Sex RolesBiology v. Culture
from Chapter 3 of Sex and Politics Sex Differences v. Dogma by Walter R. Dolen Copyright (c) 1997, 2008 by Walter R. Dolen. Order a copy Contents
Sex Role DevelopmentAll radical religious and political movements lack balance and appear blind as to what is practical, possible and/or reasonable. The radical women's lib movement that began in the late 1960s was/is trapped in this mindset. We are not talking about feminism here; we are speaking about the radical women's lib movement. The group has in the last three decades propagated against traditional sex roles, even denying the legitimacy of sex roles. As far back as 1935 Margaret Mead wrote about the need for freer sex roles.[1] Mead believed that women should be able to take part in more activities usually associated with men. Others before her called for more freedom from sex role stereotypes.[2] Sex role stereotypes have to do with our expectations about the behavior of males or females: men work outside the home, do the heavy work, fight the wars, dominate most if not all spatial ability jobs (mathematicians, Engineers, Architects), and control the most powerful institutions; women bear and nurse the babies, care for the young, work in or near the home, do the family cooking, etc., and when they work outside the home they work in more occupations that deal with children and interrelationships between people. Generally in all cultures, men are expected to work mostly outside the home and help provide for their family, while women are expected to stay near or at home and care for the children, and to work in and around the house, cooking, etc. But in the last several decades sex roles have been
"successfully" challenged[3]: Not only are more women working
outside the home, but more women are working who have children.
"Thanks" to the (1) radical women's lib movement, (2) the need for
corporation to have cheaper labor and (3) domestic helping devices
such as dish and clothes washers, there has been some change
in sex roles. Not only do women bare and take care of the children,
they also work outside the house. The movement has "liberated"
women. So "successful" was the movement that in just over two
decades most women were working outside the home as well as in the
home. In 1990 only 18% of women with children under 18 were not
working outside the home. Sex Role FoolishnessAt the beginning of radical women's lib there were articles like, "Do Children Need Sex Roles?,"[4] "Are You Harming Your Son Without Knowing it?,"[5] which dictated to us about the "right" of junior to play with dolls, and the "right" of the little Miss (Ms) to play baseball along with the boys. In the beginning, Anne Eliasberg, then a college teacher and wife of a CBS executive, said the following:
In all three of these quotes Eliasberg is advocating and projecting naivete. In the first (1) quote, she is advocating the idea that maybe some males have individual maternal talents, and therefore we shouldn't "force" our sons into masculine roles because maybe he really would be better in a maternal role. We should give our sons a "free" choice ("Take this doll kid and be liberated!"). And vice versa for girls. The second quote (2) by Ann Eliasberg also conveys ignorance of biology. Men find it more difficult to be interrupted because of the androgenic action which enhances persistence and concentration on stimuli,[7] not because they were conditioned to act that way. You can teach your son to be a little more considerate of being disturbed, but his internal pressures make it difficult for him to be as flexible as females even when brought up in the same environment. And the third quote (3) by Ann Eliasberg suggests she doesn't know about
the biological influences of androgens. Ann Eliasberg thinks the androgenic influenced
effect ("all boy" energy) is socially conditioned. As we show in chapter 4,
this "all boy" energy is caused by androgenic activity. Sadly, today
(2000s) the boys androgenic-influenced behavior is being suppressed through
medication in almost all our schools through programs designed: (1) to make
money for the pharmaceutical companies, (2) to appeal to female teachers who
have trouble coping with the boys energy, and (3) to mother's interested in
helping their sons do better in school by suppressing their natural energy.
Instead of running these boys outside at recess, they are drugging them. Margaret Mead and Cultural ConditioningAccording to the well known anthropologist, Margaret Mead:
But Mead goes on to indicate that in other cultures besides ours the sex roles are more flexible. She quotes evidence from primitive cultures -- that is cultures that are not large in numbers or great in ideas or great in wealth. Mead believed, like other radicals and the pop-educated, that sex roles and behavior are caused primarily by cultural conditioning or socialization. In Sex and Temperament, Margaret Mead described the supposed proof that sex roles are culturally derived. Others such as Nancy Chodorow mention and relate Mead's studies like this:
Nancy Chodorow is speaking about personality, or temperament differences in certain few selective societies, for she realizes that in most cultures male and female behavior does conform to our traditional expectations:
Therefore what Nancy Chodorow is saying, in her own words, is that: "Cross-Culture research suggests that there are no absolute personality differences...."[11] Some like Chodorow say that the studies like Margaret Mead's suggest that many of the differences in sex behavior are culturally determined, while at other times they claim Mead's work prove that gender behavior is mainly determined by culture conditioning. They forget often that Mead's work, even if it were true, can only suggest that gender behavior differences are determined by culture conditioning, and thus they act like it is true, or a proven fact. In Chodorow's own words; "This essay refutes the claim for universal and necessary differentiation, and provides an explanation based on a comparison of cultures and socialization practices to account for such differences where and when they occur."[12] She projects her bias here. Notice how Mead puts it in her book, Sex and Temperament. After describing three cultures (Arapesh, Mundergumor, and Tchambuli) where sex behavior is claimed to be of a different order than traditionally expected, Mead concludes:
Margaret Mead first says that three different cultures suggest the malleability of sex roles, then she concludes that culture conditioning determines sex behavior differences "almost entirely, "we are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable." She believes sex roles are forced on the sexes:
Moreover in Mead's thinking, as in many radical feminists' thinking, if society recognized individual differences instead of conditioned sex differences:
Exceptions Rule. Mead as well as others base their 'thinking' on certain cultural studies which seem to them to manifest the extreme malleability of sex behavior. Of course these certain cultural studies are exceptions to the universal gender behavior differences, but this doesn't stop radical feminists. For them the exceptions rule. To them, we must change all societies to fit their idea of equality. And their way to do this is through social conditioning. Thus, radical feminists call any thought "sexist" if it manifests any idea of difference between the sexes. If there are differences, they are culturally derived. Women Liberators only concede the very obvious -- the genitals and breasts, and downgrade the other differences. Representative Don Edwards before the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives in 1971 concerning the Equal Rights Amendment asked:
Witness Number Two Answers Edwards: I think it is the consensus that men are sperm donators, women are baby incubators, and all the rest of it is the result of the socialization process." (p. 493, Equal Rights for Men and Women 1971, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing: 1971; Witness number two was from the George Washington University Women's Liberation) Mead's Superficial StudiesArapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli. Let's take a deeper look at Mead and her writings on the Arapesh, the Mundugumor, and the Tchambuli people. Mead published her work, Sex and Temperament, in 1935. In 1936 Lewis M. Terman and Catharine Cos Miles published Sex and Personality: Studies in Masculinity and Femininity.[16] In this work Terman and Miles had some criticism of Mead which we will pass on here:
Mead, herself, adds to this thought train of Terman and Miles in one of her writings:
Anthropologists like Mead go to areas of the world with customs and languages that are unfamiliar to them. It is difficult for us to observe and correctly judge our own society even our own family, neighbors, and friends let alone alien societies with radically different languages. Mead's Superficial Foreign Language KnowledgeMead spent only seven months with the Mountain Arapesh, three and one-half months with the Mundugumor people, and only several months with the Tchambuli people.[18] Yet in these few months she supposedly learned their languages and enough of their customs to make judgments on these alien peoples. But did she? Pidgin English. Margaret Mead claims that primitive cultures are simplistic enough to learn much about them in short periods of time vis a vis such complex societies as America where it is much more difficult.[19] But this may be so to Mead merely because she knew the foreign languages only superficially. Mead has said: "In all cases the language was learned, a base was established in a native village, and one village was intensively followed and studied."[20] But how were the languages learned?: "In Manus we had to analyze the language, using pidgin English as the interpreting language, and this was true also of Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli ...."[21] (emphasis mine) Thus, she used an interpreting language, Pidgin English "from a Manus-speaking schoolboy with an understanding, although hardly any speaking knowledge, of English...."[22] In the case of the Tchambuli people she admits, "They speak a difficult Papuan language...."[23] This is preposterous. Only the pop-educated can exalt a study based on pidgin English. Mead's preposterous Study. Mead, we are supposed to believe,
spends a few months in alien cultures, studies one tribe in each culture, and in
this period learns their difficult languages (made even more difficult by their many times
unknown histories), ascertains their customs, and through her training unbiasedly
perceives their true gender behavior. Then because of Mead's dubious study of these
primitive cultures with small populations (about 85 people of the Mountain Arapesh, about
500 people of the Tchambuli, and about l000 people of the Mundugumor)[24]; and because of
other such studies by Mead and other anthropologists, we must acknowledge the possibility
of the malleability of sex roles and therefore agree and accept the mass conditioning of
the sexes into "true equality" as defined by the radical feminists. This kind of
reasoning is twisted. It should be called what it is: a baised, mystical, almost cultic
exercise in myth making. And the detrimental actions by our government, schools, and
institutions that force this twisted-cultic reasoning on us is radical feminism Other Points Against Mead's WorkBiased Work(1) Mead's outlook before she studied these tribes was biased. Terman and Miles wrote in a footnote about her bias back in 1936, in their book, Sex and Personality:
Parenthetically, as to whether sexual behavior was culturally or biologically determined, Terman and Miles were unsure. (pp. 451, 460) Margaret Mead went to school in an age during which such books as Patterns of Culture[25], by Ruth Benedict, were published. In the first chapter of this 1934 book we read:
Mead's and Benedict's Homosexuality. Probably the main reason for Mead's bias was that she heavily leaned towards homosexuality, thus she was trying to propagate her own bias belief to make her peculiar behavior more acceptable. "Margaret Mead, who died in 1978, and Ruth Benedict, who died in 1948, were bisexuals. They were lovers, but each had been married--Mead to at least three husbands, Benedict to one. Rumors of the Mead-Benedict affair were hushed around Columbia University circles in the 1930's, and it was not well known in other academic centers. An account of the affair appears in a Margaret Mead biography written by her daughter, Mary Catherine Bateson. It's titled 'With a Daughter's Eye: A Memoir of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson."' (Parade, January 27, 1985, p. 4) Mead's daughter's book was published in 1984 by William Morrow & Co. Was Mead rationalizing her homosexuality when she wrote:
When I began researching sex differences in the early 1970's I had no idea Mead was sexually ambivalent; now we can all examine Mead's work better with this knowledge of her bias. Poorly Documented and Vague(2) A second point against Mead's work is that careful analysis of Mead's material is most difficult. Notice what the authors, Talcoot Parsons and Robert F. Bales, of Family, Socialization and Interaction Process say about this:
Parsons and Bales go on to show some weaknesses in Mead's assertions. It should be mentioned that these authors state on the same pages that they, "must accept the position that the predominant pattern of [sex] differentiation is not constitutionally inherent...." Other authors like John Nash in his text book, Developmental Psychology: A Psychobiological Approach(p. 206ff), and Ralph Piddington in his book, An Introduction to Social Anthropology (Vol. 2, p. 632ff) also write about Mead's inferior study. From Piddington's book we quote:
Based on my own study of Mead's work and on other authors' opinions noted above, it would be very careless of anyone to base any theory on her dubious material. Mead's work is nothing but a pop-novel, a fictional work projecting to us her naivete or more probable her hidden adgenda of making homosexuality more acceptable. The inclusion of her superficial works in our colleges is an indication of our colleges' pop-scholarship. Broken Cultures(3) A third point against Mead's work is that the three societies studied by Mead in Sex and Temperament were broken cultures, according to her own report:
Other works also indicate that many of the supposed female dominated societies are broken societies or superficially examined societies. From John Nash in Developmental Psychology:
Traditional Roles Still Prevailed(4) A fourth point against Mead's work is that traditional roles still prevailed in the three cultures described by Mead:
Traditional Roles are in All Other Primitive Societies.(5) A fifth point against Mead's work is that in most, if not all, primitive societies beside the ones studied by Mead the following is true, according to authorities on the subject:
Persons in Reversed Roles were Maladjusted(6) A sixth point against Mead's work is that in her study, the most maladjusted persons were those of the sex that were, according to Mead, in reversed positions or roles from the world's traditional role forms.[41] This indicates that traditional sex roles are more comfortable to each sex's biological and psychological make-up. Hormonal Levels not Studied(7) A final point against Mead's work is that in cross-culture studies various biological sexual factors such as the sex hormonal ratios between androgens and estrogens have NOT been ascertained in most, if not all cases.[42] Thus, the radical feminists cannot prove their claim that culture conditioning vis a vis biological factors causes sex difference without proof that the persons studied in these primitive cultures had normal hormonal ratios. Those studied with seemly offbeat sexual behavior may, for all we know, have been freaks as far as sex hormonal ratios go, or as other sex factors go. Mead knew of this problem:
In concluding, contrary to what radical feminists assert,
cross-cultural studies by Mead and others do not prove that the main sex roles and
behavior of males and females are culturally determined. The supposed exceptions of Mead
and others, when analyzed are not clear exceptions but follow the traditional patterns of
the world. And these traditional patterns are caused mainly because of the absolute
functional differences between the sexes, and only secondly, because of other relative
differences between the sexes. (see chapter 4) Experimental SocietiesVersus The Claims of Radical feministsVarious groups and societies like radical communes, the communistic Russian society, and Israels's kibbutzim help refute the radical feminists claims that most sexual behavior is cultural conditioned. Show us the new society where "equality," as radical feminists define it, exists. Communes of all kinds have failed and continue to fail. If any have succeeded, you can bet that the Women Liberators would bring it to our attention again and again. Russia's EqualityThe old Soviet Russia has failed in her mass effort to create "equality" between the sexes. They at first tried to, in effect, abolish the family. Divorce was made easy,
Thus, when the population growth rate of Russia took sharp drops after their revolutionary effort to make the sexes equal, birth-control clinics were limited, sale of contraceptives slowed, abortions became more prohibited, and so forth. When divorces increased, they were made harder to obtain.[43] Women Liberators can't turn to the large number of working women in Russia as something achieved through new equal social conditioning, for Russia lost about 20,000,000 men in the second world war. Russia greatly needed her women workers: "Indeed, it may be fair to say that the Soviet economy and Soviet society, at least until now, could not operate... without the labor provided by women."[44] And because of this Russia used much propaganda to keep and gain women into the work force.[45] Four-fifths of the Soviet working women are occupied in production, and less than
one-fifth in services like teaching, science, and medical, and they are under represented
in management and top government jobs.[46] Furthermore the Soviet men do not help most
women workers with the housework, thus these women perform almost double the work of their
husbands.[47] Some equality! And when Soviet women achieve a large percentage of a
profession -- over 70% of the doctors at one time in Russia were women -- they don't even
gain status since doctors in the Soviet Union are considered a low status profession.[48]
Even Karen DeCrow, a formal president of the National Organization for Women (NOW),
thought equality had not arrived in the old Soviet Russia. According to DeCrow,
"Equality is not part of their ideology. In their heads, women are different. There
is a sexist attitude to women...."[49] KibbutzThe "Equality" in Israel's KibbutzIsrael's kibbutz is another example where social conditioning has failed. Dan Leon, the author of The Kibbutz, tells us that one of the Kibbutz's goals was that, "equal rights would be granted to all...this would include equality between men and women."[50] Dan Leon continues: The emancipation of the woman and complete equality of the sexes was one of the most important goals of the kibbutz from its inception.... The determination to free the woman from their traditional role as dependent upon the master of the house or breadwinner, and from exclusive subjugation to the household and to the children, was one of the sources of communal education. The communal nursery would open the road to real and not only formal equality. The woman would be free to do equal work and become an equal member of society, sharing equally in its obligations and privileges. This was both an economic need and an integral part of the kibbutz vision. The vision has come to life in the kibbutz. As a wife, the woman is no longer economically dependent upon her husband, and as a mother no longer tied down remorselessly to her children. She is an equal member of the community, enjoying the complete security it offers her and her family, and the community has removed all those barriers which might prevent her from playing her equal role in every field of its life. Yet the realization of this dream has probably been accompanied by deeper problems and a deeper consciousness of the disparity between the hope and the reality than in any other aspect of kibbutz life. Though, as elsewhere in kibbutz life, light and shadow exist side by side, it would be dishonest to deny that some of the problems of the woman in the kibbutz still await their complete solution.[51] Problems with Women in the KibbutzThere is a "problem with women" in the kibbutz.[52] According to M.E. Spiro, the author of Kibbutz: Venture in Utopia, the women of the kibbutz have poor morale:
Traditional Family Tendencies in the KibbutzThe women of the kibbutz often became proponents of "familistic tendencies." According to Menachem Gerson, the writer of the paper, "Women in the Kibbutz":
This latter quote is from an article by Menachem Gerson, head of the Institute of Research on Kibbutz Education, Oranim, Israel, published in July, 1971, called "Women in the Kibbutz." His words are important to us for they were written by one who believes in the type of "equality" the kibbutz is striving for, but has not really obtained. In the great experimental society of the kibbutz, biology has raised its power and has prevented the "equality" radical feminists are pushing on us. In this quote by Gerson it should be noted that he makes value judgments about what kind of work is prestigious. He in effect is saying that what is traditional women's work has little prestige and for women to get prestige they must do what men do or have traditionally done. Avraham C. Ben-Yosef also has written on the problem of women in the kibbutz in his book, The Purest Democracy in the World:
To Summarize. Much of this so-called problem of women in the kibbutz is that these women are in the wrong environment. But instead of the kibbutz changing the environment to suit the biological tendencies of women, they continue on in their own naive beliefs. Motherhood has been and shall be the prime profession of women as long as the human race continues to reproduce. Any society that denies this and fails to give due value to motherhood will have unhappy and dissatisfied women even though other factors such as food and material goods are abundant. The "equality" of the kibbutz is a failure as much literature confirms in more detail than what we have gone into here.[56] Although Margaret Mead's work was superficial and biased, and all experimental culture have failed, another work by John Money and his associates seemed to be far more scientific and seemed to manifest a sex role neutrality-at-birth phenomenon.
Sex Role Neutrality-at-Birth TheoryJohn Money. Some knowledgeable radical feminists may point out the studies of John Money, Joan and John Hampson of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. These professionals believe in a psychosexual neutrality-at-birth theory. The psychosexuality of a person is his gender identity. In their dealings with hermaphrodites Money and Hampsons came to the conclusion: "We conclude that an individual's gender role and orientation as boy or girl, man or woman, does not have an innate, performed instinctive basis as some theorists have maintained. Instead the evidence supports the view that psychologic sex is undifferentiated at birth -- a sexual neutrality one might say -- and that the individual becomes psychologically differentiated as masculine or feminine in the course of many experiences of growing up."[57] According to them then, males have no innate tendencies to behave in masculine ways after birth. They are born males, but not with masculine identity and masculine role behavior. They could just as easily be taught to behave in a feminine way, or to fit the feminine role even though they are born as males. That is, males can be reared just as easily to act and behave like females as they can be reared to act like males. Margaret Mead also believed that the sexes were this malleable. And radical feminists would love it, if it were true, for then they could bring up their daughters to behave just like men. Let's examine the psychosexual neutrality theory. We'll examine two well-written critiques against this theory. Corinne Hutt of Oxford wrote a refutation of the theory in her book, Males and Females,[58] and Milton Diamond wrote a comprehensive paper on it.[59] We will use some of their ideas and add some of our own. Hermaphrodites. The whole idea of males and females being neutral-at-birth in regard to which role they will eventually play in adulthood, gives great emphasis to environmental and cultural factors. The idea implies considerably more malleability in infants than reality has heretofore manifested in mankind. Money and the Hampsons based their neutrality-at-birth theory on their studies of hermaphroditism. According to them a hermaphrodite is: "an individual in whom there exists a contradiction between the predominant external genital appearance on the one hand, and the sex chromatic pattern, gonads, hormones, or internal reproductive structures, either singly or in combination, on the other."[60] Another definition of hermaphroditism by Money is: "As ordinarily defined, hermaphroditism or intersexuality in human beings is a condition of prenatal origin in which...the reproductive system fails to reach completion as either entirely female or entirely male."[61] A hermaphrodite individual is sexually unfinished or partly male and partly female. It was with studies of such children that these doctors deduced their theory as far back as 1955.[62] But the infants studied were not normal males or females. They were intersexed. They were not males or females. They were hermaphrodites. We would expect such intersexed children to be more flexible in their gender role potential. To compare such atypical children with typical males and females is not the best proof, if it is any proof at all. Even when we closely examine Money and the Hampsons best arguments regarding hermaphrodites, we find much to be desired. They fall short in proving their thesis. In fact, in Money's book Man & Woman, Boy & Girl, he seems to have conceded that humans are biologically biased at birth in some respects to either a male or female role direction because of the prenatal hormonal actions.[63] Money's change in attitude from his 1955 stand is due to the sound evidence that males and females have different organizations of the brain.[64] Nevertheless, Money still asserts in his book the greater importance of postnatal experience: "much that pertains to human gender-identity differentiation remains to be accomplished after birth."[65] In Money's book, co-authored with Anke Ehrhardt, it mentions that chapter 7 and 8 are of possible use to the women's liberation movement. This is so because these chapters emphasize environmental factors. Although Money and Ehrhardt make the case for the interaction of biological and environmental factors as the explanation of behavior, they still emphasize, we believe unwarrantly, environmental factors. They think there is a large potential flexibility in sex role behavior because of the alleged environmental factors in sex role development. Thus, because the book and papers of Money and the Hampsons are misused, we shall examine their psychosexual neutrality-at-birth theory even though Money has somewhat conceded the importance of biology's influence on sex behavior in his 1972 book. Sex Role AssignmentThe psychosexual neutrality-at-birth theory tries to prove that the gender role that one has been assigned by their parents at birth, will remain his gender identity in adulthood. Money and the Hampsons in several papers have listed patients that were reared in a sex role opposite to their sex chromosome type (XY or XX), or opposite to their gonadal sex (testes or ovaries), or opposite to their hormonal sex (ratio of androgens to estrogens), or opposite to internal sex organs (Wolffian or Mullerian duct system), or opposite to external genital appearance (penis-like or vulva-like).[66] Almost all of the approximately 113 patients studied, with the exception of about 5 individuals, were said to have accepted their sex assignment and acted in accordance with it. Gender role reassignment to the opposite sex was possible in some cases, when it was done early enough. In order for gender role assignment to be effective the parents must not be ambivalent toward the assigned sex of their child (must not show doubts), they must assign the child's sex as early as possible (preferably before 18 months), and the child must also believe that he or she is of the assigned sex. If the child has doubts, then he will not accept the assignment. Sex reassignment after 18 months to 2 years is not advised.[67] According to Money and his co-workers, the fact that some hermaphrodite children were assigned and reared "successfully" as a member of a sex opposite to their gonadal, or their genital appearance is supposed to be proof that parents can teach any child to act out successfully either a male or female role. And this is because sex identity and behavior is neutral at birth, according to the theory. Problems with Sex Role Neutrality-at-Birth Theory(1) Hermaphrodites are not typical males or females -- they are neither male or female; they are intersexual. Therefore they may seem more biologically malleable in regard to sex identity than normal males or females. (2) Even though the world has many different ideologies, and deviations of sex play, over 99 percent of the earth's people are reared in hard traditional sex roles. If the human race is as old as some think, why haven't sex roles other than our traditional ones appeared more often than has been reported? If there is gender role neutrality-at-birth, where is the mass of cultural evidence of its existence in the form of contrary sex roles among large groups of people or among nations? (3) At birth, infants are assigned their sex by appearance of their external genitals. Hermaphrodites are likewise assigned. Because the appearance of the external genitals indicate the influence of androgens on the hermaphrodite child (the more the androgenic influence, the more a penis like organ appears; the less the influence, the less the genitals look like a male's), then when these children were assigned, they were assigned more as to what the child was, then what the child wasn't. In other words, the more the prenatal influence of androgens on a child, the more the chance the child's "brain" would be male-like, the more the chance his genitals would be male-like, the more the chance he would be assigned as a male, and the better the chance he will be effective in his role. The less the prenatal influence of androgens, the more the child would be female-like. Thus the more chance she would be assigned as a female, and the better her chance to be effective in such a role. (4) Merely because the hermaphrodites don't outwardly seem to show the desire to give up their assigned roles, merely because they are erotically attached to their opposite sex, merely because they dress like their sex, merely because they perform their role, doesn't mean that they are as at ease with their role, or function as well in their role, as a typical male or a typical female. For example, those who were assigned as a female, but who were masculinized prenatally because their mother took hormonal injections in pregnancy for some ailment, acted male-like.[68] Money called them tomboyish. These "females" showed: (a) more athletic interest than normal females; (b) more self-assertiveness than typical females; (c) less self-adornment than typical girls in clothing, hairstyle, cosmetics, and jewelry; (d) less rehearsal of maternalism in childhood, less enthusiasm for baby-sitting; (e) less interest in marriage and romance than interest in career and "achievement;" and (f) manifested visual erotic perception like males. Thus, Money's androgenized females performed their sex roles in a masculinized manner. If they were assigned as males, they would have performed more typically than they performed in their female assigned roles. (5) Hormones did influence the behavior of Money's hermaphrodites: (a) the prenatally androgenized females, whose mothers during pregnancy took masculinizing hormones, behaved in a male-like manner even though they were reared as females; (b) the hermaphrodites with the Turner's syndrome (XO chromosomes), who are not influenced by androgens in their prenatal state, were found to be "hyperfemales." That is, all the behavior typically known as feminine was abundant in these individuals. By comparing these two groups, one sees the influence of prenatal androgens on the infant's subsequent behavior.[69] (6) Money and his associates used hormonal replacement therapy, cortisone therapy, and plastic surgery to correct hormonal levels and to make these individuals appear the same as those of their assigned sex.[70] Although these individuals may have begun with ambivalent and contrary hormonal influences and outward appearances, they were medically treated so as to be biologically like typical males or females. This point, in itself, rules out the conclusions of Money and the Hampsons. (7) In the cases of an individual being reared in a sex role opposite to the sex appearance of his or her genitals, there were enormous problems "to surmount in coming to terms psychologically with their paradoxical appearance. It has been our experience that more than anything else, the visible anatomic genital or bodily contradictions occasion the greatest psychologic distress."[71] Even though these children's genitals were not as developed as typical individuals, they nevertheless suffered because of their contrariness. Moreover, it must be remembered, it was not only the contrary visual appearance, but also the contrary hormonal internal influence that made these individuals suffer. Normal males and females would find it even more difficult to overcome their biology. This difficulty encountered when an individual attempts to behave contrarily to his biological nature is another proof that normal persons are not neutral-at-birth in regard to gender identity. (8) One other important proof against the neutrality-at-birth theory is that there are many cases of sex reversals after the so-called critical development period. The critical development period for sex role development is between birth to 2 or 3 years of age, according to the theory. The theory says that up to 2 or 3 years of age, a child can be conditioned to behave and identify as either a male or a female. But after this critical period, the child finds it almost impossible to change his or her sex role. Although the neutrality-at-birth theory indicates great flexibility in role identity in infancy, it paradoxically says that after the critical period sex role identity is not changeable. But below we shall give some examples of sex reversals after the critical period. It should be noted that many of these changes occurred because the individuals did not feel at ease with his or her assigned sex role. This uneasiness is probably due to internal biological pressures of the individual that are opposite to his or her assigned sex. Dewhurst reported 20 cases of sex reassignment after 3 1/2 years of age. Most were successful, four cases were doubtful.[72] These children were brought up in one sex role, but in the assigned sex role, they manifested the opposite sex's behavior, and many wanted to be the opposite sex: "We believe (and this is all we claim) that, making due allowance for the difficulties we have mentioned, the results show that some children can have their sex changed after the age of 1 1/2 to 2 years without disastrous results and perhaps with complete success. "Our records also provide some interesting information on the view of Money et al., that the sex of rearing is of such paramount importance in establishing the gender role. Although we agree that the sex of rearing is very important in this respect, some of these cases do suggest that the children had an affinity to the sex opposite to that in which they were being brought up."[72] The authors note that just because there are cases where individuals have changed their sex role, it doesn't mean it is easy to reassign one's sex role. It just means in some cases it can be done when it is to the advantage of the patient because he has biological and cultural tendencies toward the new sex role. Berg reported a successful sex reassignment at puberty.[73] Diamond in his critique of the neutrality theory lists several other cases.[74] Diamond lists one particular case of interest where "an unambiguous male was raised from birth as a female." If gender role is neutral-at-birth, then such a child should behave like a female, but "despite attempts by the parents to make this child a girl, almost from birth on the child refused to be comfortable in the assigned sex or sex of rearing, continuously fighting all attempts from her feminine mother to be a feminine daughter." (p. l54) The above points (1) to (8), are good evidence against the neutrality-at-birth theory. We will now turn to other so-called evidence of the neutrality-at-birth theory and of the socialization of sex roles. This supposed evidence is found in Money's and Ehrhardt's book, Man & Woman, Boy & Girl.[75]
Chapter 7 & 8 of Money's BookLet's examine chapter 7 of Money and Ehrhardt's book. The contents of both chapter 7 and 8 are used by radical feminists. The evidence against the cases presented in chapter 8 of their book is much like the 8 points listed above. For one thing, the individuals named in chapter 8 were given hormonal therapy and plastic surgery. Thus, they were not only reared in a certain sex role, but hormonally and appearancewise prepared for the assigned role. Two CasesIn chapter 7 two cases were presented that were supposed to prove the "extraordinary influence" of shaping a child's sex role behavior by the parents' differentiated patterns of rearing the child. First Case: Identical Twin Boys. The first case involved identical twin boys. One of them in his seventh month had his penis burned off in a surgical mishap during a circumcisional operation. At the seventeenth month the parents finally decided to rear their son as a girl because of various medical advice. The twin boy was thus sex reassigned as a girl. She (the reassigned twin boy) was then conditioned to behave as a girl. She was given girl's clothes and toys, given girl's tasks, and treated as a girl by the family thereafter. But even though she was conditioned to behave like a girl she "had many tomboyish traits, such as abundant physical energy, a high level of activity, stubbornness, and being often the dominant one in a girl's group." (p. 122) Even though "her mother had tried to modify her tomboyishness" and even though the mother was very direct in conditioning this child to behave like a girl, this ex-boy, nevertheless, manifested typical boyish activity levels. In fact, she was "the dominant twin," she dominated the other boy twin like a "mother hen." In a 1983 book by Jo Durden-Smith and Diane de-Simone, Sex and the Brain, they wrote about this case:
The New York Times on their front page in the Spring of 1997 had an update to this story. Despite everyone telling him constantly that he was a girl and despite his being treated with female hormones, his brain knew he was a male. (See next chapter) Eventually his father told him the truth and he had surgical help to repair his sexual organs enough so he married and had sexual relations as a man. But this one case more than any other was used by the radical feminist to push their neutral-at-birth theory. Their theory is dead wrong and have been misused to further confuse the sexes. Second Case. The second case given in chapter 7 of Money's book was about a genetic male (XY chromosomes) with a very small penis. "The phallus was 1cm long, so small as to resemble a slightly enlarged clitoris, and like a clitoris, it did not carry a urinary canal." (p. 123) Although a female sex assignment was suggested to the parents at birth, the parents on the advice of a specialist decided to rear their child as a boy, "despite the absence of a penis." But after many months of weighing their decision, the parents decided at the seventeenth month to reassign the child as a girl. Because the so-called penis of this child was more like a clitoris, and because the child was so young this reassignment was apparently "successful" according to Money, through parental conditioning of the child. However, this child manifested tomboyish behavior, and "would say occasionally that she was a boy and not a girl." (pp. 124-125) When she was three, her "behavior still seemed quite tomboyish...she also still seemed to have more physical energy expenditure." (p. 125) These two cases were supposed to show that parental rearing has "extraordinary influence on shaping a child's psychosexual differentiation and the ultimate outcome of a female or male gender identity." (pp. 144-145) We disagree. The evidence we have presented is contradictory to their neutrality thesis. Events after birth do have a great effect on children, but these events do not overcome or suppress the children's biological underlying sex differences. The prenatal hormonal influences caused these two "girls" described in chapter 7 of Money's book to behave in rough tomboyish ways. This was the case even though they were conditioned by their parents to be females. Furthermore, these children were to receive hormonal treatment as they developed. This would enable them to develop in their assigned sex role properly. Without such treatment, at puberty, the social conditioning would more than likely have failed completely. In the last part of chapter 7 Money takes a look at cross-culture studies which seem to indicate flexibility in sexual partnerships of humans. It is possible for otherwise typical individuals to perform homosexual acts or bisexual acts, as it is possible for some to murder, etc. But these possible variations of sexual acts among mankind are not proof of the overwhelmingness of environmental factors as Money's work tries to indicate. Without the majority of a society practicing heterosexuality, the society would not last long. And it is biology that predestinates mankind to heterosexuality, not social conditioning. Although Money presents several cases of flexibility in sex play, nevertheless, in his presentation we frequently see manifestations of the underlying biological sex differences. Among the Melanesian people, "boys are made fun of for having an erect penis." Yet, "they continue to play with it, nevertheless." (p. 136) This shows young males typically more asocial behavior. Contrariwise, girls are scolded "for touching their genitalia in public. Soon they cease to do so." (p. 136) Unlike the males, girls show prosocial behavior as typical females frequently do. Both sexes were taught not to play with their genitals, both reacted differently. Another example of sex difference is that among the Pilaga, "women are considered weak and of less value." (p. 140) If women were the value makers, then would they be calling themselves weak and of less value than men? As we have mentioned before, one of the differences manifested in almost all cultures (if not all, except broken ones), is that men are the value makers. The universal manifestations of males as the value makers are an indication that there are underlying biological factors for this. Sex Role Development and Environmental InfluencesIn the paper, "Sex Roles and the Socialization Process,"[76] the author, Sverre Brun-Gulbrandsen, tried to determine "the extent to which actual differences in behavior and attitudes between the sexes can be traced to environmental influences....We do not exclude the possibility that biological differences can be significant in the cases we study; we merely focus our attention on environmental variations." (p. 62) Although the author was aware that sex differences "may stem from biological differences" he chose to concentrate on environmental variations much like the radical feminists. The radical women liberators emphasize and re-emphasize environmental causes of behavior, while relating biological differences as secondary. To them biology is no more important in understanding sex behavior than sex-differentiated clothes wearing.[77] Therefore, since Brun-Gulbrandsen emphasized environmental factors like the radical feminists, and since he wrote his paper well, we shall take a look at his paper. The main conclusions from Brun-Gulbrandsen's paper about sex role development were:
Parenthetically, this last conclusion (6) is probably why Simone de Beauvoir quoted Stendhol, "The forest must be planted all at once," for she understood that perfect equality could only come according to the socialization theory if all social pressures were negated at once. Otherwise, equality as radical feminists describe it will only come slowly, if at all. The findings (1) to (6) sum up in a few words how radical feminists understand and relate the socialization of sex roles. These points are environmental ideas on how sex roles have come about. But these points do not answer the question: why are sex roles almost universally the same in all cultures? When we say "sex roles" here, we mean the hard traditional ones: men work outside the homes, work at more physically strenuous and riskier tasks, dominate all spatial ability jobs (mathematicians, Engineers, Architects) run the major ruling institutions, etc; women work in and around the homes most of the time, care for the children, cook, sew, etc., and when they work outside the home they work in more occupations that deal with children and interrelationships between people. Brun-Gulbrandsen also asks the same question about why the traditional gender roles are so universal: "But why is it that certain forms of behavior are ascribed to the male role and others to the female role? This interesting problem has yet to be solved...." (p. 72) The reason this "interesting problem" hasn't been solved is because the author merely focuses his attention on environmental variations instead of bringing the biological variables into the picture. It is not scientific to leave out the biological variables, but Brun-Gulbrandsen did and radical feminists do. Brun-Gulbrandsen writes about children of both sexes aged 8, 11, 14, and 15 years, who were asked to identify various kinds of behavior, as either being what boys usually do or what girls usually do. The great majority of these children identified antisocial and delinquent behavior as being the behavior of boys. The children felt that girls were more pro-social. Girls in the eyes of the children seemed to possess qualities of behavior deemed good by society. Brun-Gulbrandsen then asks, "One may wonder whether it is possible for an ordinary 8 year old to have such a clear image of asociality in male nature." He then answers his question, "The stereotypes are 'internalized'." They are internalized, according to the author, through the children's continued subjection to the "notion" that males are asocial. And because of our society's view, males are "permitted" to show more aggression. To the contrary, females are not allowed much show of aggression. If they show aggression various negative labels are thrown at them. Walter Mischel describes a similar process of socialization in his paper in the book, The Development of Sex Differences.[78] Therefore, sex roles or gender roles are primarily learned, at least according to the feministic way of thinking. Nothing could better illustrate radical feminists thinking on this than the following quote by a feminist that we quoted before in this book: "I think it is the concensus that men are sperm donators, women are baby incubators, and all the rest of it is the result of the socialization process."[79] And this same feminist thinks, "The Women's Liberation Movement is our [radical feminists] force to break through the chains of socialization." (p. 492) Asocial & Prosocial BehaviorLet's examine this asocial and prosocial behavior of boys and girls respectively. The author, Brun-Gulbrandsen, says that males are more asocial merely because they are permitted to behave that way; girls are not allowed to show aggression and are taught to be nice young ladies. Walter Mischel reported similarly, [80] as do many of those pushing women's "liberation." But Mischel also said: "Unfortunately [for the environmentalists], present evidence that the sexes are indeed treated differently by their parents with respect to the above behaviors [dependence & aggression] is far from firm...." (p. 75) When researchers who believe in the learning theory find parents, with equalitarian ideas on childrearing, but that have children of obvious sex differences in behavior, they are forced to rationalize and explain away their findings. They point to some dubious "unconscious attitudes" in the parents that somehow influence the children's behavior.[81] Let's examine a study that revealed obvious biological influence on sex behavior, but the authors mixed it for some extreme rationalization because the contrary results were not the desired results wanted by the environmentalistic authors. In a study by Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, they interviewed 379 mothers of children in public-school kindergarten in the Boston area. They were looking for differences in child treatment by the mothers that might help to explain the differences in gender role behavior of children. In Sears words:
After stating the results, the authors move on and intellectualize away the contrary findings. But we can see the results as clearly helping to prove that biological factors do influence the sex behavior found in the study. Boys showed more asocial aggression in the study because of the androgenic influence: (1) that makes their bodies more active than girls; (2) that makes their bodies in need of more physical activity than girls; and (3) that causes them to express their aggressive behavior in more physical ways (which seem more destructive than girls more refined aggression). Girls to the contrary, showed more prosocial aggression due to the physical punishment from their parents because: (l) girls show more sensitivity to discipline than boys (they don't want to be spanked again, therefore they show their aggression in more indirect ways); and (2) they have a greater innate need for parental approval than boys. This prosocial behavior by girls is not because they learned it through differentiated parental discipline. The question is, should we change our society for the views of the radical feminists? Some of their ideas have been activated in our society over the last 25 years but have only made still more unhappier women. There have been and are social experiments with the "equality" that the Women Liberators are propagating. But they have failed and will continue to fail. We shouldn't any longer let the so-called Women Liberators pressure social "reform" that will only add to our problems. The main sexual behavior differences between men and women have to do with biology, not the environment. Functional Differences and BehaviorFrom a study of cross-culture papers by Herbert Barry and others, the following is pertinent to our discussion in this chapter:
This important quote gives us the reason we rear our children to be sex differentiated in certain ways. Mothers in childhood must be taught how to care for infants or in their mothering days they will be inferior mothers with inferior children because they failed to learn how to be good mothers in their childhood. In the book Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, by Parsons and Bales, we read:
We agree with this position, and an unbiased analysis of the human situation manifests this clearly. Only the most radical are blind to nature and its calling. Women have Babies; Men Do NotWomen have babies; men do not. This is the main (but not the only) cause of the differences between sex roles. Mothers have closer biological ties with their children than fathers because of the nine months of pregnancy and its hormonal effects. Judith M. Bardwick, a professor in Psychology, in her book, Psychology of Women, has put it this way:
Bardwick goes on to state some proof that maternal tendencies are caused biologically through hormone levels and/or because the sexes, as some good data indicate, have sexually differentiated brains. See chapter 4 for further biological information on maternal behavior. Of course these motherly tendencies can be turned off by adverse environmental conditions. A few mothers even come to hate their babies. But in most cases mothers love and care for their children. Even in the days when I wholeheartedly believed in many radical aspects of feminism and culture conditioning, I observed with some amazement the warm and spontaneous reaction of girl friends and other women when they were around infants. I have met very few men who come close to the warm responses that the typical woman manifests around infants and children. Real Reasons for Sex RolesBecause of women's biologically close relationship to infants -- they grow them, they nurse them -- societies of all kinds in all ages have women in the important role of caring for children. Human children need much more caring for than any other beings on earth. The human child needs a great deal of teaching, training, and loving in order to survive and function in this world. Mothers have traditionally done the caretaking for the world's children. Therefore, because of the nature of children, homes were established. And because women were at home caring for the children, they also performed work around the homes and in them. Thus, women traveled less because of their jobs at home. This helped to set up a division of labor, where men performed the needed work away from the homes because women were busy with the important caretaking of children at home. Furthermore, since women are relatively less muscular than men, men performed the heavier work, and a division of labor due to strength was created. In this paper earlier we showed how this very same process happened in Israel's kibbutzim to a certain degree in this very century. Other relative physical and mental differences have also contributed to the divisions of labor between the sexes. (see chapter 4) Science to Help Women's Lib?Now some radical feminists admit that the functional differences between the sexes have caused many of the behavioral differences, the sex roles, and the division of labor in the past. But they insist that the industrial revolution and science have the means to set women free from motherhood. They claim that artificial insemination, test-tube babies, child care centers, and machines will set women free to enter on equal terms with men in the labor market. They also mention that because of the population boom, there will be less need for mothers, and thus, this will set many women "free" from motherhood. But the women liberators overlook important factors like the following:
Therefore, because of the reasons given above (1) to (8) and other reasons, most women in most countries will continue to be in the profession of motherhood. Working Mothers with ChildrenRadical feminists may point to statistics that tell us that more women today with children are working at full time jobs outside the homes than previously.[95] According to a recent Labor Department study, Children of Working Mothers, "Almost 27 million children in the U.S. -- or 42 percent of those under age 18 -- had mothers who were working or seeking work in March, 1974. About one out of every four of these children (6.1 million) were below regular school age...." That was 1974, but in 1990 about 57 % of all mothers with children under 6 years of age are working outside the home. In 1960 this percentage of working mothers with children under 6 years of age was only about 18 percent. But this increasing phenomenon does not mean that biology does not tend to dictate different and universal roles for each sex. This increasing involvement of mothers outside the home may continue for years, but biology will eventually have its say. The inferior children brought up by today's working women will slow down this society as it did others like the Roman Empire and Communistic Russia in the 1920's. Some of the reasons more women are working today outside the home are:
Biology Limits and Causes BehaviorAbsolute and Relative LimitsThere can be no doubt that biology limits behavior. There are many obvious examples:
All three of these examples are absolute limits of biology. The biologies of fish, mankind, and animals would have to be altered in order for them to respectively breath air, live in outer space, or talk. And, of course, if these creatures are biologically changed, they would not be fish, or men, or animals, but something different. There is no known method to change them in such radical ways. And pertinent to our discussion, if females are changed through hormonal methods to be "freed" from their functional destiny of motherhood, they would not be females, but male-like creature. Besides absolute limits of biology there are also relative limits:
Therefore, we have two kinds of biological limits: one is absolute -- mankind can't live without oxygen; the other relative -- mankind can only see and learn about part of his environment. In regard to males and females, the absolute biological limits between them are the reproductive ones: women have babies and have breasts to feed them; men do not. The relative biological limits between the sexes are such factors as strength, spatial ability, verbal ability, etc. (see chapter 4) Now the radical feminists believe there are only minor differences between the sexes. But we know there is at least one major difference that sets the foundation for behavior differences between the sexes. The fact that women have babies limits females, as the fact that men don't have babies limits males in various ways. But the radical feminists tell us that biology can be overcome. Some futuristic ones even suggest that test-tube babies (grown totally outside the womb) are the ultimate answer to allow women the "freedom" of men. They tell us we can set up child care centers to help set women "free" to work outside the home. They tell us we can use machines to compensate for differences in strength. But they overlook biology. Science is far from growing babies outside the womb. And even if it were possible, it is psychologically improbable that mankind would accept it, except for the radical feminists. And if it were possible, and if some mad group or leader forced it upon us, the resulting children would be mother-deprived children, and in the end this would weaken the society and eventually destroy it. As we have mentioned and will show in greater depth in chapter 5, child care centers do not work, for they are inferior to a good mother-child relationship. A nation that enforces mass child care centers will soon find that their children are inferior compared to other nations, and will eventually be seriously weakened by the experiment. Some radical feminists might argue, saying, institutional childrearing isn't all that bad, but the evidence is against such radical feminists. (see chapter 5) Furthermore, child care centers are economically expensive. Women would staff them, and therefore many women would not really be "freed" from children. There are also many economic reasons why machines can't be used in mass to wipe out every need for male-like strength in heavy jobs. It just can't be done in the near future due to the world's economic, pollution, energy, and other problems. To try and overcome biology is expensive and many times impossible. The only reason some women with children can still work in their professions is because they underpay the females that care for their children. One study near Modesto California, showed that child care paid an average of $5.41-6.66 per hour, assistants made only $4.39-4.82 per hour. [96] If they paid what good child care personnel should be paid, then they could not afford to work. In a way, these women liberators are enslaving their sisters. Absolute biological limits cannot be overcome without changing the animal, and most relative biological limits cannot be overcome throughout the world because it is too economically expensive. Not harmonizing with biology is economically reckless. It is much easier to accept biology. This acceptance is too difficult for the radical feminists; they can't seem to do it because they are indoctrinated to think their biological destiny isn't worthy enough for them. This may be one reason why they are pro-abortion. They subconsciously may want to kill those little things that remind them of their biology. They would never admit it, but they want to be men, that is, they want the status they think men have. Biology is the Main Cause of BehaviorYet not only does biology limit behavior, it also causes behavior. In fact, biology is the main cause of behavior. Biology is the main cause of sexual behavior in mankind. Women liberators imply or even say the main cause is the environment. Most authorities on sexual differences tell us that the only true answer for the cause of sexual behavior is the interaction of biology and environment.[96] We are not saying that the interaction or interplay of biology and environment doesn't cause some sexual differentiated behavior, for some differences are caused by the interaction. But we are saying that the main cause of most sexual behavior is because of the biological nature of mankind. Food. First, let's give an example of an absolute biological cause of behavior. What causes a person to eat? Is it biology? Is it the person's environment or culture? Or is it the interaction of both biological and environmental reasons? Does someone eat merely because when he was growing up his parents always ate, and he learned from them to eat? No, of course not, he eats because his body (biology) needs nourishment to survive and because his parents taught him eating food from his environment was the best way to satisfy his need. If his body was self-sufficient, he wouldn't need food. And without the food, he wouldn't have anything to eat. Therefore, the interaction of both his biology and the fact that his environment has foodstuff to eat causes him to eat. But the real reason and main cause for a man to eat is biology -- his biological nature is not self-sufficient. He biologically needs to eat. If his biology was different, and if food was available, the food itself would not cause him to eat. A person eats because there is a biological need for him to eat. Clothes. Next, let's look at an example of a relative biological cause of behavior. Take for an example of a man who leaves a house of 70 degrees fahrenheit into the outdoors of 30 degrees fahrenheit. After entering the cooler environment, he puts on warmer clothes. What causes the man to put on the warmer clothes? Is it biology? Is it the environment? Is it the culture? Or is it the interaction of biological and environmental reasons? Environmental reasons do play a part. The weather is cold (environment). The man is living in an age where men who are cold usually put on warmer clothes (culture). And yes, the interaction of biological (his body's reaction to the cold) and environmental reasons is the cause of the man putting on warmer clothes. But what was the main reason or cause of his behavior? It wasn't the environment, for other creatures (polar bears) would not have to put on clothes to keep warm in cold weather. The low temperature is merely a cause of secondary nature. But the real and main cause is that the man has biological limits -- his body can only tolerate a certain degree of coldness. If this man was biologically constituted differently to withstand lower temperatures, then he would not have to put on warmer clothes when he entered the cold environment. This is an example of relative biological causation of behavior because it takes a certain amount of biological reaction to the cold for him to put on warmer clothes, and the degree of biological reaction regulates the amount of clothes he puts on himself. It's his body's reaction to the temperature that causes him to put on the warmer clothes. If he had a biological reaction to low temperatures like polar bears, then he would not have put on clothes to warm himself. Biology is the Main Cause of Sex BehaviorIn regard to sexual related behavior, biology is also the main cause of the behavior. The obvious, of course, is birth. Women give birth because they have the biological equipment to give birth and because it is needed for the survival of the human race. Because of this, nature gives women the desire to give birth (psychological hunger) much like nature gives her the desire (hunger) to eat, and for much the same reason -- survival. The main cause is not because females have traditionally given birth (culture), but because nature predestinates women to give birth. Women usually feed and care for their children not merely because it is culturally taught that they should do this, but because of biological reasons. They have breasts with milk; men do not. Breast milk is the best food for infants.[97] Women are more nutrimental towards children than men (proven through comparative culture studies). Women are of less strength than males, and have other different qualities than men. Thus through various processes a division of labor was established: women mostly care for children; men mostly do not care for the children. Women are usually less physically aggressive than men.[98] This has been proven repeatedly as hormonally caused. Males have a higher ratios of androgens to estrogens than females, and males' greater size and strength than females are some of the causes for the males' greater physical aggression.[99] Cultural conditioning in the eyes of radical feminists may influence males to be less aggressive than females in an environment where males are greatly encouraged to be non-aggressive and where females are greatly encouraged to be physically aggressive. But in reality biology cannot be easily handled in this way. Bio V. Culture ForcesAlthough biological drives in mankind have less effect on them than other creatures, and hence they are more culturally malleable,[100] the innate drives of mankind will nevertheless win out because innate biological drives are continuous while cultural forces are arbitrary, discontinuous, and sporadic. I'll repeat, innate biological drives are continuous while cultural forces are arbitrary, discontinuous, and sporadic. Nations Against Biology. Groups or nations that allows its males and females to behave according to their biological tendencies will be more economically stronger and more emotionally stronger than nations that go against the nature of the sexes, for the nation that goes against the biologically directed drives of the sexes, will have to spend too much time and money to condition their population to act against their inclinations. Not only does such a nation waste time and money but they cause their people to behave against themselves. This causes internal reaction and possible detrimental emotional effects. The nation that spends great amounts of time and money on training men to be maternal and women to be physically aggressive because of some naive ideological theory, is not doing what is biologically the easiest for the sexes, and thus is at a great disadvantage to other nations which do not try to fight biology. What does a group or nation expect when it fights against biology? Does it think Lamarckism (the theory that characteristics acquired by habit, use, or environment can be genetically inherited) is a true theory? Does it think culture pressures can change biology? Talking. Humans speak while lower primates do not. This is so, mainly, because man is biologically prepared to speak while monkeys are not biologically prepared to talk.[101] If human infants are reared in an environment where a language is spoken, then they will talk only because they are biologically prepared to learn the verbal language, for they have the pertinent built-in biological organization. A monkey doesn't talk because he is not biologically prepared to speak, not because he is culturally deprived, for many monkeys are reared in milieus much like human infants, yet they never learn to talk. Humans are biologically equipped to speak; lower primates are biologically limited from speaking. Humans are able to speak because their biological make-up enables them to talk. Granted, the interaction of biological and environmental factors (being reared in a verbal milieu) causes him or enables him to speak, but the biology of man is the main reason that he learns to speak. And as we said, one proof of this is that monkeys can be reared in similar environments and yet they will never learn to talk solely because of their lack of biological equipment. Following this line of reasoning, it is also true that when we see consistent differing behaviors between males and females, we see this because of the biological differences. Many of the pop-educated say the differences are because of early childhood conditioning by parents and society. Parents treat sons and daughters differently. But why do parents sometimes behave differently towards their sons and daughters?:
Often women liberators point out some alleged examples of contradiction from
traditional sex behavior as proof that sex differences are conditioned differences. But
when they point to a few supposed examples of contradiction to consistent sexual
differentiated behavior, they prove little as we show herein. Also there are a certain
very small percentage of human beings of either sex who are biologically constructed as
hermaphrodites (those whose biology is sexually ambiguous) and/or as either hormonally
masculinized females or hormonally feminized males.[103] Those who differ from the norm in
some cases do so because their biological sex make-up isn't normal. It should be noted
here that as we show herein the examples of sexual reversals in many cases (if not most,
or all) are biases accounts, or poorly researched and reported accounts of misinterpreted
events. Remember too that these supposed contradictions are far and few between. The
typical and traditional sex differences are in the great majority. What the Socialization Theory Cannot ExplainAs we have tried to show herein the socialization theory cannot explain many aspects of sex differences. The following are some of the facts that socialization cannot explain:
Conclusions on Sex Role DevelopmentSex roles are the way they are in this world because:
In summary, we see that biology is the main cause of behavior. Although it is true that cultural and other environmental factors have a part in affecting behavior, the interaction of biology and milieu is not the main cause of behavior. A horse acts different from a lion mainly because of its biological construction not because of environmental factors. Men and women are different because of biology, not because of culture. Men and women think differently because they each perceive the world differently: there is a male brain; there is a female brain. (see next chapter) Now let's turn to sexual differences and their biological connection. References for Chapter 3
Return to Sex on the Net's HomePage A WoRD Creation
|
