Sex Differences

Modern Biology and the Unisex Fallacy

Yves Christen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351491228
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Few people realize how much science can tell us about the differences between men and women. Yves Christen, provided the first comprehensive overview of research in this area when this classic book was first published in the1990s. He goes beyond simplistic biology is destiny arguments and constructs a convincing case for linking social and biological approaches in order to understand complex differences in behavior.Biologists agree that the sexes differ in brain and body structure. Christen links these differences in cerebral anatomy to differences in behavior and intellect. Taking his readers on a journey through psychology, endocrinology, demography, and many other fields, Christen shows that the biological and the social are not antagonistic. To the contrary, social factors tend to exaggerate the biological rather than neutralize it.This controversial work, Sex Differences, takes on traditional feminism for its refusal to confront the evidence on biologically determined sex differences. Christen argues for a feminism that sees traits common to women in a positive light, in the tradition of such early feminists as Clemence Royer and Margaret Sanger, as well as more contemporary feminist sociobiologists like Sarah Hrdy. We deny sex differences only at the price of scientific truth and our own self-respect.

1
Differences and Similarities

According to Jean Cau, man and woman resemble each other when they are two skeletons. This is both true and false. It is true in that the differences between the sexes are so great that only the influence of fashion and the prejudices of a conformism that regards itself as anticonformism prevent a grasp of their scope. But it is also false, and even doubly so: first, because even as skeletons the two sexes are still different (if only in terms of the pelvic bones); second, and in the opposite sense, because men and women are nevertheless very much alike.

An Attenuated Sexual Dimorphism

Members of the same species, Homo sapiens, they share the majority of their physical and even psychological characteristics. From hair structure to blood groups and the functioning of the various organs, in most respects, one observes sameness or at least resemblance. Moreover, sexual dimorphism, or the physical difference between the sexes, has diminished in the course of human evolution (75, 133).

The male baboon is much larger than the female baboon. He possesses giant canine teeth, true weapons, whose purpose is to assure his domination of the troop and, in particular, of its females. Nothing comparable is found in man. Furnished with a penis significantly larger than that of the other great apes and with large testicles (though smaller than those of the male chimpanzee), he is certainly a little larger and stronger than the female (who herself enjoys an exceptionally large pair of breasts for a primate), but the overall difference between the sexes does not approach that found in the gorilla or orangutan.

This kind of fact should be kept in mind when investigating the extent of sex differences: first, so as not to exaggerate them; but also because that which is no longer physically apparent may be compensated for in some other way.

Another fundamental fact that should not be ignored, on pain of flirting with misunderstanding, is that genetically speaking, men and women are manifestly very similar. Out of a total of 46 chromosomes (the tiny threads that make up the physical armature of heredity), only one differs between men and women. In other words, if one seeks, as we do here, to evaluate the influence of genetic factors on human beings, is is important to bear in mind that the makeup of the two sexes is very similar in this regard.

At the same time, it is also necessary not to rest content with elementary arithmetic in this area. Beings whose genetic differences are very slight can appear to be very different. For instance, a condition such as mongoloidism, which is caused by the presence of a single extra chromosome (number 21), manifests itself in a major set of anomalies. An even smaller genetic upset can affect many physical and psychological traits. It is therefore permissible to conceive that the various particularities associated with gender, and notably the hormonal ones, suffice to permeate many aspects of the human body and mind.

The Decline of Distinct Sex Roles

Having said as much, we must once more insist on the reality of the similarities between the sexes, and also on the fact that very few tasks are linked exclusively to either sex. There are now female pilots, engineers, astronauts, executives, cabinet officials, scientists, bullfighters, etc.

Similarly, men increasingly perform tasks that were once almost exclusively female: infant care, childrearing, and various household chores. There are even male nurses and midwives.

There is no doubt that women, or at least some women, can perform almost all tasks performed by men and vice versa, with the conspicuous exception of childbearing. But even this absolute difference between the sexes no longer has the impact formerly attributed to it. For example, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, conceiving of the human being as a sort of reservoir of energy, concluded that a woman who developed her intellectual qualities was perforce obliged to sacrifice her mothering role. Lacking an infinite amount of energy, every other task was a dispersion or waste of energy. It was not a question, one should note, of denying women’s qualities—Spencer believed that women could be at least as intelligent as men—but of presenting them with a choice: either to develop their individual qualities or to have children. This opposition long prevailed—the development of woman versus the reproductive imperative. It persists today in that, for example, it is difficult for a woman both to have numerous children and to pursue a professional career. But social evolution has provided a number of palliatives to this difficulty.

If all this is true, one may ask: Why write a book about the differences between men and women, rather than one about their similarities? It is the old question of whether the glass is half full or half empty. Why give pride of place to the differences? The answer is simply that it is the differences which originalize. The similarities between the sexes are indeed a reality. But it is an insignificant reality, a sort of background noise devoid of consequence. That is why we have chosen to emphasize the differences here. For they alone carry meaning.

2
An Unexpected Feminism

In 1985, Algerian women began going to the movies again. The government had decided they could attend special reserved screenings. Before this decision, the men had created such a ruckus over their presence that the women eventually deserted the dimly lit theaters altogether.

This story is worth pausing over. Like many ordinary events, it is extraordinarily charged with meaning. On one hand, it attests to the survival of sexism and machismo. On the other, the solution chosen invites further reflection. What does it amount to, in effect, if not a sort of apartheid? It certainly bears no resemblance to the declared antisexism of today’s feminists. It was not by an excess of egalitarianism, of uniformity, that it was possible to allow Algerian women to return to the cinemas, but rather by recognizing them as women—that is, as beings different from men.

Is the solution adopted fully satisfactory? Surely not. Manifestly, logic and simple good sense indicate that men and women should be able to occupy the same physical space without starting a riot. But mentalities are not like objects that can easily be pushed aside—and doubtless that of the North African male less than all others. For this reason, a lesser evil was chosen. This is what is called realism.

In a sense, the entire female question is enclosed within this incident. For it illustrates the essential point: after years of official feminism— particularly in intellectual milieus—men and women continue to live as different beings. They still practice a certain kind of discrimination; and only an acknowledgment of differences makes it possible, if not to end it, then at least to adapt to it.

The Failure of Egalitarian Feminism

That machismo persists more or less everywhere can hardly be denied.* In May 1985, the tale of The Thousand and One Nights was declared a pornographic work in Egypt, where, under the influence of integrism, women’s rights have long been abrogated.

Even in Western lands, where the status of women appears to be more satisfactory, discrimination persists in various areas: unjustified differences in wages, sexual harassment in the workplace, etc.

In France, a government ministry on the status of women has been established to combat these unjustified inequalities, and it has been decided to classify sexism and racism as a single entity. This idea derives directly from the feminism of the 1960s. It affirms as official truth that men and women do not differ significantly and that in consequence the proscribed thesis must disappear. But what can we expect at the level of facts?

To learn the answer to this question, it suffices to examine the events of recent history. It is only a few decades since women acquired the right to vote in Western lands. Female candidates subsequently campaigned for office and some were in fact elected. But has the proportion of women going into politics noticeably and steadily increased? Not in the least. Similarly, the number of women with cabinet rank has remained very small and the number of women in cabinet-level positions unrelated to feminine activities (the family, the status of women) is still infinitesimal. Neither the various declarations of intent nor the assorted measures taken have managed to set woman more firmly on the route of Homo politicus.

Another example, more localized in space and time, is the Israeli kibbutz, whose policies are deliberately egalitarian, antisexist, and non-familial. These policies have failed. Women have remained women and mothers have remained mothers.

One could go on indefinitely citing the things that have not changed as well as those that have—the right to vote, abortion, contraception, more equitable wage policies, etc. In a sense, the score may seem to indicate a draw: some things change and others stay the same (41). But how can we fail to see that what does not change in all this is the relationship between man and woman? To take one example out of a thousand: if the most unjustified wage differences are being eliminated, it is no less true that men still earn more than women on average and tend to occupy the highest-ranking positions.* In 1973, an article on the wage gap was entitled “A Woman is 58% of a Man” (204). Ten years later, things had barely changed, and a different writer could echo that “a woman is 59% of a man” (264). Why this persisting discrimination? Is it a result of ingrained sexist habits? No doubt it is, at least in part. But how can we explain the habits themselves? For if sexism covers the earth to such an extent, there must be some reason for it.

The error of 1960s feminism is precisely to reject all inquiry concerning this point. This denial makes it appear as if sexism must come from the Holy Ghost or sheer chance.

Mentalities are Hardy Creatures

More significant still is the question of stereotypes, those one-sided ideas that circulate about men and women—the eternal feminine, the eternal masculine, and similar retrograde schemas, which everyone agrees are ridiculous! After several decades of feminism, at a time when fashions have in fact substantially changed, often in the direction of unisexism, have these notions actually evolved in the same way? That would at least appear plausible. That is exactly what has not happened (56, 311).

A poll of a large sample of Americans of both sexes and all ages attests this very clearly. Three-quarters of those questioned agreed with the stereotypes on sex differences, including the most debatable and those that one might have thought were dated or even ridiculous.

Thus, on a test involving 41 stereotypes, 28 corresponding to the masculine pole were characterized as desirable: very aggressive, very independent, not at all emotional, almost always hides emotions, very objective, not at all easily influenced, very dominant, likes math and science very much, not at all excitable in a minor crisis, very active, very competitive, very logical, very worldly, very skilled in business, very direct, knows the way of the world, feelings not easily hurt, very adventurous, can make decisions easily, never cries, almost always acts as a leader, very self-confident, not at all uncomfortable about being aggressive, very ambitious, easily able to separate feelings from ideas, not at all dependent, never conceited about appearance, thinks men are always superior to women, and talks freely with men about sex: this is how the male appears in terms of his positive qualities in the eyes of both men and women today. The model woman is defined by the opposite traits—from “very unaggressive” to “does not talk freely with men about sex”—in addition to 18 others on which the feminine pole is considered superior. She doesn’t use harsh language, is very talkative, very tactful, very gentle, very aware of the feelings of others, very religious, very interested in her own appearance, very neat in her habits, very quiet, has a very strong need for security, enjoys art and literature, and easily expresses tender feelings. On this occasion, the masculine pole is characterized by the opposite traits (56).

Thus, the matter is clear: not only have stereotypes not changed (the same traits are still considered masculine or feminine), not only are the masculine stereotypes still ranked higher than the feminine ones, but the members of both sexes share the same views in this area (56). This is certainly not to conclude that the stereotypes are accurate—quite the contrary. Moreover, what matters here is not whether they are true or false but that they are considered to be true by the overwhelming majority of those questioned, at a time when the social environment, media opinion, and intellectual and political fashions have in fact evolved. Apparently, everything takes place as though the ideas expressed in this area had changed completely—but not the mentalities. In this regard the feminism of the 1960s, while achieving a certain success in the political sphere, has been ineffective. Henceforth, we will have to reverse the usual perspective, which presents sexism as something unnatural that is produced by convention or socialization. Clearly, it is antisexism that rests on the superficial, the abstract, and the inauthentic.

Machismo and 1960s-style Feminism: Two Objective Allies

To recognize the differences between the sexes, at the risk of escaping the ambit of the banal, the fashionable, and the habitual, invites us to reflect on their extent and origins. The sort of explanation that rests content with phrases such as “If men and women are still different, it’s because the former have exploited the latter for a long time” amounts at best to an interpretation on the order of “If you get fat, it’s because you eat too much.” Such an explanation, of course, avoids an inquiry into the causes of overeating and into the fact that all those who overeat do not gain the same amount of weight. If one sex has subordinated the other—a notion that is partly correct but also notoriously exaggerated—it is because from the beginning there has existed a sort of dissymmetry in the relations of the two members of the couple: they do not use the same weapons or fill the same functions. For this reason, if one wishes to organize a duel between them, one should not choose the weapons of the dominant partner. In plain language, it is a mistake to try to show that women are identical to men.

Perhaps we should even call into question the grounds for the duel altogether—in this case, the effort to identify one sex with the other. From this point of view, machismo and 1960s-style feminism are two sides of the same coin. They represent partners in crime locked in the dialogue of equality-inequality. Although they differ in their conclusions, they agree on the terms of debate. Moreover, the claims of one sustain the conclusions of the other. In a sense, only the excesses committed on both sides justify the continued existence of these opposing camps.

From this perspective, it is a question of a schematization, an impoverishment of intellectual debate not far removed from children’s squabbles: “My daddy’s stronger than your daddy!” “No, my daddy’s stronger than your daddy!”

Impoverishment. The word is even more justified when one considers the origins of the feminist movement. A current of thought favorable to the emancipation of women can be traced to that moment of transition in which the intellectual scuffles of the last century toppled into the ideological conflicts of our own time. It was not, to be sure, an organized movement, a party, but rather a loose confederation of pluralistic ideas, with its own points of reference, which maintained close ties with the other “isms” that were gestating around the same time: Marxism, Darwinism, and sexualism (if one can so call the study of one of the great taboo subjects). In the shadow of Marx, Darwin, and Havelock Ellis emerged several female figures who are often forgotten or poorly known today—perhaps because their way of thinking does not accord with the schematizations of our own time; or perhaps because their feminism was not synonymous with egalitarianism, with the renunciation of femininity.

Clémence Royer, “Almost a Man of Genius”

Among these female figures fascinated by science and feminism, one of the most remarkable is the Frenchwoman Clémence Royer (183...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 Differences and Similarities
• 2 An Unexpected Feminism
• 3 The Weaker Sex Is Not the One You Think
• 4 The Two Sexual Strategies
• 5 The Descent of Woman
• 6 Hierarchy and Gender
• 7 The Pirandello Effect
• 8 Sex Differences in Brain Structure
• 9 The Circle of Life
• 10 Proof by Pathology
• 11 Male and Female Modalities
• 12 Toward Feminitude?
• Bibliography
• Index