idea of progress isn’t progress at all, and their agenda makes men and women worse off by driving them away from their true preferences in pursuit of a feminist fantasy.
The weight of scientific research—and simple observation—leads to the politically incorrect conclusion that gender is not a social construct. Undoubtedly, socialization plays a role in shaping our behavior; but sex differences strongly influence who we are as humans. Among other things, this means that women and men will have dissimilar preferences and reactions in many situations—an important consideration when we examine how the feminist vision for our country often stands in opposition to women’s instincts and expressed interests.
Chapter Two
RETURN TO ROMANCE
Traditional dating and courtship have all but disappeared for teenagers and twenty-somethings. For decades, feminists have disparaged traditional gender roles in romantic relationships as sexist and stifling for women. Men who open doors and offer to pay aren’t gentlemen—they’re misogynists objectifying women and perpetuating “patriarchy.” Feminists celebrate the sexual revolution and encourage women to break away from traditional dating practices and approach relationships more like men.
What has this meant for young women? Ironically, many young women have experienced a loss of power in the post-sexual revolution dating environment.
Overwhelmingly, young women still see marriage as an important goal, and most college women hope to meet their future husbands before they graduate. But it’s not the 1950s and women need to be aware of some of the pitfalls of the new romantic terrain and recognize the important roles that more traditional dating and courtship play in building healthy relationships.
Guess what?
Overwhelmingly, young women still see marriage as an important goal.
Research shows that women still tend to prefer men who are breadwinners, who they can consider intellectually superior, and who can physically protect them.
Research also shows that men prefer fertile, loyal women.
Feminists’ hostility to chivalry
Women’s studies textbooks often include a passage on fairytales. A little girl, they say, is told from infancy that her highest aspiration should be to earn the love of a prince who will save her, protect her, and enable her to live happily ever after. Cinderella, an obedient, quiet, beautiful young girl, beaten down by loud, ugly step sisters, is rewarded for her good behavior by winning the hand of a handsome prince. Sleeping Beauty and Snow White lie unconscious until they’re kissed by their princes.
To many feminists, these are the quintessential messages given to girls about their role in society. Feminists see the traditional roles assumed by men and women during courtship as sexist and demeaning to women. Men, they say, had too much power in traditional courtship. Men were expected to take the lead—by pursuing a woman, initiating contact, paying the costs of activities, and giving gifts as tokens of affection—while women were left to react to their advances. It was taboo for a woman to call a man, initiate contact, or pay for her own share of any expenses incurred during a date.
The unevenness of the male-female economic relationship in traditional courtship was particularly abhorrent to many feminists. The implication of allowing men to assume the financial burden associated with courtship was that men were essentially “buying” time with the woman or that the woman was for sale. Courtship was seen as a time for men to demonstrate their ability to support a future mate financially, suggesting that women were expected to depend on their future husbands economically and incapable of providing for themselves.
Gestures once expected from gentlemen—such as opening doors or giving up seats to women—were no longer viewed as chivalrous, but evidence that men assumed women were somehow weak and less capable. According to radical feminists’ logic, a man who offers to carry a woman’s heavy bags implies she needs a man’s assistance to get along.
Will You Be My Vagina?
The phenomenon of The Vagina Monologues and advent of “V-Day” on college campuses perfectly encapsulates the feminists’ hostility to romance.
The Vagina Monologues is a play consisting of a series of vignettes that describe the experiences of numerous women’s vaginas: from heterosexual and lesbian sex to child birth, with a particular focus on violence and rape. The Monologues first was performed in 1998, and today appears on college campuses throughout the country during the week of February 14—Valentine’s Day.
Instead of celebrating romantic love with flowers and candy, students are encouraged to celebrate “V-Day” by watching a fairly raunchy play that, among other things, encourages the audience to join in with the actress in yelling the word “c——.”
Attending The Vagina Monologues isn’t the only way to celebrate V-Day. Some campus groups have taken to handing out vagina shaped lollipops or other goodies; others have had people dress up as giant vaginas and walk around campus. V-Day is a strange mix of the runaway sexualization of campus and the de-romanticizing of sex by reducing it to its most basic biology.
In addition to “celebrating” their vaginas and sexuality, V-Day also is a time for women to raise awareness about violence against women. As the V-Day website states, the mission is simple: “It demands that the violence must end. It proclaims Valentine’s Day as V-Day until the violence stops.”
Certainly raising money and awareness to fight violence against women is a worthy goal. But why the assault on Valentine’s Day? The clear implication is that violence and male/female relations are somehow naturally linked and that traditional romance is detrimental to women.
Women need to reclaim Valentine’s Day as a time to celebrate the important, positive role that love and romance play in women’s lives.
As the traditions governing men’s behavior were called into question and radically altered, expectations for women also changed. Women were encouraged to take a more active role in the courtship process. Old conventions, like those dictating that a woman not call a man or initiate a date, were thrown out. The expectation that women would serve as sexual gatekeepers—preventing their suitors from “going too far”—was also challenged: Feminists insisted that women have just as strong sex drives as men and shouldn’t deny their impulses. They rebelled against the system that had imbued a woman’s virginity with “virtue” and demonized sexually active women.
The important role of courtship
These traditions and roles weren’t simply a means of objectifying women or installing men in positions of power. Courtship had evolved as a way for individuals to get to know each other. Men and women would typically date several different people, assessing their compatibility as long-term marriage partners, before any significant relationship began. As a relationship became more serious, courtship was a way of testing and demonstrating commitment.
Mary Elizabeth Podles, a writer on the subject of courtship, described its important role this way:In serious courtship, a man conveys to a woman that if she is worth all this trouble to court, she must be worth more than any mate in the world and shall henceforth be The One Woman. On her part, the woman promises that if she was this hard for him to get, surely she will, as his wife, be impossib
le for others to get. The courtship dance is the unspoken pledge of future fidelity—the best basis for a happy marriage.1
The different roles that men and women assumed in these dating rituals clearly were gender specific and could be seen as “sexist.” But this negative perspective ignores the reality that men and women do assume different roles in romantic relationships; that they have different needs and vulnerabilities; and, that they tend to prefer members of the opposite sex who possess the characteristics usually associated with that gender.
A Book You’re Not Supposed to Read
A Return to Modesty: Rediscovering the Lost Virtue, by Wendy Shalit; New York, Free Press, 2000.
Research shows that women still tend to prefer men who are breadwinners, who they can consider intellectually superior, and who can physically protect them.2 Men prefer fertile, loyal women, so they can be assured of their paternity and that their children will receive the care necessary to reach maturity. It’s no accident or conspiracy that traditional courtship rituals allowed participants to showcase these prized qualities.
But if traditional courtship has disappeared, what traditions have taken its place? Clearly men and women are continuing to form relationships and marry, so a new form of “courtship” must have developed.
An analysis of the modern romantic landscape reveals that while there are new ways of courting, many have significant pitfalls, which traditional courtship avoided. Chief among these is failing to allow room for men and women to identify promising partners and encouraging the creation of stable, lasting relationships.